• 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 Core of AGW, has it been tested?

ataraxia said:
So if even they accept it, why do you deny it?
Click to expand...

Only one mad poster here denies global warming.

The Skeptics ask questions and point out that it is not going to cause any significant trouble to humanity.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Only one mad poster here denies global warming.

The Skeptics ask questions and point out that it is not going to cause any significant trouble to humanity.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the “skeptics” who question the fossil record in basic evolutionary biology, huh? Thank goodness for such smart and sharp-eyed skeptics! Otherwise these scientists would be so prone to going wrong all the time!
 
ataraxia said:
Kinda like the “skeptics” who question the fossil record in basic evolutionary biology, huh? Thank goodness for such smart and sharp-eyed skeptics! Otherwise these scientists would be so prone to going wrong all the time!
Click to expand...
Very different, People and Scientist skeptical of hypothesis all the time, it is kind of how the scientific method works.
For AGW the current pieces of the puzzle do not fit.
If CO2 is slowing 15 um IR from leaving the atmosphere, like is hypothesized,
it would do so all the time 24/7, since that is not happening, the current hypothesis comes up lacking.
 
ataraxia said:
Kinda like the “skeptics” who question the fossil record in basic evolutionary biology, huh? Thank goodness for such smart and sharp-eyed skeptics! Otherwise these scientists would be so prone to going wrong all the time!
Click to expand...

No they are also deniers of obvious evidence. The same poster here who is the only denyer of global warming is also a denyer of that as well.

If you wish to discuss the finer points of evolution feel free. i once wrote an essay on species specific predation (parasitism) as a driver of nono-niche species diversity. Fun stuff.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Since I hate repeating myself to the point I bore myself, I'll just refer you to my previous post. if you do decide to rebut my (or anybody else's) point of view with reason, logic, or substance, please do. Otherwise I will note that you don't share my 'crazy ass opinion' and wish you a pleasant afternoon.
Click to expand...

If i ever find evidence of such things in what you post, I most certainly will.
 
longview said:
Very different, People and Scientist skeptical of hypothesis all the time, it is kind of how the scientific method works.
For AGW the current pieces of the puzzle do not fit.
If CO2 is slowing 15 um IR from leaving the atmosphere, like is hypothesized,
it would do so all the time 24/7, since that is not happening, the current hypothesis comes up lacking.
Click to expand...

There is no lack. You are not smarter than every single scientific organization on the entire planet.
 
ataraxia said:
They fit fine. You are not smarter than every single scientific organization on the planet.
Click to expand...
And I am not disagreeing with those scientific organizations, by saying that the pieces do not fit.
Hansen is very clear in saying that T-Max should raise as fast as T-Min
Yet the diurnal Asymmetry has been around for over a century,
Many of Hansen's assumptions are used in the models, so it is likely that his assumptions about
the maximum and minimum temperatures increasing at the same rate, made it into the models as well.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf
We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping on maximum temperatures
will be small, for the following three reasons. First, even during the past four decades the 0.56°C damping
of the diurnal cycle did not eliminate daytime warming, but rather reduced it from 0.56°C to 0.28°C. Second,
as illustrated by Fig. 21, almost all of the damping caused by a climate forcing occurs immediately with the introduction
of the forcing, while the mean temperature rise is delayed by the thermal inertia of the climate system. Thus the
unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will appear almost equally in daily maximum
and daily minimum temperatures. Third, as anthropogenic emissions level off the forcings which principally damp the
diurnal cycle, aerosol and cloud changes, will level off, but the long-lived greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate.
Thus, except for the small damping due to increased water vapor, the maximum temperature should increase
as fast as the minimum temperature.
Click to expand...
The core idea of how added CO2 forces warming in the surface troposphere system, has not and likely cannot be tested in a lab.
The CERES satellite was supposed to show the energy imbalance, and while we see the seasonal changes,
there does not appear to be a long term net flux change.
ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png

but we really do not have any empirical evidence that CO2 in fact does what they claim, the way that they claim.
If, as I have postulated, that sunlight causes a population inversion in atmospheric CO2,
then that would be a better fit for the observations.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Oh, and I almost forgot re Exxon's position:

Exxon and all other major oil companies are making out like bandits conforming to all the new rules, regs, and government initiatives re global warming/climate change. Why should they object in any way when it gives them excuses not to spend money on their own research and exploration, and they can profit much more from their products that are engineered to meet government requirements? Not to mention the lucrative government grant money THEY are receiving re climate change.

I have a close relative who works for a major oil company, and he thoroughly enjoyed using a multi-million dollar government grant to design and build equipment that could render beef fat into fuel. The equipment and methods they developed met all government specifications and passed muster in the final inspections. His division netted several million dollars even though the process itself, while successful, will never be cost effective or practical in the grand scheme of things.

And you can multiply that kind of thing all over the country, even all over the world.
Click to expand...

Yep.

They love those green subsidies. At tax payer expense...
 
Jack Hays said:
This guy is.



1:45:51
Prof Nir Shaviv Where the IPCC has Gone Wrong

Vernon Santiago

YouTube - Aug 10, 2017
Click to expand...

No, he is a data-manipulating charlatan.

Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate

"Two main conclusions result from our analysis of Shaviv and Veizer [2003]. The first is that the correlation of CRF and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated."

"Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO[SUB]2[/SUB] doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis that implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO[SUB]2[/SUB] doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that Shaviv and Veizer [2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to CO[SUB]2[/SUB]."
 
Surface Detail said:
No, he is a data-manipulating charlatan.

Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate

"Two main conclusions result from our analysis of Shaviv and Veizer [2003]. The first is that the correlation of CRF and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated."

"Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO[SUB]2[/SUB] doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis that implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO[SUB]2[/SUB] doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that Shaviv and Veizer [2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to CO[SUB]2[/SUB]."
Click to expand...

Any article with Stefan Rahmstorf as the lead author can be immediately dismissed as propaganda.

Aren't you curious why, despite the critique above, Shaviv was in 2015 named an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study? That's pretty rarified air.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have hit it right on the nose, AO. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has been all over this for a long time. Here's an example that took ten years to uncover.

Cherry Pie
. . . D’Arrigo put up a slide about "cherry picking" and then she explained to the panel that that’s what you have to do if you want to make cherry pie. . . . Hey, it’s old news at climateaudit, but the panel is not so wise in the ways of the Hockey Team. D’Arrigo did not mention to the panel that she, like Mann, was not a statistician, but I think that they already guessed.
I posted up a long time ago – scroll down – about Jacoby’s answer explaining why he would not archive or disclose the other sites besides the 10 most “Å“temperature sensitive” out of 36 that they reported on. But it’s also about making cherry pies. Here’s an excerpt:
If we get a good climatic story from a chronology, we write a paper using it. That is our funded mission. It does not make sense to expend efforts on marginal or poor data and it is a waste of funding agency and taxpayer dollars. The rejected data are set aside and not archived. ​
Click to expand...

Yep. This actually sums it up well, and I highlighted your text I was referring too:

That is our funded mission.
​

Think about this for a moment people. Someone has granted them money to research and produce given results. The human nature of such things is that the person providing the money will not likely fund them again, if the don't produce the desired results. The people doing the research understand this, and as supplemental income, or feathers in a hat, they aim to please the paying customer. Most scientists play with the words they use, to maintain honesty, but imply the desired results. Some scientists outright have no honor to the meaning of science, and outright finagle the evidence and facts.

Please note, that I have pointed out in various posts, that I discovered good data Mann et. al. used that was available, and discarded. They were ocean sediment proxies off the coast of Africa, that they uses two, maybe three cores of. There were several dozen complete core samples, but the others either showed a cooling, or no change.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Yep. This actually sums it up well, and I highlighted your text I was referring too:


That is our funded mission.
​
Think about this for a moment people. Someone has granted them money to research and produce given results. The human nature of such things is that the person providing the money will not likely find them again, if the don't produce the desired results. The people doing the research understand this, and as supplemental income, or feathers in a hat, they aim to please the paying customer. Most scientists play with the words they use, to maintain honesty, but imply the desired results. Some scientists outright have no honor to the meaning of science, and outright finagle the evidence and facts.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
Jack Hays said:
Any article with Stefan Rahmstorf as the lead author can be immediately dismissed as propaganda.

Aren't you curious why, despite the critique above, Shaviv was in 2015 named an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study? That's pretty rarified air.
Click to expand...

Presumably for his work as an astrophysicist, given that he is not a climatologist.

Stefan Rahmstorf, on the other hand, is one of the world's leading climatologists, and is therefore for more likely to know what he is talking about with regard to climate science. Shaviv wouldn't be the first scientist to arrogantly, and wrongly, assume that expertise in one field makes him an expert in another.
 
Surface Detail said:
Presumably for his work as an astrophysicist, given that he is not a climatologist.

Stefan Rahmstorf, on the other hand, is one of the world's leading climatologists, and is therefore for more likely to know what he is talking about with regard to climate science. Shaviv wouldn't be the first scientist to arrogantly, and wrongly, assume that expertise in one field makes him an expert in another.
Click to expand...

Shaviv's work at the Institute for Advanced Study was on climate. Take some time to get up to speed. Rahmstorf is a fraud and a political hack.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
He looks like he should be getting carded at the liquor store. At least maybe he can drive now without his dad in the car? :lamo
Click to expand...


Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
 
Jack Hays said:
Shaviv's work at the Institute for Advanced Study was on climate. Take some time to get up to speed. Rahmstorf is a fraud and a political hack.
Click to expand...

You are talking utter nonsense. Rahmstorf is a highly respected climatologist with a very long list of publications on climate science in the most prestigious journals:

List of Publications
 
Surface Detail said:
You are talking utter nonsense. Rahmstorf is a highly respected climatologist with a very long list of publications on climate science in the most prestigious journals:

List of Publications
Click to expand...

When I lived in Berlin I was a regular reader of Der Spiegel,​ so this caught my eye.

From the link in #68:

[FONT=&quot]". . . [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Markus Lehmkuhl is a German science journalist and works for the German Science Journalists Association. He wrote an article about Stefan Rahmstorf, [/FONT]Ideology and climate change: How to silence journalists[FONT=&quot], describing how Rahmstorf brutalized a freelance journalist, Irene Meichsner, who dared question climate change even a little. The article begins:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"A freelance journalist becomes the target of the renowned climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf, who in the struggle for the supposed truth does not stop short of personal defamation."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Even the most famous German liberal news magazine, Der Spiegel, generally among the climate change alarmists, published an article [/FONT]The Rough Methods of Climate Researcher Rahmstorf[FONT=&quot] . . . by Jan-Philipp Hein and Markus Becker.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The first paragraph makes it clear why the authors chose that title: "Journalists complain about attempts at intimidation, researchers distance themselves from the Potsdam professor." And a little further on: "If a journalist addresses climate change and brings forth arguments that Rahmstorf finds bad, there can be trouble. The professor of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) then writes letters. But not to the authors, but immediately to the responsible chief editors or department heads." Or, the authors add, he publishes his letter right on his homepage instead. . . . [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Stefan Rahmstorf is the classic bully, as most dictators are. They are insecure about themselves and strike out preemptively. Rahmstorf has a sketchy climate science background and is insecure about this so if you disagree with him he has to attack you. . . ."[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom