Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewThe effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad
Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. We will get real summers. Should these factors be weighed into the cost-benefit analysis?
CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.
I'm not sure how to title this CMV, but I'm starting to think that it will be impossible to stop climate change from doing too much damage, from flooding low-height densely populated areas, from making deserts (more) uninhabitable. There are too many compromises to make in order to stop the damage from being too big but also to prevent the suffering of some people. 1- Airplanes On one hand, airplanes cause a lot of pollution because of the fuel. Kerosene is the only fuel available that is cheap, energy-dense and light to power a flying beast of metal. Batteries are too heavy and aren't energy-dense enough for that. It's almost as if human beings aren't supposed to fly. The heaviest extant flying animal has an average weight of less than 20 kg. Pterosaurs existed, yes, but they are extinct and I think they'd have a hard time flying in our current atmosphere with too little oxygen. On the other hand, there are some some places that are too geographically isolated for roads or train tracks. Yes, they are accessible by water vessels, but water-based transportation is too slow, especially for those communities who can't be self-sufficient. 2- The Amazon rainforest On one hand, preserving it is important. Not just because of the biodiversity, but also because of its weather regulation capabilities. On the other hand, the Amazon is no Antarctica, it has people living in it, it has cities in it. They need infrastructure that can't be built because of extreme environmental regulations. Yes, there's a risk of the roads and train tracks (again, water travel is slow, and not everything can be transported via ships) causing even more deforestation in their surroundings, but the Brazilian north is poor for a reason. 3- Energy Renewable energies still can't supply the energy demand on their own and nuclear stations take too long to get ready and got their reputation destroyed by Fukushima and Chernobyl (there's also the issue of the disposal of the nuclear waste, those take literally millennia to become safe). I fear that, even with the increase of capabilities, renewables still couldn't supply because the demand also increased. 4- Food On one hand, agriculture and livestock (especially the latter) take up too much space that could be used for nature preservation and for planting trees to suck up the excessive carbon in the atmosphere. On the other hand, there are people living in places that can't support intense agriculture because the soil sucks and/or because their biome is too important (*cough* Amazon *cough*). Also, being able to follow a vegan diet is a privilege. There are the people whose lifestyle require a lot of protein, people recovering from eating disorders (they can't have a diet that is too restrictive), autistic people who only eat a very specific diet (and they are often repulsed by vegetables), people who simply can't give up meat because they like it too much, among other groups who can't go vegan.
Climate change is real and caused by humans
I'm sorry but I just don't see any point in debating someone who clearly doesn't understand the science I'm talking about. I made lot's of points that you could try and rebut, but apparently you either just don't think you can, or you're just being stubborn. I encourage you to research some of the stuff I was talking about to better understand the science behind this, but I just don't feel like turning this into a teaching session. You made absolutely no scientific claims in your last argument, and therefore I can't respond. I've realized this is a waste of my time. I would also point out how I mentioned the explanation of why humans clearly are the problem in the fourth paragraph of my argument. I encourage you to look it over. Thank you for debating!
Human caused climate change is nonsense
You have assumed that CO2 is a dangerous substance which needs to be reduced. First mistake. CO2 is not a dangerous substance. Plants use CO2 to grow. When a plant grows, Most of its weight and bulk comes from CO2. The more CO2 that you pump into the atmosphere the faster and more vigorously plants will grow in response. Thus, CO2 is necessary and vital to create and mature plant growth which in turn gives us more food to eat. Thus, It is part of the oxygen, Water and CO2 cycle of life. It's CO2 in the lungs that tells a person to breathe. If you didn't get any CO2 into your lungs your brain wouldn't give you a signal to breathe. Properties of CO2 CO2 has similar properties to glass. When CO2 has reached it's saturation point it can no longer reflect infra red light. It's saturation point is about 80 parts per million. Thus, Any additional CO2 will have zero effect on increasing global temperatures. Global temperature. The global temperature isn't capable of being effected by humans due to the mathematical ratio differential between the size of the Earth and the total mass weight of humans and their machines. The size differential is trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions to one. Thus, Humanity represents the equivalent of about 3 grains of sand on a 100 kilometre beach. Thus, It is quite laughable that humanity thinks that they can make a difference to global temperatures.
Unethical to change planet w/o universal approval
Richard Somerville, a climate researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California: "I should say right up front, I am not at all in favour of geoengineering. I think it's inherently unethical. I don't see how you decide on the basis of all humanity how to change the planet."[
The Chicago Climate Exchange is a success and model.
Jason Margolis. "My Kind of Down Chicago Climate Exchange paves the way for U.S. emissions trading". 14 Jun 2005 - "City officials are not sitting idly by waiting to see if or when such things could happen. This spring, Oakland became the second U.S. municipality to join the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) -- North America's first and only voluntary, but legally binding, emissions-trading market.
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
Ok first off you have proven in other debates that you don't read between the lines that well. Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me. She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research is enclosed here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... Rhett Butler the founder of mongbay is an environmental writer that is featured in several newspapers and is endorsed by several scientists. But here is the same research presented on a different site. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the internet. You just need to look. Plus the internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories Fritjof Capra-Gaia Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy There, start with that. Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me. She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research is enclosed here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... Rhett Butler the founder of mongbay is an environmental writer that is featured in several newspapers and is endorsed by several scientists. But here is the same research presented on a different site. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the internet. You just need to look. Plus the internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories Fritjof Capra-Gaia Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy There, start with that. Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems. Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion. I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause. A separate point aside. Avery and Singer fail to address several important factors Solar Dimming Carbon accumulation and acceleration I mean the point where they day the Atmosphere is "saturated with CO2" is wrong. There is still C02 being pumped into the air today, right now. Plus they were funded by Natural Gas.
global climate change is human caused
Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming.
Anthropogenic climate change and increased CO2 levels are beneficial to humans and plant life
I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. And yes, you can use round 1 for whatever you wanted. Just one round needed to be without argument. Since you chose round 1 to be the round without argument, you can use all of the rest of the rounds for argument. Now then... Global photosynthesis is on the rise and so is world plant growth Research suggests that since the industrial revolution when CO2 emissions from human activity started, plants have been enjoying greatly increased usage of photosynthesis for the past century and a half, leading to tremendous plant growth worldwide[1][2][3]. As anyone who has taken a basic biology class knows, plants need CO2 to survive, and plants have been thriving thanks to the increased CO2 levels. Yes, there are some negatives to global climate change, but for plants, it's pretty much only positive. The current concentration of CO2 is perfect for plants, and even a slight increase would still be okay Plants need an atmospheric concentration of CO2 to be betwen 300-500 parts per million[4], the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which just recently reached this level, is 400 parts per million[5]. Prior to human influences on the atmospheric concentration of CO2, we did not have this much, and 400 ppm is the ideal average of CO2 plants need. If we were to drastically decrease anthropogenic CO2 emissions, this could lead to a drop in the overall concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere, and thus this could be detrimental to the plant life on earth if the drop was significant. As can be seen here, Earth has had an overall history of CO2 declining in concentration through the millions of years of earth[6]. If humans didn't emit CO2 through the industrial revolution, and it never happened, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations were declining throughout our history, it could have been very possible that plant life would all die on earth in the future. In a way, human CO2 activity is saving our plants. Basically, since we are currently at 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should try to maintain this, and I worry that many environmentalists' actions would end up bringing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere down. Because CO2 emissiosn are beneficial to plant life, it helps entire ecosystems Since plant life is on the rise, this leads to more food for animals, and more animals can thus thrive. With more animals thriving, and more plants thriving, this leads to more food for humanity, so benefiting plants benefits humanity. More people die from cold weather than hot weather The cold kills 20 times more people throughout the world than hot weather does.[7] If anything, this is evidence that the earth is too cold and needs warming. Additionally, many geographers I hear believe we are still in an "ice age" because the earth is not supposed to have any ice on it, yet we do have ice in Greenland and antarctica as well as in mountains in various areas.[8] So, basically, I conclude that if the earth were warmer, we would have fewer human deaths, and this would be beneficial to humanity. Addressing common problems with global warming: 1) Oceans will rise Now, I know many people are concerned with the ocean rising due to global warming and some would argue this is a bad thing. I don't think it really is that big of a problem, however. The oceans are not rising suddenly, and it would be over a long period of time that it happens. People will have plenty of time to move out of areas that are going to be flooded with water from the ocean rising. I argue that the benefit global warming gives us: where we would have fewer deaths from weather, is worth having a small percentage of humanity moving somewhere else. 2) Acidity of the ocean going up I know some people will also be concerned with the acidity of the ocean going up. This is a problem, but if evolution tells us anything, it's that sea life will likely be able to adapt to this, as long as the change in acidity of the ocean is not too quick. We can try to lower our emissions if it's the case that the ocean's acidity is rising too much. I honestly don't know too much about this particular subject, so I don't know if scientists consider the ocean's acidity to be rising too fast for marine life to survive, but maybe my opponent can shed some light on this. If it's the case that it is, keep in mind that I'm not necessarily saying we should keep the current rate at which we cause global warming, but just that global warming in general is beneficial to humans and plants. Even if a little global warming is beneficial, that is fine, and I'm sure the marine life will be able to survive slight changes in the acidity of the ocean. 3) Deaths from heat-related illnesses will rise This is true, but since there are many more deaths by cold(see above), those deaths would likely go down at a faster rate than the deaths from heat will go up, so over all, I believe more people will be saved from global warming than if we didn't have it. I believe I have sufficiently argued my case, and I rest my case. Sources: [1] http://www.ucmerced.edu... [2] http://www.nature.com... [3] http://www.climatecentral.org... [4] https://fifthseasongardening.com... [5] https://climate.nasa.gov... [6] https://socratic.org... [7] https://www.sciencedaily.com... [8] https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Climate Change is real and caused by humans
Just curious as to see what your argument will be! Looking forward to it. But just to clarify, I'm talking about the rising of global temperatures caused by increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to the greenhouse effect. Good luck!
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
I hold firmly that the risk of damage to the nose and possible infection outweigh any benefit as treating these conditions would use medical supplies - which have the issue with their environmental impact as that of food. A great poem as well. Thanks
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
There are negatives to the action which I believe outweigh the potential environmental benefit. For example, Picking your nose with dirty fingers or fingernails may increase risks of infection. In very rare cases a person may suffer from rhinotillexomania which is an addiction of picking your nose which, In turn, Causes anxiety. Additionally, Frequent or repetitive picking can damage your nasal cavity. Regular nose-picking may damage the septum and even cause a hole. If infection were to occur, It would cause even more energy to be used. A study found that whilst fighting an active infection (worse than the destruction of snot), A 175lb man would need 250 calories in order to have an effective immune system. This would amount to a tiny amount of food in real terms, Making the ecological impact minuet. Sources: British Society for Immunology (https://www. Immunology. Org) Faculty of Medicine at the University of Queensland, Australia (https://medicine. Uq. Edu. Au) US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health National Center for Biotechnology Information (https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/)
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
Indeed, The environment takes a toll through the methods you described in round 1, However, People don't eat food to the exact amount of energy they need. We, As humans, Overeat and consume more than necessary - especially in Western civilisations. This would mean that the impact of picking your nose would be negligible.
Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon
Attack on my sources I find it quite hilarious, that Pro attacks integrity of my sources while she depends on sources like Mann et al. (Climategate, "Hide the decline"[1]) or Hansen, who was caught manipulating data [2 and last round] and prevented scientists under him to publish their results that disagreed with him [3] etc. Or IPCC, that misrepresent what the scientists say [4], and RealClimate, which is basically web promoting Mann et al. point of view. It's quite obvious who gets the most money in "climate science" [5]. In fact all those climate scientists funds depend on AGW, so its not skeptics who have the major monetary interests in this phenomenon. I may retract my source of the third quote, but then Pro would have to retract a lot of her sources. Santer Before Santer tries to accuse others, he should correct the way he works with data [6]. His study was refuted by [7]: "Overall, the conclusion of S08 that 'there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates must be reconsidered in light of upto-date data. The 'potential inconsistency' between models and observations in the tropical region, as reported by Karl et al (2006), remains an issue." Santer is also refuted in [16] (which he tried to delay in peer-review [16b]) and [17] (see part Tropospheric warming below). Hansen Indeed I was not sure what data did Pro compare, I just looked at those closer to each other (land station data). When I wrote about scenario C, I just wanted to make sure that people don't miss what it actually means, since it is closer to measured data than B. Lets look again at the figures in [my previous round source 9], that corresponds to Fig 2 in [Pro's first round source 6]. The Land-Ocean (black curve) nowhere near the scenario B prediction (blue curve) since 2000 aside from two single points 2002 and 2005 where L-O is at local maximum and B is at local minimum. My argument stands. Especially later data from 2006 on make it obvious. Dessler First I would like to apologize for confusion around refuting Dessler. That Spencer et al. 2007 paper directly refutes the previous Dessler's paper and Dessler 2010 fail to address the main issues and instead attacks a straw man. I should have clarified with further information: "To Dessler’s credit, he actually references our paper. But he then immediately discounts our interpretation of the satellite data. Why? Because, as he claims, (1) most of the climate variability during the satellite period of record (2000 to 2010) was due to El Nino and La Nina (which is largely true), and (2) no researcher has ever claimed that El Nino or La Nina are caused by clouds. This simple, blanket claim was then intended to negate all of the evidence we published. But this is not what we were claiming, nor is it a necessary condition for our interpretation to be correct." [8] In contrast to Pro's claim, Dessler didn't make the different conclusion because of larger data set, but because of different methodology, using simple regression. Spencer and Braswell examined the same data set in that same year and came with opposite conclusions [9]. They addressed the time lag in changes by phase space analysis in order to see what is most likely cause and what is effect (which Dessler claims is the other way around). You may get similar regression slope like Dessler derived from the data even for strong negative feedback.[10] "The bottom line is that, you can not use simple regression to infer cloud feedbacks from data like those seen in Dessler’s data plots." [10] To simplify it by analogy, it could be like ice cores "CO2 drives temperature" claim by Al Gore. There was certainly correlation as well, but he ignored the time lag as CO2 follows temperature. Lindzen acknowledged many parts of the criticism and corrected his hypothesis where it was wrong. However, he still refuted conclusions all the papers Pro mentioned [11,12,13]. As I used my space on Dessler, I won't go into details here. Tropospheric warming Conclusions of Sherman and Allen 2008 are refuted [14]. Not only there is much more uncertainty in indirect method based on wind shear due to temperature gradient, they ignored conclusions of previous research on that matter dealing with bias of stronger 200 mbar winds at higher latitudes [15]. Haimberger 2008 is refuted by [16] (addendum to Douglass et al.), because there is bias in homogenization in RAOBCORE 1.4 data as other publications pointed out. “... papers such as Santer et al. 2008 do no testing, but simply assume that all datasets are equal, such as “new” ERSST or “old” RAOBCORE v1.2, v1.3 and v1.4, and thus ignore the publications which have provided the evidence which document significant errors in the ones they prefer."[17] Hansen Pinatubo and Energy imbalance After Hansen was refuted, he made new paper “Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications” in 2011 [18] and admitted: “We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols... Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change.“ Watts and Tisdale wrote some criticism on some of his new claims [19]. Conclusion My findings on general limitations of climate models are unchallenged as well as some of the quotes on reliability of GCM. I offered refutation to the points Pro chose to defend. Why some of the modelers finds hard to admit the counter-evidence or even cheat? Maybe social study of science by Lahsen 2005 [20] will give us some insight: "...persuasive power of the simulations can affect the very process of creating them: modelers are at times tempted to ‘get caught up in’ their own creations and to ‘start to believe’ them, to the point of losing awareness about potential inaccuracies. Erroneous assumptions and questionable interpretations of model accuracy can, in turn, be sustained by the difficulty of validating the model..." Thanks to Pro for a challenging debate. Sources: [1] Video "Hide the decline" http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... [3] http://nige.files.wordpress.com... [4] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... [5] http://climatequotes.com... [6] http://www.john-daly.com... [7] http://arxiv.org... [8] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [9] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [10] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [11] http://www-eaps.mit.edu... [12] http://www-eaps.mit.edu... [13] http://eaps.mit.edu... [14] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... [15] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... [16] http://www.pas.rochester.edu... [16b] http://sppiblog.org... [17] http://icecap.us... [18] http://arxiv.org... [19] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [20] http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
It discusses what peak emissions are required to achieve a 2C peak based on the year we achieve peak emissions. You either aren't understanding the charts or are being intellectually dishonest. You immediately go on to say "2c max rise forever" unironically. I will let the judges decide. If we get our energy from alternative sources of course we don't have to emit. No one should WANT to use fossil fuels because they WILL run out. It should not be a LOW priority to get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels for that reason alone, Much less climate related ones. Negative emissions IS possible, But depending on the amount it certainly may not be. Not with current technology. There is no reason to believe that with funding we cannot improve the tech we have to remove gasses from our atmosphere. This is just to peak at 2C. Most people believe the goal is now 2. 5C or 3C. Again, It's about the scale of the catastrophe. I think technically your acceptance of planting trees as a high priority, Particularly in larger numbers than we harvest them is you conceding the debate. But I'll continue for now. 2. Yes. The Sun which is many times larger than the Earth and is technically a massive fusion reactor supplies the vast majority of the energy that the Earth will hold. This isn't and has never been a contentious point. The point is that greenhouse gasses AMPLIFY this effect. It's a moot point to say the sun is a bigger deal when it comes to temperature when greenhouse gasses can affect the temperature enough to cause massive negative or positive effects. 3. Buying us time may be necessary if people accept that research towards solutions to the unintentional terraforming of our planet should have a low priority. 4. Yea not literally. It in itself can cause suffociation. It may cause a decrease in pH levels in the ocean which *could* have negative effects. More than that though, Relying on fossil fuels will literally poison our water supply and environmet whenever oil leaks. These happen not rarely at all. 5. If the moon landing got high funding and you agree to the same high funding for climate change research then I win the debate. 6. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor many times the size of the earth. Harvesting 1% of its energy output would open up more possibilities for humanity than fire did for our ancestors. Sources show that if we cover a small portion of the Sahara desert in solar panels at 93% efficiency, If I recall correctly, Would be sufficient to cover current global power needs. mic. Com "heres how much renewable energy it would take to power the entire world" Even if we could not cover our power needs with solar panels on Earth itself, I'd hope you would agree that your point is ridiculous when it comes to the total output of the sun and solar panels in space. I DID say Dyson Spheres earlier. There is no requirement for a full megastructure for this to start. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
I didn't make a claim of any sort. It is a hypothetical. 2. Warming will continue to worsen the more CO2 we pour in the atmosphere. It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera. Keeping the It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera. Keeping the climate STABLE should be the highest priority for any country. Instability in the climate breeds instability in many factors. Food, Water, Optimal growing locations, Diseases, Insect growth, Droughts, Et cetera. The more stable these things are the better the economy and the country itself fare. This isn't controversial. To say the US should put a low priority on stability is not only absurd but insane. 3. The billions you quote is not a precise number. It is not measurable. If I told you I was going to destroy an apartment building how much would you estimate that to cost? You have no idea what is inside said apartment buildings. The contents of the building may be more valuable than the apartment structure itself. There's no way to calculate perfectly the cost from land reduction, People being forced to move inland, Et cetera. It will undoubtedly be trillions. Do you really think the elimination of hundreds or thousands of miles of land would be chump change? What will it do to the prices of housing inland? What will it do when optimal crop growing areas need that land? How do you expect me or anyone else to provide a hyper-specific accurate cost estimate at varying temperature growths? Massive is CLEARLY correct, And that is what we use. 4. Yes, We are talking about most island countries. They will certainly be heavily impacted. If food growth is effected and refugee crises occur, We could be talking about governmental instability as well. Riots, Easily. 5. Dimming the sun is one path Harvard scientists are studying to buy us time. (1) Again, Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. 6. Solar doesn't need to replace oil alone, But of course solar CAN do so. Humans may not be able to harness enough of it NOW but it is PART of the solution. Again, This is not a LOW priority.
Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon
Thanks Pro for concise and focused argument. General limitations of Climate modelling In perfect scenario, we would have simple deterministic mathematical model to simulate deterministic phenomena on which we can run multiple experiments with controlled conditions in order to validate the model. While for example engineering simulations can comply with such scenario to some extent, complex phenomena in economic, social or climate sciences are another story. We don't have enough beforehand knowledge about every important climate feedback so we in fact estimate such feedback's with the model itself based on its output compared to measurements. But unless we know all other forcing that can influence output in similar way, we won't get good estimate of the parameter we look for. For example Koutsoyiannis[1] or Tennekes[2] (extending on Poper and Lorenz) challenge the notion that complex models could ever be reliable according to their nature. "Theories that are complex may become untestable, even if they happen to be true."[2] etc. If we look at QT's definition of GCM, it is clear that to fulfill their purpose, those models must have the structure of forcings and feedbacks right. We won't get reliable "scenario predictions", no matter how lucky we are in predicting aggregated mean temperature if the true causes are different then we thought. What is the reliability of current GCMs in scientists eyes? "We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe... Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor."[1] "We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century' model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean."[3] "These weaknesses combine to make GCM-based predictions too uncertain to be used as the bases for public policy responses related to future climate changes." [4] "So there has been a large activity to bring models and observations into agreement, strangely only by adjusting the measurements instead of adjusting the models. "[5] Even Kevin Trenberth (from the Mann et al. group) now acknowledges many of the GCM's troubles in his paper "More knowledge, less certainty"[6] publicly. "The scientific literature is filled with studies documenting the inability of even the most advanced GCMs to accurately model radiation, clouds, and precipitation."[7] For those interested, NIPCC report [7] and their topical updates [8] provide comprehensive information about studies dealing with GCM reliability. Refutation As you put it, Hansen's predictions look totally perfect and within 100th of degree of Celsius. Lets examine the claim. "Dr. Jim's 1988 projections weren't looking so good, so he dropped an apple in the middle of his oranges. The red line is land only temperatures, but his projections were for global temperatures."[9] Let us also compare it with satellite [10] and other [11] data. Now suppose I made highly oscillating prediction. At some points in time, my prediction would be always spot on as it would cross the real data. Look back at the figures. Where is this precision from 2006 until now, or in early nineties? Also note that curve C assumes "emissions drastically reduced" in 1990 [10,11]. I therefore call this conduct a fallacy of cherry-picking. On top of that, Hansen is known for not so transparent temperature data manipulation.[12,13] Dessler's assumptions are refuted by Spencer's satellite observations [14], supporting rather Lindzen's hypothesis:"Our measured sensitivity of total (SW + LW) cloud radiative forcing to tropospheric temperature is -6.1 W *m^-2 K^-1... This decrease in ice cloud coverage is nominally supportive of Lindzen's 'infrared iris' hypothesis." "This is exactly opposite of the way all climate models behave," as Spencer put it in his own words in [15]. (technical note: Don't take the whole video as extension of my argument. Its used only as source of the quote in 6:19 and for information purpose as I acknowledge I must make my argument myself on this page within its limitations.) Now lets see the warming troposphere, because it was predicted it would be significantly warmed by CO2 forcing. See figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 for PCM model prediction and 3.4.3 for radiosondes. Updated study [17], taking in account errors stated by Pro, supports overall warming trend in troposphere of +0.052 ± 0.07 K per decade (while RSS temperature is somewhat higher then other methods, but much less then models). That is in good agreement what the figure 3.4.3, but in complete disagreement with figure 3.4.2 (also note the scales). The problem is not whether the troposphere warmed, but how much it warmed (1.2 °C at hotspot vs 0-0.3°C) and how different layers warmed relative to each other. The model predicted much stronger warming in troposphere then on surface, but that is not true. It means that model is wrong about GHG forcing or feedbacks in troposphere. Conclusion Models may be useful in furthering our knowledge of the problem, mostly by showing us what our assumptions really mean. If we are humble enough and learn from comparing our assumptions to measurements, we can learn from our mistakes. But the climate models fail if used as defined by Pro. [1] http://www.tandfonline.com... [2] http://ff.org... [3] http://www.pas.rochester.edu... [4] http://www.ncpa.org... [5] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... [6] http://www.nature.com... [7] http://www.nipccreport.org... [8] http://www.nipccreport.org... [9] http://sppiblog.org... [10] http://www.climate-skeptic.com... [11] http://rankexploits.com... [12] http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com... [13] http://www.omsj.org... [14] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [15] Video: "Why the IPCC Models...." http://www.youtube.com... [16] http://www.nipccreport.org..., pages 106-108 [17] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
Climate technically is a big problem. Flooding would be an instant problem, And I know the solution for that is gonna be "They can build walls and stuff" BUT USA is already in debt and needs to repay countries, And to do something like that would take billions of dollars. Plus flooding could cause another problem. Power. "Oh no but we can just add more solar pannels" Yeahhhh. . . But then money. Plus overpopulation is gonna be a big problem and with less land means less homes for people. I'll state my argument here for now and see what you have to say
Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon
BACKGROUND: This debate is consequence of QT's claim she can prove recent GW is more then 75% accountable to human influence, based on climate's CO2 sensitivity (derived from models) and simple equation. After debate, I gave my opinion on climate models reliability in this case and argued against QT's conclusions that are contradicted by hard data and known natural forcings. http://www.debate.org... ACCEPTANCE: After that it would be impolite to decline QT's challenge despite the fact I'm very busy this month so I ACCPET the debate. I would therefore prefer this debate to be concise and focused on the major issues. I hope won't need 8k words per round to express our point. I shall point out general modelling limitations as well as specific contradictions between models and measurements and quote some resumes from scientific papers dealing with this problem. I assume that climate model's means models that were used or cited by IPCC in last decade as whole (usually more than one is used to get averages) and I do not have to prove every single model wrong in detail in order to fulfill my job as Con. I don't have English as my first language, but voters can feel free to punish me for big mistakes. I am looking forward to a good debate.
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
Norway is reckoned to be the best Country in the World in which to live. The U.S.A. is ranked 14th in the same survey. The criteria used to make this judgement were: 1) Life expectancy 2) G.D.P. per capita. 3) Inflation rate 4)Population 5) Climate 6) Growth rate 7) Corruption 8) Unemployment rate 9) Safety index 10) Cost of living. Norway was superior to The U.S.A. in all these categories. Therefore, Norway is a far superior place to be if you ask me. @Lifestyle9.org
Debate.org
