• 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!

Meet the IPCC Scientists

Buzz said:
Sorry longview, but taking data from a study while you ignore the logic and methodology of that study is just more dishonest cherry-picking.
Click to expand...
No Buzz, the data is still the data.
A measured change in imbalance over a change in CO2, even over a brief period,
is better than a calculated effect, as it is actual empirical data.
 
You can't make this stuff up:

Octopuses May Go Blind As Climate Change Sucks Oxygen Out of the Ocean

According to lead study author Lillian McCormick,
a doctoral candidate at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in La Jolla, California, some form
of vision impairment may be a daily reality for
these species, which migrate between the ocean's
highly oxygen-saturated surface and its hypoxic
(low-oxygen) depths during their daily feeding
routines. And as ocean oxygen levels continue
to drop around the globe, in part due to climate
change, the risks to these creatures could intensify.

04lkqgVrbm.png


"I am concerned that climate change is going
to make this issue worse," McCormick told
Live Science, "and that visual impairment
might happen more frequently in the sea."​

Miss Lillian may not be an IPCC scientist, but she is smart enough to
know that if she gives lip service to the climate mafia her chances of
getting published are improved.

I thought I posted this yesterday so if this is a repeat, I apologize.
 
longview said:
Please show where I am incorrect?
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.

I spent what seemed like an eternity late last year going down a similar path with that same jamoke. I gave him a quote excerpted in a book I have but he kept insisting I was quoting from a blog. Then when I told him I could show him a snapshot of the pages he said ..."Sure you 'own the book'. But go ahead and waste your money buying it now just to try to prove a point on an anonymous forum. "
Sound a bit psycho to you?

I had to capture and keep the entire exchange because, well, it was surreal.
 
PoS said:
Knowing him he just made it all up...
Click to expand...
No, but he is accepting, without question, the word of Scientist, whose careers depend on finding warming.
It is likely that CO2 causes forcing, but the actual value, is subjective.
As for the catastrophic portion of the AGW prediction, the amplified feedbacks, do not appear in any of the data so far,
at the levels needed to reach an ECS of 3C or greater.
 
longview said:
No, but he is accepting, without question, the word of Scientist, whose careers depend on finding warming.
It is likely that CO2 causes forcing, but the actual value, is subjective.
As for the catastrophic portion of the AGW prediction, the amplified feedbacks, do not appear in any of the data so far,
at the levels needed to reach an ECS of 3C or greater.
Click to expand...

Atmospheric CO2 does cause radiative forcing, but in comparison to water vapor it is very small. With all the greenhouse gases combined, atmospheric CO2 is only responsible for ~3% of the radiative forcing. The largest contributor to radiative forcing, by a significant amount, is water vapor.
 
Glitch said:
Atmospheric CO2 does cause radiative forcing, but in comparison to water vapor it is very small. With all the greenhouse gases combined, atmospheric CO2 is only responsible for ~3% of the radiative forcing. The largest contributor to radiative forcing, by a significant amount, is water vapor.
Click to expand...
I agree, the alarmist would have us believe that CO2 is almost a control knob for the temperature,
but the data does not support a high CO2 climate sensitivity.
 
longview said:
I agree, the alarmist would have us believe that CO2 is almost a control knob for the temperature,
but the data does not support a high CO2 climate sensitivity.
Click to expand...

That is one indicator that AGW is a scam, when their list of greenhouse gases always manages to leave out water vapor. Significant increases in atmospheric CO2 also yield very small increases in radiative forcing, whereas small increases in water vapor results in significant increases in radiative forcing. The problem these scammers have is that there is no way to regulate water vapor. Which is why they targeted CO2.
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Follow the money. No point in saying something 'inconvenient' that might not get you paid and there are megabucks to be made here promoting this BS to the wilfully gullible:wink:
Click to expand...

There is no money to be made by scientists working for the Trump administration or the fossil fuel companies agreeing with their colleagues on climate change. They are jeopardizing their jobs by doing so.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The IPCC has failed completely to understand its significance and impact.
Click to expand...

So you're just mad they don't have the conclusion you prefer.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Mad" would be the wrong word. I'm curious how long it will take for them to correct their error.
Click to expand...

Svensmark is the one in error, insisting there must be some unidentifiable amplification effect solely applicable to solar variation that somehow is undetectable. It must exist! Because his life’s work depends on it existing. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that the amplification might not be specific to solar variance.
 
Deuce said:
Svensmark is the one in error, insisting there must be some unidentifiable amplification effect solely applicable to solar variation that somehow is undetectable. It must exist! Because his life’s work depends on it existing. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that the amplification might not be specific to solar variance.
Click to expand...

And Shaviv has something to say as well.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig1.jpg
[/FONT][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]To see what it implies, we should look at figure 2.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig2.jpg
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture.[/FONT][/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'll just use the link you already posted where he admits that none of his proposed explanations have actually been proven.
 
Deuce said:
Nah, I'll just use the link you already posted where he admits that none of his proposed explanations have actually been proven.
Click to expand...

Too bad. You would have learned that it has all come together via experimental and observational confirmation.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have already admitted your ignorance. Your comment is therefore without value.
Click to expand...

I can paste a thousand papers that disagree with Svensmark, it's not like you'll read them.
 
Does Jack not realize he posted the same link twice?
 
Deuce said:
I can paste a thousand papers that disagree with Svensmark, it's not like you'll read them.
Click to expand...
Since you have never stated anything that looks like you understand Svensmark's actual theory,
how would you go about finding papers that disagree with him?
 
Deuce said:
I can paste a thousand papers that disagree with Svensmark, it's not like you'll read them.
Click to expand...

All superseded. Starting with the paper that closed the loop in 2017.

[h=3]Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ... - Nature[/h]
[url]https://www.nature.com › nature communications › articles
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 15 - ‎Related articles
Dec 19, 2017 - Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of ...


And now the full statement.

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)


He is out in front of all of them.
 
"Cosmic rays have an influence on cloud formation" is not new information nor does it inherently disprove the prevailing knowledge on climate change.

That's three times you posted the same propaganda piece from a right wing think tank. The one Svensmark openly admits he can't actually explain the forcing in. Spamming the same link over and over isn't going to change what it says.
 
Deuce said:
"Cosmic rays have an influence on cloud formation" is not new information nor does it inherently disprove the prevailing knowledge on climate change.

That's three times you posted the same propaganda piece from a right wing think tank. The one Svensmark openly admits he can't actually explain the forcing in. Spamming the same link over and over isn't going to change what it says.
Click to expand...

All you have demonstrated is that you don't understand the topic. Nor have you read the links.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom