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

Opening Argument

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_testifynorthsouthkoreaErfisflatagsraarongSilverishGoldNovanatbarons
  1. Is global warming real?

    20 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.
      35.00%
    3. No, global warming is not real.
      15.00%
«13

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • 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 540 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    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 540 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    @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 214 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 540 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    @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 265 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 2 Premium Member
    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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 214 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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 214 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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 . 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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 462 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Battle of the graphs, whose lines and numbers are more important? 
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 214 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 540 PtsPremium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    Premium MemberTechnology Community Moderator
    @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 462 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "Climates are changing, big brother said so, and they need more money to fix it."
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @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 462 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Your sources are demonstrably liars.
    @AlwaysCorrect
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat

    If they're demonstrably liars, go ahead and demonstrate it. Otherwise you're just wasting time with meaningless posturing.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 462 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.
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 462 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    I mean, despite them claiming we live on a ball. But you don't want to discuss that.
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 462 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?
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • 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 462 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
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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 214 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 265 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @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?
    natbarons
  • 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 462 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.
    "Don't just teach your children to read, teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything." George Carlin 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @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?
    natbarons
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
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch