Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14677276
Besoeker wrote:From hell? What if there is no hell?

Yes, Hell and the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.
If there is no Hell, then I suppose that would be your fairy tale dream come true, in which you can sin as you please with no hell to pay. However, I would not bet on it, if I were you.
#14677841
Ahh... it's bullshit. Science is about empiricism, and let's be honest: all the global warming predictions have been generally either dramatically overstated, or totally wrong. What is real is cap-and-trade and federal and state tax credits for buying solar panels. So I have a 30 panel system, and I expect the local utility to be paying me within a year. It's as regressive a situation as you can imagine, but you have to be interested in cutting your taxes. I'm not sure if I'll buy an electric car with oil prices where they are. Think about Tesla. Massive tax cut for the rich. You don't have to pay sales tax on your gasoline or the state and federal excise taxes. Let these poor dumb motherfuckers believe all this nonsense if it results in tax cuts for us.
#14677849
Let's be honest. the predictions James Hansen made several decades ago concerning anthropogenic global warming have largely come true with steadily increasing temperatures. The empirical evidence is highly suggestive of global warming (aside from the temperature data, you can look at retreating land glaciers, species migration/extinction in response to changing temperatures, sea level rise, etc).

He has also recently made some disturbing reasons why multi-meter sea level rise could happen before 2100. Start paying attention.



https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_ ... anguage=en
#14677851
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

    Global warming predictions prove accurate

    Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures


    Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows.

    The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

    The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

    The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

    The study is the first of its kind because reviewing a climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations to compare against. Assessments based on shorter periods are prone to being misleading due to natural short-term variability in the climate.

    .......

So, it seems that global warming predictions are accurate.
#14677891
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, it seems that global warming predictions are accurate.

Big deal. Weather forecasts are often accurate and sometimes thay are wrong. Forecast is all we can do other than praying to God.

Correction: I left the "e" out of the word forecast.
Last edited by Hindsite on 08 May 2016 21:35, edited 1 time in total.
#14677915
Information theory suggests there -must- be global warming because entropy increases when we perform work so inevitably all organisms must contribute to globally warming and the increasing amount of work we have been able to do in the world since the Industrial Revolution in particular -must- have affected global temperature.
#14677925
Ummon wrote:Information theory suggests there -must- be global warming because entropy increases when we perform work so inevitably all organisms must contribute to globally warming and the increasing amount of work we have been able to do in the world since the Industrial Revolution in particular -must- have affected global temperature.

I believe it has been determined that sunspots effect global warming more than any work we could do on earth.
#14677940
Pants-of-dog wrote:http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14661808#p14661808

Prosthetic Conscience has already shown that sunspot activity (or solar activity associated with sunspot activity, to be more accurate) is not responsible for the climate change since the industrial revolution.

In our last article on sunspots, we mentioned the strange period from 1645-1715 when sunspots seemed to disappear. Called the Maunder Minimum, this period coincided with the “Little Ice Age”, when Northern Europe and other parts of the world were plunged into a long period of cool summers and long winters when crop yields fell and rivers, harbors, and canals froze. This quiet period of solar activity was closely followed by another, called the Dalton Minimum, from 1795-1825. It also matches up well with a period of cooler climate, though the eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1816 made some contribution as well.

In fact, the sun does get hotter when there are more sunspots. Because although the spots are cooler, they’re accompanied by hotter, brighter patches called faculae that cause the overall brightness of the sun to increase by 0.1% at visible wavelengths, and more at ultraviolet wavelengths.

As it turns out (as far as we know), computer models of the climate do not take these indirect effects of solar activity into account when calculating the change in global climate. And while human activity counts for only 5% of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year, the sun accounts for ALL the energy striking the Earth and driving its dynamic and enormously complex ocean currents and atmosphere. So you see, despite what you hear in the media, there is still much uncertainty about how the Earth’s climate really operates and changes over time, and how changes in solar activity drive climate change. Healthy and open skepticism, as always, is appropriate. And remember… the Earth is so complex that even the best computer model in the world can’t tell you with any certainty whatsoever whether you’ll need an umbrella when you head out the door to go the office a week from today.


http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1054/sun ... l-warming/
#14677949
I will assume that you did not deliberatly edit that article so as to make it seem like climate models do not account for solar variation.

Let me also quote from the same article:

    So you may wonder… do periods of little sunspot activity lead to cooler climate on Earth? And do periods of increased sunspot activity, such as occurred from 1900-1950 account for periods of higher temperatures on Earth? Can sunspots explain the rise in temperature during the 20th century, perhaps, rather than greenhouse gases produced by human activity?

    In fact, the sun does get hotter when there are more sunspots. Because although the spots are cooler, they’re accompanied by hotter, brighter patches called faculae that cause the overall brightness of the sun to increase by 0.1% at visible wavelengths, and more at ultraviolet wavelengths.

    Such increases in solar brightness are included in climate models. It seems the 11-year sunspot cycle as well as the increase in solar activity earlier in the 20th century lead to an increase in average global temperature of 0.1 to 0.2 Celsius… which is only about 20% of the observed increase of 0.5 to1.0 degree.

    ........

    A recent proposal from Danish scientists suggest that when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere, they create tiny aerosol particles that lead to increased cloud formation and less sunlight hitting the Earth. So it’s a double whammy… fewer sunspots mean a dimmer sun, which also means more cosmic rays into the atmosphere and more cloud cover which further cools the Earth. And vice-versa when there is more solar activity.

    Another recent theory suggests increased UV light from the sun drives energy flow from the upper to lower atmosphere by disrupting a layer of ozone high in the atmosphere. How this affects climate is unclear.

    As it turns out (as far as we know), computer models of the climate do not take these indirect effects of solar activity into account when calculating the change in global climate. And while human activity counts for only 5% of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year, the sun accounts for ALL the energy striking the Earth and driving its dynamic and enormously complex ocean currents and atmosphere.

    - See more at: http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1054/sun ... ing/#.dpuf

Now, there are two possible explanations that are supposedly not taken into account in climate models.

1. Cosmic rays.
2. Ozone disruption.

Feel free to provide evidence for either hypothesis.
#14677953
Pants-of-dog wrote:I will assume that you did not deliberatly edit that article so as to make it seem like climate models do not account for solar variation.

I edited it in order to get to the point quicker. But if you wish for more support that the global warming hoax is just hysteria then check out the following videos.

Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015 smashes the global warming hoax. Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.

[youtube]TCy_UOjEir0[/youtube]

Respected Australian scientists laugh at the hysteria of Julia Gillard, David Suzuki and other climate change drama queens.

Listen to 100 years of experience in the field!

[youtube]C35pasCr6KI[/youtube]

Dr William Happer debunks, then destroys global warming alarmism & hysteria.

[youtube]ap6YfQx9I64[/youtube]
#14677955
I do not reply to videos for the same reason I do not reply to editorials.

Posting a video or an editorial is the uncritical copying of someone else's argument.

Either make your own argument or stop posting on debate forums.
#14677961
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not reply to videos for the same reason I do not reply to editorials.

Posting a video or an editorial is the uncritical copying of someone else's argument.

Either make your own argument or stop posting on debate forums.

It is clear to me that you only want to argue and are not interested in the truth. So I will leave you to ignorance in believing lies. I am not interested in just making arguments.
#14677970
You're the one not interested in truth(which is often composes of actual FACTS and not your opinion) here, Hindsite. When proven wrong, you simply go and get more erroneous information to throw at us regarding your "faith". If it's not religious dogma, it's videos you googled on youtube, that often turn out to not say what you think they are saying, since you don't watch them before posting them.
#14677981
Godstud wrote:You're the one not interested in truth(which is often composes of actual FACTS and not your opinion) here, Hindsite. When proven wrong, you simply go and get more erroneous information to throw at us regarding your "faith". If it's not religious dogma, it's videos you googled on youtube, that often turn out to not say what you think they are saying, since you don't watch them before posting them.

I am very sure that you are not interested in revealing the truth. However, you are very interested is suppressing the truth.
#14678061
Hindsite wrote:It is clear to me that you only want to argue and are not interested in the truth. So I will leave you to ignorance in believing lies. I am not interested in just making arguments.


Pleaae feel free to ignore my posts then.
#14678211
Pants-of-dog wrote:I will assume that you did not deliberatly edit that article so as to make it seem like climate models do not account for solar variation.

They don't:
Let me also quote from the same article:
In fact, the sun does get hotter when there are more sunspots. Because although the spots are cooler, they’re accompanied by hotter, brighter patches called faculae that cause the overall brightness of the sun to increase by 0.1% at visible wavelengths, and more at ultraviolet wavelengths.

Such increases in solar brightness are included in climate models. It seems the 11-year sunspot cycle as well as the increase in solar activity earlier in the 20th century lead to an increase in average global temperature of 0.1 to 0.2 Celsius… which is only about 20% of the observed increase of 0.5 to1.0 degree
.

Did you spot it?

First PoD tells us climate models account for solar VARIATION (they actually don't, except retrospectively, because such changes can't be predicted accurately). In support of this claim, he posts a statement that increases in solar BRIGHTNESS are accounted for in climate models. But brightness is not the only way the sun varies, so this statement does not in fact support PoD's claim. This bait-and-switch is a perfectly routine rhetorical trick for PoD. He does it often. Almost always, he gets away with it because it is so subtle and sneaky. He counts on most people not reading carefully enough to catch on to his deceit.
As it turns out (as far as we know), computer models of the climate do not take these indirect effects of solar activity into account when calculating the change in global climate. And while human activity counts for only 5% of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year, the sun accounts for ALL the energy striking the Earth and driving its dynamic and enormously complex ocean currents and atmosphere.

- See more at: http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1054/sun ... ing/#.dpuf

Now, there are two possible explanations that are supposedly not taken into account in climate models.

1. Cosmic rays.
2. Ozone disruption.

Feel free to provide evidence for either hypothesis.

Two? There are any number of explanations not taken into account in climate models:

- The weakening and shifting of the earth's magnetic field
- Changes in ocean circulation
- Changes in upper atmosphere wind patterns
- Changing land use and vegetation
- Changes in ocean ecology caused by overfishing and pollution.
Etc.
#14678225
Yes, Truth to Power, your irrelevant claim about wording is correct.

Please note that you have yet to support your claims about the climate models being wrong. No, a graph made by a person who has knowingly used wrong data does not count. Especially of that person is a Creationist.

There is no reason to believe that you will support any other claim you make about climate models.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 21

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]

More stupid arguments, I see. It won't matter be[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a […]

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab[…]