• 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!

Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’

RAMOSS said:
Yes, clouds do make a difference, and the examination of cloud formation makes those upper limits of 4.5 very unlikely. However 1.5 is still quite a big leap.

Another thing.. it's not just glaciers melting that is causings sea level rise. Most of it is because of the expansion of the water in warmer temps. That shows that there will be coastal economic impacts.
Click to expand...
Are you prepared to admit that your statement is post #146,
"Which is dependent on HOW much co2 gets put in the atmosphere."
is factually incorrect?
Also the 1.5 C is much closer to likely than the 4.5 C for 2XCO2,
at least according the the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy
budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C,
Click to expand...
Last time I checked 2.0 is much closer to 1.5 than 4.5.
 
bubbabgone said:
I could spend 3 separate posts listing climate influences that the IPCC admits they don't know enough about to program into their models.
It helps explain how they're consistently wrong.
The result is that they ignore them yet provide forecasts with them for Governments.

That graph I posted in #87 shows how wrong they've been.
When 3g tried to counter with his own graph in #89 (and again in #138) his confusion lingered so I told him so and let it go.
He has a history of not understanding the stuff he links to.
You might have noticed that yourself.
Click to expand...

Hmm. If I recall, your incisive critique consisted primarily of making fun of the word hindcasting.

But please, tell us more how you understand climate models better than the scientists who do it for a living.
 
longview said:
Are you prepared to admit that your statement is post #146,
"Which is dependent on HOW much co2 gets put in the atmosphere."
is factually incorrect?
Also the 1.5 C is much closer to likely than the 4.5 C for 2XCO2,
at least according the the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

Last time I checked 2.0 is much closer to 1.5 than 4.5.
Click to expand...

I always find it amusing that you know more about ECS that the people who invented the concept of ‘ECS’.

But do let us know when someone, somewhere confirms the Otto paper. Because it seems like that’s just not happened.
 
RAMOSS said:
Have you? Have you ever asked yourself why 97% of the worlds climate scientists think there is awg, and the other 3% are in the pockets of the oil industry?
Click to expand...


For the future ... never ever trot out that 97% claim.
It destroys credibility for anyone the instant they repeat it.
So far you avoided answering every question so might as well add another to not answer.
Pick any survey that made that 97% or similar claim and find the methodology that was used ... what are the flaws? It won't be hard to determine.
 
bubbabgone said:
For the future ... never ever trot out that 97% claim.
It destroys credibility for anyone the instant they repeat it.
So far you avoided answering every question so might as well add another to not answer.
Pick any survey that made that 97% or similar claim and find the methodology that was used ... what are the flaws? It won't be hard to determine.
Click to expand...

Well, you want to be blind , deaf and dumb, that;'s your problem.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, you want to be blind , deaf and dumb, that;'s your problem.
Click to expand...
You repeated something and it never occurred to you that maybe you should verify it.
That's it then.
You didn't/can't answer any question.
The pattern is unbroken.
That's the problem with climate alarmism as a fashion statement.
It doesn't require thinking or questioning.
In fact, it doesn't permit it.
 
bubbabgone said:
You repeated something and it never occurred to you that maybe you should verify it.
That's it then.
You didn't/can't answer any question.
The pattern is unbroken.
That's the problem with climate alarmism as a fashion statement.
It doesn't require thinking or questioning.
In fact, it doesn't permit it.
Click to expand...

I have verified in , a number of times.

That number comes from the percentage of papers that agree with AWG verses those that oppose it.
 
RAMOSS said:
I have verified in , a number of times.

That number comes from the percentage of papers that agree with AWG verses those that oppose it.
Click to expand...

And what again was the number of papers that didn't take a stance?

Look at the selection criteria too... Is that the one where the section process required an author to have 20 papers? Only the fnders of the IPCC et. al. would fund that many studies to the same author.

Follow the money.
 
Love this episode, where all the deniers claim the 90% plus number is fake and never come up with an actual published study to refute it?

Or show some survey of oil company employed scientists who all are doubtful of AGW and pretend it’s ‘definitive.’
 
RAMOSS said:
I have verified in , a number of times.

That number comes from the percentage of papers that agree with AWG verses those that oppose it.
Click to expand...
A count of papers that endorse AGW?
Who was the author of the survey you say you verified?
What were the questions asked or criteria used to categorize the papers?
How many papers were agnostic?
Who decided if the papers took a stand?
Who decided the papers took a stand strong enough to be able to be categorized as endorsing AGW?
How many papers were written by the same scientists?

"I anticipate there will be around 6000 "neutral" papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper — if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (Skeptical Science)…. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers — and make regular announcements like "hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes." " - John Cook​

What did your verification turn up?
Nevermind.
You never verified anything.
If you had you'd never let yourself look so foolish that you'd repeat it.
 
bubbabgone said:
A count of papers that endorse AGW?
Who was the author of the survey you say you verified?
What were the questions asked or criteria used to categorize the papers?
How many papers were agnostic?
Who decided if the papers took a stand?
Who decided the papers took a stand strong enough to be able to be categorized as endorsing AGW?
How many papers were written by the same scientists?

"I anticipate there will be around 6000 "neutral" papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper — if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (Skeptical Science)…. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers — and make regular announcements like "hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes." " - John Cook​

What did your verification turn up?
Nevermind.
You never verified anything.
If you had you'd never let yourself look so foolish that you'd repeat it.
Click to expand...

4e4ca7061acdf63641a21b5cc8f5e874.jpg
 
This is the "consensus parrot" tactic. Sub Human knows nothing and cannot think. Sub Human PARROTS. Sub Human certain of PARROTING.


Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

SUB HUMAN no answer....



99.999999999% of Christian preachers believe Jesus walked on water....

Only two of his disciples "saw" that.

In his trial, Jesus failed to walk on water, to defy gravity, or to provide even a shred of evidence he was something other than JUST ANOTHER GUY who lied a lot with a surrounding cast of supportive liars...
 
LaDexter said:
This is the "consensus parrot" tactic. Sub Human knows nothing and cannot think. Sub Human PARROTS. Sub Human certain of PARROTING.


Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

SUB HUMAN no answer....



99.999999999% of Christian preachers believe Jesus walked on water....

Only two of his disciples "saw" that.

In his trial, Jesus failed to walk on water, to defy gravity, or to provide even a shred of evidence he was something other than JUST ANOTHER GUY who lied a lot with a surrounding cast of supportive liars...
Click to expand...

You only display your own ignorance.

Antarctica is a large land mass..the arctic is ocean.

Antarctica is surrounded by water..the arctic by land masses.

The atmosphere above Antarctica is "cut off" from the general circulation of the overall atmosphere much of the time...the atmosphere above the arctic mixes frequently with the general circulation....

Two very different places...The only thing they have in common is they are both polar regions.
 
bubbabgone said:
Sorry, but you said "overcome the effects of the green house gasses". You weren't primarily talking about CO2? I know water vapor dwarfs CO2 but I figured that's not where you were going.

So then what overcomes, or dominates or drives or influences if you'd rather, the effects of greenhouse gasses if it's not solar or Milankovitch cycles? And why?
Click to expand...

There are no known parameters which will overcome CO2 radiative forcing. Not Milankovitch cycles or intrinsic solar variation...on time scales of multiple decades to centuries. With CO2 concentration much above 400 ppm northern hemispheric glaciation just can not happen.
 
bubbabgone said:
That's not true, of course.
What you've accepted as total is only solar's direct effect because that's all they bother to account for.
I'll ask you the same question I always ask alarmists.
If nothing can overcome the effects of CO2, what caused the periodic decades of cooling since the industrial age began?
Remember, it can't be something natural.
Click to expand...

Volcanic eruptions and small variations in solar radiative forcing. Enough to move global temperature 0.5C or so over several decades. The coolest centered around the volcanic eruptions. Solar variability alone (0.1%) requires a significant climate sensitivity since it can move temperature about 0.1C on it's own.
 
longview said:
Are you prepared to admit that your statement is post #146,
"Which is dependent on HOW much co2 gets put in the atmosphere."
is factually incorrect?
Also the 1.5 C is much closer to likely than the 4.5 C for 2XCO2,
at least according the the lead authors of IPCC AR5.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

Last time I checked 2.0 is much closer to 1.5 than 4.5.
Click to expand...

And another new study which reduces the range to between 2.2C and 3.4C with a most likely 2.8C.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-study-reduces-uncertainty-climate-sensitivity
 
Jack Hays said:
Still too high, because they're still relying on models.

[FONT="]". . . They then compared this data to results from a series of 22 global climate models. . . . "[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I know it's hard for older geezers such as us, but welcome to the 21st century....Computer modeling is a major tool in most all of science, enabling insights not possible without that kind of processing power...Get used to it.
 
Russell797 said:
I know it's hard for older geezers such as us, but welcome to the 21st century....Computer modeling is a major tool in most all of science, enabling insights not possible without that kind of processing power...Get used to it.
Click to expand...

It is the foundation of much falsehood in climate science.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except...

28493a59399814091ca4abe22c679929.jpg
Click to expand...

Why Climate Models Run Hot

by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…





 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
I know it's hard for older geezers such as us, but welcome to the 21st century....Computer modeling is a major tool in most all of science, enabling insights not possible without that kind of processing power...Get used to it.
Click to expand...
Computer models are limited to the assumptions made by the people inputting the variables.
If they used the 3.71 Wm-2 energy imbalance for 2XCO2. We now know from the Empirical data that is too high.
 
longview said:
Computer models are limited to the assumptions made by the people inputting the variables.
If they used the 3.71 Wm-2 energy imbalance for 2XCO2. We now know from the Empirical data that is too high.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the baseline and responses to it. Myself, I believe the line by line forcing to be a little less, but not by much. Consider this:

The total radiative downforcing to the earth surface is around 496 W/m^2 A 3.71 increase makes that 499.71. If we assume then, using fourth power equations:

496^0.25 = 4.719

499.71^0.25 = 4.728

4.728 / 7.719 = 1.001907, or a 0.1907% increase in temperature.

288 x 1.001907 = 288.5493, or a 0.55 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2.

Now of course, in a complex atmosphere, it isn't that simple. Still, where the studies claiming the 1.5 to 4.5 degree increase for a doubling are already using known and unknown response changes to get to that, from the under 0.6 degree calculated. Then unwittingly, others want to add the responses to it again, to claim the catastrophic levels of warming.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I guess it depends on the baseline and responses to it. Myself, I believe the line by line forcing to be a little less, but not by much. Consider this:

The total radiative downforcing to the earth surface is around 496 W/m^2 A 3.71 increase makes that 499.71. If we assume then, using fourth power equations:

496^0.25 = 4.719

499.71^0.25 = 4.728

4.728 / 7.719 = 1.001907, or a 0.1907% increase in temperature.

288 x 1.001907 = 288.5493, or a 0.55 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2.

Now of course, in a complex atmosphere, it isn't that simple. Still, where the studies claiming the 1.5 to 4.5 degree increase for a doubling are already using known and unknown response changes to get to that, from the under 0.6 degree calculated. Then unwittingly, others want to add the responses to it again, to claim the catastrophic levels of warming.
Click to expand...
I am thinking it is more complex, because the actual measured imbalance on the increase between 370 ppm and 403 ppm
was much lower than it should have been.
Since I think the line by line is likely accurate, this means other factors are attenuating the imbalance.
Lindzen's atmospheric iris comes to mind, or perhaps a rip current, where waves enter a beach on a broad
front but the water leaves in a narrow channel.
 
longview said:
I am thinking it is more complex, because the actual measured imbalance on the increase between 370 ppm and 403 ppm
was much lower than it should have been.
Since I think the line by line is likely accurate, this means other factors are attenuating the imbalance.
Lindzen's atmospheric iris comes to mind, or perhaps a rip current, where waves enter a beach on a broad
front but the water leaves in a narrow channel.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever the effects, the surface value of just under 500 W/m^2 is what all the scientists agree with. This 3.71 value is a small change. The biggest thing I think to skew using the 4th power equation is that the oceans do not behave like a blackbody for shortwave. The rest of the surface, pretty close. But yes, there are so many other factors responding to changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom