Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 17 - 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

#14968194
One Degree wrote:The US is not going to be the most affected. We can close our borders and work on self sufficiency as a backstop. If the worse happens, the population in the rest of the world will be rapidly reduced, allowing us to start over.
May seem heartless, but it is stupid not to have a plan for our own survival if one for the world is not possible.
We should apply solutions on more than one level. Ending immigration and reducing our own population is an essential step. Ending immigration world wide would also put pressure on others to control their births.


The countries that will suffer the most are developing and 3rd world countries. All of the large economies will be able to adapt and survive. However, it will still be painful.

I'm with @Sivad on this one. We need to start releasing more CO2 so we can prove the more CO2 isn't a problem.
#14968217
Sivad wrote::lol: Drlee, our mensa science expert, doesn't know the difference between equilibrium climate sensitivity and direct CO2 forcing without feedbacks(3.7 W/m2 = 1C). I wish there was someone else here that could understand what blithering incompetence you just displayed. You're lucky this is pofo, dude. :lol:

Oh, and the NOAA estimate you cited is incorrect, the IPCC has revised the estimate to between "1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C"


Too funny.


Even if @Drlee misunderstood you, which is perfectly understandable, that does not change the fact that the range of climate sensitivity that he mentioned is still the most likely.

And so the Earth can see a 3 degree Celsius change if atmospheric CO2 is doubled, even if the theoretical no feedback value is one degree.
#14968222
Pants-of-dog wrote:Even if @Drlee misunderstood you,



He didn't misunderstand, he just doesn't know the basic science.
#14968233
Pants-of-dog wrote: And so the Earth can see a 3 degree Celsius change if atmospheric CO2 is doubled


No, the IPCC estimate is between 1.5 and 4.5. It's a 3C range but the IPCC estimate for likely average global temperature rise is up to 4.5C.
#14968236
Pants-of-dog wrote:Whether or not he understands the basic science is irrelevant to the fact that he is correct about the range of likely temperature changes.


He's not even right on that. The figures he's citing have been revised down.
#14968241
Sivad wrote:You guys just refuse to look at those surveys. :lol:

Nonsense. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, be my guest but spread lies and you will get called.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_o ... ate_change

No, I'm raising two separate points in two separate posts.

Yes, you were. You were dismissing one of many proposed ways to deal with man-made climate change while you don't even agree with it and are arguing about.
It's like being in a car arguing that your gas level is not low and then start rambling that BP gas station is more expensive than Shell and you don't want to stop at the gas station because of that. First make up your mind, do you think you need gas? do you think the gas gauge is part of a conspiracy theory by liberals that want you to think your gas is running out when the reality is that the gas level is OK? because if you think your gas level is OK, you don't have to worry about where to fill because... you have a tank full right? Offcourse when you find out that you are actually delutional, the planet will be shit and you or your progeny will have to end up spending FAR more to try to address the problem. Our planet is not going to burn into a fireball, the reality is, in the next 50-100 years we will likely have technology that will allow us to mitigate the problems as they come. It is not the optimal way to deal with the problem, but it can be done. It is simply a stupid way to deal with the problem when we have better ways to do so.

Why are you arguing about the actual range of expected change in temperatures when you don't even think it is a real problem? Your point should be 0C change since you don't believe in this nonsense... :knife:

That is how I know you are being dishonest in this debate... You don't care if it's real or not, or the degree of the possible change, or even if the proposed interventions are reasonable or not. All you want is to oppose it, either for political reasons, ignorance or simply because you are a troll. Who knows the real reason but you are not convincing anyone with your act.
Hindsite wrote:We can't do anything about it. Only God can do something about it.
Christians are just waiting for the return of Christ. Praise the Lord.

ROFL you are a joke. A big troll. I wonder if you approach everything in your life like that.
Hypocrite. So distraught of science but you don't turn away from it for your daily life. You still take medicines, use GPS, benefit from weather reports, use advanced materials for construction etc.
The very same exact science that tells us the age of the planet is the same science that we use to do a nuclear heart stress test or bleeding scan, or PET scan for cancer, or thyroid ablation for people with thyroid problems. It is the same tech that we use for atomic clocks and for GPS location, it is the same tech that we use to power our houses. Your ignorance is so extreme that it is amusing.
Last edited by XogGyux on 30 Nov 2018 22:57, edited 1 time in total.
#14968242
Sivad wrote:No, the IPCC estimate is between 1.5 and 4.5. It's a 3C range but the IPCC estimate for likely average global temperature rise is up to 4.5C.


And what is the average between 1.5 and 4.5?

It is 3, which is why I used that as an example. So, you just said “no” and then agreed with me.

Sivad wrote:He's not even right on that. The figures he's citing have been revised down.


@Drlee is using Fahrenheit. When you convert to Celsius, it is roughly the same.
#14968255
@Drlee is using Fahrenheit. When you convert to Celsius, it is roughly the same.


Yes. It is far too hard for Sivad to actually read the posts he slams.

You know what though. I think I will leave him alone. He is just puking up what he googles and suffers from a massive dose of confirmation bias.

He is a troll. Not a single serious post here and this in the light of the abjectly idiotic stuff he posted in the vaccine thread. I don't really need to prove anything to him. I will just note that not one soul here, except the right-wing trolls has agreed with him.

It is hard for me to get my head around someone with so monumental an ego that he feels qualified, with no training whatsoever, to contradict the best scientists in the world. That is not the action of a smart person at all.
#14968257
Pants-of-dog wrote:And what is the average between 1.5 and 4.5?


WTF? Why would you average the range?

I used that as an example.


:lol: No you didn't, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
#14968263
Drlee is using Fahrenheit. When you convert to Celsius, it is roughly the same.


How is 2F - 11F roughly the same as 1.5C - 4.5C? :knife:

Drlee wrote:Yes. It is far too hard for Sivad to actually read the posts he slams.



No, Dr mensa, the range you cited(2F-11F) has been revised down. The range you cited includes the "extremely unlikely" tails. :knife:
#14968285
Sivad wrote:WTF? Why would you average the range?


Because I needed a single example of one of the possible temperatures, so I arbitrarily chose the average.

I could have used 2.76769869 for all it matters.

:lol: No you didn't, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


As long as we agree that 3 degrees Celsius is iwthin the range of expected temperature changes if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere. And that the expected range is between 1.5 and 8 degrees Celsious, with the most likely being between 1.5 and 4.5.

Sivad wrote:How is 2F - 11F roughly the same as 1.5C - 4.5C? :knife:


It is not.

It is roughly the same as 1.5C to 8C.

While 1.5 to 4.5 is the most likely, temperature differences between 4.5 and 8 are also likely. Temperature differences lower than 1.5 and higher than 8 are the “extremely unlikely” tails.

Image

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
#14968290
Pants-of-dog wrote:
As long as we agree that 3 degrees Celsius is iwthin the range of expected temperature changes if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere.


That's the IPCC estimate, that's what's at issue. When you figure out how they derived that estimate then you can begin to discuss the actual controversy.
#14968292
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is there some sort of problem with how they came up with that range of numbers?


Oy vey.
#14968324
No, Dr mensa, the range you cited(2F-11F) has been revised down. The range you cited includes the "extremely unlikely" tails.


Are you really that thick? Come on dude. Here is the article I QUOTED:

As with all probability-based estimates, there’s what’s likely to happen and what is possible. Although the “long tails”—extremely low and extremely high values—of warming remain possible, climate experts think it is extremely unlikely that equilibrium warming from doubled carbon dioxide will be less than 2°F, and very unlikely that it will be more than 11°F.


Soooooo. Your argument is that the article I quoted is so wrong that you quoted parts of it to prove I am wrong? :knife:

Your number from your (unnamed) source was what? 1.5 to 4.5 Celsius? Well that would be 2.7 to 8.1 Fahrenheit. An do you know what Sivad? That is right in the range my source (NOAA).

But wait. Didn't Sivad say "the numbers had been revised down? Well sport. Not really. Same article I reference says this:

These simultaneous changes don’t mean it is impossible to know anything about the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature; they do mean that it is hard to settle on a single, exact number. In fact, the likely range of 2.7°-8.1°F published in the recently released 5th Assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the same as in their first report, published in 1990.


And look at those numbers. Do they look familiar? They should. They are the ones you quoted as being new. It would appear that my four year old article either came out after your report OR the numbers have not changed.

You need to up your game Skippy. You are not looking all that swift right now.

Now back to POD's questions. Care to take a stab at them. I need another laugh.
#14968340
Drlee wrote:Are you really that thick? Come on dude. Here is the article I QUOTED:



Soooooo. Your argument is that the article I quoted is so wrong that you quoted pars of it to prove I am wrong? :knife:

You, in your arrogance quoted as true, numbers that fall right in the range that my cite stated.

You need to up your game Skippy. You are not looking all that swift right now.

Now back to POD's questions. Care to take a stab at them. I need another laugh.



Don't try to save it Drlee, you made a big pompous deal about how you're a scientist and I'm an amateur and then you made an ass of yourself by not knowing the difference between ECS and direct CO2 forcing. And not just getting them wrong but mocking the person that had their facts straight(me).

The range you cited is well beyond the IPCC likely range and the IPCC estimate is itself well beyond the actual likely range.
#14968342
Sivad wrote:The range you cited is well beyond the IPCC likely range


No, we discussed that and found that 2 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1.5 to 8 degrees Celsius.

and the IPCC estimate is itself well beyond the actual likely range.


How so?
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 21
EU-BREXIT

I note that you posted a graph that actually back[…]

PS: Just quickly; the 'RA pretty much lost their '[…]

I don’t. You see, when my father and mother divo[…]

Perhaps to you. I haven't seen too many people v[…]