• 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:
Well, in all honesty, his graph appears accurate. What you needed to say was "all new research." Not "almost all research."
Click to expand...

Got a reference for that?

I’d ask Jack, but I know his answer will be some link from the Alex Jones radio show.
 
Threegoofs said:
Got a reference for that?

I’d ask Jack, but I know his answer will be some link from the Alex Jones radio show.
Click to expand...

Game, set, match.

Browse: Home / 2017 / October / 16 / Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017
Updated: The Shrinking

CO2 Climate Sensitivity

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017.jpg

A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm).
The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response (TCR, the average temperature response centered around the time of CO2 doubling) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, the temperature response upon reaching an equilibrium state after doubling) are shown to be declining from an average of about 3°C earlier in the century to below 2°C and edging towards 1°C for the more recent years.
This visual evidence would appear to indicate that past climate model determinations of very high climate sensitivity (4°C, 5°C, 6°C and up) have increasingly been determined to be in error. The anthropogenic influence on the Earth’s surface temperature has likely been significantly exaggerated.
Scafetta et al., 2017“Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C.”
“Thus, all evidences suggest that the IPCC GCMs at least increase twofold or even triple the real anthropogenic warming. The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination.”

 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Game, set, match.

Browse: Home / 2017 / October / 16 / Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017
Updated: The Shrinking

CO2 Climate Sensitivity

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017.jpg

A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm).
The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response (TCR, the average temperature response centered around the time of CO2 doubling) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, the temperature response upon reaching an equilibrium state after doubling) are shown to be declining from an average of about 3°C earlier in the century to below 2°C and edging towards 1°C for the more recent years.
This visual evidence would appear to indicate that past climate model determinations of very high climate sensitivity (4°C, 5°C, 6°C and up) have increasingly been determined to be in error. The anthropogenic influence on the Earth’s surface temperature has likely been significantly exaggerated.
Scafetta et al., 2017“Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C.”
“Thus, all evidences suggest that the IPCC GCMs at least increase twofold or even triple the real anthropogenic warming. The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination.”
Click to expand...

And that’s a denier blog.

Glenn Beck reference coming next?
 
Threegoofs said:
And that’s a denier blog.

Glenn Beck reference coming next?
Click to expand...

The blog post highlighted this paper. Now you're just running.

Scafetta et al., 2017

“Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C.”

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
The blog post highlighted this paper. Now you're just running.

Scafetta et al., 2017

“Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C.”

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017.jpg
Click to expand...

Highlighted ‘A’ paper. One from a joke of a journal, written by a known denier, and you cited his unreferenced claim.

But you do you!
 
Threegoofs said:
Highlighted ‘A’ paper. One from a joke of a journal, written by a known denier, and you cited his unreferenced claim.

But you do you!
Click to expand...

You are just deflecting here. All the graph points are referenced and footnoted in the paper, which is presented in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

[h=3]International Journal of Heat and Technology | IIETA[/h]
[url]www.iieta.org/Journals/IJHT
[/URL]



SJR (Scientific Journal Ranking) 2017 = 0.525. SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Publication) 2017 = 2.674. International Journal of Heat and Technology ...‎Current Issue · ‎Archive · ‎Submission · ‎Editors
 
Jack Hays said:
You are just deflecting here. All the graph points are referenced and footnoted in the paper, which is presented in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

[h=3]International Journal of Heat and Technology | IIETA[/h]
[url]www.iieta.org/Journals/IJHT
[/URL]



SJR (Scientific Journal Ranking) 2017 = 0.525. SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Publication) 2017 = 2.674. International Journal of Heat and Technology ...‎Current Issue · ‎Archive · ‎Submission · ‎Editors
Click to expand...

Yes. I’m sure the crack reviewers from the ‘International Journal of Heat and Technology’ are totally versed in climatology and endured the denier author included all appropriate studies.

[emoji849]

This is why reputable journals are important, BTW (not that you actually care....)
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. I’m sure the crack reviewers from the ‘International Journal of Heat and Technology’ are totally versed in climatology and endured the denier author included all appropriate studies.

[emoji849]

This is why reputable journals are important, BTW (not that you actually care....)
Click to expand...

You are just making a fool of yourself now.

Peer Review ProcessA double blind reviewing procedure is adopted by IJHT. After submission, if the topics of the paper are appropriate for the journal, the manuscript is sent to the editor-in-chief or managing editor and then the paper will reach a panel of experts as reviewers involved in the relevant research area, who can be either external or members of the editorial board. Each paper is reviewed by at least two reviewers. The final decision concerning the papers publication belongs to the editor-in-chief or managing editor. And their comments will be returned to the author. There are four possible outcomes:
a)　Accept: the paper will be published without any revision.
b)　Minor revision: the author will be required to revise the paper according to reviewers’ comments and then return the revised paper to the editor. The paper will be accepted at the editor’s discretion.
c)　Major revision: the author will be required to significantly revise the paper according to reviewers’ comments and then return the revised paper to the editor. The paper will then undergo another, final round of refereeing.
d)　Reject: the paper will not be published.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are just making a fool of yourself now.

Peer Review ProcessA double blind reviewing procedure is adopted by IJHT. After submission, if the topics of the paper are appropriate for the journal, the manuscript is sent to the editor-in-chief or managing editor and then the paper will reach a panel of experts as reviewers involved in the relevant research area, who can be either external or members of the editorial board. Each paper is reviewed by at least two reviewers. The final decision concerning the papers publication belongs to the editor-in-chief or managing editor. And their comments will be returned to the author. There are four possible outcomes:
a)　Accept: the paper will be published without any revision.
b)　Minor revision: the author will be required to revise the paper according to reviewers’ comments and then return the revised paper to the editor. The paper will be accepted at the editor’s discretion.
c)　Major revision: the author will be required to significantly revise the paper according to reviewers’ comments and then return the revised paper to the editor. The paper will then undergo another, final round of refereeing.
d)　Reject: the paper will not be published.
Click to expand...

Like I said.. it’s not a climate journal. They don’t have reviewers who are experts in climate.

That’s how journals work, dude.

God knows why they would publish it...
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Like I said.. it’s not a climate journal.

God knows why they would publish it...
Click to expand...

Seems right up their alley.

"A notable characteristic of the journal is the orientation to the fundamental results of the investigations of different physical processes, always jointly presented in real conditions, and their mutual influences."
 
Threegoofs said:
Got a reference for that?

I’d ask Jack, but I know his answer will be some link from the Alex Jones radio show.
Click to expand...

We have shown you the newer studies in past threads. They are all lower than the old ones for sensitivity. Not m,y fault if you are forgetful.
 
Lord of Planar said:
We have shown you the newer studies in past threads. They are all lower than the old ones for sensitivity. Not m,y fault if you are forgetful.
Click to expand...

ALL the newer studies?

Or just the ones that you get from denier blogs?

Forgive me if I don’t believe you’ve reviewed the literature completely on this one.
 
Threegoofs said:
Your comment is #2.

‘Almost all’ research. LOL.

I suppose almost all the ones you read about, or are mentioned on Glenn Becks show, so you might just be deluded, and not dishonest. But I doubt it.

dfb6f37c8779e0d47a3c4e7e1acb86f1.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a nice graph - really demonstrates exactly what we've been saying - that the middle-range ECS is the most accepted by Climatologists.
 
Media_Truth said:
That's a nice graph - really demonstrates exactly what we've been saying - that the middle-range ECS is the most accepted by Climatologists.
Click to expand...

Given that it shows a value of about 2-3c for a doubling of CO2 and we had 1.8c from 1850 with an increase of 43% then by 2180 or so when we would expect to get to 560ppm we would expect the rest of it and thus 0.2c to 1.2c.

No trouble at all anywhere.
 
Media_Truth said:
That's a nice graph - really demonstrates exactly what we've been saying - that the middle-range ECS is the most accepted by Climatologists.
Click to expand...

It is out of date (2012) and superseded by, for example, the paper and graph (2017) highlighted in #1929.
 
Threegoofs said:
ALL the newer studies?

Or just the ones that you get from denier blogs?

Forgive me if I don’t believe you’ve reviewed the literature completely on this one.
Click to expand...

Show me a newer study that has greater average than the IPCC uses. One that recently reevaluates the sensitivity and doesn't regurgitate old numbers or quote from an older study.

A fresh new evaluation.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Show me a newer study that has greater average than the IPCC uses. One that recently reevaluates the sensitivity and doesn't regurgitate old numbers or quote from an older study.

A fresh new evaluation.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you can’t back up the claim that ‘most’ new studies show a lower ECS, and instead beg for me to find the info for you.

Denier technique #32
 
Threegoofs said:
So in other words, you can’t back up the claim that ‘most’ new studies show a lower ECS, and instead beg for me to find the info for you.

Denier technique #32
Click to expand...
Yes, I've been keeping track too. That is denier technique number 32. There are some new studies that show different ECS ranges. They are not lower. The low end is higher, and the high end is lower.

Global Warming Predictions May Now Be a Lot Less Uncertain | WIRED

So, the numbers. What the researchers landed on was an ECS range of 2.2 to 3.4°C, compared to the commonly accepted range of 1.5 and 4.5°C. Admittedly, 2.2 on the low end isn’t ideal for the future of our planet. (For each degree of warming, for example, you might expect up to a 400 percent increase in area burned by wildfires in parts of the western US. Very not ideal.) And the researchers say this means the probability of the ECS being less than 1.5°C—the Paris Climate Agreement’s super optimistic goal beyond the 2°C goal—is less than 3 percent. The upside, though, is they say this new estimate means the probability of the ECS passing 4.5°C is less than 1 percent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom