• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The IPCC is Wrong

Deuce said:
Ok, but you wanted this to be about the math. There are two possibilities:

1) The guy made a simple error of one exponent, thus rendering the whole objection moot. (because if its only 1.38 watts instead of 13.8, then the IPCC just isn't wrong about its calculations)
2) We have that missing ~11 watts to account for, a huge energy imbalance nobody can identify.

So, you don't want to discuss either? If that's the case, that's fine. You don't have to discuss them.
Click to expand...

I personally had never planned to discuss the math. And I have no reason to doubt your statements. But I have no reason to doubt what's in the WUWT comments either.
 
Deuce said:
You clearly don't know what "demonstrate" means. Show me some kind of document or paper that is rejecting the presence of natural variables.
Click to expand...

This is funny.
I said the IPCC and their assessment reports consistently ignore those natural influences on climate that I mentioned, and you insist that I show you evidence of their absence.
That's a good one.
I hope you see that's why I said it's your turn to show they address those influences as serious contributors to climate change.
Can you do that?
 
bubbabgone said:
This is funny.
I said the IPCC and their assessment reports consistently ignore those natural influences on climate that I mentioned, and you insist that I show you evidence of their absence.
That's a good one.
I hope you see that's why I said it's your turn to show they address those influences as serious contributors to climate change.
Can you do that?
Click to expand...
Already linked.
 
Deuce said:
Ok, but you have no comment on them either. So why are you responding to my posts?


Therein lies your problem.
Click to expand...

I was trying to encourage you to engage with people who can handle the math.
 
Jack Hays said:
I was trying to encourage you to engage with people who can handle the math.
Click to expand...

Nobody here with the ability to do so seems interested.
 
bubbabgone said:
Volcanoes ... I know ... I'm the one who mentioned that first.
Got anything else?
No?
Okay.
Click to expand...

If you'd bothered to click the link, you'd know it discusses more than volcanoes.

But you've just proven that you didn't even bother to click the link, so there's no reason for me to discuss anything with you further.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm a patient man. Of course you could always wade in at WUWT . . .
Click to expand...

I spend entirely too much time on this forum, adding more to the list doesn't seem wise.
 
Gladiator said:
If the Sea Level rise is a major disadvantage of Global Warming, and some Greenhouse Gasses are known, then each contamination source whould be given a projection of effect on sea level rise.
Click to expand...
Sea level in something easily blamed on CO2, but has multiple variables like everything else.

We have eroded soils being dumped in by the rivers.

We have tectonic plate movements.

We have thermal expansion.

We have land ice melting.

We are pumping aquifers and lowering their levels, ending up in the oceans.

We have aerosols natural and man made falling into then oceans and also displacing water.

I'm sure there are some I forget. Assigning a value to each is not easy.

Gladiator said:
How fast would the sea level rise, if we converted to renewable, solar, wind and hydro energy? Gien the greenhouse gasses that have already been manufactured?
Click to expand...
Hard to say, but I believe greenhouse gasses have very little to do with the oceans thermal expansion. I believe the albedo changes from aerosols have more to do with ice melt than greenhouse gasses do. I believe that greenhouse gasses have an insignificant affect on the ice melt, and same with ocean warming. Most of the heat the ocean absorbs in the IR ranged of CO2 is returned upward in latent heat and upward forcing. It is the shortwave spectra of the sun that is heating the oceans, because it travels well beyond the first few microns of water.

The ocean is effectively opaque to the CO2 spectra, at the 15 nm band. It causes the surface of the ocean to vaporize more, and uses a large share of its heat that way. And this process can actually cool the surface as the vaporization process takes heat away from the water. The minor 1.8 W/m^2 change in CO2 is nothing compared to the solar increase since 1713, for how the flux of each is captured by the ocean.

segelstein81-edit_zps76a54bf2.gif


Gladiator said:
Then how fast would each additional, future aspect of human endeavor contribute to Global warming, and sea level rise?
Click to expand...
I think that's too hard of a question for anyone to claim an answer to, with integrity.

Gladiator said:
I am just trying to get a handle on categorizing the data that relates to the actual issues.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

Gladiator said:
Are we accurately measuring CO2 from undersea volcanoes?
Click to expand...
I'm not so concerned about their CO2 as their heat. We see the volcanoes on land heating and cooling. I think it's safe to say they are doing the same thing under water, and turning the heat up and down on the oceans, with some irregular cycle like the land based volcanoes.

See tectonic plate movements, above.
 
Deuce said:
Any hypothesis as to the energy source that's ten times larger than solar variation? Am I seriously meant to believe there's something this big and not a single person out there has a clue what it could be?
Click to expand...

First off, the solar variation at shortwave is greater than longwave, and even more at UV levels, than the TSI change.

Second of all, nearly all forcing variables other than the sun, are a feedback from the sun.

CO2 for example has a total forcing of around 32 W/m^2 by itself. It's hard to get a consensus on H2O, but it is probably around 300 W/m^2. Now, any changes to the heat from the sun, will be have an effect on these levels. If we add the two together, for 332 W/m^2, then a 0.1% increase in the solar radiation, if linear, would change this 332 W/m^2 to 332.3 W/m^2. Not much of an increase, but some papers claim the sun's TSI from 1750 to 2000 have increased by more than 0.4%. This would make 1713 to 1958 more link 0.5% or 0.6%, and the solar/ocean/atmosphere coupling takes hundreds of years to equalize.

Think about that for a few before being a denier of science like normal.
 
Lord of Planar said:
First off, the solar variation at shortwave is greater than longwave, and even more at UV levels, than the TSI change.

Second of all, nearly all forcing variables other than the sun, are a feedback from the sun.

CO2 for example has a total forcing of around 32 W/m^2 by itself. It's hard to get a consensus on H2O, but it is probably around 300 W/m^2. Now, any changes to the heat from the sun, will be have an effect on these levels. If we add the two together, for 332 W/m^2, then a 0.1% increase in the solar radiation, if linear, would change this 332 W/m^2 to 332.3 W/m^2. Not much of an increase, but some papers claim the sun's TSI from 1750 to 2000 have increased by more than 0.4%. This would make 1713 to 1958 more link 0.5% or 0.6%, and the solar/ocean/atmosphere coupling takes hundreds of years to equalize.

Think about that for a few before being a denier of science like normal.
Click to expand...
Instead of your usual personal attacks and science denial, you could actually try looking at the data.

Also: You're nowhere near the 13.8 w/m2 number that is required. So, try reading the arguments as well before your petty insults.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
Click to expand...


This article contains many footnotes, and many calculations. But the accurate measurement or calculation of the true heat radiative effect reaching Earth is not accurately measured, but inferred from calculations and assumptions. It would seem that these calculations can be designed to show a political conclusion that there is an absence of variation in solar heat energy reaching Earth.




"The Sun's apparent surface, the photosphere, radiates more actively when there are more sunspots. Satellite monitoring of solar luminosity revealed a direct relationship between the Schwabe cycle and luminosity with a peak-to-peak amplitude of about 0.1%.[19] Luminosity decreases by as much as 0.3% on a 10-day timescale when large groups of sunspots rotate across the Earth's view and increase by as much as 0.05% for up to 6 months due to faculae associated with large sunspot groups.[20]

The best information today comes from SOHO (a cooperative project of the European Space Agency and NASA), such as the MDI magnetogram, where the solar "surface" magnetic field can be seen.

As each cycle begins, sunspots appear at mid-latitudes, and then closer and closer to the equator until solar minimum is reached. This pattern is best visualized in the form of the so-called butterfly diagram. Images of the Sun are divided into latitudinal strips, and the monthly-averaged fractional surface of sunspots calculated. This is plotted vertically as a color-coded bar, and the process is repeated month after month to produce this time-series diagram"



https://thinkprogress.org/petm-shoc...armed-9-f-in-13-years-83aff187617f#.h1tikklkq



The satellite is a $250,000.00 first step, but I don't have confidence that the true radiative effect of the sun is being accurately measured.




//
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Instead of your usual personal attacks and science denial, you could actually try looking at the data.

Also: You're nowhere near the 13.8 w/m2 number that is required. So, try reading the arguments as well before your petty insults.
Click to expand...

"Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

"In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other -- peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other"


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm


This is a footnote from the referenced article. This projection of Solar irradiation to the Earth is based on the magnetic fields having a direct relation to solar radiation.
 
Deuce said:
Instead of your usual personal attacks and science denial, you could actually try looking at the data.

Also: You're nowhere near the 13.8 w/m2 number that is required. So, try reading the arguments as well before your petty insults.
Click to expand...



"The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation. The measurements provided by SORCE specifically address long-term climate change, natural variability and enhanced climate prediction, and atmospheric ozone and UV-B radiation. These measurements are critical to studies of the Sun; its effect on our Earth system; and its influence on humankind.

The SORCE spacecraft was launched on January 25, 2003 on a Pegasus XL launch vehicle to provide NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) with precise measurements of solar radiation. It launched into a 645 km, 40 degree orbit and is operated by the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado (CU) in Boulder, Colorado, USA. It will continue the precise measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) that began with the ERB instrument in 1979 and has continued to the present with the ACRIM series of measurements. SORCE will also provide the measurements of the solar spectral irradiance from 1nm to 2000nm, accounting for 95% of the spectral contribution to TSI.

SORCE carries four instruments including the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM), Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE), Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), and the XUV Photometer System (XPS)."

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/

//
 
Deuce said:
Instead of your usual personal attacks and science denial, you could actually try looking at the data.

Also: You're nowhere near the 13.8 w/m2 number that is required. So, try reading the arguments as well before your petty insults.
Click to expand...
I'm not considering the 13.8 W/m^2.

Did you read my initial post, or do you automatically attack every thing I say?
 
Gladiator said:
This article contains many footnotes, and many calculations. But the accurate measurement or calculation of the true heat radiative effect reaching Earth is not accurately measured, but inferred from calculations and assumptions. It would seem that these calculations can be designed to show a political conclusion that there is an absence of variation in solar heat energy reaching Earth.




"The Sun's apparent surface, the photosphere, radiates more actively when there are more sunspots. Satellite monitoring of solar luminosity revealed a direct relationship between the Schwabe cycle and luminosity with a peak-to-peak amplitude of about 0.1%.[19] Luminosity decreases by as much as 0.3% on a 10-day timescale when large groups of sunspots rotate across the Earth's view and increase by as much as 0.05% for up to 6 months due to faculae associated with large sunspot groups.[20]

The best information today comes from SOHO (a cooperative project of the European Space Agency and NASA), such as the MDI magnetogram, where the solar "surface" magnetic field can be seen.

As each cycle begins, sunspots appear at mid-latitudes, and then closer and closer to the equator until solar minimum is reached. This pattern is best visualized in the form of the so-called butterfly diagram. Images of the Sun are divided into latitudinal strips, and the monthly-averaged fractional surface of sunspots calculated. This is plotted vertically as a color-coded bar, and the process is repeated month after month to produce this time-series diagram"



https://thinkprogress.org/petm-shoc...armed-9-f-in-13-years-83aff187617f#.h1tikklkq



The satellite is a $250,000.00 first step, but I don't have confidence that the true radiative effect of the sun is being accurately measured.




//
Click to expand...
You have me confused. You quote a wiki article, then a think progress link.

The think progress link proposes a 13 yr rapid change 55 million years ago, based on a 10/1/13 PNAS article. However, PNAS later disavowed the 13 year period in a 3/25/14 article.

Evidence for a rapid release of carbon at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum

Onset of carbon isotope excursion at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum took millennia, not 13 years
 
Gladiator said:
"Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

"In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other -- peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other"


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm


This is a footnote from the referenced article. This projection of Solar irradiation to the Earth is based on the magnetic fields having a direct relation to solar radiation.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we will see global cooling...
 
Deuce said:
If you'd bothered to click the link, you'd know it discusses more than volcanoes.

But you've just proven that you didn't even bother to click the link, so there's no reason for me to discuss anything with you further.
Click to expand...

You didn't post a link to me.
You just kept shouting "VOLCANOES".
Just tell me in your own words how the IPCC addressed those known natural climate variables ... including clouds.
You're starting to resemble 3G. He likes to post links he's never read too. That's not good.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm not considering the 13.8 W/m^2.

Did you read my initial post, or do you automatically attack every thing I say?
Click to expand...

You're not considering it? Well, you should start because that's a key part of the conversation you injected yourself into. Maybe if you'd spent more time reading discussions and less time insulting people, you wouldn't make such an error.
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
You didn't post a link to me.
You just kept shouting "VOLCANOES".
Just tell me in your own words how the IPCC addressed those known natural climate variables ... including clouds.
You're starting to resemble 3G. He likes to post links he's never read too. That's not good.
Click to expand...

No, you kept shouting VOLCANOES. You think they're being ignored. I even explained to you how they affect climate. Then I gave you a link with further detail.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You have me confused. You quote a wiki article, then a think progress link.

The think progress link proposes a 13 yr rapid change 55 million years ago, based on a 10/1/13 PNAS article. However, PNAS later disavowed the 13 year period in a 3/25/14 article.

Evidence for a rapid release of carbon at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum

Onset of carbon isotope excursion at the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum took millennia, not 13 years
Click to expand...

What I was looking for was examples, in past history, of increased CO2 without a corresponding rise in sea level.

I am also trying to understand the basis of Trump's Climate change denial.




//
 
Gladiator said:
What I was looking for was examples, in past history, of increased CO2 without a corresponding rise in sea level.
Click to expand...
I don't think you will find sich a thing. Without man's involvement, the partial pressure of the CO2 in the oceans change with the temperature. The warmer the water, the less CO2 the waters absorb. warmer waters and ice met lead to the rising sea in these cases, along with rising CO2. Cooler waters and earth have more ice staying on land, lowering the sea level and atmospheric CO2.

The oceans absorb CO2 in the cold polar regions, and release it in the warm equatorial regions. During the ice ages, the oceans hold more CO2, so the atmospheric levels drop to around 180 ppm, give or take a bit. The natural values we see during the warm periods are around 280 ppm give or take.

Gladiator said:
I am also trying to understand the basis of Trump's Climate change denial.
Click to expand...
Then stop believing what the pundits say. Consider his actual words and the actual science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom