frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Climate Change

Of all the big common debates, there seems to be one that is missing - or at least not active: Climate Change.

Centre of the debate around Climate Change is the argument that human kind's industrialisation is releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. This creates a greenhouse effect that has an overall warming effect on the planet.

The theory is supported by the majority of scientists - especially on scientists whose area of expertise is the climate - but does not have universal public acceptance. This instead varies by country, with the more heavily industrialised countries like the USA typically being among the least concerned about climate change.

Where do you stand on climate change - real or fake?
comey_testifynorthsouthkoreaErfisflatagsraarong
  1. Is global warming real?16 votes
    1. Yes, global warming is real and is due in large part to the actions of humanity.
      50.00%
    2. Yes, global warming is real although humanity is not a factor in this and it is a natural cycle.
      37.50%
    3. No, global warming is not real.
      12.50%

Comments

  • Yes, global warming can't be denied. 

    There is plenty of realistic and seemingly truthful scientific evidence out there which proves Globally Warming exists. The big question which is left is, are humans responsible. Many people can use the ice age as an example which is a opposite of Global Warming today. An argument such as changing times could be made. I believe that humans only excelerated the process of Global Warming and if we don't stop and set more regulations, there may be no humans left within five decades or so soon.
  •  @comey_testify made a good point. It is real, but how much of it is really controlled by us.  Sure, we are likely messing up the environment, but by how much? Are we willing to spend trillions of dollars to fix something that will have a marginal impact?
  • agsragsr 447 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    While it is debatable that we can materially influence global warming effect, the real question should be the cost of remediation vs benefit.  
    melanielust
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @islander507 Although the other part of that is: Are we willing to not spend money when doing so may lead to the collapse of human civilisation as we know it? Does it help make the cost worthwhile when you take into account that we will have to spend money either way whether it's on oil or renewable resources and that we are expected hit peak oil in a few decades so either our generation or the next will need to start investing in renewable resources either way?

  • agsragsr 447 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect, i agree on focus on renewable energy. Regarding the other point on collapse, that is not fact-based, but more of an emotional appeal. If we want to prevent anything that "maybe" bad for or lead to potential collapse then we can create a longer list of things.  
    As I mentioned, the cost will be a key component and how much will each action actually help.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited June 30
    @agsr ;

    That response was based off islander507's position. My own would be based on the evidence.

    In regards to it actually being a 'maybe', we than have to consider is it a 'maybe' rather that an outright certainty/impossibility? And if so, how likely is it?

    That's where the evidence then comes in, assessing the likelihood of the theory being correct.

    Edit: Btw I'm aware I haven't exactly fired off a load of evidence myself, however I'm trying to stimulate discussion before I weigh in. Hence why I went for a more neutral OP so as not to slant the initial discussion one way or another.
  • agsragsr 447 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect, i support a "maybe". I also think there is a decent chance it maybe the case. I don't play lottery against the odds. My point is that if someone is holding a gun to my head asking for my wallet, I will say that's great odds that I will get shot unless I hand my wallet over.  If someone asks me to wiretransfer $200 to nigeria based on unsolicited email, stating that something bad would happen otherwise then I probably ignore that one.
    with climate change caused by humans and forced to spend billions/trillions to supposedly remediate -  it is something in between.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    edited July 2
    agsr said:
    While it is debatable that we can materially influence global warming effect, the real question should be the cost of remediation vs benefit.  


    That is the real question, but in order to answer it we need much more information.  How can we determine the benefit if we don't really understand the processes that are in effect?  We need to have a working model that accurately and dependably conveys how the climate will change, what effects it, and how it will be affected.  Right now, we have half a dozen models and the only thing reliable about any of them is that their predictions will be wrong.
  • CYDdharta said:
    agsr said:
    While it is debatable that we can materially influence global warming effect, the real question should be the cost of remediation vs benefit.  


    That is the real question, but in order to answer it we need much more information.  How can we determine the benefit if we don't really understand the processes that are in effect?  We need to have a working model that accurately and dependably conveys how the climate will change, what effects it, and how it will be affected.  Right now, we have half a dozen models and the only thing reliable about any of them is that their predictions will be wrong.
    Do you have a source for this?

    I was of the belief that climate change models were generally pretty solid even though they are meant to be used over much longer time scales that we have been looking at.

    For instance when looking over it's past projections, the IPPC stated:

    "Observed changes in global mean surface air temperature since 1950 (from three major databases, as anomalies relative to 1961–1990) are shown in Figure 1.4. As in the prior assessments, global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales (Section 9.4). Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short timescale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments. The 1990– 2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the FAR projections (IPCC, 1990), and not consistent with zero trend from 1990, even in the presence of substantial natural variability (Frame and Stone, 2013)."



    The models that tends to get the most stick (both for valid and invalid reasons) are atmospheric models, but this seems more an ideologically driven attack than an actual valid critique. We don't live in the troposphere so if the models are a little more off there (while still being basically correct) then while that is useful to know and investigate, it doesn't really matter when the GMST models are correct.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect ; The graph you posted shows the4 models doing a poor job at predicting what really happened.  Lets take a closer look at what the models predicted;

    Actual temperatures only raised about half of what IPCC's models said they would. 


    According to a 2002 article by climate scientists Vitaly Semenov and Lennart Bengtsson in Climate Dynamics, climate models have done a poor job of matching known global rainfall totals and patterns.

    Climate models have been subjected to “perfect model tests,” in which the they were used to project a reference climate and then, with some minor tweaks to initial conditions, recreate temperatures in that same reference climate. This is basically asking a model to do the same thing twice, a task for which it should be ideally suited. In these tests, Frank found, the results in the first year correlated very well between the two runs, but years 2-9 showed such poor correlation that the results could have been random. Failing a perfect model test shows that the results aren’t stable and suggests a fundamental inability of the models to predict the climate. The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions. But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been “running hot,” predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014. Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring, but, rather, that the models’ forecasts were exaggerated.

    http://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models



  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 3
    CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect ; The graph you posted shows the4 models doing a poor job at predicting what really happened.  Lets take a closer look at what the models predicted;

    What do you mean they're doing a poor job? It shows the range of possible outcomes they predicted the temperature to rise to and it shows the actual rise within that range. What crtieria are you using to say it would be poor and what would be good?

    I'm also not entirely sure about your graph? Do you have the source of where this came from? Also why is the temperature a 5 year mean average? Why does it end several years ago, when we happened to have a few years which were colder then expected, rather than taking into account the much warmer years which we've just been through which can be seen on the latest HADCRUT4 e.g.

    Global time-series update

    Why does it only look at one model, why not any others? Should I assume that was the worse model? And the 90 runs chosen, were those the only available ones or were they cherry-picked. In fact, what data was used to create this at all? I've tried reverse google image searching it but besides appearing on a lot of climate change denial websites, I can't find out how it was made or what it was based upon.

    Also that last quoted paragraph is a good example of what I was talking about. The ability of models 15 years ago to predict rainfall isn't really a concern if the GMST models are accurate as that's what we're worried about. That's not to say I accept your point - for instance I've just read the study and it doesn't seem to say what your article claims - but why even bother debating it if it's incidental to the main issue and you can't offer any criticisms of global mean surface temperature increase?
    walterbainc4tagsrlove2debate
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect I mean the models do a poor job even by the chart you posted.  The actual observed temperatures are barely on the estimates at all.  Accurate and working models would have the actual observed temperatures towards the center of the model predictions.  The graph comes from here.  I would imagine they use a 5 year mean because NASA uses a 5 year mean.  Why do the actual observations end several years ago on your graph?

    Assume whatever you like, but CMIP-5 is a set of coordinated climate model experiments that includes the IPCC models.  Everything from your graph is included.  If anyone is cherrypicking, it's IPCC

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 4
    @CYDdharta

    How are they doing a poor job when they are performing correctly and the effects of global warming are within predicted parameters? What metric are you actually using to say "they are barely on the estimate at all"? This seems like a really hamhanded way for you to avoid saying the models are correct, which they are.
     
    Also your link doesn't answer the question, it's just a picture of the graph again. That gives no details on how the graph was put together and whether it was reliable and does nothing to explain the weird inconsistencies that seem deliberately introduced - such as why start in 1983 (an unusually hot series of 5 years), why the Y axis isn't temperature anomalies, what projections were actually used, why does it not include more recent years which note a large upswing in temperature?

    Lastly, you obviously don't know a lot about mocels. CMIP-5 is a climate change model on which various different simulations are run with different parameters . After checking the records, the last count of CMIP5 simulations that have been run is over 47000. Of that your graph allegedly uses 90 models. So of that 47000 which 90 were chosen and why? Especially as a lot of those simulations will be near-term predictions which cover this range of years but should not be used for this purpose. It's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm the one cherry picking when you're ignoring every climate change model except one and then ignoring over 99% of the simulations run on it, with the simulations you are looking at being ones you have no idea if they are valid for the purpose being used.

    Basically you are placing your trust in a random image you have no way of knowing is real and a lot of reason to suspect is faulty (but cannot 100% prove because we don't know what data - if any - is behind it). On the other hand there is masses of actually verifiable evidence backing up climate change models. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    What metric am I using???  My own EYES.  I can see that the actual observations are FAR from the center of the predictions.  95% of the climate predictions are too high.  Can you not see that, are you unable to read your own graph???  If the hiatus continues, none of the models will match actual observations in a few years. 

    All you posted was a graph.  You want more?  go dig it up like you made me do.

    I don't know anything about mocels.  However;

    The model comparisons with observations have pushed the analysis and development of the models. CMIP5, an important input to the AR5, has produced a multi-model data set that is designed to advance our understanding of climate variability and climate change. Building on previous CMIP efforts, such as the CMIP3 model analysis reported in AR4, CMIP5 includes ‘long-term’ simulations of 20th century climate and projections for the 21st century and beyond. See Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12 for more details on the results derived from the CMIP5 archive.

    Try using your thinking cap.  If other runs were more accurate, why wouldn't IPCC have included them in the graph you posted???  Does IPCC want to be wrong? 


    Pot meet kettle

  • @CYDdharta

    Dude, you need to re-read the posts because it looks like you've got really confused and have lost the plot of what is being discussed..

    You state "95% of the climate predictions are too high.  Can you not see that, are you unable to read your own graph???" but it is your graph that says that, not mine and I have given several reasons why your graph is rubbish that you have not responded to or attempted to refute.

    In fact it seems you haven't even understood my criticisms. For instance you go on to say "If other runs were more accurate, why wouldn't IPCC have included them in the graph you posted??? " However my point was that YOUR graph was based on a fraction of the data, not the one I posted. Your graph clearly states at the top that it is based on 90 CMIP5 runs. However there are many models besides CMIP5 and even CMIP5 by itself has more then 47,000 runs, not the 90 your graph claims to be based on.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect So your position is that my evidence is wrong because you think it's wrong.  If you can find something pertinent that contradicts what I've posted, feel free to share it.  So far the data you posted agrees with what I posted.
  • @CYDdharta

    Incorrect and hypocritical. You state "So far the data you posted agrees with what I posted" but offer nothing to back it up. The person making the argument of "my evidence is wrong because you think it's wrong" is you.

    I explained why your evidence and logic is wrong in my previous posts here and here.

    You have failed to respond to most of my points and what responses you have made are confusing nonsense. Take my previous post where I explained you've mistaken who posted what graphs what graph and what claims have actually been made. You haven't even tried to make a defence of your prior post being a meaningless mess as I've pointed out.

    If there is any point of yours you feel I have not addressed, feel free to quote it and I shall either respond showing where I've already refuted it or if I've somehow missed it I'll respond. Meanwhile you have failed to address all my my points. Do you concede or will you try and refute my claims?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect In other words, you could find no evidence that the graph I posted was inaccurate in any way.  Thank you for making my point.
  • @CYDdharta

    1) I explained why it's bullshit. In my last posts I literally just linked you to my posts where I did so and you still can't offer a rebuttal.

    2) I'm going the extra mile and assuming that despite the evidence you're arguing in good faith, although that leeway that I'm granting you is quickly diminishing as you fail to actually respond. I don't actually need to disprove the graph as you have never presented anything to suggest it is real in the first place. It's just a random graph you found on the internet based on who knows what.. The burden of proof is on you to present some kind of evidence that the graph is accurate.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    The burden of proof is on you to present some kind of evidence that the graph is accurate.

    Incorrect sir, I have provided my evidence.  It's up to you to prove my evidence is inaccurate.  Supposition isn't proof.
  • @CYDdharta

    Evidence of what?

    You have provided evidence that a random graph exists.

    You have not provided evidence that the data on the graph is in any way accurate or represents reality. As your only evidenced claim, that a random graph exists, does not have any bearing on the discussion at hand there is nothing for me to rebutt.

    Let me give you an example.



    There's a graph showing that observed temperatures have been very much in line with predictions, albeit warming slightly faster than models predicted. Is it real? There's as much reason to think that it's real of as your graph - which is to say precisely none. It's a random graph from out of nowhere with nothing to back up that it is accurate, hence why I would never normally use such a thing.

    The only actual viable data provided so far is by me with my earlier graphs which support the models being accurate.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect Well, that's a graph all right.  I'm not sure what it's a graph of because there's no indication of where the observed temperatures came from, but it's a spiffy graph.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Battle of the graphs, whose lines and numbers are more important? 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @CYDdharta

    So are you going to be a hypocrite and try and defend your graph? With either graph we actually have no idea where any of it comes from. If you will believe anything you find on the internet without a thought for whether it's real then you're incredibly gullible.

    Either way, you still haven't provided evidence your graph is actually based on reality - which you will note was the entire point behind my previous post. You also still haven't responded to my points I made earlier where I poked holes in your argument.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect I'm always amused when hypocrites try to call other people hypocrites.  You posted one meaningless link and a bunch of graphs of unknown origin and want to complain about what I posted?!?  Really?!?  Back up your own posts before you complain about someone else's.
  • @CYDdharta and @AlwaysCorrect, maybe you should both post new graphs with more clear documented sources that have clear explanations of your position. The way I am reading your exchange is consistent with the overall position on this topic - niether party can prove or disprove climate change is caused by people - so it is back to who has burden of prove.
  • @CYDdharta

    You have not raised any issues with my graphs. The only time you did you were confused and actually criticising your own graph.

    If you have issues with my graphs, feel free to raise them and I will respond. However the onus is on you to back up that your graph is actually relevant and based on solid evidence, not just some random lines.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect
     However the onus is on you to back up that your graph is actually relevant and based on solid evidence, not just some random lines.


    I posted a link to my source.  How about you doing the same for your graphs.
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 6
    @CYDdharta

    Your source is just a link to a url where the image is hosted. It is literally just exactly the same image as you've posted, but hosted on a different website with no explanation or evidence to show that it is meaningful or real. If your only proof that it is real is that one random person on the internet hosted the image, you have absolutely nothing and we can throw out your entire argument right now.

    To show you how this should be done, my initial graph was taken from the Fifth Assessment report of the IPCC, page 131.

    It shows estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990 (in °C) since 1950 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments.

    Values are harmonized to start from the same value in 1990. Observed global annual mean surface air temperature anomaly, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as squares and smoothed time series as solid lines (NASA (dark blue), NOAA (warm mustard), and the UK Hadley Centre (bright green) reanalyses). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean surface air temperature change from 1990 to 2035 for models used in FAR (Figure 6.11 in Bretherton et al., 1990), SAR (Figure 19 in the TS of IPCC, 1996), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) in Cubasch et al., 2001).

     TAR results are based on the simple climate model analyses presented and not on the individual full three-dimensional climate model simulations. For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950 to 2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001 to 2035.

    The bars at the right-hand side of the graph show the full range given for 2035 for each assessment report. For the three SRES scenarios the bars show the CMIP3 ensemble mean and the likely range given by –40% to +60% of the mean as assessed in Meehl et al. (2007). The publication years of the assessment reports are shown.

    For further details of how it was put together, please see the appendix to that chapter of the Fifth Assessment report which explains:



    For my second graph, that data is straight from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). You can see a HTML file of the data here.

    Well there you have it, you ask for details on data and I provide it in spades. Meanwhile you are still deflecting, denying and refusing to back up your own claims, which are completely unsupported.
    agsr
  • agsragsr 447 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect,that seems to be rather thorough with properly documented sources.
    @CYDdharta, in fairness to AlwaysCorrect, please document appropriate source of your graph.  If you are refering to the one from..it site, I tend to agree with him, that is not appropriately used as a source.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "Climates are changing, big brother said so, and they need more money to fix it."

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    I've provided the source of the data that supports my argument, so it doesn't rely on taking anyone at their work.

    Making an inferred ad hominem attack on the source of the data with no evidence and making no argument against the actual data is logically fallacious.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Your sources are demonstrably liars.
    @AlwaysCorrect

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    If they're demonstrably liars, go ahead and demonstrate it. Otherwise you're just wasting time with meaningless posturing.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    If they're demonstrably liars, go ahead and demonstrate it. Otherwise you're just wasting time with meaningless posturing.


    Bout to start work. See if you can figure it out on your own before I get my break.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    I mean, despite them claiming we live on a ball. But you don't want to discuss that.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    Why do you think it is other people's job to make your arguments for you?

    Present you argument when you have the time to do so, not vague insinuations.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect OK, you want the data, here it is; http://www.realclimate.org/docs/CMIP5_rcp45_MT_GL_Trpcs.xlsx.  Enjoy.  You've focused on a meaningless triviality in order to avoid the point I raised, so lets use your IPCC graph, as poorly made as it is to make my point.  It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations.  As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations.  The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures.



    agsr
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    Why do you think it is other people's job to make your arguments for you?

    Present you argument when you have the time to do so, not vague insinuations.
    Where's the delay?

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect OK, you want the data, here it is; http://www.realclimate.org/docs/CMIP5_rcp45_MT_GL_Trpcs.xlsx.  Enjoy.  You've focused on a meaningless triviality in order to avoid the point I raised, so lets use your IPCC graph, as poorly made as it is to make my point.  It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations.  As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations.  The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures.

    Sorry, you've been duped. Here's the HadCRUT4 global temperatures compares to the mean average of the listed temperatures:



    As you can see the model does a good job even over the short term and currently we're actually running slightly hotter than the average of the models.

    Now as I could take a few guesses at exactly how the creator manipulated the data to produce the chart shown (if indeed they did use that data at all), but as there's no methodology it'd just be a guess at exactly how they screwed up. Data I used for this is:

      HADCRUT4 Mean of 101 CMPI5 models
    1975 -0.147 -0.112
    1976 -0.24 -0.134
    1977 0.046 -0.090
    1978 -0.063 -0.036
    1979 0.058 -0.026
    1980 0.093 0.040
    1981 0.14 0.055
    1982 0.011 0.029
    1983 0.193 -0.097
    1984 -0.013 -0.100
    1985 -0.03 -0.067
    1986 0.046 -0.014
    1987 0.191 0.036
    1988 0.199 0.090
    1989 0.118 0.115
    1990 0.296 0.156
    1991 0.254 0.164
    1992 0.103 -0.048
    1993 0.145 -0.082
    1994 0.206 -0.054
    1995 0.321 0.009
    1996 0.18 0.096
    1997 0.389 0.152
    1998 0.536 0.216
    1999 0.306 0.243
    2000 0.293 0.312
    2001 0.439 0.374
    2002 0.497 0.414
    2003 0.508 0.411
    2004 0.448 0.421
    2005 0.544 0.456
    2006 0.505 0.471
    2007 0.492 0.475
    2008 0.394 0.482
    2009 0.506 0.487
    2010 0.556 0.524
    2011 0.421 0.552
    2012 0.469 0.586
    2013 0.512 0.636
    2014 0.575 0.665
    2015 0.76 0.690
    2016 0.773 0.709
    2017 0.768 0.714
    2018   0.720
    2019   0.723
    2020   0.748
    2021   0.805
    2022   0.848
    2023   0.867
    2024   0.918
    2025   0.960

    If you like you can compare versus your data and HadCRUT's temperature observations to confirm the accuracy of my figures.

    As for your criticism of my earlier graph from the IPCC, your points are completely unfounded.

    You state "It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations" but give no rationale for why 3 sets of observations is a bad thing so this can be safely ignored.

    You then go on to say "As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations." In fact this is patently correct. Models give predictions in a band e.g. "the temperature anomaly will be between 0.7 and 1.1 by the year 20XX". In fact every single observation falls within the predicted band, with none so far being over or under. This is verifiable by just using your eyes and looking at the graph.

    You state "The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures." This is of course meaningless because it's not how models work and tells us nothign about whether the models do work. Indeed it would be using data we know isn't suitable for the purpose to make a false point.

    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    Why do you think it is other people's job to make your arguments for you?

    Present you argument when you have the time to do so, not vague insinuations.
    Where's the delay?
    You tell me, you're the one I'm waiting on to explain how my sources are "demonstrably liars".
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    The ISS has a delay when communicating with the ground, right? They are recording this song simultaneously. Zero delay. Which means the actornot is not in space, and NASA is full of sh!t.

    http://debateisland.com/discussion/956/space-is-fake

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect BAHAHAHAHAHAHA  I use YOUR SOURCES, and you want to say I'm the one that was duped?!?  BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    You should have quit when you weren't so far behind.
  • @Erfisflat

    Lol, where do you think the ISS is in space? Pluto?

    It orbits at the same kind of distance as a lot of communication satellites, closer than a lot of them in fact. You'd expect no more delay that you'd get during a good telephone call, which is to say nothing noticeable. In fact it'd be even easier for the ISS because unlike Earth-to-Earth communication the data only has to make the trip once, while to communicate with someone on earth the data has to take the trip twice; once to reach orbit and then once to get back to earth.

    CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect BAHAHAHAHAHAHA  I use YOUR SOURCES, and you want to say I'm the one that was duped?!?  BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    You should have quit when you weren't so far behind.
    Do you get high when you post or something? This is the second time you've confused my sources for yours. We're talking about the graph you posted here and how it isn't accurate because the data doesn't support it.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect ; Do you bother reading posts before you reply??  READ this time and try to comprehend

      You've focused on a meaningless triviality in order to avoid the point I raised, so lets use your IPCC graph, as poorly made as it is to make my point.  It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations.  As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations.  The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures.

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 8
    CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect ; Do you bother reading posts before you reply??  READ this time and try to comprehend

      You've focused on a meaningless triviality in order to avoid the point I raised, so lets use your IPCC graph, as poorly made as it is to make my point.  It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations.  As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations.  The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures.

    Already responded and refuted it:

    As for your criticism of my earlier graph from the IPCC, your points are completely unfounded.

    You state "It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations" but give no rationale for why 3 sets of observations is a bad thing so this can be safely ignored.

    You then go on to say "As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations." In fact this is patently correct. Models give predictions in a band e.g. "the temperature anomaly will be between 0.7 and 1.1 by the year 20XX". In fact every single observation falls within the predicted band, with none so far being over or under. This is verifiable by just using your eyes and looking at the graph.

    You state "The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures." This is of course meaningless because it's not how models work and tells us nothing about whether the models do work. Indeed it would be using data we know isn't suitable for the purpose to make a false point.

    You have yet to respond to a vast array of my points and your only argument to support your own position has been shown to be falsified. Do you concede?

    PS: I said you were duped in relation to your evidence, which is a statement which still stands and you haven't even tried to defend against.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrectNo, my information was NOT falsified, i was using satellite data, you're using ground station data.  Ground station data is more easily manipulated.

    So what you're saying is that the model averages can't be used, and almost all of the model data is way high, so what use are the models?
  • CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrectNo, my information was NOT falsified, i was using satellite data, you're using ground station data.  Ground station data is more easily manipulated.
    I'm using the data that YOU provided and it does not match your graph. The creator deliberately misrepresented the facts. The only thing I did is add the observations that your graph claimed it was using in the first place.

    You have staked everything on a single incorrect graph.
    CYDdharta said:
    So what you're saying is that the model averages can't be used, and almost all of the model data is way high, so what use are the models?
    The model data isn't way high. As I said and as you can see by checking the graph; it consistently hits within the range given every single year. Therefore they are useful because they predict how the climate will change and so far they are completely right. If a model says the average temperature anomaly this year will be between 0.7 degrees and 0.9 degrees and it turn out to be 0.77 degrees then the model has predicted correctly. What's so hard about that to understand?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 8 Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    Most (they have other slip-ups) other ISS video has at the least 3-4 second delay in communications. This 4k streaming live even claims a minimum of 11 second delay in communications. Where do you get the idea that there should be no delay? You pull that one out of you shady parts?

    At exactly 6 minutes and 31 seconds into the video he announces the 11 second delay. At exactly 6 minutes and 49 seconds into this video, the crowd on earth gasps, and we see an instant reaction by astroNOT, Jack Fischer to the crowd.

    So not only is NASA proved liars, you seem to be making sh!t up to cover for them.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    Oh my, why could there be an unexpected delay in a 4K livestream. I mean It's not like large streams of data take longer to and encode and receive and even on terrestrial 4k livestreams there are long delays of several seconds. Oh wait, that's exactly what happen! Delays with a world first 4k broadcast, which is by definition not representative, are to due with the amount of data being sent - not the time it takes for radio waves to reach the ISS.

    I mean among other things, are you a radio-wave conspiracy theorist? Do you think they don't travel at the speed of light? Well if not, why would it take them more than a fraction of a second to reach a space station several hundred kilometres in orbit? Any issues are with the amount of data sent and received. You see similar things when news programs have a live feed to someone on the earth.

    Also that last point is incredibly dense. Jack Fisher is responding to the other astronaut, or do you think there is an 11 second delay between two people in the same room?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member

    "Do you think they don't travel at the speed of light?"

    I can't believe you do! Do you know how hot it's supposed to be up there? I mean, the earth is an infinite plane and all. Have you been to the ISS? Nothing "orbits the earth". 
     And you completely ignored  the point, they shot the video with no delay. And Fisher totally reacted to the crowd, look at the timing.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 8
    @Erfisflat

    That's not an answer. Do you or do you not think radio waves travel at the speed of light, as all electromagnetic waves do?

    Also if your entire argument for a massive global conspiracy that flies in the face of all reason and evidence is "I think that one guy was reacting to this one thing rather than the other thing he could have been reacting to" then you've got nothing.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member


    This is what you believe?  Can you screen record one of those other satellites here?

    https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html

    If you think NASA is 100% legit, you haven't investigated them.

    http://investigate-nasa.com/lies-deception/

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 8
    Is that what you think normal people believe?

    Eh, don't really care anyway. You're dragging the topic into Flat Eartherism where I honestly don't care what you say or what points you think you make.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Is that what you think normal people believe?

    Eh, don't really care anyway. You're dragging the topic into Flat Eartherism where I honestly don't care what you say or what points you think you make.


    I rest my case then.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • "You're not taking my argument seriously" shouts the crazy hobo with the tinfoil hat who's standing out on the street corner and smells of piss. Yeah, no .
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 9 Premium Member
    agsr

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    2,500 'C temps at almost 5 miles every second? 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect ; The data was revised.  That's another problem; climatologists can't even agree on what the temperature is, let alone what it should be or will be.  Besides, I'm using YOUR GRAPH.  The last image I posted was from YOUR GRAPH.

    I must apologize, I know where i made an error.  I assumed, since you posted a graph, that you knew how to read graphs.  Apparently I was wrong.  If you look at the graph you posted, you'll see a spaghetti-like range of values that are going all over the place, but generally going higher, those are the model predictions.  If you draw a line in the middle of them, you'll get an average.  That average will go steadily higher.  If you look at the thick lines that were going higher from 1970 until just after 2000, those are the actual observations.  They're towards the bottom of the graph, only 2 thin model lines are below them, so you should be able to find them pretty easily.  Now that I've explained how to read a graph, as you can see, virtually all of the models have predicted higher temperatures than what is actually being recorded, and the deviation is growing.
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 9
    @CYDdharta

    Which data was revised? How? These random claims where it's impossible to tell what you're even talking about don't do anything to back up your argument.

    The issue is that the only thing you have to support your position is a single graph. For a number of glaring reasons it seems obvious ti was made-up and does not represent reality. When you finally provide the data, it turns out this conclusion is correct. I can understand why you don't want to mention it when your entire argument has been destroyed, but there's no getting around it.

    in terms of my graph, it would behove you to be less arrogant when you're making yourself look stupid. As the methodology states those are only single model runs of old models, so basing results on them is like conducting a poll of which president someone is going to vote for and only polling 1 person in a different country. The shaded background areas are the relevant part, as has been explained to you multiple times but which for some reason you still can't comprehend. I hadn't expected you to be distracted by pretty colourful lines.In future I'll try and simplify it even further.

    Edit: And FYI even the AR1 models have held up well, not that I imagine you know what that means or that evidence will have any effect on you.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    There is only one set of numbers you've been whining about. 

    HadCRUT4

    Update: Version HadCRUT.4.5.0.0 is now available. Release notes for this version can be found here.
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

    It doesn't really matter, because I've been using YOUR GRAPH.  According to YOUR GRAPH; on average, the models keep going up, but the actual observations have pretty much flattened out since just after 2000.  As the hiatus continues, the models will deviate even farther from reality.  They don't work.
  • @CYDdharta

    Actually, I've blown a lot of holes in your argument in a lot of places that you still need to respond to. I can quote them if you like. Just because you can't respond to my points doesn't mean they don't exist.

    So you say that the HADCRUT data has changed and he didn't use HadCRUT.4.5.0.0. So which version did he use? The results of how your graph has been falsified to misrepresent the data will end up the same either way, seeing as there is no way it could account for how the graph has been deliberately manipulated.

    Also I think you may literally be blind.



    Not only that but there was no hiatus in 2000. You can see that there just happened to be an especially large spike in 1998 and when it dropped back to the norm it continued as normal.

    Of course the question of why you are making your bad blind-as-a-bat analysis of periods of time that I have already told you are too short term for massive global changes mystifies me. We're meant to be looking at long term trends.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect You appear to be as bad at reading comprehension as you are at thinking logically.  The HadCRUT.4.5.0.0 numbers were updated in 2016, so how could someone use those numbers in 2013?  AND ONCE AGAIN, THOSE NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  I'VE BEEN USING THE IPCC GRAPH YOU POSTED.  When you look at the IPCC graph YOU POSTED, you can plainly see the hiatus.  Either there is a problem with the HadCRUT.4.5.0.0 numbers, or the IPCC graph YOU POSTED was wrong, which is it?



  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 10
    @CYDdharta

    The points you raise have already been dealt with so there's nothing new to add.

    Please respond to the points you've ignored:

    CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect OK, you want the data, here it is; http://www.realclimate.org/docs/CMIP5_rcp45_MT_GL_Trpcs.xlsx.  Enjoy.  You've focused on a meaningless triviality in order to avoid the point I raised, so lets use your IPCC graph, as poorly made as it is to make my point.  It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations.  As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations.  The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures.

    Sorry, you've been duped. Here's the HadCRUT4 global temperatures compares to the mean average of the listed temperatures:



    As you can see the model does a good job even over the short term and currently we're actually running slightly hotter than the average of the models.

    Now as I could take a few guesses at exactly how the creator manipulated the data to produce the chart shown (if indeed they did use that data at all), but as there's no methodology it'd just be a guess at exactly how they screwed up. Data I used for this is:

      HADCRUT4 Mean of 101 CMPI5 models
    1975 -0.147 -0.112
    1976 -0.24 -0.134
    1977 0.046 -0.090
    1978 -0.063 -0.036
    1979 0.058 -0.026
    1980 0.093 0.040
    1981 0.14 0.055
    1982 0.011 0.029
    1983 0.193 -0.097
    1984 -0.013 -0.100
    1985 -0.03 -0.067
    1986 0.046 -0.014
    1987 0.191 0.036
    1988 0.199 0.090
    1989 0.118 0.115
    1990 0.296 0.156
    1991 0.254 0.164
    1992 0.103 -0.048
    1993 0.145 -0.082
    1994 0.206 -0.054
    1995 0.321 0.009
    1996 0.18 0.096
    1997 0.389 0.152
    1998 0.536 0.216
    1999 0.306 0.243
    2000 0.293 0.312
    2001 0.439 0.374
    2002 0.497 0.414
    2003 0.508 0.411
    2004 0.448 0.421
    2005 0.544 0.456
    2006 0.505 0.471
    2007 0.492 0.475
    2008 0.394 0.482
    2009 0.506 0.487
    2010 0.556 0.524
    2011 0.421 0.552
    2012 0.469 0.586
    2013 0.512 0.636
    2014 0.575 0.665
    2015 0.76 0.690
    2016 0.773 0.709
    2017 0.768 0.714
    2018   0.720
    2019   0.723
    2020   0.748
    2021   0.805
    2022   0.848
    2023   0.867
    2024   0.918
    2025   0.960

    If you like you can compare versus your data and HadCRUT's temperature observations to confirm the accuracy of my figures.

    As for your criticism of my earlier graph from the IPCC, your points are completely unfounded.

    You state "It actually illustrates what I was saying more thoroughly as it uses 3 sets of observations" but give no rationale for why 3 sets of observations is a bad thing so this can be safely ignored.

    You then go on to say "As is patently obvious, almost all of the model predictions are well above the actual observations." In fact this is patently correct. Models give predictions in a band e.g. "the temperature anomaly will be between 0.7 and 1.1 by the year 20XX". In fact every single observation falls within the predicted band, with none so far being over or under. This is verifiable by just using your eyes and looking at the graph.

    You state "The mean trend lines would be significantly above the actual recorded temperatures." This is of course meaningless because it's not how models work and tells us nothign about whether the models do work. Indeed it would be using data we know isn't suitable for the purpose to make a false point.

    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    Why do you think it is other people's job to make your arguments for you?

    Present you argument when you have the time to do so, not vague insinuations.
    Where's the delay?
    You tell me, you're the one I'm waiting on to explain how my sources are "demonstrably liars".

    CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect ; The graph you posted shows the4 models doing a poor job at predicting what really happened.  Lets take a closer look at what the models predicted;

    What do you mean they're doing a poor job? It shows the range of possible outcomes they predicted the temperature to rise to and it shows the actual rise within that range. What crtieria are you using to say it would be poor and what would be good?

    I'm also not entirely sure about your graph? Do you have the source of where this came from? Also why is the temperature a 5 year mean average? Why does it end several years ago, when we happened to have a few years which were colder then expected, rather than taking into account the much warmer years which we've just been through which can be seen on the latest HADCRUT4 e.g.

    Global time-series update

    Why does it only look at one model, why not any others? Should I assume that was the worse model? And the 90 runs chosen, were those the only available ones or were they cherry-picked. In fact, what data was used to create this at all? I've tried reverse google image searching it but besides appearing on a lot of climate change denial websites, I can't find out how it was made or what it was based upon.

    Also that last quoted paragraph is a good example of what I was talking about. The ability of models 15 years ago to predict rainfall isn't really a concern if the GMST models are accurate as that's what we're worried about. That's not to say I accept your point - for instance I've just read the study and it doesn't seem to say what your article claims - but why even bother debating it if it's incidental to the main issue and you can't offer any criticisms of global mean surface temperature increase?

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect The points I've raised have NOT been dealt with, you've simply chosen to ignore them. 

    AND ONCE AGAIN, THOSE NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  I'VE BEEN USING THE IPCC GRAPH YOU POSTED.  When you look at the IPCC graph YOU POSTED, you can plainly see the hiatus.  Either there is a problem with the HadCRUT.4.5.0.0 numbers, or the IPCC graph YOU POSTED was wrong, which is it?

  • @CYDdharta

    Stop trying to revise history. I can get why you want to try and focus on my graph after it's been shown you've been duped and relied on faked evidence, but that doesn't work. You have made your own argument based on your own evidence which has been completely disproven - it was a startlingly obvious fake which should have been obvious to anyone with even a rudimentery knowledge of the subject.

    Now I'm sure that now you want to avoid talking about the heinously incorrect claims you made, but I'm not done with them. Do you concede the points you raised there or are you finally going to offer some kind of defence?

    As for the graph, first of all there is not a hiatus. Here's the trendline from 2000, which you claim is about when the 'haitus' started:



    Still trends upwards.

    Secondly, as I've questioned before "Of course the question of why you are making your bad blind-as-a-bat analysis of periods of time that I have already told you are too short term for massive global changes mystifies me. We're meant to be looking at long term trends." It doesn't matter if the temperature wanders around inside the boundaries of the model on a year-on-year basis, we're dealing with climate change predictions on the order of century + timescales. 

    Thirdly, you have not actually given a reason why the 'hiatus' disproves the model. Based on how models work and all the scientific work that has gone into modelling them, this is absolutely nothing that should cause any doubt in the models. You going "ARGH, THE LINE WENT STRAIGHT FOR A FEW YEARS DESPITE STAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MODEL AND THE MODEL STILL COMPLETELY CORRECTLY PREDICTING THE VALUES EACH AND EVERY YEAR!" is not actually a rationale. This is again, exactly as I have pointed out before and you have not responded to.

    Lastly, you are cherry picking to the extreme. You don't want to look at all the data and the long term trends because that disproves your case. You don't want to look at the current temperature or the temperature for the last 3 to 4 years because they also disprove your case. Again, points I've already raised with me twice having provided graphs showing the temperature of the last few years only for you to ignore me  You've got to focus on a single purposely splinter of the overall data that is neither comprehensive or current and you've got to misrepresent it to try and get your irrelevant 'point' across. you have nothing.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect ; LMAO.  This is, what, the 4th HadCRUT graph you've posted, and NONE OF THEM AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.  Which one of the graphs you posted is real, and why do you keep posting false information?

    As for the hiatus, none of the models have predicted it.  If there is an upward trend in actual temps, it is no where near as steep as the models. 


  • @CYDdharta

    Why do you think they don't agree with each other? Random unsupported accusations aren't evidence. Also I want you to be explicit about what you think because then it'll be extra funny when I show how you can't read graphs.

    In regards to "As for the hiatus, none of the models have predicted it" are you blind or crazy> Give me even a single year which is outside the predicted temperature range (helpful reminder, the predicted temperature range is the shaded background):



    Every single temperature for every single year of the 'haitus' is within the model's predictions. Your claim is patently false.

    Lastly, as for "If there is an upward trend in actual temps, it is no where near as steep as the models." that relies on your reasoning being accurate and I've poked your reasoning so full of holes it's swiss cheese. Like aside from all the stuff you've ignored over the last dozen posts, in my last point I literally just pointed out why your argument is rubbish and you've done nothing to defend yourself against it, only made more ridiculous and unsupported accusations.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    edited July 11






    Those are obviously not the same.  So which is the real graph and which ones are fake?
  • HAHAHAHA!

    You actually went for it and did it with your smug "obviously not the same" kind of attitude too! This will probably be my last reply because with this you have destroyed all your credibility. If you can't read simple graphs there is no way you can be trusted with any kind of critical analysis of massively complicated data.

    It is exactly the same dataset on the graphs, but different sections of it are being displayed in the graph on depending on the nature of why the graph was being presented.

    Look at the X-axes. In the first graph you posted (second one in my little MSPaint masterpiece below) it's from the 1850's to current as I was showing you the overall trends since modern records began. 2000-2013 in graph 2 as that was in response to the "Haitus" and the third one was matched to the time periods on the graph you provided. The data is exactly the same it's jsut different bits being focused on at different times!

    Let's look at the sections that are present on all of them, 2000 to 2013 to give you an example:



    It's in fact exactly consistent across all three graphs because you don't know how to even do the basics of reading a graph!

    and if we compare 1975 - 2016 on the two graphs which both have that data displayed:





    Oh, what do you know, turns out your all caps decleration of "NONE OF THEM AGREE WITH EACH OTHER" was completely wrong because you are incapable of engaging with the data on even the most basic level!

    For graph 4 if you read the notes on the methodology I gave, I specifically mentioned it had been smoothed (and hence would display a little differently) but obviously you don't read graphs or words!

    Lastly the final graph is not HadCRUT data and was an example of the absolute rubbish you were posting. As I said in the very same post where I presented the graph "Is it real? There's as much reason to think that it's real of as your graph - which is to say precisely none." But apparently even though I directly told you there was no reason to think the graph was real.... you went ahead and thought the graph was real anyway. Why you did so I have no idea, but then again I've given up on trying to figure out how your brain works.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    Since none of the HadCRUT graphs come close to the IPCC graph you originally posted, what was your point in posting any of them?  Are you now saying your original IPCC graph was wrong?
  • CYDdharta said:
    Since none of the HadCRUT graphs come close to the IPCC graph you originally posted, what was your point in posting any of them?  Are you now saying your original IPCC graph was wrong?

    For graph 4 if you read the notes on the methodology I gave, I specifically mentioned it had been smoothed (and hence would display a little differently) but obviously you don't read graphs or words!
    HAHAHAHA, you really don't read anything!

    Plus at this point, why would I give any credence to your unsupported take on the way a genuinely fairly complicated graph has been displayed when you've shown you can't handle even the most basic aspects fo looking at and analysing ordinary line graphs?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect Oh, so the IPCC graph is fake, got it.  But why did you start out the debate with a fake graph?
  • CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect Oh, so the IPCC graph is fake, got it.  But why did you start out the debate with a fake graph?
    Daaawwwww, so cute! The person who fails at even the most basic aspects of reading a graph thinks he's qualified try and talk about a well known statistical technique for displaying data and because he doesn't understand anything he thinks it's fake!


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    edited July 11
    @AlwaysCorrect LOL, If you think


    Looks anything like


    You really need to seek professional help
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 157 Pts
    edited July 11
    At this point I can basically just reply with quotes because you don't have anything new and have already shown you can't read even the most basic graphs.

    CYDdharta said:
    Since none of the HadCRUT graphs come close to the IPCC graph you originally posted, what was your point in posting any of them?  Are you now saying your original IPCC graph was wrong?

    For graph 4 if you read the notes on the methodology I gave, I specifically mentioned it had been smoothed (and hence would display a little differently) but obviously you don't read graphs or words!
    HAHAHAHA, you really don't read anything!

    Plus at this point, why would I give any credence to your unsupported take on the way a genuinely fairly complicated graph has been displayed when you've shown you can't handle even the most basic aspects fo looking at and analysing ordinary line graphs?

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect As can I

    CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect LOL, If you think


    Looks anything like


    You really need to seek professional help

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    And the battle of graphs is coming along nicely  I see.


    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    It isn't the battle of the graphs anymore.  Now it's just the battle of AlwaysCorrect's graphs
  • @CYDdharta

    Well yeah, it was proven your graph was fake.

    Also should I take it that you don't have any comeback to the fact that the data was smoothed, it explicitly said so in the methodology and that this is a normal and respected technique?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect ; LOL, you haven't proven ANYTHING.  When you post data from a different dataset, guess what?  It's going to be a bit different.

    But at least you've admitted your original IPCC graph is fake.
  • @CYDdharta

    It's the same dataset, you just can't read graphs :)

    Also you are pretty illiterate because I was making fun of you for thinking the graph was fake, not saying that the graph is fake.

    If your entire argument boils down to making imaginary conversations in your head because you can't handle reality, guess that shows how out of touch with the real world climate change deniers are :p
    Erfisflat
  • It seems that the arguments being made so far are asking the extent of the issues presented by anthropogenic climate change. While @CYDharta seems to be under the assumption that there is no actual model to quantify the change in the environment, there actually is a general principle used to determine the full extent of damages due to C02 emissions referred to as the “Social Cost of Carbon.”

                    This principle is explained by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago when writing for Forbes in February of 2017, (this year,) as “the cost to society of emitting an extra ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.” The current cost is $36 per ton, which includes medical costs, loss of workplace activity due to abnormally warm weather, and healthcare as the country gradually becomes warmer leading to more deaths (1). The cost isn’t marginal either, there is real potential for damage to the livelihood of people, even in the developed world. A team of scientists, including Princeton professor Albert G. Milbank, Ph.D. student at the Princeton Environmental Institute DJ Rasmussen, and Robert Krop of Rutgers University published a report to the scholarly journal “Science” concluding that while the US will lose about .7% of the GDP for every one-degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures, southern states like Arizona and Texas can lose upwards of 10-20% of their GDP. All the while, the poorest third of countries are determined to be hit the hardest as unequal access to resources like air conditioning and states needing to spend more to protect their coastlines from flooding due to sea level rise and to mitigate the impacts on energy and agriculture projects that would be adversely impacted due to climate change (2). The vast array of calculated costs to US citizens and to the global community outweigh costs in the short term. After all, these projections could happen as quickly as 2080 and we are already feeling the effects of climate change now. The Guardian explains on March of 2014 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offered a report as to the direct effects that climate change would have on crop yields – and determined that there is already evidence showing that the problem exists now, and that by 2050 wheat prices could raise anywhere from 3%-84% (3). While this will certainly impact the US, the rest of the globe will also have to deal with these impacts, regardless of GDP and economic growth, generally harming the poorest of nations even more than the destruction of the labor force because of rising global temperatures. This mean that countries in sub-Saharan Africa, already struggling with energy production and projects as the energy grid fails constantly, leading to black outs and brown outs, will have to face the even higher temperatures while many can’t even afford air conditioning. If the US is to continue to enjoy food security and protect its citizens from certain danger as laid out in the Social Contract between the government and the people, then the government needs to prioritize the fight against climate change.

                    As for the cost that seems to be too high for some posters on the site, understand that the cost of fighting climate change isn’t as inordinate as expected. The US Energy and Employment report from the Department of Energy in 2017 shows the raw numbers behind the amount of people employed in each sector of energy, showing that the solar energy industry employs more people than natural gas, oil, and the coal industry combined when looking at energy production (4). Data seems to indicate that green energy can exceed that of fossil fuels through job growth, which limits the cost to the government. As more people are employed in green energy jobs due to government incentives, we will see more tax revenue flow into the government from payroll and income tax. While there is no guarantee that we will see these effects right away, a gradual shift to green energy will certainly have positive long-lasting benefits economically as far as job growth is concerned. The benefits don’t end with the economy either. By adopting policies that fight climate change, we also gain leverage with the international community to pursue foreign policy goals. The US seems to disregard the international community which challenges global leadership and US hegemony in possibly unrelated international disputes such as the ones currently surrounding the South China Sea. This has become incredibly evident with the creation of the EU-Chinese agreement that formed which outright excluded the US from the proceedings and a détente in trading relations, as reported by Bloomberg in March of 2017 (5). While this budding relationship is rocky at best due to past trading dilemmas, the emergence of a trade deal does harm international clout and damage the image of the US, as the EU is shown to be willing to trade with China over the US. This came at the end of the Trump administration’s decision to remove itself from the Paris Climate Accords, which drew much ire from the international community, especially from German prime minister Angela Merkel, who sarcastically pointed out that Trump “even made a contribution,” (6). The implication of course being that it was unexpected that Trump would want to cooperate with the international community at large. This sort of frosty relationship, especially with countries in NATO represents a drift away from the international community which could harm US foreign policy goals and our stance in the UN. Thus, working internationally to combat climate change has a reward foreign policy-wise as well as economically. Thus, when others point out the “trillions of dollars” needed to be spent to protect the environment, it seems that the best policy would be to pursue that sort of policy goal.

                    Of course, the US can’t do this alone, and international agreements like the Paris Agreement which aren’t entirely binding legally seem to be the way to go. However, gradual change in our policies regarding climate change by increasing focus on alternative energy would be the best possible option to guarantee some relief from the painful effects of climate change. However, the cost to the economy, US citizens, the rest of the globe, and international influence and prestige of the US is harmed, clearly the fight against climate change is justified and necessary.

    1. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2017/02/01/the-200-billion-fossil-fuel-subsidy-youve-never-heard-of/#25c25666652b)
    2. (https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/06/29/climate-change-damage-us-economy-increase-inequality)
    3. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-supply-un)
    4.(https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf) page 29-30
    5. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-19/-america-first-trump-play-opens-door-for-eu-china-trade-detente)
    6 (http://www.newsweek.com/merkel-trump-climate-change-g20-633604)


    AlwaysCorrect
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect ; LOL, the guy who doesn't know who to read a graph says I don't know how to read a graph, ROFLMAO.  Why don't you just post yet another graph that shows something completely different to "prove" your point?  There are plenty more out there.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts
    @blamonkey ...but your general principle relies on the climate models that don't work.
  • @CYDdharta

    Sure, climate models can be flawed in certain circumstances, but the people studying using these models know that, and show that it is not as flawed as you seem to think. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group set up by member nations of the UN to research the effects of climate change, have published reports on this topic before to address the concerns behind climate skeptics by showing adequate reason to believe that the climate models are still decent at predicting climate change. They offer three basic premises that make their data compelling, and accurate. The models created rely on already tested and established physical laws i.e. the law of conservation of mass, energy and momentum, as well as many observations. Second, the models used are regularly tested against current climate conditions to see if they are accurate under the status quo. This means that the regular movement of monsoon systems, storm tracks, and regional weather can all be accurately predicted by these climate models within the margin of error. Finally, the climate models have been able to simulate ancient climates including the pattern of ocean cooling since the last ice age from thousands of years ago. So where does the problem lie in climate modeling? The report indicates that it is mostly on the small scale that these models tend to be flawed. “Important small-scale processes sometimes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and have to be included in an approximate form,” the report explains. The problems related to large scale models usually relate to lack of understanding or in the availability of the data in physical processes, which do cause issues in the representation of clouds and their responses to climate change. However, regional models and smaller scale ones have been perfected to only simulate the climate in a certain region. Also, global models have been improving year by year and becoming incredibly useful when discussing climate change, and it doesn’t seem to matter what model you use, as the increase in global temperatures is a unanimous trend for all the models used (1). Thus, all my impacts related to the climate still stand. Regardless of the flaws of the models, they have been able to produce accurate results in the past for the effects of climate change and have predicted climate and weather events as well. Or, as the summary from the website put it:

    ” Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Thus, the conclusions of my previous contentions in relation to the impact of climate change is sound.

    Second, I am going to address my dropped points. Specifically, the loss of US hegemony still stands. As the US leaves the EU and much of the western world behind to pursue its own agenda, countries like China fill in the influence gap we leave behind, undermining our ability to negotiate foreign policy with the support of our allies. Also, there is little debate over the amount of jobs created by alternative energy, as I have shown. These 2 points are not related to the destruction of the environment whatsoever, and as far as the US is concerned, both need to be prioritized anyway. The international community seems to be united against the United States’ current administration. This couldn’t be shown more specifically than the immigration bans recently put in place. Reuters reports in January of this year when the original executive order was passed, as ire was expressed by not just Angela Merkel, the prime minister of Germany who found that it violated the Geneva Convention on Refugees, (not the one on wartime behavior, to be clear,) that prevented a country from discriminating against refugees’ due to ethnicity or nationality. The French Foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, Boris Johnson of Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and many other allies as well criticized the order (2). This outrage from the international community doesn’t just stem with that decision either. Past comments about the uselessness of NATO, alleged Russian involvement in the election of Trump, and a somewhat divisive tone during and after the campaigning has resulted in much of the same outrage from the community. The adoption of the Paris Climate Accords would have been the very least the US could have done to secure a lasting relationship with the west, but as it stands, the US now must fight an uphill battle to regain global hegemony, but by adopting the Paris Accords or making some sort of progress to fight climate change, we do regain international clout.

    At the end of the day, the US would still reap more benefits from fighting climate change since the argument regarding the flaws in the climate models does not hold up under scrutiny, and my other contentions are dropped.



    1. (https://aamboceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanservice-prod/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf)
    2. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-reaction-idUSKBN15D0QM)



  • CYDdharta said:
    @AlwaysCorrect ; LOL, the guy who doesn't know who to read a graph says I don't know how to read a graph, ROFLMAO.  Why don't you just post yet another graph that shows something completely different to "prove" your point?  There are plenty more out there.
    Well I guess at this point I can write you off entirely. If you do change your mind and any point wants to respond to the arguments made in good faith and either concede or try and actually rebut the arguments showing how incredibly wrong you are, feel free. Otherwise if your argument is going to stay at this childish level of just claiming you're right because you say you are, responding to you only seems like it would be a waste of time.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts

    blamonkey said:
    @CYDdharta

    Sure, climate models can be flawed in certain circumstances, but the people studying using these models know that, and show that it is not as flawed as you seem to think. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group set up by member nations of the UN to research the effects of climate change, have published reports on this topic before to address the concerns behind climate skeptics by showing adequate reason to believe that the climate models are still decent at predicting climate change. They offer three basic premises that make their data compelling, and accurate. The models created rely on already tested and established physical laws i.e. the law of conservation of mass, energy and momentum, as well as many observations. Second, the models used are regularly tested against current climate conditions to see if they are accurate under the status quo. This means that the regular movement of monsoon systems, storm tracks, and regional weather can all be accurately predicted by these climate models within the margin of error. Finally, the climate models have been able to simulate ancient climates including the pattern of ocean cooling since the last ice age from thousands of years ago. So where does the problem lie in climate modeling? The report indicates that it is mostly on the small scale that these models tend to be flawed. “Important small-scale processes sometimes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and have to be included in an approximate form,” the report explains. The problems related to large scale models usually relate to lack of understanding or in the availability of the data in physical processes, which do cause issues in the representation of clouds and their responses to climate change. However, regional models and smaller scale ones have been perfected to only simulate the climate in a certain region. Also, global models have been improving year by year and becoming incredibly useful when discussing climate change, and it doesn’t seem to matter what model you use, as the increase in global temperatures is a unanimous trend for all the models used (1). Thus, all my impacts related to the climate still stand. Regardless of the flaws of the models, they have been able to produce accurate results in the past for the effects of climate change and have predicted climate and weather events as well. Or, as the summary from the website put it:

    ” Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Thus, the conclusions of my previous contentions in relation to the impact of climate change is sound.


    @blamonkey I've already gone over the inaccuracy of the IPCC models, so there's no need for me go over it again. If you want to believe it, that's up to you.  But If you had hired a financial planner who's projections deviated so far from reality and were getting worse, you'd fire him, unless you were trying to put your money to sleep or lose it.
    Second, I am going to address my dropped points. Specifically, the loss of US hegemony still stands. As the US leaves the EU and much of the western world behind to pursue its own agenda, countries like China fill in the influence gap we leave behind, undermining our ability to negotiate foreign policy with the support of our allies. Also, there is little debate over the amount of jobs created by alternative energy, as I have shown. These 2 points are not related to the destruction of the environment whatsoever, and as far as the US is concerned, both need to be prioritized anyway. The international community seems to be united against the United States’ current administration. This couldn’t be shown more specifically than the immigration bans recently put in place. Reuters reports in January of this year when the original executive order was passed, as ire was expressed by not just Angela Merkel, the prime minister of Germany who found that it violated the Geneva Convention on Refugees, (not the one on wartime behavior, to be clear,) that prevented a country from discriminating against refugees’ due to ethnicity or nationality. The French Foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, Boris Johnson of Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and many other allies as well criticized the order (2). This outrage from the international community doesn’t just stem with that decision either. Past comments about the uselessness of NATO, alleged Russian involvement in the election of Trump, and a somewhat divisive tone during and after the campaigning has resulted in much of the same outrage from the community. The adoption of the Paris Climate Accords would have been the very least the US could have done to secure a lasting relationship with the west, but as it stands, the US now must fight an uphill battle to regain global hegemony, but by adopting the Paris Accords or making some sort of progress to fight climate change, we do regain international clout.

    At the end of the day, the US would still reap more benefits from fighting climate change since the argument regarding the flaws in the climate models does not hold up under scrutiny, and my other contentions are dropped.



    1. (https://aamboceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanservice-prod/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf)
    2. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-reaction-idUSKBN15D0QM)




    Open borders policies, the Paris Accords, etc.; they don't give the US clout, they just give us bragging rights.  The only thing that gives us clout is the military and the economy.  Keeping sea lanes open for trade or shutting them down (as in illicit tech transfers to rogue nations), being able to respond internationally to humanitarian crises, bartering through foreign aid; those are the things that give the US clout.  As long as we have a strong military and a strong economy, our clout will never dissipate.
    blamonkey
  • @CYDdharta

    First and foremost, I am going to respond the accusations of the faulty climate model that my opponent seems to imply. In his original response, he cited the Hoover Institution’s argument regarding the accuracy of predictions between 1998 and 2014. The data further claimed that warming was exaggerated to the point where it is impossible to tell the actual effect that humans have on climate change. However, even the data admitted that, “Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring…” So obviously the actual determination from the report that was made was simply that predictions were wildly overstated. These opinions were aired before after the supposed failure of these models, but significant misinformation has been spread in the past that has led to people not understanding what these models determine and how they are used. The Guardian in October of 2013 refutes these claims by listing the issues that naysayers seem to be focused on. First, the flaws that the Hoover Institute pointed out the problems in pinpoint accuracy from 1998 to 2014 may be technically correct, but nevertheless the claim leaves out important data that must be shown. The idea that serious miscalculation had occurred is simply not backed up by facts, since the deviation was never from a definite prediction, but a projection of future possibilities. There are infinite climate possibilities under different conditions that could occur, so the scientists are forced to make projections which says under situation ‘x,’ ‘y’ will occur. These projections are used from multiple sources including NOAA, NASA, and UK Hadley data and then an average trend is drawn from all the data provided. Differentiation from the average trend shown was almost guaranteed to happen, but in the graph, that was already shown, the reality of temperature change was also falling in the shaded region of predictions, proving that the predictions were still accurate. This is especially commendable when you observe climate conditions at the time between 1998 and 2014 that occurred could have easily thrown off any scientist with adverse weather conditions that occurred at the time, including the strongest El Nino events that has ever occurred in the 20th century. These ideas are not just being proposed by The Guardian, but Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Institute for Space Studies as well as his co-authors Drew T. Shindell and Kostas Tsigaridis shows that short term climate activity has led to a problem of predicting climate change in the short term since in these time periods, changes in volcanic activity, solar output increases, and the El Nino have drastic effects on the Earth’s temperature but may not paint a full picture (3). In fact, selecting another 15-year period from 1992 to 2006 shows the opposite effect occurring, as the warming trend was shown to occur 50% faster than the multi-model average. Finally, understand that in the long term, for larger periods of time, these predictions are accurate, as from 1951-2012 data matches observed data from the time as the 2013 IPCC report pointed out (1).


    IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).

    I will not turn this into a graph fight, just thought I would show exactly what the graph shows by including text that would explain it so no one would accuse each-other of fallacy.

    I hate to cite the same publication twice, especially when it is literally an interview about a report I can’t get access to since it requires money, but The Guardian also in July of 2015 that previous estimates from the IPCC were 38% more accurate and closer to observed temperatures when compared to HadCRUT4, this is because the IPCC estimates accounted for air temperatures over land and the temperature of the ocean as well. Author of the study Kevin Cowtan tells The Guardian that:

    “We have highlighted the fact that the planet does not warm uniformly. Air temperatures warm faster than the oceans, air temperatures over land warm faster than global air temperatures…”

    “The model projections (IPCC) have generally reported global air temperatures. That’s quite helpful, because we generally live in the air rather than the water. The observations, by mixing air and water temperatures, are expected to slightly underestimate the warming of the atmosphere.”

    To summarize the findings of the study:

    “When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.”

    “…when doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between modeled global temperature simulations and observations is 38% smaller than previous estimates.” (2)

    So, with increasing understanding of the previous issues had with projections as far as the data collected and the existence of climate activity in the short term that skews objective perspectives, my points still stand.

                    Second, allow me to go over the points in relation to global hegemony and how it is related to action to fight climate change. Although my opponent seems to imply that the decision made by Trump to ban people from Muslim majority countries to enter the US for 90 days is simply the opposite of “open borders,” this isn’t accurate at all. The decision he made wasn’t a blasphemy to the international community because it wasn’t an open border policy, but because of the violation of international law and the idea projected that the US would not accommodate those from other cultures, ethnicities, or nationality. The Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, which we signed onto, made member nations accept all refugees without discrimination. Or, as Article III of the agreement details:

    “The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.” (4)

     The violation of international law, regardless of what nation you are, shows the inability to cooperate and does warrant distrust from the international community. This is the same reason that China, North Korea, and other Western rivals are not accepted at large by the international community and in fact sanctioned when they take military action against other nations, such as the annexation of Crimea, the pro-Russia insurgency in Ukraine, North Korea’s nuclear program, China’s 9-dash line claim on the South China Sea, Uganda’s laws that arrest those who are homosexual, and many others that have nothing to do with military action, but are nonetheless repressive or undemocratic. If the international community didn’t respond with sanctions, it was distaste and anger, further isolating these countries from the rest of the world. While isolation for expressing dissent does not seem likely now, it is becoming incredibly obvious that my opponent’s ideas that a strong economy and military being all that is needed to maintain global hegemony and a benefit to the global community is fundamentally flawed. Trump’s behavior at the G20 summit of international powers demonstrates this perfectly. Reuters in July of this year, literally 5 days ago, recounts the isolation that was evident toward Trump the entire meeting, as the US stood alone on issues of climate and trade and was unwilling to negotiate.

    "In the end, the negotiations on climate reflect dissent – all against the United States of America," Merkel told reporters at the end of the meeting.

     

    "And the fact that negotiations on trade were extraordinarily difficult is due to specific positions that the United States has taken." (5)

    The massive demonstration in Hamburg, Germany also represents the amount of hate that the current administration receives worldwide through unilateral policies that are excluding the rest of the globe. Extend my argument as well as the emerging China-EU trade, despite opposition in some circumstances, and the message it sends to the US about the future of international trade. Even when some international action is justified, such as the monopoly that China has on steel and the propping up of the North Korean government leading to sanctions on Chinese firms, also shows the US as a country that will not compromise or value its international promises through the Paris Accords or as a large carbon emitter as determined by World Bank data (6). While the amount of emissions has declined recently, the regulations put in place by the Obama administration have been rolled back by the Trump administration, which will likely allow more burning of fossil fuels and thus C02 in the atmosphere. Of course, this isn’t even mentioning the collusion accusations that have hurt the US image abroad. The recent revelations of the e-mail chain tweeted by Trump Jr. has not helped either. The Business Insider on July 12, 2017 has reported on this, showing that Trump Jr. did receive an e-mail through a Russian contact that promised compromising info on Hilary and that the information is “sensitive,” “high-level,” and “…part of Russia and its government's support Mr. Trump…” (7). Regardless of the ideas behind collusion between the Trump administration and Russia, it does not look good to our allies when this type of evidence exists of a Trump-Russia relationship. The West has never supported the dangerous policies of Putin, and further evidence suggesting an alliance with him will prove detrimental to our allies as Putin ramps up his human rights abuses against Russian people for expressing dissent, fostering homophobic sentiment through its penal code and through open hostility, and siding with the Assad regime in the Syrian conflict. Thus, it makes sense for countries like Germany and Britain to not support our agenda on the international level. Also, my opponent’s assertion that humanitarian help improves relations may be true, but given the recent decisions of the Trump administration, we will lose that avenue of fostering positive American sentiment. Trump’s budget proposal included massive cuts of nearly 30% in aid to foreign nations like those in Africa, which, according to Newsweek in May of 2017, was partially used to fight Ebola in Sub-Saharan Africa. The article goes on to show that terror nations linked to Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram also have a hold on the region, which could potentially grow bigger if recruitment were to occur with limited economic opportunity, as explained by an African Development Bank Chief (8). Even if this is not true, the stability of Africa might still be impacted, so humanitarian aid contributions decreasing also hurts the international image, as even conceded by my opponent.

    Also, extend the economic benefits of job growth due to increased jobs in alternative energy to fight climate change.

    Finally, let’s understand exactly what my opponent has stated at the beginning of the debate in response to another user claiming that the real question would be the cost of remediation in fighting climate change

    “That is the real question, but in order to answer it we need much more information.  How can we determine the benefit if we don't really understand the processes that are in effect?  We need to have a working model that accurately and dependably conveys how the climate will change, what effects it, and how it will be affected.  Right now, we have half a dozen models and the only thing reliable about any of them is that their predictions will be wrong.”

    Well, under the Social Cost of Carbon I have provided in my first response we do know that there is a serious cost to people when C02 is emitted, and we also know that the models are not as flawed as my opponent makes them out to be and are in fact quite accurate. Look to my second response about how these models have accurately predicted climate patterns in the past, how these models are accurate in the long term, how these projections are still accurate regardless of differing from the average of all the models used, and how certain factors such as the El Nino and volcanic activity means that the 15-year period that my opponent uses to refute the accuracy of the IPCC models falls. Furthermore, in the context of this debate my opponent wanted definite harms of global warming, I offered them in my first response and his only response was that the models were flawed. Since I adequately responded to this point, my impacts still stand. The cost of remediation is thus justified and something that the US should actively pursue.

    1. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate)
    2. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought)
    3. (http://tinyurl.com/yc6bjv6a) The original link was over 400 characters long, so I figured I would shorten it for you.
    4. (http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10) Page 17 of the report
    5. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-communique-idUSKBN19T07P)
    6. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC)
    7. (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-email-chain-russia-hoax-2017-7)
    8. (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-budget-us-foreign-aid-africa-613413)

     

     

     

     

     

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts

    blamonkey said:
    @CYDdharta

    First and foremost, I am going to respond the accusations of the faulty climate model that my opponent seems to imply. In his original response, he cited the Hoover Institution’s argument regarding the accuracy of predictions between 1998 and 2014. The data further claimed that warming was exaggerated to the point where it is impossible to tell the actual effect that humans have on climate change. However, even the data admitted that, “Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring…” So obviously the actual determination from the report that was made was simply that predictions were wildly overstated. These opinions were aired before after the supposed failure of these models, but significant misinformation has been spread in the past that has led to people not understanding what these models determine and how they are used. The Guardian in October of 2013 refutes these claims by listing the issues that naysayers seem to be focused on. First, the flaws that the Hoover Institute pointed out the problems in pinpoint accuracy from 1998 to 2014 may be technically correct, but nevertheless the claim leaves out important data that must be shown. The idea that serious miscalculation had occurred is simply not backed up by facts, since the deviation was never from a definite prediction, but a projection of future possibilities. There are infinite climate possibilities under different conditions that could occur, so the scientists are forced to make projections which says under situation ‘x,’ ‘y’ will occur. These projections are used from multiple sources including NOAA, NASA, and UK Hadley data and then an average trend is drawn from all the data provided. Differentiation from the average trend shown was almost guaranteed to happen, but in the graph, that was already shown, the reality of temperature change was also falling in the shaded region of predictions, proving that the predictions were still accurate. This is especially commendable when you observe climate conditions at the time between 1998 and 2014 that occurred could have easily thrown off any scientist with adverse weather conditions that occurred at the time, including the strongest El Nino events that has ever occurred in the 20th century. These ideas are not just being proposed by The Guardian, but Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Institute for Space Studies as well as his co-authors Drew T. Shindell and Kostas Tsigaridis shows that short term climate activity has led to a problem of predicting climate change in the short term since in these time periods, changes in volcanic activity, solar output increases, and the El Nino have drastic effects on the Earth’s temperature but may not paint a full picture (3). In fact, selecting another 15-year period from 1992 to 2006 shows the opposite effect occurring, as the warming trend was shown to occur 50% faster than the multi-model average. Finally, understand that in the long term, for larger periods of time, these predictions are accurate, as from 1951-2012 data matches observed data from the time as the 2013 IPCC report pointed out (1).


    IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).

    I will not turn this into a graph fight, just thought I would show exactly what the graph shows by including text that would explain it so no one would accuse each-other of fallacy.

    I hate to cite the same publication twice, especially when it is literally an interview about a report I can’t get access to since it requires money, but The Guardian also in July of 2015 that previous estimates from the IPCC were 38% more accurate and closer to observed temperatures when compared to HadCRUT4, this is because the IPCC estimates accounted for air temperatures over land and the temperature of the ocean as well. Author of the study Kevin Cowtan tells The Guardian that:

    “We have highlighted the fact that the planet does not warm uniformly. Air temperatures warm faster than the oceans, air temperatures over land warm faster than global air temperatures…”

    “The model projections (IPCC) have generally reported global air temperatures. That’s quite helpful, because we generally live in the air rather than the water. The observations, by mixing air and water temperatures, are expected to slightly underestimate the warming of the atmosphere.”

    To summarize the findings of the study:

    “When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.”

    “…when doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between modeled global temperature simulations and observations is 38% smaller than previous estimates.” (2)

    So, with increasing understanding of the previous issues had with projections as far as the data collected and the existence of climate activity in the short term that skews objective perspectives, my points still stand.


    To sum up your position, the models are accurate because the proponents of the theory of global warming say they are accurate. I don’t need proponents and experts to try to explain away errors that anyone who can read a graph can see with their own eyes. The problem is that the models are not correcting to represent reality, they’re continuing to deviate farther from actual observations. When the spaghetti lines of the models are plotted as a linear temperature trend, the problem becomes quite obvious.


    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/

    Second, allow me to go over the points in relation to global hegemony and how it is related to action to fight climate change. Although my opponent seems to imply that the decision made by Trump to ban people from Muslim majority countries to enter the US for 90 days is simply the opposite of “open borders,” this isn’t accurate at all. The decision he made wasn’t a blasphemy to the international community because it wasn’t an open border policy, but because of the violation of international law and the idea projected that the US would not accommodate those from other cultures, ethnicities, or nationality. The Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, which we signed onto, made member nations accept all refugees without discrimination. Or, as Article III of the agreement details:

    “The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.” (4)

     The violation of international law, regardless of what nation you are, shows the inability to cooperate and does warrant distrust from the international community. This is the same reason that China, North Korea, and other Western rivals are not accepted at large by the international community and in fact sanctioned when they take military action against other nations, such as the annexation of Crimea, the pro-Russia insurgency in Ukraine, North Korea’s nuclear program, China’s 9-dash line claim on the South China Sea, Uganda’s laws that arrest those who are homosexual, and many others that have nothing to do with military action, but are nonetheless repressive or undemocratic. If the international community didn’t respond with sanctions, it was distaste and anger, further isolating these countries from the rest of the world. While isolation for expressing dissent does not seem likely now, it is becoming incredibly obvious that my opponent’s ideas that a strong economy and military being all that is needed to maintain global hegemony and a benefit to the global community is fundamentally flawed. Trump’s behavior at the G20 summit of international powers demonstrates this perfectly. Reuters in July of this year, literally 5 days ago, recounts the isolation that was evident toward Trump the entire meeting, as the US stood alone on issues of climate and trade and was unwilling to negotiate. "In the end, the negotiations on climate reflect dissent – all against the United States of America," Merkel told reporters at the end of the meeting.   "And the fact that negotiations on trade were extraordinarily difficult is due to specific positions that the United States has taken." (5) The massive demonstration in Hamburg, Germany also represents the amount of hate that the current administration receives worldwide through unilateral policies that are excluding the rest of the globe. Extend my argument as well as the emerging China-EU trade, despite opposition in some circumstances, and the message it sends to the US about the future of international trade. Even when some international action is justified, such as the monopoly that China has on steel and the propping up of the North Korean government leading to sanctions on Chinese firms, also shows the US as a country that will not compromise or value its international promises through the Paris Accords or as a large carbon emitter as determined by World Bank data (6). While the amount of emissions has declined recently, the regulations put in place by the Obama administration have been rolled back by the Trump administration, which will likely allow more burning of fossil fuels and thus C02 in the atmosphere. Of course, this isn’t even mentioning the collusion accusations that have hurt the US image abroad. The recent revelations of the e-mail chain tweeted by Trump Jr. has not helped either. The Business Insider on July 12, 2017 has reported on this, showing that Trump Jr. did receive an e-mail through a Russian contact that promised compromising info on Hilary and that the information is “sensitive,” “high-level,” and “…part of Russia and its government's support Mr. Trump…” (7). Regardless of the ideas behind collusion between the Trump administration and Russia, it does not look good to our allies when this type of evidence exists of a Trump-Russia relationship. The West has never supported the dangerous policies of Putin, and further evidence suggesting an alliance with him will prove detrimental to our allies as Putin ramps up his human rights abuses against Russian people for expressing dissent, fostering homophobic sentiment through its penal code and through open hostility, and siding with the Assad regime in the Syrian conflict. Thus, it makes sense for countries like Germany and Britain to not support our agenda on the international level. Also, my opponent’s assertion that humanitarian help improves relations may be true, but given the recent decisions of the Trump administration, we will lose that avenue of fostering positive American sentiment. Trump’s budget proposal included massive cuts of nearly 30% in aid to foreign nations like those in Africa, which, according to Newsweek in May of 2017, was partially used to fight Ebola in Sub-Saharan Africa. The article goes on to show that terror nations linked to Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram also have a hold on the region, which could potentially grow bigger if recruitment were to occur with limited economic opportunity, as explained by an African Development Bank Chief (8). Even if this is not true, the stability of Africa might still be impacted, so humanitarian aid contributions decreasing also hurts the international image, as even conceded by my opponent. Also, extend the economic benefits of job growth due to increased jobs in alternative energy to fight climate change. Finally, let’s understand exactly what my opponent has stated at the beginning of the debate in response to another user claiming that the real question would be the cost of remediation in fighting climate change “That is the real question, but in order to answer it we need much more information.  How can we determine the benefit if we don't really understand the processes that are in effect?  We need to have a working model that accurately and dependably conveys how the climate will change, what effects it, and how it will be affected.  Right now, we have half a dozen models and the only thing reliable about any of them is that their predictions will be wrong.” Well, under the Social Cost of Carbon I have provided in my first response we do know that there is a serious cost to people when C02 is emitted, and we also know that the models are not as flawed as my opponent makes them out to be and are in fact quite accurate. Look to my second response about how these models have accurately predicted climate patterns in the past, how these models are accurate in the long term, how these projections are still accurate regardless of differing from the average of all the models used, and how certain factors such as the El Nino and volcanic activity means that the 15-year period that my opponent uses to refute the accuracy of the IPCC models falls. Furthermore, in the context of this debate my opponent wanted definite harms of global warming, I offered them in my first response and his only response was that the models were flawed. Since I adequately responded to this point, my impacts still stand. The cost of remediation is thus justified and something that the US should actively pursue. 1. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate)
    2. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought)
    3. (http://tinyurl.com/yc6bjv6a) The original link was over 400 characters long, so I figured I would shorten it for you.
    4. (http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10) Page 17 of the report
    5. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-communique-idUSKBN19T07P)
    6. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC)
    7. (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-email-chain-russia-hoax-2017-7)
    8. (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-budget-us-foreign-aid-africa-613413)

    The 90-day travel ban certainly does NOT violate Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, particularly since the purpose of that ban is to facilitate proper vetting of the potential refugees.

    The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there  are serious reasons for considering that:

    (a)  He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; (b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his  admission to that country as a refugee; (c)   He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. 
    http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/exclusion-clause

    There is very little difference between advocating an open borders policy and advocating for the admittance of refugees who haven’t been properly vetted.

    As far as ties to Russia go, certainly our allies feel a lot better with Trump, who’s ties have been thoroughly investigated and have turned up nothing but a clumsily attempted frame versus Hillary’s extensive ties to the Kremlin. Who can forget Hillary’s presenting Lavrov with a big red “reset: button, explaining that “our goal is to help strengthen Russia”. Not long after that, she helped sell 20% of US uranium rights to the Russians after Bill Clinton gave a speech to the Russians for $500,000 and after the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in donations from Russian oligarchs. That’s not to mention the $35 million Hillary’s chief-of-staff received from Russia, or the $24 million received buy the firm of John’s son Tony.

    In so far as Africa goes, they are already unstable. They are already a breeding ground for extremist groups and a major point for al Qaeda recruitment. All the money we’ve spent there in aid hasn’t stopped that at all. Our only alternative is military, so it makes sense to cut some money for aid, which hasn’t been working, so we can boost defense. But that just proves my original contention that there are only two ways to influence nations, either with money or guns. Things like Obama signing the Paris Climate treaty have very little real affect. That also provides an important lesson; that in a democracy, when a president acts unilaterally, as Obama did, the affects are often fleeting. If Obama had had the treaty ratified in the Senate, Trump wouldn’t have been able to pull the US out of it. Since Obama took the easy way, performing linguistic gymnastics to redefine a treaty as something other than a treaty so he could bypass the Senate as required by the Constitution, US participation in the Paris Climate treaty was always in doubt. If Trump hadn’t pulled the US out of it, there is every reason to believe it wouldn’t have survived a court challenge.

    As for the social costs of carbon, I believe their calculations are pretty far off. Electricity in the UK costs almost twice as much as the US, Germany almost 3 times as much. Then there’s the cost of the waste produced by “green” energy. For instance, solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. That toxic waste has to be transported to special facilities, sometimes on the other side of the country. Combine that with questions about the actual affects of CO2 on the environment, and the calculus of the social costs of carbon are questionable.


  • @CYDHarta

    I’ll go over the arguments made in order.

    R1: IPCC models

    My opponent seems to believe that all my data comes from the proponents of climate change and thus should be discredited. It is hard to find people who do not support climate change who are willing to defend the IPCC models, but regardless, I simply provided context from you claims that still stand. Yes, the models differ, but that can be attributed to other things besides wild inaccuracies, such as the change in the short-term weather conditions that affect the projections accuracy. Volcanic activity, the El Nino and other such events alter predictions, and means that when you take a brief period of time, say 15 years, you will see wild differences in predictions. However, even with the differences from the average, the mean of how fast climate change occurs from multiple models, we see that typically, the conditions fall in the predicted projections. Yes, climate change research is not an exact science, and there are differences in projections. But it is helpful to remember that over the long term, these models have not only seen a trend in the increase of global temperatures, but weather is completely different than climate. Climate refers to long term changes over the entirety of Earth’s climate, while weather refers to the day-to-day basis of the atmosphere.


    (1)

    This graph shows the models used for climate change that is used for the long term. Notice anything? The trend is followed more accurately. Thus, we can infer that short term atmospheric changes and volcanic activity plays a role in the short term, but over countless years in which these models are run, we see that they are accurate. Also, by showing the graph, he fails to consider the argument regarding what these models create, which are projections with many different possibilities since these models calculate the infinite amount of possibilities that exist with the Earth’s climate, not the definite rate at which climate warms. This is especially evident when my opponent shows that the actual result differs from the model average, which is in no way the claimed, definite path that the climate will follow. Also, the conclusion from the site used to refute me is that the models failed to consider a “tropical upper tropospheric” hot spot. This post was made in June of 2013, however, looking toward recent data means that this sort of hot spot was discovered eventually, meaning that the scientific community not only has proof that the troposphere is warming, but that the scientific community now has the information for future models. The University of New South Wales concluded this as late as May of 2015, and has since been explored by scientists (2). However, even before the conclusion of my opponent’s source was determined, scientists have already predicted this sort of warming in the troposphere. The Guardian reports in May of 2015 that scientists have predicted this for years, also:

    “In the case of the tropospheric temperatures, initially the models and experiments disagreed. Both were rechecked and scientists found the experiments were misinterpreted. When improved experiments were obtained, we see atmosphere temperature studies in agreement.”

    Thus, climate models have been able to observe these trends more recently. However, most problems in relation to uncertainty that is referenced in the graph may be due to simple errors in data. The US Climate Change Science Program, (coauthored by University of Alabama’s John Cristy,) that most of the differences between satellite data about the hot spot and the models is due to measurement uncertainty (4). This seems to conclude what The Guardian claimed about the hot spot rebuttal, that problems in uncertainty affected the experiments, which eventually matched the models.

     

    R2: Global Hegemony

    Much of the rebuttal is predicated on a fallacy, that there is no existence of a vetting system for refugees, or at least, an ineffective one. The process for refugees entering the country is quite rigorous and only a fraction of applicants is accepted. The US Department of State describes this process through the following process

    1.       Refugees who need protection look toward the UNHCR which collects initial documentation and biographical information of the applicant in question, and the documents are sent to the Department of State’s Resettlement Support Center (RSC).

    2.       Us national security organizations, such as the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the Department of State all screen the applicant, and if someone is from Syria, that person is screened even more stringently, using the data provided from the RSC as well as possible connections to bad actors, criminal records, immigrant records etc. This process is the most thorough of all checks made on travelers to the US.

    3.       Specially trained Department of Homeland Security officers review initial screening results, conduct in person interviews with people in the host country, and collect biometric data from all applicants. The information provided from the interview is confirmed by the info collected from the RSC and the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS). New interviews occur as additional information arises. Additional security checks occur are conducted with every inconsistency shown during the interview process.

    4.       The biometric data collected from the refugee is then checked against the FBI biometric database, the Homeland Security database, and the Department of Defense which includes international information, previous immigration encounters, and watch-list information. Any problematic case is denied.

    5.       Immigrants complete a class teaching them about American culture, customs and practices. A medical check is conducted and the results are entered in WRAPS.

    6.       Every week, representatives from each of the 9 resettlement agencies meet and review applicant information to determine where to resettle the refugee. Screening from the US Border Patrol and the TSA occurs before getting on the plane to the US.

    7.       Finally, the refugee arrives on US soil.

     

    This process is incredibly effective, as shown by the declining crime rate in cities with refugees. Robert Adelman of the University at Buffalo and Lesley Reid of the University of Alabama write for PBS in February of 2017 finding that studies across over 200 metropolitan areas have found that immigration has not actually increased crime, and in many cases, decreased it. In fact, this new study conducted corroborates the 20 years of data that supports the idea that immigration does not guarantee an increase in crime. While there are exceptions, the scientific research has been clear (6). Even the conservative CATO Institute found little reason to support the ban proposed by the Trump administration, as explained by The Independent in January of this year:

    “However, a Cato Institute study, “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis”, found little evidence to suggest this would be an effective policy.

    The report said the chance of being killed by a terrorist attack perpetrated by an illegal immigrant was one in 10.9 billion per year.

    The chance of being murdered by a tourist on the common B visa was 1 in 3.9 million per year, it added.” (7)

    The ban wouldn’t even target the nations in which the threat of a foreign terrorist is likely. CNBC explains earlier this year that:

    “Less than 10 percent of terrorist plots in the US from 2001 on involved suspects from the seven countries named in Trump's travel ban.” (8)
     

    Regardless of the effectiveness or necessity of the ban though, the basis that my opponent uses to justify that there is no violation of international law is that we are strengthening our national security. The logic doesn’t follow, though, because regardless of the purpose of the order, it violated the UN resolution that specified that a country can’t specify that certain nations could not send refugees. Also, what should be clear from the data provided is that the US is no safer with the ban, and the current system for allowing refugees is exhaustive. This also does not change the international reaction that was still hostile and angry at the US because of the decision. Also, the assumption that all refugees are violating the law is simply false, as evident from my data, so there is no justification under the article to prevent some from coming into the country. Especially since data concludes that the current system works.

    Hilary is a non-issue, she is not the president, and I never claimed to support her over Trump. At best, this point is not topical, because current ties still threaten the international community, especially with the release of the Trump Jr. e-mails over Twitter.

    Regardless of the effectiveness of the aid to Africa, the international ire is the point I am making. Since you conceded that there are serious repercussions to our decisions on international aid, you also must concede that getting rid of our aid to Africa and our humanitarian involvement has harmed our image, and we are still fighting the ire of the international community. Also, there is no guarantee that the aid sent to Africa will end up in the Defense budget, so there is no causal link to more military spending. Also, regardless of whether the SCOTUS could end up repealing a near universally accepted agreement means little as well. The fact that the US withdrew poses problems which I have shown.

    Regardless of the context of how the Climate Accords were signed, the international community is justified in wanting us to honor our commitments. They were angry over the Kyoto agreement when we withdrew, and they are angry here as well. This damages US hegemony as previously explained, through international isolation, which is something that my opponent has not addressed, as he only talked about whether the gripes about th

     

    R3: Social cost of carbon

    Regarding the problems with the cost of green energy, that is not the point I made. I explained that there is a tangible evidence that could give someone an actual price-tag on the costs to the people for every additional ton of C02 burned. This includes healthcare costs due to heatstroke, lost workplace productivity, issues in crop yield, and death. Your point about the problems with solar power and panels does not consider a few things. China is the country with this sort of problem due to relaxed regulations on energy production that allows people to dump the waste in bodies of waters, however in Europe and the US, there are existing regulations, and in Europe, there is a plan to reduce toxic chemicals released. The carbon footprint remains lower than that of factories that burn coal and fossil fuels (9). In fact, Livescience Magazine concludes that most of the harmful chemicals produced by solar panels are actually made during its production, not use, and has huge potential to decrease air pollution (10).

     

     In the context of this debate, my impacts still stand, and thus the topic is affirmed, the US needs to address the problem of human caused climate change.

     

    1. (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)
    2. (https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot)
    3. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere)
    4. (https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm)
    5. (https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/)
    6. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fact-check-immigration-doesnt-bring-crime-u-s-data-say/)
    7. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/refugee-terrorist-chances-of-killed-one-in-3-billion-donald-trump-immigration-ban-syria-yemen-libya-a7548151.html)
    8. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/29/most-us-terror-attackers-not-from-countries-targeted-by-trumps-travel-ban.html)
    9. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/)
    10. (https://www.livescience.com/2324-solar-power-greenhouse-emissions-measured.html)

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 203 Pts


    blamonkey said:
    @CYDHarta

    I’ll go over the arguments made in order.

    R1: IPCC models

    My opponent seems to believe that all my data comes from the proponents of climate change and thus should be discredited. It is hard to find people who do not support climate change who are willing to defend the IPCC models, but regardless, I simply provided context from you claims that still stand. Yes, the models differ, but that can be attributed to other things besides wild inaccuracies, such as the change in the short-term weather conditions that affect the projections accuracy. Volcanic activity, the El Nino and other such events alter predictions, and means that when you take a brief period of time, say 15 years, you will see wild differences in predictions. However, even with the differences from the average, the mean of how fast climate change occurs from multiple models, we see that typically, the conditions fall in the predicted projections. Yes, climate change research is not an exact science, and there are differences in projections. But it is helpful to remember that over the long term, these models have not only seen a trend in the increase of global temperatures, but weather is completely different than climate. Climate refers to long term changes over the entirety of Earth’s climate, while weather refers to the day-to-day basis of the atmosphere.


    (1)

    This graph shows the models used for climate change that is used for the long term. Notice anything? The trend is followed more accurately. Thus, we can infer that short term atmospheric changes and volcanic activity plays a role in the short term, but over countless years in which these models are run, we see that they are accurate. Also, by showing the graph, he fails to consider the argument regarding what these models create, which are projections with many different possibilities since these models calculate the infinite amount of possibilities that exist with the Earth’s climate, not the definite rate at which climate warms. This is especially evident when my opponent shows that the actual result differs from the model average, which is in no way the claimed, definite path that the climate will follow. Also, the conclusion from the site used to refute me is that the models failed to consider a “tropical upper tropospheric” hot spot. This post was made in June of 2013, however, looking toward recent data means that this sort of hot spot was discovered eventually, meaning that the scientific community not only has proof that the troposphere is warming, but that the scientific community now has the information for future models. The University of New South Wales concluded this as late as May of 2015, and has since been explored by scientists (2). However, even before the conclusion of my opponent’s source was determined, scientists have already predicted this sort of warming in the troposphere. The Guardian reports in May of 2015 that scientists have predicted this for years, also:

    “In the case of the tropospheric temperatures, initially the models and experiments disagreed. Both were rechecked and scientists found the experiments were misinterpreted. When improved experiments were obtained, we see atmosphere temperature studies in agreement.”

    Thus, climate models have been able to observe these trends more recently. However, most problems in relation to uncertainty that is referenced in the graph may be due to simple errors in data. The US Climate Change Science Program, (coauthored by University of Alabama’s John Cristy,) that most of the differences between satellite data about the hot spot and the models is due to measurement uncertainty (4). This seems to conclude what The Guardian claimed about the hot spot rebuttal, that problems in uncertainty affected the experiments, which eventually matched the models.

     



    Indeed I do notice something. That graph of model results;


    doesn’t look much like the graph of actual observations that you posted here;



    The intervening years haven’t improved the situation. If anything, the accuracy of the models has degraded;



    R2: Global Hegemony

    Much of the rebuttal is predicated on a fallacy, that there is no existence of a vetting system for refugees, or at least, an ineffective one. The process for refugees entering the country is quite rigorous and only a fraction of applicants is accepted. The US Department of State describes this process through the following process

    1.       Refugees who need protection look toward the UNHCR which collects initial documentation and biographical information of the applicant in question, and the documents are sent to the Department of State’s Resettlement Support Center (RSC).

    2.       Us national security organizations, such as the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the Department of State all screen the applicant, and if someone is from Syria, that person is screened even more stringently, using the data provided from the RSC as well as possible connections to bad actors, criminal records, immigrant records etc. This process is the most thorough of all checks made on travelers to the US.

    3.       Specially trained Department of Homeland Security officers review initial screening results, conduct in person interviews with people in the host country, and collect biometric data from all applicants. The information provided from the interview is confirmed by the info collected from the RSC and the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS). New interviews occur as additional information arises. Additional security checks occur are conducted with every inconsistency shown during the interview process.

    4.       The biometric data collected from the refugee is then checked against the FBI biometric database, the Homeland Security database, and the Department of Defense which includes international information, previous immigration encounters, and watch-list information. Any problematic case is denied.

    5.       Immigrants complete a class teaching them about American culture, customs and practices. A medical check is conducted and the results are entered in WRAPS.

    6.       Every week, representatives from each of the 9 resettlement agencies meet and review applicant information to determine where to resettle the refugee. Screening from the US Border Patrol and the TSA occurs before getting on the plane to the US.

    7.       Finally, the refugee arrives on US soil.

     

    This process is incredibly effective, as shown by the declining crime rate in cities with refugees. Robert Adelman of the University at Buffalo and Lesley Reid of the University of Alabama write for PBS in February of 2017 finding that studies across over 200 metropolitan areas have found that immigration has not actually increased crime, and in many cases, decreased it. In fact, this new study conducted corroborates the 20 years of data that supports the idea that immigration does not guarantee an increase in crime. While there are exceptions, the scientific research has been clear (6). Even the conservative CATO Institute found little reason to support the ban proposed by the Trump administration, as explained by The Independent in January of this year:

    “However, a Cato Institute study, “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis”, found little evidence to suggest this would be an effective policy.

    The report said the chance of being killed by a terrorist attack perpetrated by an illegal immigrant was one in 10.9 billion per year.

    The chance of being murdered by a tourist on the common B visa was 1 in 3.9 million per year, it added.” (7)

    The ban wouldn’t even target the nations in which the threat of a foreign terrorist is likely. CNBC explains earlier this year that:

    “Less than 10 percent of terrorist plots in the US from 2001 on involved suspects from the seven countries named in Trump's travel ban.” (8)
     



    The vetting system is no better than the information that goes into it. In cases like Syria, there is very little crime or terrorism data to check the refugees against. There is no reason to believe the system for Syrian refugees will work any better than the system we had for Iraqi refugees. In fact it’s likely to be less effective, since we had people on the ground in Iraq. That’s hardly reassuring since we have already had Iraqi refugees turn to terrorism. 1400 more have had final orders of removal adjudicated against them.

    Despite the assurances of pro-immigration organizations like CATO, even Obama's officials had concerns;

    “I don’t, obviously, put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees, so that’s a huge concern of ours,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said at a security industry conference in September, using another name for the Islamic State. He added that the government has “a pretty aggressive program” for screening refugees but that he is less confident about European nations.

    FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said. Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/?utm_term=.49fbcf85c8df

    While he said the government has an adequate system to screen asylum seekers, he added that information vital to making a sound decision often does not exist. Worse, terrorists have become more savvy. They know to send people who do not have criminal records or other triggers that would raise red flags.”

    “It’s only as good as the information in the database,” Crocetti said. “It’s not the process that concerns me. It’s the information that’s being vetted.”

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/will-refugees-bring-terror/


    I guess it all boils down to how much you think an American life is worth.


    Regardless of the effectiveness or necessity of the ban though, the basis that my opponent uses to justify that there is no violation of international law is that we are strengthening our national security. The logic doesn’t follow, though, because regardless of the purpose of the order, it violated the UN resolution that specified that a country can’t specify that certain nations could not send refugees. Also, what should be clear from the data provided is that the US is no safer with the ban, and the current system for allowing refugees is exhaustive. This also does not change the international reaction that was still hostile and angry at the US because of the decision. Also, the assumption that all refugees are violating the law is simply false, as evident from my data, so there is no justification under the article to prevent some from coming into the country. Especially since data concludes that the current system works.

    ...except it doesn’t violate the UN resolution. The resolution says we have to accept refugees. It doesn’t specify how many refugees we have to accept. Two refugees are refugees. We’ve already accepted many more than two refugees, and have thus fulfilled our obligation under the treaty.



    Hilary is a non-issue, she is not the president, and I never claimed to support her over Trump. At best, this point is not topical, because current ties still threaten the international community, especially with the release of the Trump Jr. e-mails over Twitter. 

    I never said you did support her, I don’t care who you voted for, you are not a topic of the discussion. Either Hillary or Trump was going to win the election. If the dubious ties between Trump and Russia are a cause for concern, surely Hillary’s ties and actions while in office would be even more disconcerting to the international community.


    Regardless of the effectiveness of the aid to Africa, the international ire is the point I am making. Since you conceded that there are serious repercussions to our decisions on international aid, you also must concede that getting rid of our aid to Africa and our humanitarian involvement has harmed our image, and we are still fighting the ire of the international community. Also, there is no guarantee that the aid sent to Africa will end up in the Defense budget, so there is no causal link to more military spending. Also, regardless of whether the SCOTUS could end up repealing a near universally accepted agreement means little as well. The fact that the US withdrew poses problems which I have shown.

    Regardless of the context of how the Climate Accords were signed, the international community is justified in wanting us to honor our commitments. They were angry over the Kyoto agreement when we withdrew, and they are angry here as well. This damages US hegemony as previously explained, through international isolation, which is something that my opponent has not addressed, as he only talked about whether the gripes about th


    Considering how Obama railroaded the US into the Paris Climate treaty, ignoring the objections from those in Congress and even ignoring the Constitution he swore to uphold, no one is justified in expecting us to uphold the treaty. Others may want us to follow it, they may be disappointed that we aren’t, but no one is justified in expecting us to follow a treaty that wasn’t properly passed.

    I didn’t mention international isolationism because there is no international isolationism. We haven’t lost any trading partners, in fact, trade is up.


    R3: Social cost of carbon

    Regarding the problems with the cost of green energy, that is not the point I made. I explained that there is a tangible evidence that could give someone an actual price-tag on the costs to the people for every additional ton of C02 burned. This includes healthcare costs due to heatstroke, lost workplace productivity, issues in crop yield, and death. Your point about the problems with solar power and panels does not consider a few things. China is the country with this sort of problem due to relaxed regulations on energy production that allows people to dump the waste in bodies of waters, however in Europe and the US, there are existing regulations, and in Europe, there is a plan to reduce toxic chemicals released. The carbon footprint remains lower than that of factories that burn coal and fossil fuels (9). In fact, Livescience Magazine concludes that most of the harmful chemicals produced by solar panels are actually made during its production, not use, and has huge potential to decrease air pollution (10).

     

     In the context of this debate, my impacts still stand, and thus the topic is affirmed, the US needs to address the problem of human caused climate change.


    ...and as I have already explained, we can’t accurately calculate the social cost of carbon until we’re certain of the actual effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. The natural factors that you have alluded to earlier can account for the temperature trends we’ve been experiencing for the last 50 years, meaning CO2 has no real impact.


    Thus far in this analysis, it has been shown that simply adjusting temperature data for Natural Factor impacts yields results that very strongly suggest that natural factors alone can rather easily explain the positive trend slopes in officially reported temperature data over the last 50 years or so.

    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch