The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-18-2016, 07:32 PM   #76
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Has sea level been higher than today in any of the last five inter-glacial periods?

Has temperature been higher than today in any of the last five inter-glacial periods?

Has sea level rate of change been higher than today in any of the last five inter-glacial periods?

Has temperature rate of change been higher than today in any of the last five inter-glacial periods?

I would assume these would be very easy questions for you to answer.
I'll make it even easier for you...

AGU Day 2

You still haven't gotten past the two errors in reasoning that I've pointed out to you.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 07:38 PM   #77
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I'll make it even easier for you...

AGU Day 2

You still haven't gotten past the two errors in reasoning that I've pointed out to you.
Ok, apparently as Al Gore would say, the debate is over.

Present day temps, sea level and the rates of change for both are within the range of natural variability that has been seen in the last five inter-glacials.

Your refusal to answer the questions can only be seen as proof of the above statement.

Next topic?
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 08:04 PM   #78
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Ok, apparently as Al Gore would say, the debate is over.

Present day temps, sea level and the rates of change for both are within the range of natural variability that has been seen in the last five inter-glacials.

Your refusal to answer the questions can only be seen as proof of the above statement.

Next topic?
It is well known that global temperatures lag behind CO2 levels. Discussing the matter divorced from rising CO2 levels is nonsensical.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 08:11 PM   #79
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
It is well known that global temperatures lag behind CO2 levels. Discussing the matter divorced from rising CO2 levels is nonsensical.
No, most scientists believe that, some studies question it. Regardless, I'm not questioning that theory at the moment even though there is a lot of question in terms of how far off the models have been the last fifteen plus years when CO2 has risen faster than expected, and temperatures and sea level have been no where close to what was predicted.

Anyway, that's not relative to my question.

Show me the evidence that the current temps, sea level and rates of change of both are outside the natural variation seen over the last five inter-glacial periods.

This should be simple for you.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 09:41 PM   #80
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
No, most scientists believe that, some studies question it. Regardless, I'm not questioning that theory at the moment even though there is a lot of question in terms of how far off the models have been the last fifteen plus years when CO2 has risen faster than expected, and temperatures and sea level have been no where close to what was predicted.

Anyway, that's not relative to my question.

Show me the evidence that the current temps, sea level and rates of change of both are outside the natural variation seen over the last five inter-glacial periods.

This should be simple for you.
No one is saying it's more severe than other rapid warming periods in the history of the Earth. You seem confused. Rapid warming causes mass extinctions, and this particular case is almost certainly caused by human causes, as there are no other known factors, while human CO2 production is well-known. In other words we are becoming an extinction event.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 09:42 PM   #81
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

Here's plenty of info on the matter, not that I expect the nutjobs who live in denial to believe any of it.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 10:05 PM   #82
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
Here's plenty of info on the matter, not that I expect the nutjobs who live in denial to believe any of it.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Really, because I found language like denier and nut job to be so persuasive.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 10:55 PM   #83
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
No one is saying it's more severe than other rapid warming periods in the history of the Earth. You seem confused. Rapid warming causes mass extinctions, and this particular case is almost certainly caused by human causes, as there are no other known factors, while human CO2 production is well-known. In other words we are becoming an extinction event.
Well, then it shouldn't have been like pulling teeth for you and WAGS to say that.

So, since you have stipulated that there is nothing extraordinary about the current temperature, sea level or rate of change (leaving causes aside for a moment), then I'll wait for WAGS to stipulate to the same and then we can move on to cause and how this is different then similar events in the recent past (let's say 500,000 years).
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 07:50 AM   #84
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Present day temps, sea level and the rates of change for both are within the range of natural variability that has been seen in the last five inter-glacials.

Your refusal to answer the questions can only be seen as proof of the above statement.
Provide the evidence for the statement. You haven't done so. The topic is open.

PS - Evidence includes analysis, not just cut-n-pastes of plots.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 07:54 AM   #85
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Well, then it shouldn't have been like pulling teeth for you and WAGS to say that.

So, since you have stipulated that there is nothing extraordinary about the current temperature, sea level or rate of change (leaving causes aside for a moment), then I'll wait for WAGS to stipulate to the same and then we can move on to cause and how this is different then similar events in the recent past (let's say 500,000 years).
You're making the same error of logic I've pointed out to you before.

That the climate system changes without human impact (but almost always over much longer timescales) does not mean that it cannot be that we are changing the climate system now and very quickly.

If you don't accept that, then you're not being honest, rational, and open.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 09:13 AM   #86
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
You're making the same error of logic I've pointed out to you before.

That the climate system changes without human impact (but almost always over much longer timescales) does not mean that it cannot be that we are changing the climate system now and very quickly.

If you don't accept that, then you're not being honest, rational, and open.
I've stated zero conclusion nor opinion, so how can I have made a logic leap?

Dude, you really need to work on reading what is posted.

I'm not really sure if you are confused or being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to have an honest discussion.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 09:24 AM   #87
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
I've stated zero conclusion nor opinion, so how can I have made a logic leap?

Dude, you really need to work on reading what is posted.

I'm not really sure if you are confused or being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to have an honest discussion.
You seem to think that if you can show that something like the current climate change has happened before, there's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

That's incorrect.

Last edited by W*GS; 12-19-2016 at 09:35 AM..
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 11:35 AM   #88
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
You seem to think that if you can show that something like the current climate change has happened before, there's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

That's incorrect.
Where have I stared that in this thread? Please show me.

You are clearly afraid to have an honest discussion on this topic.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 11:37 AM   #89
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
Here's plenty of info on the matter, not that I expect the nutjobs who live in denial to believe any of it.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
wags is clearly not interested in being anything other than a troll. If you can get the troll to leave the thread, since he is either too confused or otherwise won't have an honest discussion, I would be happy to proceed with you if you can refrain from the name calling and just discuss the topic with me.

Let me know.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 11:47 AM   #90
Fear the Hawk
Ring of Famer
 
Fear the Hawk's Avatar
 
Proud member of the Deep State.

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 6,268
Default

tnedator,

So to clarify, you're not suggesting that man-made global warming isn't happening, you just think there's a plausible alternative explanation, is that right?
Fear the Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 01:16 PM   #91
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Where have I stared that in this thread? Please show me.

You are clearly afraid to have an honest discussion on this topic.
You won't accept the work of the experts on the subject.

Sounds like fear to me.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 03:17 PM   #92
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
tnedator,

So to clarify, you're not suggesting that man-made global warming isn't happening, you just think there's a plausible alternative explanation, is that right?
I have made zero point up to this point, the point of my question (wanted to see how many times I could use the word point) was simply to get a baseline of understanding on previous climatic changes, including how modern temps compare.

Then, after what should have been the EASY thing to agree on, then start to discuss current warming. However, WAGS being WAGS, he pretends he doesn't understand the question because he thinks I'm trying to trick him or something.

He's so used to dishonest debate, including his own part far too often, that he sees the worst in every post/question.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 03:18 PM   #93
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
You won't accept the work of the experts on the subject.

Sounds like fear to me.
Go away troll, I'll have a discussion with the adults. I would be harsher, but based on your complete and utter failure at reading comprehension, I'm afraid you can't help it and I don't want to be mean if you are, umm, altered or something.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 03:32 PM   #94
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
tnedator,

So to clarify, you're not suggesting that man-made global warming isn't happening, you just think there's a plausible alternative explanation, is that right?
Anyway, to your question, of which I haven't suggested...

First, there is clearly doubt as to what the CO2 forcing factor is (forgive me if I don't have all the terms 100% correct). It's very obvious in all of the early IPCC reports that they way overestimated the impact of CO2 on temperatures.

Most studies, even by people that the AGW crowd crucify for Authoring peer reviewed studies that don't fall in line, agree that increasing CO2 increases temperature.

Where there is plenty of disagreement is how much of current warming is due to the increase in CO2 and how much is natural variability. Exactly what increase in temperature should be expected for each doubling of CO2.

As I mentioned, it's pretty clear that IPCC reports over estimated the impact of CO2, which is why nearly 20 years of observational data have barely hit the bottom of their projected range. Sea level has not risen as projected. We don't have 50 million climate refugees from coastal flooding, etc.

So, that's a given. As is the fact that the 97% consensus is bunk.

But, few scientists discount that CO2 plays a roll, the debate is how much of a roll.

One of the big problems we have is that looking into the past using proxy data is imprecise and open to interpretation, and there is no other period in the Earth's history where we've released CO2 in this manner, from burning fossil fuels.

In the past, the releases have been through volcanoes or released from ocean or permafrost, etc. In some cases, like volcanoes, it was massive, rapid releases, in other cases like from the oceans, it's only theorized why the release occurred, if it did indeed precede and then cause temperature increase.

There is, and should be, doubt as to the relationship between CO2 and temperature, meaning is it a causal relationship or one of correlation?

The only true and indisputable fact (when one relies on science and not faith) is that the science is not settled.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 03:57 PM   #95
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Anyway, to your question, of which I haven't suggested...

First, there is clearly doubt as to what the CO2 forcing factor is (forgive me if I don't have all the terms 100% correct). It's very obvious in all of the early IPCC reports that they way overestimated the impact of CO2 on temperatures.
If you're referring to equilibrium climate sensitivity, "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5C and 4.5C and very unlikely greater than 6C."

[IPCC (2013). "10.8.2 Constraints on Long-Term Climate Change and the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" (PDF). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - IPCC Working Group I Contribution to AR5. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2014-04-02.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
Most studies, even by people that the AGW crowd crucify for Authoring peer reviewed studies that don't fall in line, agree that increasing CO2 increases temperature.
Who's been "crucified"?

You realize that criticism of one's science doesn't equal crucifixion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
Where there is plenty of disagreement is how much of current warming is due to the increase in CO2 and how much is natural variability.

Quote:
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.
Reference: Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
Exactly what increase in temperature should be expected for each doubling of CO2.
See above on ECS.

I'll let you digest the above before we move on to your other incorrect claims.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 04:00 PM   #96
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
If you're referring to equilibrium climate sensitivity, "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5C and 4.5C and very unlikely greater than 6C."

[IPCC (2013). "10.8.2 Constraints on Long-Term Climate Change and the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity" (PDF). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - IPCC Working Group I Contribution to AR5. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2014-04-02.]



Who's been "crucified"?

You realize that criticism of one's science doesn't equal crucifixion.






Reference: Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming



See above on ECS.

I'll let you digest the above before we move on to your other incorrect claims.
WAGS, I'm not discussing this with you, because you've acted like a troll since this thread started. You refused to have a civil discussion. So, go away and let the adults talk.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 04:02 PM   #97
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
WAGS, I'm not discussing this with you, because you've acted like a troll since this thread started. You refused to have a civil discussion. So, go away and let the adults talk.
I've been more than civil.

It's you who has been childish and immature.

Try again.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 04:09 PM   #98
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I've been more than civil.

It's you who has been childish and immature.

Try again.
Go to the first page of this thread and read through it. You are either an idiot (which I don't believe) or being intentionally obtuse and difficult.

I gave you EVERY chance to try and have an open and honest discussion, regardless of where either of us stand on the topic, and you refused.

So, I look forward to discussing it with Ameggedon or Bolt or others, but you've been nothing but a troll.

Plain and simple, you are a dishonest poster, and I don't like conversing with dishonest individuals.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 04:12 PM   #99
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Go to the first page of this thread and read through it. You are either an idiot (which I don't believe) or being intentionally obtuse and difficult.

I gave you EVERY chance to try and have an open and honest discussion, regardless of where either of us stand on the topic, and you refused.

So, I look forward to discussing it with Ameggedon or Bolt or others, but you've been nothing but a troll.

Plain and simple, you are a dishonest poster, and I don't like conversing with dishonest individuals.
You need to be up to speed on the science before you can discuss it intelligently.

I've seen very little evidence that you understand even the basics of the science.

Your knowledge apparently comes from spending time on denier blogs.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 04:13 PM   #100
Bronx33
Dont Dox Me Bro!
 
Bronx33's Avatar
 
Camaraderie-ship for all

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lakewood,Colo
Posts: 53,144

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Juicy Jewel
Default

Quote:
Who's been "crucified"?

You realize that criticism of one's science doesn't equal crucifixion.

Your in the club wags that's nothing new ( your right and everybody else with differing opinions is wrong that was the point of this idiot thread) we had this out years ago when the emails came to light and as usual you pretend like it never happened nobody got crucified blah blah blah ( nothing to see here). Roger Pielke, Jr to name one that Obamas stooge tried to discredit so please quit being dishonest I gave you a link where he articulately proved how holden was sloppy.
Bronx33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 PM.


Denver Broncos