• 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 IPCC Is Wrong

Threegoofs said:
Apparently, this concept is too advanced for many of you..,
Click to expand...

Youre just making stuff up like what the IPCC does. Prove its not linear.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look at the graphical projection.

And no...I’m not going to find it for you.
Click to expand...

If youre going to point something out then produce it, otherwise it isnt true.
 
Threegoofs said:
[emoji849]

Frankly, you’re not worth the time.

You’ll just deny it anyway, regardless if you understand it or not.
Click to expand...

Yup, I knew you were lying again. Well done.
 
PoS said:
Yup, I knew you were lying again. Well done.
Click to expand...

[emoji849]

455cfa58ee6f6b41f6314a4fa1e3aa7f.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s directly from the IPCC.

Gee.,, you seem unfamiliar with the very thing you are telling us is definitely wrong!
Click to expand...

The IPCC has posted hundreds of graphs, so you need to link it to the study, otherwise youre just faking it by taking whatever graph you like and pretending that its the one we're talking about.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Physicists: Clouds ‘Practically Control’ Climate, Whereas Human Warming Amounts To 0.01°C Per 100 Years[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 11. July 2019
[h=4]Two University of Turku (Finland) physicists have determined a) the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.24°C, b) the human contribution to the warming of the past century is only about 0.01°C, c) the IPCC and climate modeling dramatically overestimate CO2’s climate impact, and d) variations in low cloud cover control the climate.[/h]

[h=2]Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019[/h][h=2]No experimental evidence for the[/h][h=2]significant anthropogenic climate change[/h][h=6]“The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”[/h][h=6]“We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.”[/h]
Low-CO2-sensitivity-because-clouds-control-climate-Kauppinen-and-Malmi-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Kauppinen and Malmi, 2019[/h]
Click to expand...

This unpublished, non-peer-reviewed manuscript has been doing the rounds on junkscience conspiracy blogs like NoTrickZone and political anti-science media.

It has already been soundly debunked in detail by scientists:

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming – Climate Feedback
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
This unpublished, non-peer-reviewed manuscript has been doing the rounds on junkscience conspiracy blogs like NoTrickZone and political anti-science media.

It has already been soundly debunked in detail by scientists:

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming – Climate Feedback
Click to expand...

It is no surprise the Consensus Enforcement Squad has rallied to attack the paper. Whether that will amount to a "debunking" remains to be seen.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is no surprise the Consensus Enforcement Squad has rallied to attack the paper. Whether that will amount to a "debunking" remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Any fool can see that this is like someone publishing a five page paper that proves evolution is false.

It’s hooey.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sure. Just like the fools who believed a virus could cause stomach ulcers.
Click to expand...

Who spent years researching it and published their findings in peer reviewed journals, not five page nonsense works published on an open website.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is no surprise the Consensus Enforcement Squad has rallied to attack the paper. Whether that will amount to a "debunking" remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Should hardly be news to anyone paying attention.
Out of the many many factors that constantly influence climate, the IPCC has admitted in AR4 ...

"Recent studies reaffirm that the spread of climate sensitivity
estimates among models arises primarily from inter-model
differences in cloud feedbacks. The shortwave impact of
changes in boundary-layer clouds, and to a lesser extent midlevel clouds,
constitutes the largest contributor to inter-model
differences in global cloud feedbacks. The relatively poor
simulation of these clouds in the present climate is a reason
for some concern. The response to global warming of deep
convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty
in projections since current models predict different responses
of these clouds. Observationally based evaluation of cloud
feedbacks indicates that climate models exhibit different
strengths and weaknesses, and it is not yet possible to determine
which estimates of the climate change cloud feedbacks are the
most reliable."

And similar problems understanding the influence of solar radiation were acknowledged.
As well as many many other poorly understood influences.
But CO2? They're sure that drives climate.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really?

In a science of known unknowns, they are awfully stupid to be that arrogant claiming such a thing!
Click to expand...

Yep. The author is pretty stupid to be so arrogant he thinks that decades of climate science is pulled down by a five page unreviewed paper.

Even stupider are the idiots who believe that this paper somehow blows a hole in climate science.
 
Threegoofs said:
Any fool can see that this is like someone publishing a five page paper that proves evolution is false.

It’s hooey.
Click to expand...

It should have been very obvious to anyone who has even basic knowledge that it was unsupported nonsense, but like anti-evolution Creationists, Climate Truthers will unquestioningly swallow anything, no matter how ridiculous.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really?

In a science of known unknowns, they are awfully stupid to be that arrogant claiming such a thing!
Click to expand...

No, those scientists are not the "awfully stupid" "arrogant" ones.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yep. The author is pretty stupid to be so arrogant he thinks that decades of climate science is pulled down by a five page unreviewed paper.

Even stupider are the idiots who believe that this paper somehow blows a hole in climate science.
Click to expand...

And even more stupid is someone claiming that uploading an unpublished non-peer-reviewed manuscript to the arXiv repository means that Cornell University "published" it and must have "thought it was impressive". I'm still cracking up laughing at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom