• 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!

Climate Change from CO2 - it's Hard to Refute the Actual Data

Meaningless drivel.

Really? You must feel quite self-assured to offer such an assessment of the views of the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at Hebrew University and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
 
You just made that statement up out of thin air... So scientific institutions such as NASA, NOAA, AGU etc and their scientists...don't publish and rely on peer-reviewed literature..Well over a century of astronomy, oceanography, geology, glaciology etc. which makes up AGW science is not the best peer-reviewed literature available? What an amazingly ridiculous claim... All the satellite data, buoy data, ships data and land based temperature data analysis is all fraudulent and not peer-reviewed...got it.

While I disagree that the earth Science data is not peer reviewed, it is!
The actual data is not questioned beyond the adjustments.
The real question is the theorized amplified feedbacks necessary to make AGW a threat.
So far those feedbacks seem to have minimal support in the empirical data.
There is a disconnect between predictions based on observations vs those based on model assumptions.
 
You just made that statement up out of thin air... So scientific institutions such as NASA, NOAA, AGU etc and their scientists...don't publish and rely on peer-reviewed literature..Well over a century of astronomy, oceanography, geology, glaciology etc. which makes up AGW science is not the best peer-reviewed literature available? What an amazingly ridiculous claim... All the satellite data, buoy data, ships data and land based temperature data analysis is all fraudulent and not peer-reviewed...got it.

If you're looking for logical, scientific minds, they are scarce on this forum. Why should they listen to the most qualified scientists in the world, when they can get their info from a blog?
 
Again the Hurricane experts say that AGW was not a factor, only the speed of the storm.
also bear in mind that while 20% of Houston saw flooding (a very large number), 80% did not flood.
Consider the 1.9 C ECS, we are half way there, did you notice? Did you thank your grandfather?
No if the warming is below 2 C, it will be indistinguishable from the rate of warming we have all been living through.

WRONG!!! From IPCC AR5:
By the end of the 21st century, the average amount of water vapour in the atmosphere could increase by 5 to 25%, depending on the amount of human emissions of greenhouse gases and radiatively active particles, such as smoke. Water will evaporate more quickly from the surface. Sea level will rise due to expansion of warming ocean waters and melting land ice flowing into the ocean.
....
Projected climate changes from simulations assessed in this report (shown schematically in FAQ 12.2, Figure 1) generally show an increase in precipitation in parts of the deep tropics and polar latitudes that could exceed 50% by the end of the 21st century under the most extreme emissions scenario. In contrast, large areas of the subtropics could have decreases of 30% or more. In the tropics, these changes appear to be governed by increases in atmospheric water vapour and changes in atmospheric circulation that further concentrate water vapour in the tropics and thus promote more tropical rainfall. In the subtropics, these circulation changes simultaneously promote less rainfall despite warming in these regions. Because the subtropics are home to most of the world’s deserts, these changes imply increasing aridity in already dry areas, and possible expansion of deserts.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
 
WRONG!!! From IPCC AR5:
By the end of the 21st century, the average amount of water vapour in the atmosphere could increase by 5 to 25%, depending on the amount of human emissions of greenhouse gases and radiatively active particles, such as smoke. Water will evaporate more quickly from the surface. Sea level will rise due to expansion of warming ocean waters and melting land ice flowing into the ocean.
....
Projected climate changes from simulations assessed in this report (shown schematically in FAQ 12.2, Figure 1) generally show an increase in precipitation in parts of the deep tropics and polar latitudes that could exceed 50% by the end of the 21st century under the most extreme emissions scenario. In contrast, large areas of the subtropics could have decreases of 30% or more. In the tropics, these changes appear to be governed by increases in atmospheric water vapour and changes in atmospheric circulation that further concentrate water vapour in the tropics and thus promote more tropical rainfall. In the subtropics, these circulation changes simultaneously promote less rainfall despite warming in these regions. Because the subtropics are home to most of the world’s deserts, these changes imply increasing aridity in already dry areas, and possible expansion of deserts.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
Predictions are not facts, the Hurricane experts including Dr. Neil Frank former director of the national hurricane center,
said Harvey's rain was as predicted based on the speed, using the same formula in place for many decades.
 
Really? You must feel quite self-assured to offer such an assessment of the views of the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at Hebrew University and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Yes I am, and my assessment is shard by the vast majority of scientists. I don't really care who states a claim, if it's not back up with evidence it's of no value.
 
Yes I am, and my assessment is shard by the vast majority of scientists. I don't really care who states a claim, if it's not back up with evidence it's of no value.

Ah, but it is backed up. That's the point. And once upon a time "the vast majority of scientists" backed Ptolemy against Copernicus.
 
While I disagree that the earth Science data is not peer reviewed, it is!
The actual data is not questioned beyond the adjustments.
The real question is the theorized amplified feedbacks necessary to make AGW a threat.
So far those feedbacks seem to have minimal support in the empirical data.
There is a disconnect between predictions based on observations vs those based on model assumptions.

Good, I glad to hear that you understand that that poster's comment was misinformed. Clearly that person has jumped on a ship of his choosing for political reasons and nothing more.

You on the other hand, along with the other science doubters on this site , argue with some substance...a more sophisticated yet equally empty vessel. All you do is cast doubt by making assertions unsupported by evidence. The evidence is that the world is warming due to mankind's activities and it will continue to do so for decades and centuries.
 
If you're looking for logical, scientific minds, they are scarce on this forum. Why should they listen to the most qualified scientists in the world, when they can get their info from a blog?

We scientifically minded folks don't come to these sites to win arguments. There is no winning or losing. The agenda of our opposition is to maintain the status quo and delay any and all mitigation and adaptive measures, just as they have done on all matters of environmental concern over the decades. They don't argue with valid science because they have none to present. Rather they spread doubt as to the validity of mainstream science by marginalizing scientists, their research and the integrity of science and scientific organizations in general.

It's a play book which has been successful in the past and sadly it continues to be in the case of global warming and climate change science. It's pure politics, no different from casting aspersions on a political opponent to make them look bad. Defining the opponent before they can define themselves is a winning strategy.
 
Ah, but it is backed up. That's the point. And once upon a time "the vast majority of scientists" backed Ptolemy against Copernicus.

If "it" were baked up with evidence you wouldn't have to suggest so hard that it is. Oh, and scientists never baked the Earth centered model before Copernicus because the scientific method was not practised by the Catholic Church. The observational EVIDENCE sealed the deal in confirming Kepler and Copernicus. Galileo provided that evidence. Only then was the scientific method in play.
 
If "it" were baked up with evidence you wouldn't have to suggest so hard that it is. Oh, and scientists never baked the Earth centered model before Copernicus because the scientific method was not practised by the Catholic Church. The observational EVIDENCE sealed the deal in confirming Kepler and Copernicus. Galileo provided that evidence. Only then was the scientific method in play.

You have your head deeply buried in the sand. This is from the Shaviv text I already quoted to you.

[FONT=&quot] . . . . 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. . . . .

As for Copernicus vs Ptolemy, you seem not to know the story well. Please see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.[/FONT]
 
You have your head deeply buried in the sand. This is from the Shaviv text I already quoted to you.

[FONT="] . . . . 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. . . . .

As for Copernicus vs Ptolemy, you seem not to know the story well. Please see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.[/FONT]

Bull lony .

Because they scatter and absorb incoming sunlight, aerosol particles exert a cooling effect on the Earth’s surface. The Pinatubo eruption increased aerosol optical depth in the stratosphere by a factor of 10 to 100 times normal levels measured prior to the eruption. (“Aerosol optical depth” is a measure of how much light airborne particles prevent from passing through a column of atmosphere.) Consequently, over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C).

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1510
 

Apples & oranges.

". . . average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo . . . "

is not the same as Pinatubo alone.

QED

Furthermore:


Why Volcanoes Don’t Matter Much

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach The word “forcing” is what is called a “term of art” in climate science. A term of art means a word that is used in a special or unusual sense in a particular field of science or other activity. This unusual meaning for the word may or may not be…

July 29, 2015 in Volcanoes.

. . . . Conclusions: The main conclusion that I draw from this is that the central paradigm of modern climate science is wrong—temperature does not slavishly follow the forcings.
To the contrary, when the tropical temperature changes, the solar forcing subsequently changes in the opposite direction, negating much of the effect of the volcanoes.
And in particular, the observations agree with the theoretical predictions, which were:
Right after the eruption, there would be a reduction in available solar energy, due to the volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere.
This initial eruption-induced reduction in available solar energy would be both deeper and sooner after the eruption in the hemisphere where the eruption occurred than in the opposite hemisphere.
As a result, the corresponding climate reaction in the eruption hemisphere would also both be deeper and occur sooner than the climate reaction in the opposite hemisphere. In other words there will be a dose-related effect, where a larger reduction is met with a larger climate reaction.
The form of the climate reaction will be an albedo reduction due to the temperature reduction, which will cause an increase in available solar energy. The increase in available energy will be of the same order of magnitude as the corresponding decrease due to volcanic aerosols.
These theoretical predictions are all visible in the graphs above, and they lead back to the title of this piece. The reason volcanoes don’t matter much is that the climate rapidly responds to re-establish the status quo ante. Yes, eruptions do put loads of aerosols into the stratosphere; and yes, these aerosols do cut down available solar energy; and yes, this does have local effects in space and time … but because available solar energy in the tropics goes up as the temperature goes down, the balance is quickly restored. As a result of this and other restorative phenomena, the climate system has proven to be surprisingly insensitive to such variations in forcing.
 
Last edited:
Predictions are not facts, the Hurricane experts including Dr. Neil Frank former director of the national hurricane center,
said Harvey's rain was as predicted based on the speed, using the same formula in place for many decades.

While that's all true, the storm also was feed by unusually warm waters over the Gulf of Mexico. Those warm waters are a function of a warming planet just as much is the decline in alpine ice.
 
Apples & oranges.

". . . average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo . . . "

is not the same as Pinatubo alone.

QED

NEWS FLASH:

Krakatoa was a more violent eruption than was Pinatubo....it ejected even more aerosols into the stratosphere....and thus would have cooled the Earth even more so than did Pinatubo....Thus the average including Krakatoa would have been cooler than the .6C from Pinatubo alone.
 
NEWS FLASH:

Krakatoa was a more violent eruption than was Pinatubo....it ejected even more aerosols into the stratosphere....and thus would have cooled the Earth even more so than did Pinatubo....Thus the average including Krakatoa would have been cooler than the .6C from Pinatubo alone.

Still dodging the point. It's not just Pinatubo and Krakatoa.

And please see addendum to my #63.
 
Apples & oranges.

". . . average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo . . . "

is not the same as Pinatubo alone.

QED

Furthermore:


Why Volcanoes Don’t Matter Much

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach The word “forcing” is what is called a “term of art” in climate science. A term of art means a word that is used in a special or unusual sense in a particular field of science or other activity. This unusual meaning for the word may or may not be…

July 29, 2015 in Volcanoes.

. . . . Conclusions: The main conclusion that I draw from this is that the central paradigm of modern climate science is wrong—temperature does not slavishly follow the forcings.
To the contrary, when the tropical temperature changes, the solar forcing subsequently changes in the opposite direction, negating much of the effect of the volcanoes.
And in particular, the observations agree with the theoretical predictions, which were:
Right after the eruption, there would be a reduction in available solar energy, due to the volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere.
This initial eruption-induced reduction in available solar energy would be both deeper and sooner after the eruption in the hemisphere where the eruption occurred than in the opposite hemisphere.
As a result, the corresponding climate reaction in the eruption hemisphere would also both be deeper and occur sooner than the climate reaction in the opposite hemisphere. In other words there will be a dose-related effect, where a larger reduction is met with a larger climate reaction.
The form of the climate reaction will be an albedo reduction due to the temperature reduction, which will cause an increase in available solar energy. The increase in available energy will be of the same order of magnitude as the corresponding decrease due to volcanic aerosols.
These theoretical predictions are all visible in the graphs above, and they lead back to the title of this piece. The reason volcanoes don’t matter much is that the climate rapidly responds to re-establish the status quo ante. Yes, eruptions do put loads of aerosols into the stratosphere; and yes, these aerosols do cut down available solar energy; and yes, this does have local effects in space and time … but because available solar energy in the tropics goes up as the temperature goes down, the balance is quickly restored. As a result of this and other restorative phenomena, the climate system has proven to be surprisingly insensitive to such variations in forcing.

But, the global temperature still dropped by .6C after Pinatubo...A lot more than the .1C as stated by Shaviv. Pinatubo was one such "large eruption" and the temp fell not by .1C but by .6C.....that's the original point. Shaviv was wrong in stating that one would find .1C when looking at large eruptions from Krakatoa to Pinatubo.

The system recovers back to a non-vocationally forced change when the stratospheric aerosols have dissipated.
 
Last edited:
In consecutive posts you claim we're using a very narrow set of data and then immediately post 500 million years of temperature data.

As so often happens, you seem to only grasp about half of what was said.

By using more data, the FACT that we are at a cold point in our planet's Climate history comes to clear focus.

By omitting data that includes this ling history as the climate alarmists like to do, that FACT is missed. It seems to me that the exclusion is intentionally done to create a flawed implication so an erroneous conclusion can be inferred by the misinformed.

I could be wrong in my view on the climate. It seems that most people who take a stand on either side of this topic are wrong. Those like me who want to wait for more information will at least avoid the expenditure of the billions or trillions on what very likely will be a no-effect program.

If you're going to get nothing anyway, maybe nothing is what you should spend.
 
You should study the sciences that evaluate this historical data. There are error factors and many unknowns. Some have errors of +/- 10,000 years. And it's also been pointed out that they just do not know all the factors that were involved back then. I'm not saying that these studies have no merit. The here-and-now studies are very thorough and accurate, because all angles are being reviewed. I urge you to read the IPCC AR5 if you want to analyze the thoroughness of today's conclusions.

The thoroughness of today's conclusion are interesting.

As it happens, there are only about 5 data gathering agencies that work on the global climate.

Between these agencies they disagree on a couple items:

1. They do not agree on what the global climate is.
2. They do not agree on what the rate of change has been since the late 70's.
3. They do not agree on what the global climate was in the late 70's when the exercise began for the satellite based data.
4. They all start with raw data that is then adjusted according to procedures that change over time.
5. NASA changes its procedures and resulting adjusted data relatively often from conclusions that it doesn't like to conclusions that it does like.

There is clear evidence that shows that Otsi the ice man was covered by an advancing glacier about 5000 years. It receded about 10 years ago to reveal his remains.

The Glaciers in Glacier National Park are receding to reveal ground that they have covered for 7000 years.

What do both of these news items from opposite sides of the globe reveal? You may have guessed it by now. We are warming to a point from which we cooled thousands of years ago.

The current warming is not unprecedented, is not catastrophic and has happened before at a lower CO2 concentration than today.

What do the thorough conclusions you rely on from the IPCC say about these FACTS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi
 
Last edited:
CO2 isn't the only variable that affects global temperatures.

Exactly.

Spending billions to regulate one factor in a system that is affected by at least 50 others and all of the resulting interactions seems a bit idiotic, doesn't it?

Kind of makes a thinking person wonder why the effort is being made to control and direct the global climate by reducing CO2 emissions is taken seriously.

What do you think?
 
But, the global temperature still dropped by .6C after Pinatubo...A lot more than the .1C as stated by Shaviv. Pinatubo was one such "large eruption" and the temp fell not by .1C but by .6C.....that's the original point. Shaviv was wrong in stating that one would find .1C when looking at large eruptions from Krakatoa to Pinatubo.

The system recovers back to a non-vocationally forced change when the stratospheric aerosols have dissipated.

I do not believe your reading comprehension skills are this poor, so I have to wonder what you're trying to accomplish. Shaviv spoke of an average over many eruptions, and not a temporary drop from which the climate quickly rebalanced. He has this exactly right, and the additional link in #63 provides you with the mechanism.
 
Predictions are not facts, the Hurricane experts including Dr. Neil Frank former director of the national hurricane center,
said Harvey's rain was as predicted based on the speed, using the same formula in place for many decades.

Exactly - predictions are not facts. And you conveniently changed the subject to hurricane Harvey, which wasn't even mentioned. PREDICTIONS are everything. You want to simply DENY all the predictions of the greatest scientific minds in the world, and simply state that "it's not fact". Nothing more to say - you got your 50-cents-worth posted.
 
The thoroughness of today's conclusion are interesting.

As it happens, there are only about 5 data gathering agencies that work on the global climate.

Between these agencies they disagree on a couple items:

1. They do not agree on what the global climate is.
2. They do not agree on what the rate of change has been since the late 70's.
3. They do not agree on what the global climate was in the late 70's when the exercise began for the satellite based data.
4. They all start with raw data that is then adjusted according to procedures that change over time.
5. NASA changes its procedures and resulting adjusted data relatively often from conclusions that it doesn't like to conclusions that it does like.

There is clear evidence that shows that Otsi the ice man was covered by an advancing glacier about 5000 years. It receded about 10 years ago to reveal his remains.

The Glaciers in Glacier National Park are receding to reveal ground that they have covered for 7000 years.

What do both of these news items from opposite sides of the globe reveal? You may have guessed it by now. We are warming to a point from which we cooled thousands of years ago.

The current warming is not unprecedented, is not catastrophic and has happened before at a lower CO2 concentration than today.

What do the thorough conclusions you rely on from the IPCC say about these FACTS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi

This post is all over the map, including a seemingly unrelated Wikipedia link. Maybe you can enlighten me on that one. You provide no link for your statement that scientific organizations are at odds with one another. From all my background research, I believe they are remarkably close to one another, when it comes to AGW and the models and predictions. And to address your other topic, these scientific organizations unanimously agree that the warming that we're experiencing is unprecedented, and that CO2 is a "significant" factor in the warming. As for historical CO2, from thousands of years ago, I already addressed - the data is questionable from an accuracy standpoint, and from a viewpoint that we don't understand all the historical circumstances.

There is an interesting FAQ video on the NASA website, which I linked earlier. Did you look at it? It explores whether warming precedes CO2 concentration, or whether CO2 concentration increases precedes warming. The answer, according to this Climatologist is "BOTH". This may help to answer your question.
 
Exactly - predictions are not facts. And you conveniently changed the subject to hurricane Harvey, which wasn't even mentioned. PREDICTIONS are everything. You want to simply DENY all the predictions of the greatest scientific minds in the world, and simply state that "it's not fact". Nothing more to say - you got your 50-cents-worth posted.

I introduced Harvey into the discussion.
 
For the record, the OP to begin this thread was an entirely fraudulent graph.
 
Back
Top Bottom