Is there a reasonable, lucid and civil warmer out there who wants to discuss AGW?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jul 4, 2012.

  1. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    I consider myself a fairly well informed observer of the Climate Wars. I look skeptically on the claims of both sides but I have found my equilibrium point lies well within the 'denier's camp'.

    what I am looking for from the warmist side is a coherent and unexaggerated line of reasoning that identifies and quantifies the impact of mankind's impact on the climate and why you think it is detrimental +/or dangerous.

    I will quickly sketch out my side-

    [​IMG]

    I think there will be a little more warming than just the recovery from the LIA and 60 year cycle, from the 1C calculated increase from CO2 minus negative feedbacks, ~0.5C per doubling. I am unsure as to how long the recovery from the LIA will last, hopefully a while longer as warmer is better, within reason.

    the biggest difference between the two sides is whether feedbacks are positive or negative and that is where I would really appreciate the warmists to focus. talking about the weather is just mental masturbation, stating that glaciers are melting is redundant if we agree that the temps are up slightly. if you think that we are 'the warmest ever' make sure that you are at least conversant in what has been going on in the climate wars and what is scientifically significant.

    gtg
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    Well now, Traker would be nice and point out the falacies in your post, Ian. Personally, you have been shown what real scientists are saying, and you have chosen to listen to people with no data and no evidence.
     
  3. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    Pascal's Wager used up a lot of mental effort a few hundred years ago because europeans only recognized one god, one set of similar religions. once you move on to many types of religion the premise falls apart. I think the same type of tunnel vision has affected climate change. CO2 surely plays a part but there is a much larger picture where the contortions made to blame manmade emissions falls apart, especially when you look at specific concrete data rather than massaged and adjusted climate models that only cover averaged large scale conditions.

    the problem is that the two sides talk past each other. actually I think it is the concensus side which is most to blame because they refuse to acknowledge and debate the issues. presumably because they lost the first few forays and decided that there was no upside to having to defend their positions from critics. there are simply too many gaping holes in AGW and CAGW to hand wave away.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,523
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +150
    It would seem there are more in one than the other. At the risk of sounding simplistic I offer the following:

    Suppose the global warming thing is entirely a hoax and man has no influence whatever?

    Result: A lot of money will have been spent but we will have a cleaner, less polluted, healthier environment.

    Suppose man is the cause and we do nothing?

    Result: Where are you going to live?
     
  5. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,021
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

    We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..
     
  6. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,523
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +150
    It was just a question.

    I have been following this for long time. This is not a situation that one day will simply go POP. It is a long slow buildup. The buildup being so slow that one will not notice year to year changes. Neither are the consequences linear or equally distributed over the globe.
    They are cumulative and at any level, difficult, expensive and time consuming to correct.

    It is not as if the physics of warming are new or exotic. Any high school physics kid can conduct experiments exhibiting the principles. It is just that they are complicated by the enormous complexity of the atmosphere.

    Just as a frog can be peacefully, and without objection boiled to death, if the temperature of the water is raised slowly so too can we go to our makers before we realize just what the hell we have done.

    A few decades ago the magic number was 350ppm. That was to be the "tipping point" the point where it would become extremely difficult to halt the process. That number has now reached 395 with 400 being recorded in the arctic.

    Again, nothing really dramatic has happened. So we have record setting temperatures everywhere, drought where they never used to occur, super storms of straight line winds never before encountered, more and fiercer hurricanes. So what? It can all be explained away so long as we do not think in global terms.

    But don't let that bother you. (of course you don't) In all probability you will escape consequences, the only variable being how much of a mess you leave behind. That mess is considerable, growing and becoming exponentially harder to correct.

    What it all seems to boil down to is the buck and how many which people can accumulate and retain. I guess that is practical. Not very noble but practical.

    All the excuses in the world cannot obliterate that simple number which is now 395 and rising rapidly. It has never occurred before, not ever, and it is almost soley attributable to man. You can laugh, smirk and man your little denials but that number remains, as do the consequences.

    Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com
     
  7. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,021
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    You are aware of course that CO2 warming due to atmos concentrations are NOT LINEAR but nat log. And there is actually a point where the absorption of MORE CO2 gets curtailed or truncated to almost nothing.

    Unless you can explain screwy patterns in Jet Stream or how tornadoes found the exact centers of several cities at once because of 100 ppm of increased CO2 -- I'll take a raincheck on the current panic.. Like you said, we really shouldn't be seeing symptoms of the appocalyse for while yet.. People who are -- are gonna get marginalized by probability and weather systems.

    It's Ian's thread -- perhaps you should use the opportunity to debate with him.. He's been on this case for a lot longer and stronger than I am... I think it would be neat for you to "check his premises"...
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2012
  8. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    welcome to our sandbox onecut39. its best to wear eyegear because a lot of the kiddies here like to throw sand.

    in the lifespan of the earth the temperature and CO2 levels have both averaged higher than today. since we came out of the last ice age the temps have been falling while the CO2 levels have been rising. so I can only assume you are comparing temp and CO2 levels of the last few hundred years or less.

    water, in its various forms, controls the climate. two billion years ago the sun was 20% dimmer yet there was still liquid water. more to the point, there seems to be an upper limit to how hot the oceans can get (29C with occassional spikes to 31C), with any extra energy getting pumped out by thunderclouds. climate is driven by the temperature differentials between the equator and the poles, with land masses affecting the ocean currents.

    as much as Old Rocks wants to believe that storms and weather are worse today it is pretty much undeniable that weather in the cold Little Ice Age was much more severe and unpredictable than today, as is only reasonable because there was a greater temperature differential which caused more heat movement by wind,etc.

    I have no problem with accepting that CO2 will cause some additional heating as its concentration increases. theoretically it should cause ~1C per doubling. I think feedbacks will turn out to be negative so the actual rise will be less than that. and certainly not the out-of-control upward death spiral predicted by so many of the warmers.
     
  9. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179




    EXACTLY my sentiment............and may I add, a winning one!!!


    But the radical environmentalists in this forum are well schooled in one particular area: bomb throwing. Its a basic tool used by all of them, thus, having a civil debate is next to impossible. They all model off of the highly coordinated AGW machine that holds a summit every year and promptly kicks out any scientist that brings data contrary to their preconceived notions ( which superceeds the science). The debate is civil, if it is only thier side presenting their case. It is the MO of any far left guy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2012
  10. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    Come on, Crapforbrains. Take a look at your OP. Take a look at who posted. O.R., idiots, and now I am going to give you a post, since you seem to be lacking a healthy balance of science vs. complete crap, from ranters.

    You really want sucksassandballs to post his Leatherface picture, since it has LF holding his chainsaw.

    End of story. Humans got chainsaws, CO2 went up, temperature is going up, and when the local solar maximum heads back up, temperatures will really jump.
     

Share This Page