• 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!

Nir Shaviv Takes Down Climate Alarmism, at Cambridge

CletusWilbury said:
Compared to what? As I've acknowledged we don't know temperature rates of change in the past, so what is he comparing virtually to?
So, based on that, I posit it's still an incorrect statement. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

A graph you posted in another thread makes the point.

67224612d1509897211-latest-global-temps-uah_lt_1979_thru_october_2017_v6-550x317-jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
I'll ignore your creationist red herring.

Seems to me he dealt with CO2 succinctly and powerfully.

[FONT=&quot]Well, what he didn’t tell you is that one generally sees in the ice cores that [/FONT]CO2 lags the temperature by typically a few hundred years[FONT=&quot], not vice versa! The simple truth is that Al Gore simply showed us how the amount of CO2 dissolved as carbonic acid in the oceans changes with temperature. As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

Nope.

They are creationist arguments.

CO2 causing atmospheric warming is 19th century science.

Only suckers think Shaviv has a good point, much like the suckers that think no one ever found a transitional fossil.
 
Threegoofs said:
Nope.

They are creationist arguments.

CO2 causing atmospheric warming is 19th century science.

Only suckers think Shaviv has a good point, much like the suckers that think no one ever found a transitional fossil.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we agree that the CO2 based argument is 19th century science. Which is why it fails against Shaviv's 21st century science, much as Bryan failed against Darrow.

[FONT=&quot]The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white. [/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Indeed, we agree that the CO2 based argument is 19th century science. Which is why it fails against Shaviv's 21st century science, much as Bryan failed against Darrow.

[FONT=&quot]The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white. [/FONT]
Click to expand...

You apparently miss where Shaviv claims that isn’t a fact.

But keep on spamming. The suckers are eating it up.
 
Jack Hays said:
A graph you posted in another thread makes the point.

67224612d1509897211-latest-global-temps-uah_lt_1979_thru_october_2017_v6-550x317-jpg
Click to expand...

Looks like about 0.3 degrees before and after 2000, so I don't get how he can say 'virtually no warming since 2000'. It's a line I hear often from Senators and Congressmen is why I'm pushing.
 
CletusWilbury said:
Looks like about 0.3 degrees before and after 2000, so I don't get how he can say 'virtually no warming since 2000'. It's a line I hear often from Senators and Congressmen is why I'm pushing.
Click to expand...

Because he’s wrong.

Look at surface temperatures, which are much more accurate.
 
Jack Hays said:
What is pathetic is your belief that calling a statement a lie makes it so.
Click to expand...

What is pathetic is that you hear a line like "no correlation to CO2 whatsoever" combined with "typically lags temperature" and just accept both as truthful :lamo If there wasn't a correlation, there wouldn't be a detectable "lag time" because there would be no change correlating to the temperature change.

Now, I'm shocked that Shaviv doesn't know this, given his background, but CO2 correlates very well to temperature... if you also account for solar activity. I know this will shock you, but there's actually more than one variable in determining the world's temperature. If you only look at one variable, regardless of what it is, you'll find a pretty terrible correlation. This includes the sun! The sun was flat for over 50 years while temperature continued to rise. If we only looked at solar variance, we'd conclude the sun correlates poorly to temperature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=CE1yQz_VJHc
 
Jack Hays said:
What "isn't a fact?"
Click to expand...

That CO2 increases cause increased temperatures.

I kinda always figured Shaviv was one of those guys who isn't a denier, but is #1 with deniers. But now I'm wondering if this guy is just a straight up nut job denier.
 
CletusWilbury said:
Looks like about 0.3 degrees before and after 2000, so I don't get how he can say 'virtually no warming since 2000'. It's a line I hear often from Senators and Congressmen is why I'm pushing.
Click to expand...

Talleyrand once said (of the French Revolution and aftermath), "Treason is a question of date." It's the same in this case. The statement is accurate with a starting point of 1998.
 
Deuce said:
What is pathetic is that you hear a line like "no correlation to CO2 whatsoever" combined with "typically lags temperature" and just accept both as truthful :lamo If there wasn't a correlation, there wouldn't be a detectable "lag time" because there would be no change correlating to the temperature change.

Now, I'm shocked that Shaviv doesn't know this, given his background, but CO2 correlates very well to temperature... if you also account for solar activity. I know this will shock you, but there's actually more than one variable in determining the world's temperature. If you only look at one variable, regardless of what it is, you'll find a pretty terrible correlation. This includes the sun! The sun was flat for over 50 years while temperature continued to rise. If we only looked at solar variance, we'd conclude the sun correlates poorly to temperature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=CE1yQz_VJHc
Click to expand...

I think Shaviv is ahead of you.

The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller.

So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.

The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white.
 
Threegoofs said:
That CO2 increases cause increased temperatures.

I kinda always figured Shaviv was one of those guys who isn't a denier, but is #1 with deniers. But now I'm wondering if this guy is just a straight up nut job denier.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is what he said:

The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling.
 
Jack Hays said:
I think Shaviv is ahead of you.

The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller.

So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.

The details of this mechanism are extremely interesting. I can tell you that it is related to the ions in the atmosphere which are governed by solar activity and in fact, there are three microphysical mechanisms linking these ions to the nucleation and growth of cloud condensation nuclei. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white.
Click to expand...

So there's NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER but he's going to give us a numerical value for the effect of CO2 on temperature.

Do I have that right?
 
Deuce said:
So there's NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER but he's going to give us a numerical value for the effect of CO2 on temperature.

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

You have omitted the specific focus of Shaviv's statement, which is accurate.

" . . . As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciation. . . ."
 
Jack Hays said:
You have omitted the specific focus of Shaviv's statement, which is accurate.

" . . . As a matter of fact, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciation. . . ."
Click to expand...

No correlation whatsoever. What, only in one specific and unspecified timeframe? Give me a break. CO2 either has an effect on temperature or it doesn't.
 
Deuce said:
No correlation whatsoever. What, only in one specific and unspecified timeframe? Give me a break. CO2 either has an effect on temperature or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the presentation is too sophisticated for you?

The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller.
 
Jack Hays said:
Perhaps the presentation is too sophisticated for you?

The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that statement conflicts with "no correlation whatsoever." There's no "focus" or timeframe in which "no correlation whatsoever" is accurate. Is that too sophisticated for you?

He didn't say "weak correlation" or "low correlation." He said no correlation whatsoever. That means zero. Don't make absolute statements if you can't back them up, Shaviv.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, and that statement conflicts with "no correlation whatsoever." There's no "focus" or timeframe in which "no correlation whatsoever" is accurate. Is that too sophisticated for you?

He didn't say "weak correlation" or "low correlation." He said no correlation whatsoever. That means zero. Don't make absolute statements if you can't back them up, Shaviv.
Click to expand...

"Over geological time scales." Doesn't sound like an absolute statement to me.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Over geological time scales." Doesn't sound like an absolute statement to me.
Click to expand...

Implying there is a correlation over short periods, but not long periods? Laughable.
 
Deuce said:
Implying there is a correlation over short periods, but not long periods? Laughable.
Click to expand...

That there's no evidence for correlation over geological time scales. What's laughable is that you're having a problem with a simple declarative sentence.
 
Jack Hays said:
That there's no evidence for correlation over geological time scales. What's laughable is that you're having a problem with a simple declarative sentence.
Click to expand...

Because it's ludicrous to suggest CO2 impacts temperature in the short term and then just magically stops over some unspecified longer period.

Want to say over a geological timescale it's a smaller influence? Sure. You can make that claim. "No correlation whatsoever," though, is objectively false.
 
Deuce said:
Because it's ludicrous to suggest CO2 impacts temperature in the short term and then just magically stops over some unspecified longer period.
Click to expand...

If there's no evidence then there's no evidence. Research to date shows no correlation over geological time scales. What's ludicrous is to assume that evidence in one context mandates evidence in another.
 
Jack Hays said:
If there's no evidence then there's no evidence. Research to date shows no correlation over geological time scales. What's ludicrous is to assume that evidence in one context mandates evidence in another.
Click to expand...

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years


For more than 2 million years our earth has cycled in and out of Ice Ages, accompanied by massive ice sheets accumulating over polar landmasses and a cold, desert-like global climate. Although the tropics during the Ice Age were still tropical, the temperate regions and sub-tropical regions were markedly different than they are today. There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time.
Click to expand...

Moving goalposts in 3...2...1..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom