• 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 psychology of climate change denial

longview said:
The cause of the pre-1950 warming does not matter, only that it occurred!
the feedbacks respond to any and all warming.
Click to expand...

But I seem to remember that your calculation assumed that the entirety of pre-1950 warming was due to CO2 (and none to water vapour feedback). I can't find it any more though. Could you repost it please, so we can check if that is the case.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
But I seem to remember that your calculation assumed that the entirety of pre-1950 warming was due to CO2 (and none to water vapour feedback). I can't find it any more though. Could you repost it please, so we can check if that is the case.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect! I never used such an assumption.
 
vegas giants said:
No science agency on the planet believes you
Click to expand...

I care because?

Science is about objective data.

They describe it like sunlight enters, bounces portions off the co2 that bounces back inward (the feedbacks), hen simple observation shows that this does not happen. The sun hits the ground warming it, the ground radiates a small portion of that but mainly it conducts that heat into the surrounding ground and air, that air becomes convective heat which rises up.

Objective observable data proves the founding premise behind AGW false. If these organizations reject observable data, simply, they are not scientific organizations. Rather propagandists in lab coats.
 
Surface Detail said:
Please post your calculation again so we can check.
Click to expand...
The basic idea is that in the Hadcrut4 data set, the decade averaged pre1950 warming was .288 C above the pre1900 average.
Any feedbacks that exists would be evident in the total warming since the 1950 average, less any know forcing that has occurred since 1950.
Total Harcrut4 decade average warming, is .89 C, so the warming since 1950 is .89-.288= .602C
According to NOAA the total forcing of all the well mixed greenhouse gasses in 2018 come out to a CO2-eq of 496 ppm
based on NOAA trend, the 1950 CO2-eq level would be ~332 ppm.
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
Based on forcing formulas from the American Chemical Society,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
The forcing warming from that change in CO2-eq would be (5.35 X ln(496/332) X .3)=.644C
If the total observed warming since 1950 is less than the the forcing warming, then that leaves no room for any positive feedbacks
to be applied to the pre1950 .288 C.
If we did apply the feedbacks for an ECS of 3C, and used Hansen's latency period, (37.5 years)
the .288 C would need to be multiplied by 2.72, and then 60% of that number would be expected by 1988.
.288 X 2.72 X.6=.47 C
Now we clearly do not have enough observed warming within the .89 C total to account for the original .288 C, the post 1950 forcing of .644 C,
and the .47 C of predicted feedbacks.(.288 + .644 +.47)=1.402C.
In addition we still have not accounted for the increase in solar insolation
that has occurred as regulations cleared many aerosols from the skies, or the second feedback cycle that would
see the 1988 .47 C output as an input for a new cycle, that would complete in 2025, as well as the remaining 40% of cycle 1.
 
Notofimport said:
I care because?

Science is about objective data.

They describe it like sunlight enters, bounces portions off the co2 that bounces back inward (the feedbacks), hen simple observation shows that this does not happen. The sun hits the ground warming it, the ground radiates a small portion of that but mainly it conducts that heat into the surrounding ground and air, that air becomes convective heat which rises up.

Objective observable data proves the founding premise behind AGW false. If these organizations reject observable data, simply, they are not scientific organizations. Rather propagandists in lab coats.
Click to expand...

I reject your interpretation of that data. I stand with every science agency on the planet.


I am ok with that
 
Jesse Booth said:
Question, Pos. Do you have evidence that the overwhelming majority of climatologists are wrong about current climate trends?
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that the slightly warmer world predicted by the IPCC will cause any significant harm anywhere in the world?
 
Notofimport said:
That is unlikely, since every model to date has failed, after the embarrassment caused by Al Gore and his quoted projections, they are much more hesitant.

When there are projections it must be:
- far enough away that the result is unlikely to be remembered
- close enough to treat as imminent
- scary so people are motivated to concede

10-20 years out is good because then at the half way point you can release a new 10-20 year projection that is even scarier.
Click to expand...

Thing is I have yet to find any scary anything in any of it.
 
Notofimport said:
It's not opinion.

I find it entertaining that people who are effectively scientifically illiterate acting as though their dismissals carry any water.
Click to expand...

Opinion noted and dismissed
 
PoS said:
Great find! :rock
Click to expand...

There's alot more; I got the IPCC head saying how Agw is not about the environment but about redistribution of wealth, I got the maps showing how they adjust older temperatures down while weighting recent temperatures up, even the graph that shows the temperature decline that they were trying to hide from the climate gate emails.

I doubt many people realize the scale of the scam.

The worst of all; the climate models are NOT a model of a sphere spinning in space. It is a flat model with a height map.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

If you think this is a credible source, you have no business claiming someone is ‘scientifically illiterate’.
Click to expand...

It is highly credible.

None of the papers listed has been shown not to show what the claim is. That has been around for many years now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom