• 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!

IPCC scientist on sea level rise and fall

He's more than able to directly state whether he accepts the scientific consensus on climate change. He doesn't need your help. :)
I understand that, what I am saying is that your statement implies that you do not know what the
scientific consensus about climate change is in agreement with!
 
I understand that, what I am saying is that your statement implies that you do not know what the
scientific consensus about climate change is in agreement with!

If only you could click on the link and read it! ;)

"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports."​

And your mental gymnastics to try to weasel out of that shall be? :)
 
If only you could click on the link and read it! ;)

"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports."​

And your mental gymnastics to try to weasel out of that shall be? :)
No gymnastics mental or otherwise needed.
"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities."
Notice, that the primary statement says nothing beyond what I said!
Earth has warmed in the last century, and that Human activity is likely involved!
Neither imply any agreement to the catastrophic predictions, but let's look at the numbers.
Most data sets agree that the average temperatures have increased by about .9 C since the 1800's
If the CO2 forcing numbers are to be believed, and doubling the CO2 level will result in 3.71 Wm-2 of energy imbalance,
then based on the American Chemical Society formulas, then
(5.35 X ln(410/280) X .3)=.61 C is from CO2 forcing, hence a majority of the observed warming.
But this means that if we actually double the CO2 level, it would add about 1.1 C of average warming only.
So agreement to your own cited consensus statement, does not require agreement with the catastrophic predictions!
 
No gymnastics mental or otherwise needed.
"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities."
Notice, that the primary statement says nothing beyond what I said!
Earth has warmed in the last century, and that Human activity is likely involved!
Neither imply any agreement to the catastrophic predictions, but let's look at the numbers.
Most data sets agree that the average temperatures have increased by about .9 C since the 1800's
If the CO2 forcing numbers are to be believed, and doubling the CO2 level will result in 3.71 Wm-2 of energy imbalance,
then based on the American Chemical Society formulas, then
(5.35 X ln(410/280) X .3)=.61 C is from CO2 forcing, hence a majority of the observed warming.
But this means that if we actually double the CO2 level, it would add about 1.1 C of average warming only.
So agreement to your own cited consensus statement, does not require agreement with the catastrophic predictions!

There they are. The mental gymnastics. Just as predicted by me!
 
There they are. The mental gymnastics. Just as predicted by me!
Showing mathematically that the consensus only represents CO2 forcing, is not mental gymnastics.
Believing that the simple statement you cited,
"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities."
implies more that the words state, that is mental gymnastics!
 
Showing mathematically that the consensus only represents CO2 forcing, is not mental gymnastics.
Believing that the simple statement you cited,
"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities."
implies more that the words state, that is mental gymnastics!

Reading a clear statement, denying what it says, and then accusing the person who COPY-PASTED it of mental gymnastics?!
Damn, dude, you should go to the Olympics with that! :lamo
 
Reading a clear statement, denying what it says, and then accusing the person who COPY-PASTED it of mental gymnastics?!
Damn, dude, you should go to the Olympics with that! :lamo
No, I am agreeing with the statement, and saying you are implying it says more than it does!
 
No, I am agreeing with the statement, and saying you are implying it says more than it does!
:lamo

We all know you know more than every climate scientist combined. :lol:
 
:lamo

We all know you know more than every climate scientist combined. :lol:
You are the one reading more into a statement than the words contain!
Let look at YOUR cited consensus statement,
"Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities."
Yep, Earth has likely warmed since the 1800, and most of that warming is likely caused by Human activity.
Where do you find more out of that statement?
 
You are the one reading more into a statement than the words contain!
:lamo

More projection by you. Keep it up, it's been a boring day at work and I appreciate the free entertainment. :lol:
 
:lamo

More projection by you. Keep it up, it's been a boring day at work and I appreciate the free entertainment. :lol:
Welcome to your own delusion, Carry on!
 
Welcome to your own delusion, Carry on!

Aren't you going to try a different tactic other than projection? Entertainment means you're supposed to mix things up a little! ;)
 
You reject the scientific consensus on climate change, and therefore you reject climate science. :)

You have no clue at all about this subject.

I do not reject the consensus on the science. I do not consider myself qualified to talk about the climate science in of its' self. Unlike you.

I do challenge the next bit of the argument that there is anything bad about a slightly warmer world. There is extremely little and very poor science that suggests that there is any bad thing at all out there. You can try to cite some sort of science to support your claim that there is this but given your fail to do so for taking $100 off me I think you have demonstrated that there is no such.

Your constant accusation of dishonesty is very wearing especially from one such as you who claims a degree in science and clearly has no such qualification.
 
You have no clue at all about this subject.
:lamo

I do not reject the consensus on the science.

Then it's settled! You accept climate science and you recognize that humans are the number one driver of the climate crisis! Welcome to reality, good to have you on board! :thumbs:
 
:lamo



Then it's settled! You accept climate science and you recognize that humans are the number one driver of the climate crisis! Welcome to reality, good to have you on board! :thumbs:

So where is the bad bit?

Well done you have read something and understood it. Only been here 8 years for that to happen.
 
So where is the bad bit?

Well done you have read something and understood it. Only been here 8 years for that to happen.

Wait, really? I mean you really believe that human production of CO2 is causing rapid climate change and that we've got to go all-in to reverse it?
 
No, I am agreeing with the statement, and saying you are implying it says more than it does!

Dude, your wasting your time. Climate jihadists cant count, so its useless to spend time trying to teach them any sort of math or logic since their belief is absolute.
 
Dude, your wasting your time. Climate jihadists cant count, so its useless to spend time trying to teach them any sort of math or logic since their belief is absolute.
I can only try!
 
Wait, really? I mean you really believe that human production of CO2 is causing rapid climate change and that we've got to go all-in to reverse it?

There is no such consensus.

Cite the science, the actual papers, that show that this is the case.

You deny the obvious fact that in the real world there is no significant problem you can actually detail in any place on earth. I have challenged you to take my money on this and you have not even attempted to back your case. Utterly none-honest.
 
Dude, your wasting your time. Climate jihadists cant count, so its useless to spend time trying to teach them any sort of math or logic since their belief is absolute.

Hopefully the spectators see that the quality of debate is on the side of those who ask for some sort of evidence or mechanism for some sort of bad thing.
 
Wait, really? I mean you really believe that human production of CO2 is causing rapid climate change and that we've got to go all-in to reverse it?

There is no such consensus.

Cite the science, the actual papers, that show that this is the case.

You deny the obvious fact that in the real world there is no significant problem you can actually detail in any place on earth. I have challenged you to take my money on this and you have not even attempted to back your case. Utterly none-honest.

Yes.

Please cite the consensus that CO2 is causing "rapid climate change."

Most of the polls only ask for "antropogenic" causes, which are more than just CO2.

As for "rapid..."

The largest increase in warming we have seen comes from clearing the skies of aerosols since the 70's. There is no doubt on this as these sciences are reviewed. Aerosols reduce the solar energy striking the earth.

Less sun equals less surface heat.

Less surface heat means less upward thermal IR.

Less upward thermal IR means a reduced greenhouse effect.

As we industrialized for a few decades leading up to the 70's, we reduced the natural increase in temperatures coming out of the Maunder Minima. Once we started clearing the skies, we saw warming we should have seen a few decades sooner.
 
Yes.

Please cite the consensus that CO2 is causing "rapid climate change."

If only there were something in the link I posted that already did that! ;)
 
There is no such consensus.

Cite the science, the actual papers, that show that this is the case.

You deny the obvious fact that in the real world there is no significant problem you can actually detail in any place on earth. I have challenged you to take my money on this and you have not even attempted to back your case. Utterly none-honest.

Wait a minute. With one side of your mouth you say this:

I do not reject the consensus on the science. I do not consider myself qualified to talk about the climate science in of its' self.

And then you directly claim that that very consensus does not exist.

You keep calling for papers while deliberately ignoring the general summary. That's like demanding to be explained calculus when you don't even know how algebra works. :lol:

Furthermore, by your own admission, you're not a climate science expert, so who are you to pretend that you know more than climate scientists? :)
 
Wait a minute. With one side of your mouth you say this:



And then you directly claim that that very consensus does not exist.

You keep calling for papers while deliberately ignoring the general summary. That's like demanding to be explained calculus when you don't even know how algebra works. :lol:

Furthermore, by your own admission, you're not a climate science expert, so who are you to pretend that you know more than climate scientists? :)

OK, cite the consensus that says there is a massive problem. I need something with lots of actual scientist's signatures on it.
 
Back
Top Bottom