• 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!

[W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Lord of Planar said:
I did read them. You obviously don't understand them. They cherry picked studies that attempted to quantify sensitivity. They left out all the studies that they didn't like, that shouwed low sensitivity. I went to look at the [Proistosescu and Huybers (2017); median and 90%] for example. Didn't find it, but found a study by Proistosecu that addressed the flipping of ice ages to warming time, and all CO2 does is change the trigger point.
Click to expand...

So they cherry picked studies... yet you were unable to find the studies that they didn’t use?

Hmmmm
 
Threegoofs said:
So they cherry picked studies... yet you were unable to find the studies that they didn’t use?

Hmmmm
Click to expand...

I didn't try looking very long. I'm sure I can find it if I really wanted to. They simply left out studies that do show lower sensitivity. That's enough for me. I don't need to satisfy anything past the typical cherry picking.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I didn't try looking very long. I'm sure I can find it if I really wanted to. They simply left out studies that do show lower sensitivity. That's enough for me. I don't need to satisfy anything past the typical cherry picking.
Click to expand...

Impressive that you know they cherry picked studies but you don’t know the literature.

Remember that first peak in the DKcurve?....
 
Lord of Planar said:
I did read them. You obviously don't understand them. They cherry picked studies that attempted to quantify sensitivity. They left out all the studies that they didn't like, that shouwed low sensitivity. I went to look at the [Proistosescu and Huybers (2017); median and 90%] for example. Didn't find it, but found a study by Proistosecu that addressed the flipping of ice ages to warming time, and all CO2 does is change the trigger point.
Click to expand...

You claimed: "all new sensitivity studies have lower numbers than the old ones used by the IPCC et. al."

That is clearly a lie and you are clearly ignorant of the literature.

The only person "cherry-picking" is you.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
So they cherry picked studies... yet you were unable to find the studies that they didn’t use?

Hmmmm
Click to expand...

He's a self-proclaimed "expert" yet doesn't even know how to do a literature search, or what a review paper is.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I didn't try looking very long. I'm sure I can find it if I really wanted to. They simply left out studies that do show lower sensitivity. That's enough for me. I don't need to satisfy anything past the typical cherry picking.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They even included that nonsensical paper based on a simplistic toy model by Hermann Harde.
 
Threegoofs said:
So they cherry picked studies... yet you were unable to find the studies that they didn’t use?

Hmmmm
Click to expand...

The 2017 Nature Geoscience review article by Knutti et al listed 469 papers. The CB article listed more papers published since 2017. That's a lot of cherries. Contrary to LOP's lie, they included papers with a really low climate sensitivity (although ones with a really low sensitivity (like Lindzen and Choi, or Harde) have already been shown to be very flawed).
 
Quaestio said:
Wrong. They even included that nonsensical paper based on a simplistic toy model by Hermann Harde.
Click to expand...

The plain fact is the temperature and climate today are well within the natural variability of recent millenia in both their level and rate of change. I'll start to worry when they aren't :wink:
 
flogger said:
The plain fact is the temperature and climate today are well within the natural variability of recent millenia in both their level and rate of change. I'll start to worry when they aren't :wink:
Click to expand...

e7523fc890c6f40c55a4e2813c0d050f.jpg


Time to worry
 
You global warming nut jobs aren't really serious about it....you're only serious about bashing America.
 
Threegoofs said:
e7523fc890c6f40c55a4e2813c0d050f.jpg


Time to worry
Click to expand...
What would your over cited blog graph look like without the A1B prediction attached?
marcott1.jpg
I guess the blogger attached the "What might happen" A1B to the what did happen graph for dramatic effect!
In addition Marcott said,
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years | Science
Proxy-based temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that the warming of the past few decades is unusual
relative to pre-anthropogenic variations (2, 3), but whether recent warming is anomalous relative to variability over the entirety of the
Holocene interglaciation (the past 11,500 years) (4) has yet to be established.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Impressive that you know they cherry picked studies but you don’t know the literature.

Remember that first peak in the DKcurve?....
Click to expand...

They left out several studies that specifically looked at sensitivity, that I have read before. I didn't find any studies that didn't regurgitate past models. This one for example:

Proistosescu, C. & Huybers, P.J. Slow climate mode reconciles historical and
model-based estimates of climate sensitivity. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602821 (2017).

Only changed the model, and still doesn't address the solar changes properly.

This one:

Lucarini, V., Ragone, F. & Lunkeit, F. Predicting climate change using
response theory: global averages and spatial patterns. J.Stat. Phys.
166, 1036–1064 (2017).

Addresses solar changes, but only the direct changes. Not how the rest of the earth system changes forcing in a near linear relationship to solar changes, amplifying the "direct" solar flux. The total changes from the sun are easily at least three times greater than the direct changes alone. You guiys want to give CO2 a water amplification, and ignore that the sun, the source of the earth energy budget, increases or decreases all the rest. You guys DENY the amplification to solar changes.

Do you ever read the sources these studies use?
 
Quaestio said:
You claimed: "all new sensitivity studies have lower numbers than the old ones used by the IPCC et. al."

That is clearly a lie and you are clearly ignorant of the literature.

The only person "cherry-picking" is you.
Click to expand...

For clarification... All new studies that start from scratch, instead of relying on numbers from past studies. Don't you get it? These cherry picked new studies are starting with numbers not settled, as if they are settled.

Goes back to when I mention many studies start some calculations with "if we assume..." Then the pundits ignore the theoretical math, and claim it as fact, rather than assumption. Many studies do the same thing. Take unproven numbers, and use them as gospel.
 
flogger said:
So you'll can cite where this graph was taken from then ? :waiting: #1
Click to expand...

The graphic is clearly sourced.

I guess you can’t argue that, so you fall back on whining about a website.

You’re data is there in a convenient, easy to read form. Instead of addressing it, you run. Classic.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think without a projection at all it stil seems pretty concerning.

And most scientists agree.
Click to expand...
Is that why Marcott said,
"but whether recent warming is anomalous relative to variability over the entirety of the
Holocene interglaciation (the past 11,500 years) (4) has yet to be established."
So they have not established if the recent warming is outside the envelope of natural variability.
Why would that concern anyone?
 
longview said:
Is that why Marcott said,
"but whether recent warming is anomalous relative to variability over the entirety of the
Holocene interglaciation (the past 11,500 years) (4) has yet to be established."
So they have not established if the recent warming is outside the envelope of natural variability.
Why would that concern anyone?
Click to expand...

There’s always uncertainty.

But it’s less and less the more we know, while you deniers seem to think it’s more and more.

But focus on your single sentence from a large body of literature. It’s about all you’ve got.
 
Threegoofs said:
There’s always uncertainty.

But it’s less and less the more we know, while you deniers seem to think it’s more and more.

But focus on your single sentence from a large body of literature. It’s about all you’ve got.
Click to expand...
It goes to the heart of reconstruction, Marcott states that they have yet to establish if the recent observed temperatures are unusual.
The center of the concept of AGW is that the recent observed temperatures are unusual.
Marcott is saying that cannot be established.
 
longview said:
It goes to the heart of reconstruction, Marcott states that they have yet to establish if the recent observed temperatures are unusual.
The center of the concept of AGW is that the recent observed temperatures are unusual.
Marcott is saying that cannot be established.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Cling to your fantasy that it’s totally normal to shave temps spike up a full degree in a century and then drop down immediately after.

Because that’s science-y.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes.

Cling to your fantasy that it’s totally normal to shave temps spike up a full degree in a century and then drop down immediately after.

Because that’s science-y.
Click to expand...
You are the one who wants to attach a proxy record with a 120 year average resolution to a monthly temperature record.
If you do not believe Marcott when he says,
"but whether recent warming is anomalous relative to variability over the entirety of the
Holocene interglaciation (the past 11,500 years) (4) has yet to be established."
what are you arguing? Ether recent warming is abnormal, or it's not, so for it looks like it is not definitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom