• 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]

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thomas Kuhn's great work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions famously explains how one scientific paradigm replaces another, changing our view of the world and leading on to further scientific advances. An existing, dominant paradigm is ripe for replacement when its explanatory power is decreasingly able to provide plausible answers to important questions. Such is the case now with the paradigm built around the concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In attempts to bolster it here have been so many excuses, fixes and reinterpretations of data that AGW's critics have dubbed our current era the "Adjustocene." Here is a brief but telling critique that shows the weakening of the AGW paradigm.

Alarmism / Climate News / Opinion
What are, in fact, the grounds for concern about global warming?

By Javier This is an answer to the Geological Society of London position statement on “Climate Change: evidence from the geological record,” published in November 2010, and the addendum published in December 2013. They can be found at: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climaterecordThis article was first written as a long comment contributing to a discussion over the Geological…

. . . Physics shows that adding carbon dioxide leads to warming under laboratory conditions. It is generally assumed that a doubling of CO2 should produce a direct forcing of 3.7 W/m2[1], that translates to a warming of 1°C (by differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) to 1.2°C (by models taking into account latitude and season). But that is a maximum value valid only if total energy outflow is the same as radiative outflow. As there is also conduction, convection, and evaporation, the final warming without feedbacks is probably less. Then we have the problem of feedbacks that we don’t know and cannot properly measure. For some of the feedbacks, like cloud cover we don’t even know the sign of their contribution. And they are huge, a 1% change in albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 W/m2 [2], almost equivalent to a full doubling of CO2.
So, in essence we don’t know how much the Earth has warmed in response to the increase in CO2 for the past 67 years, and how much for other causes. That is the reason why, after expending billions on the question of climate sensitivity to CO2, we have not been able to reduce the range of possible values, 1.5°C to 4.5° C[3], a factor of 3, in the 39 years that have passed since the Charney Report was published [4]. A clear scientific failure.
Climate is a very complex system and adding CO2 to the atmosphere in great amounts since 1950 led first to cooling, then to warming, and lately to a stilling of temperatures until the 2014-16 El Niño. A different explanation is required for every period when the expected warming doesn’t take place, an approach that leaves Occam’s beard unshaved. . . .



 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

. . . . Without question we have undone most or all the cooling that took place between the Medieval Climatic Anomaly at ~1100 AD and the bottom of the Little Ice Age at ~1650 AD. Is this countertrend, multi-century, global warming we are experiencing worrisome? By objective reasons, the Little Ice Age was very worrisome. Glaciers advanced to their maximum Holocene extent, destroying farms and villages. Crops failed repeatedly causing famines like the one that killed one third of Finland’s population in 1696. Population in Iceland declined from 77,500 in 1095 to 38,000 in 1780 [11]. Conditions have improved greatly since the Little Ice Age, coinciding with Global Warming.
It is only since 1950 that anthropogenic forcing (human GHG emissions) has really taken off. Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admitted in an interview on the BBC in 2010 [12], that “for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.”
013018_1051_whatareinfa2.png
Table 1. Data provided by Prof. Phil Jones to the BBC showing that different warming periods are significant but not statistically different.
So, to explain why the warming rate has not accelerated despite the huge addition of CO2, we are told that prior to 1950 global warming was mostly natural, and after 1950 is human-made. A convenient explanation for which there is no evidence, just assumptions on top of assumptions. . . .
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

. . . The CO2 hypothesis of global warming has been consistently wrong in its predictions. In science, if your hypothesis predictions fail, there is something wrong. In 1990 the IPCC predicted a warming rate of 0.3° C/decade [16] for the next century, nearly double the observed rate for the past 27 years. It also predicted a 1° C warming by 2025 (0.5° C observed). In 2001 the IPCC predicted that milder winter temperatures would decrease heavy snowstorms [17]. In 2007 the IPCC claimed that by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people would be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture were to be reduced by up to 50 % [18]. It later had to withdraw that prediction. Arctic sea ice predictions have also been consistently wrong with many polar scientists predicting the demise of summer Arctic sea ice by dates as early as 2008 [19] to as late as 2030 [20]. The reality is that in September 2017 there was more sea ice in the Arctic than 10 years earlier. And we could continue with many other predicted climate horrors that have failed to pass, regarding polar bears, sinking nations, food shortages, climate refugees, and extreme weather events, too long to detail [21], but that show a shameless promotion of alarmism based on unrealistic worst-case scenarios. . . .
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm





. . . By writing the 2010 statement and 2013 addendum, the authors are just setting the Geological Society of London in line with the politically promoted consensus on global warming. It is not different from what many other scientific societies have done recently, but it is a breach of the scientific principles that should guide the Society and an attack on the plurality of views that characterize healthy scientific debate over a hypothesis that so far is short on evidence and long on claims.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

This is flat-out CT blog spam.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Do you find the material too difficult? Perhaps I can help.

I've an MSc International Environmental Science. You're the one with a CT blog education. If you understood any of it, or its context, you could do better than blog spam.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

I've an MSc International Environmental Science. You're the one with a CT blog education. If you understood any of it, or its context, you could do better than blog spam.

Yes yes. You've told us about your education several dozen times. Wasted money, time and effort, apparently.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Yes yes. You've told us about your education several dozen times. Wasted money, time and effort, apparently.

I should have just gone with a CT blog education. Then I could spam the blogs and pretend I understand the issue. That would be so much better than an actual education.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

I should have just gone with a CT blog education. Then I could spam the blogs and pretend I understand the issue. That would be so much better than an actual education.

Good luck in all your future endeavors.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Good luck in all your future endeavors.

I'd wish you good luck but none is required to spam CT blogs on forums. Hopefully the copy/paste function on your device continues to function :shrug:
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Fresh propaganda from wattsupwiththat.

Yummy.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

This is flat-out CT blog spam.
Which part?
While we do not really know how sensitivity the atmosphere is to added CO2, The CERES satellites were supposed
to end the discussion once and for all, by showing the level of energy imbalance increasing.
But the first run through the had what some would call mixed results.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
ED2.8 showed an all Sky net flux trend of .091Wm-2/decade and a clear sky net flux trend of .70 Wm-2/decade.
But this would mean that clouds have a much larger attenuation than predicted,
and that the 2XCO2 All Sky imbalance would be about 1.2 Wm-2 or about .38 C forcing.
This was not nearly close enough to the predictions, so ED4.0 massaged the numbers again,
and came up with much more respectable numbers of all sky .27 Wm-2/decade, and clear sky of .47 Wm-2/decade.
This means the clouds only attenuate the forcing by half and the forcing would be much closer
to the 2XCO2 predicted 3.71 Wm-2 number at 3.55 Wm-2.
Everything in AGW starts with the energy imbalance, minimal energy imbalance, minimal warming.
If we are still observing warming, it is coming from somewhere else besides CO2.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Which part?
While we do not really know how sensitivity the atmosphere is to added CO2, The CERES satellites were supposed
to end the discussion once and for all, by showing the level of energy imbalance increasing.
But the first run through the had what some would call mixed results.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documen...ct_CEREStechnical/23_Loeb_EBAF_TOA_Update.pdf
ED2.8 showed an all Sky net flux trend of .091Wm-2/decade and a clear sky net flux trend of .70 Wm-2/decade.
But this would mean that clouds have a much larger attenuation than predicted,
and that the 2XCO2 All Sky imbalance would be about 1.2 Wm-2 or about .38 C forcing.
This was not nearly close enough to the predictions, so ED4.0 massaged the numbers again,
and came up with much more respectable numbers of all sky .27 Wm-2/decade, and clear sky of .47 Wm-2/decade.
This means the clouds only attenuate the forcing by half and the forcing would be much closer
to the 2XCO2 predicted 3.71 Wm-2 number at 3.55 Wm-2.
Everything in AGW starts with the energy imbalance, minimal energy imbalance, minimal warming.
If we are still observing warming, it is coming from somewhere else besides CO2.

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.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Not at all. He's an expected antagonist who never takes up the substance. Until he does, I don't take him seriously.

Not true. When I first encountered your CT blog spam, I went to the article cited by the blog and explained to you what had been overlooked or left out and made clear the blog was providing a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the article. You were unable to grasp the error because you have no legitimate scientific education or knowledge in the field. You proved to be absolutely devoted to your CT; you have self worth vested in it. No amount of actual, informed, criticism will ever show you the folly in which you engage. Only divesting yourself of the CT and getting some actual education in the field could ever tear you from your superiority fantasy, and that's not gonna happen. You're gonna continue to gulp CT blogs and pretend it makes you so much more informed than scientists.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Not true. When I first encountered your CT blog spam, I went to the article cited by the blog and explained to you what had been overlooked or left out and made clear the blog was providing a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the article. You were unable to grasp the error because you have no legitimate scientific education or knowledge in the field. You proved to be absolutely devoted to your CT; you have self worth vested in it. No amount of actual, informed, criticism will ever show you the folly in which you engage. Only divesting yourself of the CT and getting some actual education in the field could ever tear you from your superiority fantasy, and that's not gonna happen. You're gonna continue to gulp CT blogs and pretend it makes you so much more informed than scientists.

No, you did not. That's just another falsehood to dodge the substance.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

No, you did not. That's just another falsehood to dodge the substance.

Denial is a big part of believing CT.
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

Still dodging the substance.

Still losing debates with nutbag sources and pathetic methods. Does it hurt your feelings when someone points out that you merely spam CT blogs?
 
Re: The Tottering AGW Paradigm

I'm not the one making stuff up.

Yeah you are, we showed that pretty clearly in another thread recently, and in countless others.

Remember your Roy Spencer prediction debacle that you ran away from?
 
Back
Top Bottom