Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[kflaux]

100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity

Doesn't mean it's not widely accepted as established theory

25 years after flipping from Global Cooling to Global Warming, your Cult wants to say the "Science" is settled.

It's the earth systems that have flipped in the past few centuries, from a very slow cooling trend to an upward temp spike.

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

 

[mamooth]

Too Funny, What again were they measuring? Even the authors of the paper have refused to respond to questions about their methodology and math.. I wonder why the stunned silence when physics people show them they are dead wrong and show them they didn't know what it was they were measuring....

Again, where is YOUR WORK?

Billy, there's no point in responding to you just raving like a lunatic and making up deranged nonsense.

For a change, try backing up your bullshit. You'll get laughed at less that way.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Funny, What again were they measuring? Even the authors of the paper have refused to respond to questions about their methodology and math.. I wonder why the stunned silence when physics people show them they are dead wrong and show them they didn't know what it was they were measuring....

Again, where is YOUR WORK?

Billy, there's no point in responding to you just raving like a lunatic and making up deranged nonsense.

For a change, try backing up your bullshit. You'll get laughed at less that way.

Why dont you take your own advice and man up.. Show us your evidence that isn't made up.

You represent the AGW folks well. Even when the facts are directly in front of you, you cannot see them or comprehend.

Pathetic.

 

[mamooth]

Billy, I gave the link.

In response, you pissed yourself and screamed.

To the kiddie table with you. Unless you can say something intelligent, stop bothering the grownups.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, I gave the link.

In response, you pissed yourself and screamed.

To the kiddie table with you. Unless you can say something intelligent, stop bothering the grownups.

You gave a link to a paper which has serious faults and questions which, you were aware of from our last debate.. Now produce the science that proves it. I doubt any one can because 6 Phd's who work daily in this field could not find one ounce of data.. They wont even look at the last paper you cited without laughing at it...

 

[James Everett]

Deniers, doesn't it bug you that every denier here only barks conspiracy theories now? It should. It shows you're all clinging to a dying conspiracy cult.

The real problem here is that denier posts don't get moved into the Conspiracy folder. Birthers, 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy cranks have their posts moved into the Conspiracy folder. Consistency and honesty dictates denier posts should get the same treatment, since their kookery is every bit as insane.

I blame out of control political correctness, the mistaken moral relativism that claims all opinions have equal validity, even stuff as stupid as denier babbling. Being a solid moral absolutist type, I believe the denier fantasies are not just as valid as real science, and that stupid opinions should be treated as stupid opinions.

I also see the deniers here are getting increasingly abusive in their posts. Desperation, obviously. However, that doesn't excuse the breaking of board rules, so they need to dial it down.

I have questions for everyone.....
It is my understanding that scientist have stated that during the Jurassic period there were palm trees growing as far north as Canada, and that during the ice age, glaciers were a mile high over Chicago and the ice sheets were as far south as Mexico, therefore my question is......
What is the proper temperature of the Earth?
If the Jurassic period was the proper temp, then should we not expect warming?
If the ice age was the proper temp, should we not expect cooling?
If one or the other, or something in between or more drastic is the proper temp, then is anything man does one way or the other going to make a difference?
In either direction a few degrees would benefit certain climates while injuring others, I would think.

 

[jc456]

Deniers, doesn't it bug you that every denier here only barks conspiracy theories now? It should. It shows you're all clinging to a dying conspiracy cult.

The real problem here is that denier posts don't get moved into the Conspiracy folder. Birthers, 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy cranks have their posts moved into the Conspiracy folder. Consistency and honesty dictates denier posts should get the same treatment, since their kookery is every bit as insane.

I blame out of control political correctness, the mistaken moral relativism that claims all opinions have equal validity, even stuff as stupid as denier babbling. Being a solid moral absolutist type, I believe the denier fantasies are not just as valid as real science, and that stupid opinions should be treated as stupid opinions.

I also see the deniers here are getting increasingly abusive in their posts. Desperation, obviously. However, that doesn't excuse the breaking of board rules, so they need to dial it down.

doesn't it bother you that you can't produce any experimental evidence?

 

[jc456]

Show you the evidence again? The first dozen times wasn't enough?

As the previous thread on it here talked about, this is just the most recent and best study showing the increased backradiation. Smoking gun. There's no "natural cycles" explanation for such a thing.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily

hahhahhahaahhahaha your typical avoidance line. "I already gave it to you find it" hahhahahahahahaha you've never posted anything that proves your point, and day after day you come in here and bounce around threatening those who think differently and can prove their position, which you can't. If you could, then you would post that experiment that has been requested for years now. So, nope, you fail again with your pointless post. And normal avoidance.

 

[jc456]

Too Funny, What again were they measuring? Even the authors of the paper have refused to respond to questions about their methodology and math.. I wonder why the stunned silence when physics people show them they are dead wrong and show them they didn't know what it was they were measuring....

Again, where is YOUR WORK?

Billy, there's no point in responding to you just raving like a lunatic and making up deranged nonsense.

For a change, try backing up your bullshit. You'll get laughed at less that way.

there is the avoidance post again. Mantooth, the only thing you're good at is posting nothing but avoidance posts. Keep up the good work. No one takes you serious on the skeptics side at all. Your lack of proof is noticed by all of us.

 

[mamooth]

jc, quite crying for attention. A grown man should be ashamed to act like you do.

Now, on to someone who asked honest questions.

What is the proper temperature of the Earth?

"Proper" makes it a loaded question. There is no "proper" temperature. However, the desirable temperature is the temperature that human civilization grew up with, obviously. Quickly changing that will kill many people, devastates ecosystems and costs hundreds of trillions of dollars.

If one or the other, or something in between or more drastic is the proper temp, then is anything man does one way or the other going to make a difference?

Yes. Not emitting as much CO2 will reduce the temperature increase, and thus reduce the damage.

In either direction a few degrees would benefit certain climates while injuring others, I would think.

A cost-benefit analysis shows far more are injured by global warming than are helped by it.

 

[jc456]

jc, quite crying for attention. A grown man should be ashamed to act like you do.

Now, on to someone who asked honest questions.

What is the proper temperature of the Earth?

"Proper" makes it a loaded question. There is no "proper" temperature. However, the desirable temperature is the temperature that human civilization grew up with, obviously. Quickly changing that will kill many people, devastates ecosystems and costs hundreds of trillions of dollars.

If one or the other, or something in between or more drastic is the proper temp, then is anything man does one way or the other going to make a difference?

Yes. Not emitting as much CO2 will reduce the temperature increase, and thus reduce the damage.

In either direction a few degrees would benefit certain climates while injuring others, I would think.

A cost-benefit analysis shows far more are injured by global warming than are helped by it.

so you've got nothing. Figures.

Even your drivel here is silly. You have no more idea any climate information than any other human being. Why not just admit you have no idea what's happening and join society for a while?

 

[IanC]

so we are supposed to be impressed "6 phd's" sat there debating each other?

good grief.

Actually it was a very good first step. The questions were known in advance and the ground rules forbade ad hominem and appeal to authority. The debate itself showed the weakness in AGW theory, and more importantly, how close the two sides were on many of the issues.

 

[Crick]

Did the debate support the idea that climate data have been manipulated? Did it support the idea that there is no consensus among active climate scientists regarding AGW? Did it support the idea that large numbers of climate scientists are publishing fraudulent data? Did it support the idea of a chummy network among journal publishers? Did it support the idea that the sun and not CO2 is the cause of the last century's warming?

In short, did the debate support ANYTHING that has been presented by posters here in opposition of the IPCC's findings?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have questions for everyone.....
It is my understanding that scientist have stated that during the Jurassic period there were palm trees growing as far north as Canada, and that during the ice age, glaciers were a mile high over Chicago and the ice sheets were as far south as Mexico, therefore my question is......
What is the proper temperature of the Earth?
If the Jurassic period was the proper temp, then should we not expect warming?
If the ice age was the proper temp, should we not expect cooling?
If one or the other, or something in between or more drastic is the proper temp, then is anything man does one way or the other going to make a difference?
In either direction a few degrees would benefit certain climates while injuring others, I would think.

The answer is not one alarmist want to hear.

You will note that for millions of years the earth has oscillated between +22 deg C and +12 deg C. The graph above shows the averages over millions of years. what it doesn't show are the cyclical cycles that occur every 90,000 years and 16,000 years.

Here is the resolution level that allows you to see these cycles. For roughly 90,000 years the earth is cooler by -6 to -8 deg C from today's level. And for roughly 12-16 thousand years we get what is called an interglacial which warms up to our present levels we see today. Our current interglacial is now at just over 12,600 years and well within the time span for major cooling to begin.

To answer your question about the "correct" or "right" temperature of the earth, one must figure out what cycle we are in at the time..

Earths axial tilt and precision has just passed the point where glaciation has started in geological history. The one thing that is certain, both warming and cooling are abrupt and occur with little or no warning.

And yes the area NY City covers was under 2 miles of ice at the end of the last glacial cycle. The Hudson Bay area was under as much as 12 miles of ice.. When cooling sets in not a soul on earth will be able to hide from its effects.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did the debate support the idea that climate data have been manipulated? Did it support the idea that there is no consensus among active climate scientists regarding AGW? Did it support the idea that large numbers of climate scientists are publishing fraudulent data? Did it support the idea of a chummy network among journal publishers? Did it support the idea that the sun and not CO2 is the cause of the last century's warming?

In short, did the debate support ANYTHING that has been presented by posters here in opposition of the IPCC's findings?

The debate was firmly set on the IPCC AR4/AR5 and the science behind identifying and quantifying forcings. The ground rules were clearly set. If you had even read the documents provided you would know this.

 

[Crick]

Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..

6 Phd's were asked to debate the framed subject of the IPCC documents. All were members of the APS.

In January, 2014 the American Physical Society (APS) held a one day workshop on climate change and invited six climatologists to participate. A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists. The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic. Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer. The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.

Short biographies of each of the speakers can be seen here. Someone new to the climate change debate would have a hard time telling the alarmists from the skeptics from this transcript. They were all very professional and they stuck to the science as their host, Dr. Koonin, requested. Climate science and the debate about it are much more complex than the media, the politicians and public know. This workshop drills down to the root of the disagreements and reading it reveals the considerable uncertainty in estimates of both climate sensitivity to CO2 and the effect of natural long term climate cycles.

Three from each side of the debate and it seems the skeptical side was well prepared while the alarmist side was a bit tongue tide.. Dr Koonin set very strict rules for the debate and all were very professional following his request. The Outcome was not unexpected if your a skeptic. Adhom attacks and appeals to authority were not allowed. They discussed the unfettered science of the issue.

The article is an excellent read and I am finding the transcript very enlightening as specifics were expressed by all. My take on most of the participants is they are in agreement that we really dont know what is causing the climate to change and have not quantified an anthropogenic source at all.

Source

APS Transcript

You read this entire document?

 

[Crick]

Actually it was a very good first step. The questions were known in advance and the ground rules forbade ad hominem and appeal to authority. The debate itself showed the weakness in AGW theory, and more importantly, how close the two sides were on many of the issues.

How did the debate show weakness in AGW theory? On what issues do you believe the two sides were shown to be close?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..

6 Phd's were asked to debate the framed subject of the IPCC documents. All were members of the APS.

In January, 2014 the American Physical Society (APS) held a one day workshop on climate change and invited six climatologists to participate. A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists. The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic. Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer. The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.

Short biographies of each of the speakers can be seen here. Someone new to the climate change debate would have a hard time telling the alarmists from the skeptics from this transcript. They were all very professional and they stuck to the science as their host, Dr. Koonin, requested. Climate science and the debate about it are much more complex than the media, the politicians and public know. This workshop drills down to the root of the disagreements and reading it reveals the considerable uncertainty in estimates of both climate sensitivity to CO2 and the effect of natural long term climate cycles.

Three from each side of the debate and it seems the skeptical side was well prepared while the alarmist side was a bit tongue tide.. Dr Koonin set very strict rules for the debate and all were very professional following his request. The Outcome was not unexpected if your a skeptic. Adhom attacks and appeals to authority were not allowed. They discussed the unfettered science of the issue.

The article is an excellent read and I am finding the transcript very enlightening as specifics were expressed by all. My take on most of the participants is they are in agreement that we really dont know what is causing the climate to change and have not quantified an anthropogenic source at all.

Source

APS Transcript

You read this entire document?

All 534 pages... twice!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually it was a very good first step. The questions were known in advance and the ground rules forbade ad hominem and appeal to authority. The debate itself showed the weakness in AGW theory, and more importantly, how close the two sides were on many of the issues.

How did the debate show weakness in AGW theory? On what issues do you believe the two sides were shown to be close?

It showed weakness in three areas.

** Temperatures and the methods use to calculate them in varying areas of the atmosphere,oceans, and land are incorrect. Statistical analysis shows that spurious warming of up to 1.7 deg C is caused by the homogenization process and in filling of the models.

** CO2's effect on water vapor has been extremely exaggerated. In fact empirical evidence has shown that water vapor is a negative feedback not a positive one. This area was hotly debated. The models exaggerate the warming and response of CO2 because they are programed to do so.

**The Mid Tropospheric Hot spot does not exist. Empirical evidence shows that it does not. The models predict this but as they exaggerate many other areas it does the same here resulting in spurious warming and deviation from empirical temperature evidence.

They essentially lay the Anthropogenic portion of climatic change neutered. The concessions from the alarmist side of the camp that there are major problems with the IPCC work was stunning. The modelers had no empirical evidence to back up their side of the argument and that was the key point of the weakness.

I hope there are many more of these to come where the ground rules are set and the appeals to authority or screaming denier are flushed long before it starts..

 

[Crick]

Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..

6 Phd's were asked to debate the framed subject of the IPCC documents. All were members of the APS.

In January, 2014 the American Physical Society (APS) held a one day workshop on climate change and invited six climatologists to participate. A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists. The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic. Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer. The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.

Short biographies of each of the speakers can be seen here. Someone new to the climate change debate would have a hard time telling the alarmists from the skeptics from this transcript. They were all very professional and they stuck to the science as their host, Dr. Koonin, requested. Climate science and the debate about it are much more complex than the media, the politicians and public know. This workshop drills down to the root of the disagreements and reading it reveals the considerable uncertainty in estimates of both climate sensitivity to CO2 and the effect of natural long term climate cycles.

Three from each side of the debate and it seems the skeptical side was well prepared while the alarmist side was a bit tongue tide.. Dr Koonin set very strict rules for the debate and all were very professional following his request. The Outcome was not unexpected if your a skeptic. Adhom attacks and appeals to authority were not allowed. They discussed the unfettered science of the issue.

The article is an excellent read and I am finding the transcript very enlightening as specifics were expressed by all. My take on most of the participants is they are in agreement that we really dont know what is causing the climate to change and have not quantified an anthropogenic source at all.

Source

APS Transcript

You read this entire document?

All 534 pages... twice!

The document has 571 pages on my display and, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.