• 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 Evidence Mounts

vegas giants said:
Here is the list of agencies that support that silly website.

Let's just start with the A's.....


Academia Chilena de Ciencias, ChileAcademia das Ciencias de Lisboa, PortugalAcademia de Ciencias de la República DominicanaAcademia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de VenezuelaAcademia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de GuatemalaAcademia Mexicana de Ciencias,MexicoAcademia Nacional de Ciencias de BoliviaAcademia Nacional de Ciencias del PeruAcadémie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalAcadémie des Sciences, FranceAcademies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of CanadaAcademy of AthensAcademy of Science of MozambiqueAcademy of Science of South AfricaAcademy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)Academy of Sciences MalaysiaAcademy of Sciences of MoldovaAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicAcademy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of IranAcademy of Scientific Research and Technology, EgyptAcademy of the Royal Society of New ZealandAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ItalyAfrica Centre for Climate and Earth Systems ScienceAfrican Academy of SciencesAlbanian Academy of SciencesAmazon Environmental Research InstituteAmerican Academy of PediatricsAmerican Anthropological AssociationAmerican Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Association of State Climatologists (AASC)American Association of Wildlife VeterinariansAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican College of Preventive MedicineAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of Biological SciencesAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAmerican Public Health AssociationAmerican Quaternary AssociationAmerican Society for MicrobiologyAmerican Society of AgronomyAmerican Society of Civil EngineersAmerican Society of Plant BiologistsAmerican Statistical AssociationAssociation of Ecosystem Research CentersAustralian Academy of ScienceAustralian Bureau of MeteorologyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Institute of Marine ScienceAustralian Institute of PhysicsAustralian Marine Sciences AssociationAustralian Medical AssociationAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society**
Click to expand...

Why so many, if they were correct, it would only take one!
 
vegas giants said:
If they were correct only one would agree with them?????


What the what???? Lol
Click to expand...

It's just longview copying Jack's misunderstanding of Einstein's famous quote :roll:

What Einstein meant was that, no matter how many people didn't believe it, his theory was valid so long as no-one actually disproved it. And that it would only require one person to disprove it to make it wrong.

He (rather obviously!) didn't mean that any theory supported by more than one person cannot be correct! :lol:
 
Last edited:
vegas giants said:
If they were correct only one would agree with them?????


What the what???? Lol
Click to expand...
That is kind of how science works, when a concept is displaced, it does not take hundreds to invalidate an idea,
a single invalidation that can be repeated, is sufficient.
The problem with AGW, is that the concept has not actually stated anything concrete enough to invalidate.
Take ECS for example, the basis of all of the hyperbolic claims, It has an enormous range,
from no big deal (1.5°C) to we are all going to DIE!!! (4.5°C), but ECS is also tied to emissions scenarios,
so we have several variables. The statements are future projections with several variables.
Taking two "IF's from the selection, say ECS is 4.5 °C, AND, RCP8.5 (Thia is a Boolean and),
would lead to some scary outcomes. The reality is that ECS cannot be 4.5 °C, and it would almost be impossible
for us to sustain the emissions required under RCP8.5, yet this is the basis for many of the high end predictions.
 
longview said:
That is kind of how science works, when a concept is displaced, it does not take hundreds to invalidate an idea,
a single invalidation that can be repeated, is sufficient.
The problem with AGW, is that the concept has not actually stated anything concrete enough to invalidate.
Take ECS for example, the basis of all of the hyperbolic claims, It has an enormous range,
from no big deal (1.5°C) to we are all going to DIE!!! (4.5°C), but ECS is also tied to emissions scenarios,
so we have several variables. The statements are future projections with several variables.
Taking two "IF's from the selection, say ECS is 4.5 °C, AND, RCP8.5 (Thia is a Boolean and),
would lead to some scary outcomes. The reality is that ECS cannot be 4.5 °C, and it would almost be impossible
for us to sustain the emissions required under RCP8.5, yet this is the basis for many of the high end predictions.
Click to expand...

Well you certainly have an opinion.
 
longview said:
That you are unable to invalidate!
Click to expand...

I dont need to. These guys have already.

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, ChileAcademia das Ciencias de Lisboa, PortugalAcademia de Ciencias de la República DominicanaAcademia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de VenezuelaAcademia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de GuatemalaAcademia Mexicana de Ciencias,MexicoAcademia Nacional de Ciencias de BoliviaAcademia Nacional de Ciencias del PeruAcadémie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalAcadémie des Sciences, FranceAcademies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of CanadaAcademy of AthensAcademy of Science of MozambiqueAcademy of Science of South AfricaAcademy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)Academy of Sciences MalaysiaAcademy of Sciences of MoldovaAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicAcademy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of IranAcademy of Scientific Research and Technology, EgyptAcademy of the Royal Society of New ZealandAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ItalyAfrica Centre for Climate and Earth Systems ScienceAfrican Academy of SciencesAlbanian Academy of SciencesAmazon Environmental Research InstituteAmerican Academy of PediatricsAmerican Anthropological AssociationAmerican Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Association of State Climatologists (AASC)American Association of Wildlife VeterinariansAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican College of Preventive MedicineAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of Biological SciencesAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAmerican Public Health AssociationAmerican Quaternary AssociationAmerican Society for MicrobiologyAmerican Society of AgronomyAmerican Society of Civil EngineersAmerican Society of Plant BiologistsAmerican Statistical AssociationAssociation of Ecosystem Research CentersAustralian Academy of ScienceAustralian Bureau of MeteorologyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Institute of Marine ScienceAustralian Institute of PhysicsAustralian Marine Sciences AssociationAustralian Medical AssociationAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society**
 
vegas giants said:
I dont need to. These guys have already.

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, ChileAcademia das Ciencias de Lisboa, PortugalAcademia de Ciencias de la República DominicanaAcademia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de VenezuelaAcademia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de GuatemalaAcademia Mexicana de Ciencias,MexicoAcademia Nacional de Ciencias de BoliviaAcademia Nacional de Ciencias del PeruAcadémie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalAcadémie des Sciences, FranceAcademies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of CanadaAcademy of AthensAcademy of Science of MozambiqueAcademy of Science of South AfricaAcademy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)Academy of Sciences MalaysiaAcademy of Sciences of MoldovaAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicAcademy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of IranAcademy of Scientific Research and Technology, EgyptAcademy of the Royal Society of New ZealandAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ItalyAfrica Centre for Climate and Earth Systems ScienceAfrican Academy of SciencesAlbanian Academy of SciencesAmazon Environmental Research InstituteAmerican Academy of PediatricsAmerican Anthropological AssociationAmerican Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Association of State Climatologists (AASC)American Association of Wildlife VeterinariansAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican College of Preventive MedicineAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of Biological SciencesAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAmerican Public Health AssociationAmerican Quaternary AssociationAmerican Society for MicrobiologyAmerican Society of AgronomyAmerican Society of Civil EngineersAmerican Society of Plant BiologistsAmerican Statistical AssociationAssociation of Ecosystem Research CentersAustralian Academy of ScienceAustralian Bureau of MeteorologyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Institute of Marine ScienceAustralian Institute of PhysicsAustralian Marine Sciences AssociationAustralian Medical AssociationAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society**
Click to expand...

All of those agencies cannot contradict that the Earth is 33 C warmer, because of a historic 150 Wm-2 of energy imbalance.
Science tell us that the earth should be at 255 °K, but is really at 288°K, a delta of 33°C,
this difference is caused by a historic energy imbalance of 150 watts per meter square.
This means that after all the equalization, and feedbacks, each watt per meter square of imbalance, creates 33/150= .22°C of change.
If doubling CO2 actually causes an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, then the warming from that would be .82°C.
 
longview said:
All of those agencies cannot contradict that the Earth is 33 C warmer, because of a historic 150 Wm-2 of energy imbalance.
Science tell us that the earth should be at 255 °K, but is really at 288°K, a delta of 33°C,
this difference is caused by a historic energy imbalance of 150 watts per meter square.
This means that after all the equalization, and feedbacks, each watt per meter square of imbalance, creates 33/150= .22°C of change.
If doubling CO2 actually causes an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, then the warming from that would be .82°C.
Click to expand...

Well you have to cite all the research that proves that. If you can say "science says" so can I
 
longview said:
All of those agencies cannot contradict that the Earth is 33 C warmer, because of a historic 150 Wm-2 of energy imbalance.
Science tell us that the earth should be at 255 °K, but is really at 288°K, a delta of 33°C,
this difference is caused by a historic energy imbalance of 150 watts per meter square.
This means that after all the equalization, and feedbacks, each watt per meter square of imbalance, creates 33/150= .22°C of change.
If doubling CO2 actually causes an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, then the warming from that would be .82°C.
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that, for one thing because the relationship between forcing and temperature is not linear.
 
vegas giants said:
Well you have to cite all the research that proves that. If you can say "science says" so can I
Click to expand...
The difference is that I can actually cite references.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature
and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C.
Click to expand...
In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.
Click to expand...
The imbalance of 150 Wm-2 forces the earth to be 33°C warmer.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf
We quantify the impact of each individual absorber inthe total effect by examining the net amount of long‐waveradiation absorbed in the atmosphere (G, global annual meansurface upwelling LW minus the TOA LW upwelling flux)[Raval and Ramanathan,1989;Stephens and Greenwald,1991]. This is zero in the absence of any long‐wave absor-bers, and around 155 W/m2 in the present‐day atmosphere[Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997]. This reduction in outgoing LWflux drives the 33°C greenhouse effect defined above, and is an easier diagnostic to work with.
Click to expand...
Yep, 33°C forced from 155Wm-2 of imbalance (present day).
The math is simple, and does not matter if the imbalance is 150 Wm-2 or 155 Wm-2,
33°C/155 155 W/m2= .213°C per watt per meter squared of imbalance.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's not as simple as that, for one thing because the relationship between forcing and temperature is not linear.
Click to expand...
No, the relationship between the CO2 level and the energy imbalance is not linear,
the relationship between energy imbalance and forced temperature is very linear.
All of those gas laws, mean that the temperature of a volume of gas is simply a reflection of the energy within that volume of gas.
 
longview said:
All of those agencies cannot contradict that the Earth is 33 C warmer, because of a historic 150 Wm-2 of energy imbalance.
Science tell us that the earth should be at 255 °K, but is really at 288°K, a delta of 33°C,
this difference is caused by a historic energy imbalance of 150 watts per meter square.
This means that after all the equalization, and feedbacks, each watt per meter square of imbalance, creates 33/150= .22°C of change.
If doubling CO2 actually causes an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, then the warming from that would be .82°C.
Click to expand...

I will differ slightly because it's a fourth power function between radiance and temperture.

When all is said and done, what matters is the difference in surface radiance, if we assume albedo remains constant.

If we take that 3.71 W/m^2 as true at the TOA, then extrapolate the change to the surface, we get about about a 1.1% increase in surface radiance.

At the TOA... 1360/4 = 340; 340 - 3.71 = 336; 340/336 = 1.011032

With a 0.306 albedo, the surface absorbs 386 W/m^2 (340 x 0.694 +150 = 385.96).

Now to bring the TOA into equilibrium, the surface has to increase by that 1.1%. 386 x 1.011 = 390 (386 x 1.011 = 390.25).

This only increase the surface temperature by 1 degree if we stick with significant digits, but only by 0.74 degrees is we ignore significant digits. 390^0.25/386^0.25 x 288 = 288.7432.

This accounts for all the feedback in the earth system, because the system will adjust for equilibrium at the TOA.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's not as simple as that, for one thing because the relationship between forcing and temperature is not linear.
Click to expand...

That's true. Like I pointed out, its 0.74 rather than 0.82 when looking at the nonlinear response.

thank-You for agreeing.
 
longview said:
No, the relationship between the CO2 level and the energy imbalance is not linear,
the relationship between energy imbalance and forced temperature is very linear.
All of those gas laws, mean that the temperature of a volume of gas is simply a reflection of the energy within that volume of gas.
Click to expand...

They are both non-linear. With a black body, it is a fourth power function between radiance and temperature. Now the 70% surface that is ocean is a different matter, as it doesn't respond like a black body.

Linearizing a nonlinear response is common in science, but only remains accurate for small changes. That's why things like GWP are such a joke to use in science, because they expect us to extrapolate into the areas of innacuracy.
 
Last edited:
71b11bc24725d3b634b44b69d4584fa4.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
They are both non-linear.
Click to expand...
So far everyone seems to treat the relationship as linear.
ACS uses the formula,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K
I think if it were non-linear it would be something other than a fixed number per watt per meter squared.
I could be wrong, but that is how I see others treating the relationship between imbalance and forcing temperature.
 
longview said:
So far everyone seems to treat the relationship as linear.
ACS uses the formula,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K
I think if it were non-linear it would be something other than a fixed number per watt per meter squared.
I could be wrong, but that is how I see others treating the relationship between imbalance and forcing temperature.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it retains some accurate for small changes. Larger changes you need to consider the basis of the Stefan–Boltzmann law.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's not as simple as that, for one thing because the relationship between forcing and temperature is not linear.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not linear.

What about GWP? Is it linear or non-linear?

Do you know?
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe if you read one you’d be able to understand the difference between directly measured temps and proxy temps.
Click to expand...

lol read websites prepared by a woman's relationship coach and a bunch of oceanographers about the planet's doomed climate? Oh yeah, its almost as bad as reading the Book of Revelations, but at least the latter is more entertaining.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I agree it's not linear.

What about GWP? Is it linear or non-linear?

Do you know?
Click to expand...

Climate researchers know..

Funny how you don’t know this basic info, yet you’re sure the climate researchers don’t know as much as you.

I don’t want to bring up Dunning Kruger again, since I know you are sensitive...but...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom