• 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 Intolerant Zealotry of AGW Advocates

Actually, Tim is more right than wrong.

Anomalies – 1979 to Present
University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Base Period 1981-2010 – Click the pic to view at source

Not sure what you're trying to prove, showing this graph, but here is what the NOAA has to say about Lower Level Atmosphere Temperatures:

Measurements from satellites and weather balloons show that the lowest layer of the atmosphere—where we live, airplanes fly, and weather occurs—is warming. Greenhouse gases are building up in this layer, trapping heat radiated from Earth's surface and raising the planet's temperature.

NOAA's Ten Signs of a Warming World: Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere
 
Not sure what you're trying to prove, showing this graph, but here is what the NOAA has to say about Lower Level Atmosphere Temperatures:

Measurements from satellites and weather balloons show that the lowest layer of the atmosphere—where we live, airplanes fly, and weather occurs—is warming. Greenhouse gases are building up in this layer, trapping heat radiated from Earth's surface and raising the planet's temperature.

NOAA's Ten Signs of a Warming World: Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere

The data are the data. There is no narrative claim that can stand against them.
 
Which is why I don't believe smoking causes cancer, and gravity is just a liberal conspiracy. Never belive anything experts tells you.

Observation doesn't matter to you?
 
No one is stopping you asking. You're asking on this very thread. No one is stopping you asking if the sky is really blue either.

Are you colorblind, or blind?
 
Are you saying the earth isn't getting warmer?
Are you saying the arctic ice and glaciers aren't shrinking?

These things are fact that we can see with our eyes.

Why do you think they are?
 
The data are the data. There is no narrative claim that can stand against them.

That's a good onw :lamo You know more than the NOAA. :lamo You didnt even have to quote Watts this time !!!
 
Since the Scientific results are actually coming in at the lower range, perhaps the more accurate question should be
why is the IPCC not reporting the results.
The lead authors (Scientist) from AR5 had to send their results as a letter to the editor of nature, because their results were edited out of the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
FYI Otto found a best estimate of ECS of 2C out of the IPCC's range of 1.5 to 4.5 C.

This is just wrong! The IPCC didn't edit out Otto et al(2013). It was one of almost 20 different studies used.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

Page 925 has a few graphs that plot ECS and TCR of the different studies. Otto et al is there and was one of the reasons the IPCC decided to not give a best estimate of ECS in this report.

So... a better question should be answered by you. If the IPCC should be questioned about editing out one study(they didn't) then why should you have any credibility at all when you insist on using just one study that you have been shown to be flawed on numerous occasions to determine future ECS?

Here is an interesting quote I found from one of the authors of Otto et al:

Some of the studies cited as evidence for lowering the lower bound on climate sensitivity in the last IPCC report (for example, Otto et al, on which I was a co-author), used models that were arguably too simple – but it is the job of the IPCC to reflect the literature available at the time and to be cautious in ruling out eventualities on the basis of any single line of evidence.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-sensitivity-is-unlikely-to-be-less-than-2c-say-scientists

The fact of the matter is that you are cherry-picking one study out of many to push your denialist beliefs. It seems to me that most of your opinions concerning AGW are based on cherry-picked data and studies.
 
This is just wrong! The IPCC didn't edit out Otto et al(2013). It was one of almost 20 different studies used.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

Page 925 has a few graphs that plot ECS and TCR of the different studies. Otto et al is there and was one of the reasons the IPCC decided to not give a best estimate of ECS in this report.

So... a better question should be answered by you. If the IPCC should be questioned about editing out one study(they didn't) then why should you have any credibility at all when you insist on using just one study that you have been shown to be flawed on numerous occasions to determine future ECS?

Here is an interesting quote I found from one of the authors of Otto et al:



https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-sensitivity-is-unlikely-to-be-less-than-2c-say-scientists

The fact of the matter is that you are cherry-picking one study out of many to push your denialist beliefs. It seems to me that most of your opinions concerning AGW are based on cherry-picked data and studies.

Since only one of the graphs was for ECS from instruments , let's take a look at it and consider the IPCC words.
AR5_fig_10.20.jpg
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
The graph is a combination is results from AR4 and newer instrumental studies.
While it is subjective, to me the high points of the solid lines of the graph are collected at the lower end.
Another point to consider is that the researchers on the Otto article represent many of the scientific lead authors
on the AR5 report, if their own findings are low, why would that not be reflected in the report?
Richard Lindzen left the IPCC because he said they edited out the scientific uncertainty.
 
Since only one of the graphs was for ECS from instruments , let's take a look at it and consider the IPCC words.
View attachment 67224005

The graph is a combination is results from AR4 and newer instrumental studies.
While it is subjective, to me the high points of the solid lines of the graph are collected at the lower end.
Another point to consider is that the researchers on the Otto article represent many of the scientific lead authors
on the AR5 report, if their own findings are low, why would that not be reflected in the report?
Richard Lindzen left the IPCC because he said they edited out the scientific uncertainty.

Lindzen gets $2500 per day, from the oil industry, for his consulting services. Also, he used to rail for the tobacco industry.

"I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems..."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

But you value his opinion over 98% of Climatologists.
 
Lindzen gets $2500 per day, from the oil industry, for his consulting services. Also, he used to rail for the tobacco industry.

"I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems..."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

But you value his opinion over 98% of Climatologists.

Irrelevance piled on irrelevance.
 
Since only one of the graphs was for ECS from instruments , let's take a look at it and consider the IPCC words.
View attachment 67224005

The graph is a combination is results from AR4 and newer instrumental studies.
While it is subjective, to me the high points of the solid lines of the graph are collected at the lower end.
Another point to consider is that the researchers on the Otto article represent many of the scientific lead authors
on the AR5 report, if their own findings are low, why would that not be reflected in the report?
Richard Lindzen left the IPCC because he said they edited out the scientific uncertainty.

More cherry-picking?

:lamo

That is all you can do... isn't it?
 
Lindzen gets $2500 per day, from the oil industry, for his consulting services. Also, he used to rail for the tobacco industry.

"I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems..."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

But you value his opinion over 98% of Climatologists.

OOOH! Dr. Lindzen was a consultant for an oil company at a normal expert rate $300/hr.
He also was the lead author on one of the IPCC reports, is that report now tainted also.
What about Otto and many of the lead authors on IPCC AR5, who found a
best estimate of ECS of 2 C? They still fit into the supposed 97% (As do I),
yet an ECS of 2C for a doubling of CO2 is neither alarming, or of much concern.
What the AGW true believers cannot seem to get their head around is that a person can know
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but also believe it's aggregate climate sensitivity is low.
The modelers try their best, but are required to make assumptions, which may not be accurate.
A simple analogy, two cities 120 miles apart connected by an interstate without any traffic signals.
speed limit is 60 mph. Several groups model how long the trip will take, and all the models average 2 hours.
The last group does 100 physical trips at various times of the day and week, and comes up with an average of 2.25 hours.
Whose data is better?
 
More cherry-picking?

:lamo

That is all you can do... isn't it?

That is a graph from the IPCC report, not exactly cherry picking.
If the findings from the observed data from the lead authors of the IPCC report,
show a likely ECS from doubling the CO2 level at 2 C, than that is likely closer to
reality than all the models combined.
 
They just don't understand, they are technically the deniers.

Deniers of science.

Good luck getting any of them to listen to sound reasoning. Their faith in the dogma is too strong.
 
You are not allowed to question the high Priest of the faith!!!!
Question show a lack of faith!:mrgreen:

Right-wingers listen to Gore more than anyone else, dude.
 
Just like left wingers listen to Rush more than anyone else, right?

Nope.

See, right-wingers love to hold up Al Gore as their big target. But the man is almost completely ignored by us "warmists." Need proof? Check out how well his latest "documentary" did. Not exactly a man with a large audience.

And he's not a scientist so who cares what he thinks
 
That is a graph from the IPCC report, not exactly cherry picking.

No, cherry-picking is exactly what you are doing. The IPCC graph you chose to take a screenshot of was only 1 of the 3 that they used to show a bunch of studies that look at ECS. And not only are you cherry picking the kind of study you are willing to look at in determining ECS but you are also only willing to look at the ones that show a lower ECS. You are literally ignoring a large amount of the science that says ECS could be higher. And in some instances significantly higher.

And there are more studies that have come out since this IPCC report. Like the one you completely misquoted in the conspiracy theory poll thread. There you actually cherry-picked some of the wording to misrepresent the findings of it. Just a reminder but... the results of that study found an ECS of 3.5C and not the 2.0 that you misquoted.

If the findings from the observed data from the lead authors of the IPCC report,
show a likely ECS from doubling the CO2 level at 2 C, than that is likely closer to
reality than all the models combined.

There were only 3(if I remember correctly) of the lead authors of the IPCC that were co-authors of Otto et al. And just because a few were lead authors of the IPCC doesn't mean that this study is necessarily any better than other studies. As a matter of fact, you have been shown the flaws with this study now numerous times.

It is about time that you faced the facts. You love to cherry pick. That is why you only want to talk about sea level rise in places that are not rising rapidly. Or how you love to make a big deal about Tmax temperatures in just the U.S. Or when you always want to start with the 1998 El Nino but exclude the El Nino of 2015-2016 in discussions of the temperature trends.
 
They just don't understand, they are technically the deniers.

Deniers of science.

Good luck getting any of them to listen to sound reasoning. Their faith in the dogma is too strong.

You have got to be kidding me!

This is coming from the guy who loves to attack people for citing blogs but does it himself and never seems to have a problem with Jack doing it constantly. He even frequently likes it.

This is the guy who demands that people back up their beliefs with published studies but refuses to do the same.

He is also one of the deniers around here who consistently get their facts wrong.
 
You have got to be kidding me!

This is coming from the guy who loves to attack people for citing blogs but does it himself and never seems to have a problem with Jack doing it constantly. He even frequently likes it.

I get tired of explaining myself. Are you that forgetful, or have yo never understood to begin with?

I don't go t blogs unless someone posts one as a reference. I have only supported Watts because he almost always has well linked source material. I only approve of Watts because I have easy access to good source material through his blog.

Can you say the blogs you support have well sourced information?

I don't need blogs. I have subscriptions to actual science journal.
 
No, cherry-picking is exactly what you are doing. The IPCC graph you chose to take a screenshot of was only 1 of the 3 that they used to show a bunch of studies that look at ECS. And not only are you cherry picking the kind of study you are willing to look at in determining ECS but you are also only willing to look at the ones that show a lower ECS. You are literally ignoring a large amount of the science that says ECS could be higher. And in some instances significantly higher.

And there are more studies that have come out since this IPCC report. Like the one you completely misquoted in the conspiracy theory poll thread. There you actually cherry-picked some of the wording to misrepresent the findings of it. Just a reminder but... the results of that study found an ECS of 3.5C and not the 2.0 that you misquoted.



There were only 3(if I remember correctly) of the lead authors of the IPCC that were co-authors of Otto et al. And just because a few were lead authors of the IPCC doesn't mean that this study is necessarily any better than other studies. As a matter of fact, you have been shown the flaws with this study now numerous times.

It is about time that you faced the facts. You love to cherry pick. That is why you only want to talk about sea level rise in places that are not rising rapidly. Or how you love to make a big deal about Tmax temperatures in just the U.S. Or when you always want to start with the 1998 El Nino but exclude the El Nino of 2015-2016 in discussions of the temperature trends.

I choose to look at the studies based on the empirical data, If the studies are based on predictive models,
their value is limited to the assumptions made in the models. The empirical data is showing that
the assumed feedbacks in the models is too high, so the model results would also be high.
P.S, 14 of the co-authors of the Otto article were also IPCC Lead Authors.
If you disagree with my assessment on sea level please find a place where the sea level is rising
rapidly that is not caused from some other reason. There is very good data out there.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
I use the NOAA T-Max and T-Min for the US, because I do not have the T-Max or the T-Min for the globe,
but can demonstrate that there has been marginal increases in maximum temperatures in the US in the last 80 years or so.

You can exclude the 1998 El Nino all you want, but in so doing the warming that occurred between 1978 and 1998
would be much lower, and the models would have to be adjusted down.
Remember that article in Nature trying to justify the hiatus?
They inadvertently described that the models were expecting the warming to continue at the 1978 to 1998 rate.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
Stark contrast

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it.
Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

It is about time that you faced the facts. The catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are not manifesting themselves in the empirical data!
 
Yet another right winger who doesn't understand how models work.
 
Back
Top Bottom