• 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!

Climate change: Impacts 'accelerating' as leaders gather for UN talks

Threegoofs said:
Why would I do that when it’s so clearly documented elsewhere?

0b05d2cfa6eee1bffb1f9804b5ed9615.jpg
Click to expand...

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

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

[FONT="][I][IMG]http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/climate/bundestag/bundestagFig2.jpg[/IMG][/I][/FONT][/CENTER][FONT="][FONT="]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][/I][/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="][I][FONT="]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="][I] [/I][/FONT][FONT="][FONT="]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]​
Click to expand...


Oh, look, a doctored graph from a blog.

No-one is falling for this crap, Jack.​
 
Surface Detail said:
Oh, look, a doctored graph from a blog.

No-one is falling for this crap, Jack.
Click to expand...

Your denial and paranoia are showing. The graph was used in a public presentation. It was "doctored" by the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Professor Nir Shaviv.

You can run, but you can't hide.
 
Another crack in the consensus.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]How I changed my mind… about global warming[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Dr. Willie Soon. Reproduced with permission from Professor Sharp. How I changed my mind… about global warmingByron SharpOct 7 Most, if not all, people would consider themselves to be open-minded. Yet, if you ask someone to name an important belief that they have changed their mind about, in response…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Your denial and paranoia are showing. The graph was used in a public presentation. It was "doctored" by the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Professor Nir Shaviv.

You can run, but you can't hide.
Click to expand...

You're the one doing the running. Who cares who did it or who it was presented to? It's a doctored graph that has never been published in a peer reviewed journal.
 
Surface Detail said:
You're the one doing the running. Who cares who did it or who it was presented to? It's a doctored graph that has never been published in a peer reviewed journal.
Click to expand...

More paranoia and denial. Who cares whether it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Resplandy et al 2018 was published in a peer-reviewed journal, so that's no guarantee of soundness. The important question is whether the science presented in the graph is sound.
 
Jack Hays said:
More paranoia and denial. Who cares whether it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Resplandy et al 2018 was published in a peer-reviewed journal, so that's no guarantee of soundness. The important question is whether the science presented in the graph is sound.
Click to expand...

Logic (along with science) really doesn't seem to be your forte, Jack.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a requirement for quality science, not a guarantee of quality science. Please try to understand the difference between these concepts.
 
Media_Truth said:
Melting permafrost is a Positive feedback, but not the predominant one. According to the NAS --->

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

The most important amplifying feedback is caused by water vapour, which is a potent greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere as warmer air can hold more moisture. Also, as Arctic sea ice and glaciers melt, more sunlight
is absorbed into the darker underlying land and ocean surfaces causing further warming and further melting
of ice and snow. The biggest uncertain factor in our knowledge of feedbacks is in how the properties of
clouds will change in response to climate change. Other feedbacks involve the carbon cycle. Currently the
land and oceans together absorb about half of the CO2 emitted from human activities, but the capacities of
land and ocean to store additional carbon are expected to decrease with additional warming, leading to faster
increases in atmospheric CO2 and faster warming. Models vary in their projections of how much additional
warming to expect, but all such models agree that the overall net effect of feedbacks is to amplify the
CO2-only warming by a factor of 1.5 to 4.5.
Click to expand...

Really?

No math, no solid numbers, just assumptions?

The biggest uncertain factor in our knowledge of feedbacks is in how the properties of
clouds will change in response to climate change.​

Nothing mysterious about this at all. The more water evaporated, the more cloud cover, the less solar energy heating the earth.

A very powerful negative feedback that those producing activist material simply ignore.
 
Media_Truth said:
2/3 say the Climate Crisis must be addressed. The other 1/3 are those with oil and coal industry interest.
Click to expand...

Ware you hanging around here instead of the CT section?
 
Surface Detail said:
Logic (along with science) really doesn't seem to be your forte, Jack.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a requirement for quality science, not a guarantee of quality science. Please try to understand the difference between these concepts.
Click to expand...

BS. Quality science is just as possible outside the peer review regime as within -- especially in a field as compromised by politics, lack of rigor and malpractice as climate science.
 
Jack Hays said:
BS. Quality science is just as possible outside the peer review regime as within -- especially in a field as compromised by politics, lack of rigor and malpractice as climate science.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are demonstrating yet again your complete ignorance of the scientific process. Peer review is the initial filter to ensure that a submitted paper isn't nonsense. It stops us drowning in the sort of crap that is published on propaganda outlets like WUWT and irresponsibly propagated by gullible fools. The fact that you don't appear to understand the importance of peer review makes me wonder why the hell you feel you are qualified to pronounce on scientific matters at all. I'd advise you to go back to your history books and stop making such a fool of yourself.
 
Surface Detail said:
Sorry, but you are demonstrating yet again your complete ignorance of the scientific process. Peer review is the initial filter to ensure that a submitted paper isn't nonsense. It stops us drowning in the sort of crap that is published on propaganda outlets like WUWT and irresponsibly propagated by gullible fools. The fact that you don't appear to understand the importance of peer review makes me wonder why the hell you feel you are qualified to pronounce on scientific matters at all. I'd advise you to go back to your history books and stop making such a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Your resort to insults confirms my suspicion that you are getting desperate. As Nic Lewis corrected Resplandy et al, Shaviv has corrected the IPCC. Sometimes peer review fails; then it's free speech to the rescue.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your resort to insults confirms my suspicion that you are getting desperate. As Nic Lewis corrected Resplandy et al, Shaviv has corrected the IPCC. Sometimes peer review fails; then it's free speech to the rescue.
Click to expand...

Sometime peer review fails; non-peer review always fails. Without peer review you have no science.

Pointing out your misunderstandings is not an insult. You should learn to be a little less touchy and learn from your mistakes.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really?

No math, no solid numbers, just assumptions?

The biggest uncertain factor in our knowledge of feedbacks is in how the properties of
clouds will change in response to climate change.​

Nothing mysterious about this at all. The more water evaporated, the more cloud cover, the less solar energy heating the earth.

A very powerful negative feedback that those producing activist material simply ignore.
Click to expand...

Blatant lie. You pulled the quote out of the National Academy of Science link that I provided. Obviously they have considered cloud cover. It is not necessarily a Negative feedback. Yes - clouds block sunlight from hitting the earth, but at the same time, clouds are composed of water vapor, a heat-trapping gas. Thus the uncertainty expressed by scientific organizations. It's STUDIED, not IGNORED.
 
Surface Detail said:
Sometime peer review fails; non-peer review always fails. Without peer review you have no science.

Pointing out your misunderstandings is not an insult. You should learn to be a little less touchy and learn from your mistakes.
Click to expand...

And still: my data vs your insults. QED
 
Media_Truth said:
Blatant lie. You pulled the quote out of the National Academy of Science link that I provided. Obviously they have considered cloud cover. It is not necessarily a Negative feedback. Yes - clouds block sunlight from hitting the earth, but at the same time, clouds are composed of water vapor, a heat-trapping gas. Thus the uncertainty expressed by scientific organizations. It's STUDIED, not IGNORED.
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish.
 
Surface Detail said:
Sorry, but you are demonstrating yet again your complete ignorance of the scientific process. Peer review is the initial filter to ensure that a submitted paper isn't nonsense. It stops us drowning in the sort of crap that is published on propaganda outlets like WUWT and irresponsibly propagated by gullible fools. The fact that you don't appear to understand the importance of peer review makes me wonder why the hell you feel you are qualified to pronounce on scientific matters at all. I'd advise you to go back to your history books and stop making such a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

If a paper isn't peer-reviewed, you might as well store it in the bathroom, and put it to some use.
 
[h=2]Renowned German Geologist Shocks Audience: “Climate Change Totally Exaggerated”…”Warming Least Of Our Problems”[/h]By P Gosselin on 12. October 2019
It’s unusual to see rationality over climate change in the German media, but sometimes it manages to get through.
In April this year I missed an important podcast interview with one of the world’s most prominent Sahara Desert researchers, geologist Dr. Stefan Kröpelin, by the Düsseldorf-based German daily, Rheinische Post.

Image: University of Cologne
The two RP hosts conducting the interview seemed to expect Dr. Kröpelin would tell the audience how dire the consequences of man-made global warming are on the Sahara Desert and planet overall.
They didn’t get what they bargained for.
Warming does not lead to desertification
Instead, in the interview, Dr. Kröpelin rejected in very clear terms man’s major climatic impact and that global warming is only negative.
Kröpelin told listeners that history is very clear: When the globe is cold, the deserts expand. And when the globe is warm, deserts become greener and far more fruitful.
Kröpelin is a leading expert
Kröpelin has been studying the Sahara for over 40 years, spending weeks and months each year on site gathering data a reconstructing past climates. Nature described Kröpelin as “one of the most devoted Sahara explorers of our time.”
At about 9 minutes into the interview, he explains how the Sahara was massive in size during the last glacial period, and that about ten thousand years ago it greened up once temperatures shot up early in the Holocene.
When asked (10:15) if he worries that things in the Sahara “will get much worse” due to climate change, Kröpelin tells the host and audience: “First, that is a statement I 100% reject”, adding that localized desertification has more to do with the population growth at the edges of the desert and that the people who live there are cutting down trees and extracting water from the ground.
Rising precipitation, shrinking desert
Next (12:00), Kröpelin talks about the remote edges of the Sahara where few people live: “Here we signs that precipitation is increasing and that should the trend continue, the desert is going to shrink.” Similarly as it did at the end of the last glacial. “The Sahara changed from a desert to a savannah. These are not model simulations.” He says rather this is” based 100%” on real observations of a wide variety of proxy data taken throughout the region.

The greening of the Sahara “happened not because it got colder, but because it got warmer,” he said.
A third would become livable again
Kröpelin also shocks the host and audience, claiming that even if the climate models were true, which he says he doesn’t believe, “Maybe one third of the African continent will be a livable zone again. That would be an unbelievable advantage for the people in Sub-Saharan Africa. […] I dispute that over the last decades there’s been a climatically controlled increase of the desert.”
“Never been a stable climate”
On the subject of climate-induced human migration, Kröpelin says human migrations due to climate changes have always occurred. In the past sea level changes simply caused the people to step back or forwards a few meters. But today, the problem is that the built infrastructure is unable to move with the changes. “There’s never been a really stable climate.”
“What’s one meter from 4000?”
On sea level rise, Kröpelin plays down the changes that are occurring today, reminding us that the average depth of the ocean is some 4000 meters, noting. “What’s one meter from 4000 meters of sea depth?”
Climate change “totally exaggerated”
When asked about the climate protests now taking place (21:00), Kröpelin comments: “I would say that today’s handling of climate change is hysterical” and that “we should not be dramatizing.”
The University of Cologne expert geologist says that by only looking at the last few decades, “We can naturally create panic. But I find it totally exaggerated.”. . .


 
Media_Truth said:
He's a Geologist, not a Climatologist.

It's true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening

Our analysis found that among papers expressing a position on human-caused global warming, over 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

Stefan Kröpelin is a geologist and climate researcher at the University of Cologne who specializes in studying the eastern Sahara desert and its climatic history.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] In 2017, he was awarded with the Communicator Award of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the excellent communication of his research both in Germany and international.[SUP][10][/SUP]

Stefan Kröpelin - Wikipedia


Stefan Kröpelin is a geologist and climate researcher at the University of Cologne who specializes in studying the eastern Sahara desert and its climatic history.
 
Jack Hays said:
Stefan Kröpelin is a geologist and climate researcher at the University of Cologne who specializes in studying the eastern Sahara desert and its climatic history.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] In 2017, he was awarded with the Communicator Award of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the excellent communication of his research both in Germany and international.[SUP][10][/SUP]

Stefan Kröpelin - Wikipedia


Stefan Kröpelin is a geologist and climate researcher at the University of Cologne who specializes in studying the eastern Sahara desert and its climatic history.
Click to expand...

Anybody can call themselves a "Climate Researcher". The degree is telling. I'll go with the 97%.
 
Jack Hays said:
I take it you didn't bother to look at his publications. Are you willfully ignorant?
Click to expand...

I did look at it. Typical denier rhetoric, that goes against every mainstream scientific organization on the planet. If your scientists aren't on the Heartland Institute payroll, they are hoping to get on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom