• 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 Tottering AGW Paradigm [W:31]

Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
Yet you refuse to accept that it can be less than 1.5C.

You are just a denier of science. You believe the statistics that the scientists SWAG for that range, when in reality, they have no way of claiming, with any integrity, that it is the 95% range. Besides, statistics dio not make facts. Especially when dealing with so many variables with so few significant digits of quantification.
Click to expand...

I don't think god(s), unicorns or Bigfoot exist either...Below 1.5C is not supportable by the evidence...

Does that mean the probability is zero? No it doesn't...is it at all likely based on the evidence? NO
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Jack Hays said:
Not so much. Again from the OP article.

". . . Despite the recent El Niño, temperatures do not show a significant deviation from a linear increase since 1950, while models predict a much higher rate of warming. . . ."
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no doubt your creationist denier SAYS that.

But I can read a graph.

I also can look up HADCRUT data from the source. And it doesnt seem to look like the data your denier has used.

tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
 
Last edited:
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
That false statement that CO2 account for the warming we see.
Click to expand...

According to the evidence it does...All of it since the 1970s when solar radiation peaked.

You may not agree with the consensus interpretation of the available evidence..but if you don't then you deny the science...You could even be right, but you still deny the science.
 
The SRES scenarios have not been updated since 2000. The A1B scenario uses 10.88 GtC for 2010, when the actual 2010 emission are 9.995 GtC. Almost a 10% error in estimation, and if it is compounded over time, the scenario of emissions is completely wrong. Atmospheric CO2 is dissipating faster than their projections too. They model in 169.6 GtC accumulated in the atmosphere for 2010 since 1990, which makes their 2010 CO2 levels around 434 ppm.

Just how ignorant or intellectually dishonest are scientists today, using outdated material for models?

Am I the only one in this forum that actually looks things up?

SRES HOME

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Russell797 said:
According to the evidence it does...All of it since the 1970s when solar radiation peaked.

You may not agree with the consensus interpretation of the available evidence..but if you don't then you deny the science...You could even be right, but you still deny the science.
Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing with your post 33?
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Russell797 said:
According to the evidence it does...All of it since the 1970s when solar radiation peaked.

You may not agree with the consensus interpretation of the available evidence..but if you don't then you deny the science...You could even be right, but you still deny the science.
Click to expand...

When the solar radiance peaked in the 70's so did world wide atmospheric opacity from pollution. Then, we had EPA regulations and other nations followed, allowing more sunshine to heat the surface.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
Are you disagreeing with your post 33?
Click to expand...

That was a Surface Detail post which I voted up.

There are a great many forcing agents...other than greenhouse gases they currently tend to cancel out to a net zero on timescales relevant to the current issue.

Earth's surface temperature is determined by only 3 variables...Solar electromagnetic output, the Earth's albedo and greenhouse gases...

Everything known to impact on Earth's surface temperature falls into one of those three categories.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Russell797 said:
That was a Surface Detail post which I voted up.

There are a great many forcing agents...other than greenhouse gases they currently tend to cancel out to a net zero on timescales relevant to the current issue.

Earth's surface temperature is determined by only 3 variables...Solar electromagnetic output, the Earth's albedo and greenhouse gases...

Everything known to impact on Earth's surface temperature falls into one of those three categories.
Click to expand...
No, the heat content follows those. Heat and temperature break correlation when state changes or chemical reactions occur.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They model in 169.6 GtC accumulated in the atmosphere for 2010 since 1990, which makes their 2010 CO2 levels around 434 ppm.
Click to expand...

Ooops. I calculated that wrong. The conversion for the added 169.6 GtC would be 430 ppm. Not 434. Anyway, in 2010, we were under 390 ppm.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The SRES scenarios have not been updated since 2000. The A1B scenario uses 10.88 GtC for 2010, when the actual 2010 emission are 9.995 GtC. Almost a 10% error in estimation, and if it is compounded over time, the scenario of emissions is completely wrong. Atmospheric CO2 is dissipating faster than their projections too. They model in 169.6 GtC accumulated in the atmosphere for 2010 since 1990, which makes their 2010 CO2 levels around 434 ppm.

Just how ignorant or intellectually dishonest are scientists today, using outdated material for models?

Am I the only one in this forum that actually looks things up?

SRES HOME

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
Click to expand...

Funny how a guy that tells us CO2 is irrelevant in terms of warming is outraged about a model showing a less than 10% error in emissions.

All I can say is that slide is from a talk by Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, who actually knows this stuff.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
If you say so...
Click to expand...

Latent heat is energy retained by water...released in a phase transition to a lower energy state...gas to water, water to ice. Latent energy DOES NOT change the temperature in a phase transition. Latent energy is not available for release to space, thus impacting on albedo.

Chemical reactions powered by solar energy trap energy within molecular bonds...That energy is not available to be released to space, thus impacting on albedo...
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Russell797 said:
Latent heat is energy retained by water...released in a phase transition to a lower energy state...gas to water, water to ice. Latent energy DOES NOT change the temperature in a phase transition. Latent energy is not available for release to space, thus impacting on albedo.

Chemical reactions powered by solar energy trap energy within molecular bonds...That energy is not available to be released to space, thus impacting on albedo...
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what albedo is. maybe you should look it up.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
I don't think you understand what albedo is. maybe you should look it up.
Click to expand...

Total albedo is at all wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum, not just in the visible range. Maybe emissivity is a better word for you?
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Russell797 said:
Total albedo is at all wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum, not just in the visible range. Maybe emissivity is a better word for you?
Click to expand...

Phase changes and chemical changes are not linked with emissvity or albedo. There can be a cause an effect in rare cases, but not generally so.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
Phase changes and chemical changes are not linked with emissvity or albedo. There can be a cause an effect in rare cases, but not generally so.
Click to expand...

Energy which is not radiated to space, but rather held (absorbed) near the Earth's surface absolutely affects emissivity...think about what you are saying.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Threegoofs said:
Oh, I have no doubt your creationist denier SAYS that.

But I can read a graph.

I also can look up HADCRUT data from the source. And it doesnt seem to look like the data your denier has used.

tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it looks exactly like it because they are the same data. Look more closely. One possible (irrelevant) difference would be pre-2006 because data were hindcast then.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Russell797 said:
Energy which is not radiated to space, but rather held (absorbed) near the Earth's surface absolutely affects emissivity...think about what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what I am saying. Chemical reactions cause heat exchange that affect temperature, but the energy balance is unchanged. When a forest burns for example, this is a chemical reaction The heat content remains the same, but it causes temperature rises. Energy is released from storage. With photosynthesis, energy is stored. This is not the same as emmisivity or albedo. If a huge chunk of ice breaks off of Antarctica, floats out to sea and melts, the heat of fusion requirement draws heat out of the water and atmosphere and reduces the surrounding temperature as it does so. The heat content stays the same, but the temperature drops to melt the ice. As ocean water evaporates, it cools the surrounding area. It draws heat out of the ocean surface to make that phase change from liquid to gas. However, the heat content is unchanged, and neither albedo or emissivity is affected.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

ecofarm said:
CT blog spam supported by gish gallop. Classic.

Maybe he can produce a chart of melt temps for steel and jet fuel fire temps. Then you can jump in with facts and figures about holograms.
Click to expand...

If you do not attempt to understand the Science, what are you arguing about?
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I know what I am saying. Chemical reactions cause heat exchange that affect temperature, but the energy balance is unchanged. When a forest burns for example, this is a chemical reaction The heat content remains the same, but it causes temperature rises. Energy is released from storage. With photosynthesis, energy is stored. This is not the same as emmisivity or albedo. If a huge chunk of ice breaks off of Antarctica, floats out to sea and melts, the heat of fusion requirement draws heat out of the water and atmosphere and reduces the surrounding temperature as it does so. The heat content stays the same, but the temperature drops to melt the ice. As ocean water evaporates, it cools the surrounding area. It draws heat out of the ocean surface to make that phase change from liquid to gas. However, the heat content is unchanged, and neither albedo or emissivity is affected.
Click to expand...

You are referring to visual albedo...I'm referring to total albedo or emissivity. This is black body physics. I thought that was understood, since we are speaking of the total energy flux at all wavelengths at the TOA, not just in the visible.

That should be understood because the premise I started with was that the temperature of the Earth is determined by three fundamental parameters...solar output, albedo and the greenhouse effect...Everything which impacts on Earth's surface temperature boils down to those three factors..

Just like everything known in physics boils down to the interaction of four fundamental forces.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, I know what I am saying. Chemical reactions cause heat exchange that affect temperature, but the energy balance is unchanged. When a forest burns for example, this is a chemical reaction The heat content remains the same, but it causes temperature rises. Energy is released from storage. With photosynthesis, energy is stored. This is not the same as emmisivity or albedo. If a huge chunk of ice breaks off of Antarctica, floats out to sea and melts, the heat of fusion requirement draws heat out of the water and atmosphere and reduces the surrounding temperature as it does so. The heat content stays the same, but the temperature drops to melt the ice. As ocean water evaporates, it cools the surrounding area. It draws heat out of the ocean surface to make that phase change from liquid to gas. However, the heat content is unchanged, and neither albedo or emissivity is affected.
Click to expand...

Another thing...Obviously when that chunk of ice melts the albedo of the Earth decreases. When denser vegetation grows the albedo decreases. That decrease subsequently leads to warming.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Russell797 said:
You are referring to visual albedo...I'm referring to total albedo or emissivity. This is black body physics. I thought that was understood, since we are speaking of the total energy flux at all wavelengths at the TOA, not just in the visible.

That should be understood because the premise I started with was that the temperature of the Earth is determined by three fundamental parameters...solar output, albedo and the greenhouse effect...Everything which impacts on Earth's surface temperature boils down to those three factors..

Just like everything known in physics boils down to the interaction of four fundamental forces.
Click to expand...
You do know that the TOA flux measurements are not cooperating with the CO2 levels right.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
We still have many unanswered questions about what affects the earth's energy imbalance,
but clearly CO2 is not the only player, and may not be a major player.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

longview said:
You do know that the TOA flux measurements are not cooperating with the CO2 levels right.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
We still have many unanswered questions about what affects the earth's energy imbalance,
but clearly CO2 is not the only player, and may not be a major player.
Click to expand...

What do you mean not cooperating? The TOA does not indicate the cause of warming..There is a positive energy imbalance..in the new version as well as the old. That means the Earth is warming.. Why is another question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom