• 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!

Foundation of a New Climate Paradigm

digitusmedius said:
Of course you didn't. You did what you always do: repeatedly slap up thoroughly debunked science-denying (or ignorant) BS and somehow still expect it to work. I haven't actually checked the dates of all your previous iterations of this but it seems like it's on a calendar of regularly scheduled BS dumping.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.
 
bubbabgone said:
How did you make that that determination given all the natural forcings that have never been adequately accounted for?
Click to expand...
We don't know all the forcings. We definitely know that forcings exist, and that increases in CO2 -- anthropogenic and natural -- can trigger forcings. We also know that other changes to the environment can release or sequester CO2.


So which is it, CO2 throughout history or just the last 200 years?
Click to expand...
:roll:

Prior to 1750, there were natural events which caused climate change. Some of those included changes in CO2 levels.

For example, it is likely that the previous Ice Age ended because a small change in the Earth's orbit triggered the release of CO2, which resulted in thousands of years of gradual warming. Absolutely nothing about that disproves that human activity over the past 200 years is the dominant cause of climate change.
 
bubbabgone said:
The IPCC selects the studies it wants to include and very often the WG lead authors use their own studies.
Click to expand...
Hello? McFly? The IPCC selects studies which are reputable and relevant to the field, which almost always means -- wait for it -- they are part of the consensus view that anthropogenic causes are the primary driver of climate change in the past 200 years.

However, since you don't understand how the IPCC actually works, you're not aware of the fact that they DO occasionally discuss studies which happens to fall outside the consensus. E.g. IPCC AR3, 4 and 5 all discussed Svensmark's paper, which promotes similar solar theories as Shaviv.

Meanwhile, WG lead authors include their own papers because they are usually noted experts in those topics.


You appear to know very little about problems with the IPCC and I bet you discount anything you should have learned from ClimateGate, amiright?
Click to expand...
:roll:

I'm well aware of criticisms of the IPCC -- including how most (but not all) of those complaints are total bull**** promulgated by climate deniers.

And yes, the pseudo-scandal you mentioned was debunked a long time ago.

I'd say it is long past time for you to put down the fiddle while the world burns.
 
Visbek said:
We don't know all the forcings. We definitely know that forcings exist, and that increases in CO2 -- anthropogenic and natural -- can trigger forcings. We also know that other changes to the environment can release or sequester CO2.



:roll:

Prior to 1750, there were natural events which caused climate change. Some of those included changes in CO2 levels.

For example, it is likely that the previous Ice Age ended because a small change in the Earth's orbit triggered the release of CO2, which resulted in thousands of years of gradual warming. Absolutely nothing about that disproves that human activity over the past 200 years is the dominant cause of climate change.
Click to expand...

So then if no one has a handle on all the forcings how did you determine that human sourced CO2 dominates 'em all?
 
Irredentist said:
The definition of a pollutant is anything that is present or is introduced into environment, and which has harmful or poisonous effects. CO2 can absolutely have both harmful and poisonous effects when introduced into the environment in sufficient quantities. Therefore, it is a pollutant, regardless of whether you want to classify it as one.
Click to expand...

You realise I hope that the ideal levels of CO2 for plant growth are around three times those we see today. We are a very long way from emissions being harmful in any way. More like beneficial given the observed greening of the planet over recent decades
 
Visbek said:
Hello? McFly? The IPCC selects studies which are reputable and relevant to the field, which almost always means -- wait for it -- they are part of the consensus view that anthropogenic causes are the primary driver of climate change in the past 200 years.

However, since you don't understand how the IPCC actually works, you're not aware of the fact that they DO occasionally discuss studies which happens to fall outside the consensus. E.g. IPCC AR3, 4 and 5 all discussed Svensmark's paper, which promotes similar solar theories as Shaviv.

Meanwhile, WG lead authors include their own papers because they are usually noted experts in those topics.



:roll:

I'm well aware of criticisms of the IPCC -- including how most (but not all) of those complaints are total bull**** promulgated by climate deniers.

And yes, the pseudo-scandal you mentioned was debunked a long time ago.

I'd say it is long past time for you to put down the fiddle while the world burns.
Click to expand...

- You really don't know the machinations of the IPCC. They discuss Svensmark and Shaviv in order to dismiss them while at the same time admitting "it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable." How do you explain that contradiction?
- How many other forcings that the IPCC doesn't have a handle on that would lead to uncertainty?
- Does the IPCC ever use unpublished and non-peer reviewed studies? Should they? What if they do?
- Does the term "peer review" suggest a guaranteed thorough process to you. Is that always the case?
- How thorough is the review process?
- Before, you said "Again, the purpose of the IPCC is to explain the science to politicians. The target audience is not the general public, it's policy makers. They get input from political appointees so that the resulting documents make sense to politicians."
So you think the authors of the WGs are responsible for the SPMs and the government reps participation is merely to guide them to present their findings in text that the bosses will understand. The content isn't changed in a way that they know the boss wants. That nothing of substance is changed from the WG reports. Is that what you believe?
- Milankovitch cycles are nothing new - iow like all influences and climate cycles they're naturally occurring - but you insist you know that human caused CO2 is the dominant forcing now, you just can't explain how you know.
- There were warming pauses and cooling periods during CO2's continuous rise. Why?
- Was the LIA naturally occurring? How about Minoan, Roman, & Medieval warming?
- The climategate scandal has been debunked? How? That's strange considering it's what shattered Judy Curry's confidence in the IPCC and made her realize the problems with the notion of consensus. Prior to that, Curry considered herself one of them. Think she knows what you know? (This oughta be a laff riot).
 
Last edited:
Irredentist said:
So, the "new climate paradigm" is that the sun affects climate? How is this new? Isn't the entire basis behind the greenhouse effect that the sun is warming the earth? Hardly a revelation. Even if solar variations are the primary factor behind climate change, the greenhouse effect would still compound the overall impact of planetary warming.
Click to expand...

The greenhouse effect starts with solar energy. If the solar energy increases by 0.2%, then so does the reaction greenhouse gasses have to it, and all other back-forcing. The effective total forcing is around 500 W/m^2. So, 0.2% of that is round 1 W/m^2. This means a bit more than half can easily be attributed to the solar changes we have seen.
 
Jack Hays said:
Temperature peaked in 2016, down since then. Thanks for noticing.
Click to expand...

2017 and 2018 are still among the top 4 hottest years. But let's look at what your claim is: Three years into the waning solar effect the hottest year on record occurred. I await the next load of BS you'll dump to explain that away. As always, Jack, I do appreciate how easy you make it to blow up the lies you keep spreading about this subject.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The greenhouse effect starts with solar energy. If the solar energy increases by 0.2%, then so does the reaction greenhouse gasses have to it, and all other back-forcing. The effective total forcing is around 500 W/m^2. So, 0.2% of that is round 1 W/m^2. This means a bit more than half can easily be attributed to the solar changes we have seen.
Click to expand...

That argument is like blaming the snow for an avalanche. Solar forcing is in a fairly constant, predictable sine wave of activity. Absent the massive increases of greenhouse gases over the past century there would never have been a global warming crisis. I know you think you're clever with your use of scientific symbols but your argument is just another way of lying about why we have a CAGW crisis.
 
digitusmedius said:
That argument is like blaming the snow for an avalanche. Solar forcing is in a fairly constant, predictable sine wave of activity. Absent the massive increases of greenhouse gases over the past century there would never have been a global warming crisis. I know you think you're clever with your use of scientific symbols but your argument is just another way of lying about why we have a CAGW crisis.
Click to expand...

I see you are ignorant to the changes since the 1700's.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I see you are ignorant to the changes since the 1700's.
Click to expand...

It's always hilarious when you science deniers try to play the ignorance card. It's projection at its best. But the hilarity multiplies when they throw out a BS grenade like that and then run away.
 
digitusmedius said:
2017 and 2018 are still among the top 4 hottest years. But let's look at what your claim is: Three years into the waning solar effect the hottest year on record occurred. I await the next load of BS you'll dump to explain that away. As always, Jack, I do appreciate how easy you make it to blow up the lies you keep spreading about this subject.
Click to expand...

Playtime is over. Either make a serious argument or stop wasting my time. This excerpt from the OP link puts your claim to rest.

[FONT=&quot]The second claim is that “solar activity decreased from the 1990’s but the temperature continued to increase. So the sun cannot be the reason for the heating”. It is wrong at several levels. First, one has to realize that the temperature anomaly at a given time is not some fixed factor times the forcing at the time. This is because the system has a finite heat capacity and various interesting feedbacks. Without properly modeling it, erroneous conclusions can be reached. A simple example is ruling out the solar flux as the major source of heat because between noon time and say 2pm, the solar flux is decreasing but the temperature is increasing! (Similarly, the average solar flux is decreasing during the month of July in the northern hemisphere, but the temperature is increasing). Solar activity has been high over the latter half of the 20th century such that even after solar activity started to decrease, the temperature should continue increasing for a decade or so, albeit at a lower pace. Second, the above argument is extremely simplistic. Proper modeling has to consider that humans have contributed as well to the net positive forcing. And indeed, when one considers both the large effect that the sun has, and the anthropogenic forcing, one can explain 20th century climate change if climate sensitivity is on the low side, much better than the IPCC models that exclude the large effect that the sun has, but assume a large climate sensitivity instead. See reference #3 below, as well as [/FONT]Roy Spencer’s short talk[FONT=&quot] showing that climate models generally give a much larger temperature increase than has been observed over the past 2 decades.[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Playtime is over. Either make a serious argument or stop wasting my time. This excerpt from the OP link puts your claim to rest.

[FONT="]The second claim is that “solar activity decreased from the 1990’s but the temperature continued to increase. So the sun cannot be the reason for the heating”. It is wrong at several levels. First, one has to realize that the temperature anomaly at a given time is not some fixed factor times the forcing at the time. This is because the system has a finite heat capacity and various interesting feedbacks. Without properly modeling it, erroneous conclusions can be reached. A simple example is ruling out the solar flux as the major source of heat because between noon time and say 2pm, the solar flux is decreasing but the temperature is increasing! (Similarly, the average solar flux is decreasing during the month of July in the northern hemisphere, but the temperature is increasing). Solar activity has been high over the latter half of the 20th century such that even after solar activity started to decrease, the temperature should continue increasing for a decade or so, albeit at a lower pace. Second, the above argument is extremely simplistic. Proper modeling has to consider that humans have contributed as well to the net positive forcing. And indeed, when one considers both the large effect that the sun has, and the anthropogenic forcing, one can explain 20th century climate change if climate sensitivity is on the low side, much better than the IPCC models that exclude the large effect that the sun has, but assume a large climate sensitivity instead. See reference #3 below, as well as [/FONT][URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1BAhfjH4g4"]Roy Spencer’s short talk[/URL][FONT="] showing that climate models generally give a much larger temperature increase than has been observed over the past 2 decades.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Playtime is over and yet you just continue to diddle with fact and truth, Jack. Face it. I've had your number since the first time I ever encountered this high-grade pure bull**** you've been dumping here (and who knows where else) for years now. And every year the facts show the the bull**** is getting deeper and stinkier. You need to abandon any hope your harboring that I'm going to let you off the mat.
 
Last edited:
digitusmedius said:
Playtime is over and yet you just continue to diddle with fact and truth, Jack. Face it. I've had your number since the first time I ever encountered this high-grade pure bull**** you've been dumping here (and who knows where else) for years now. And every year the facts show the the bull**** is getting deeper and stinkier.
Click to expand...

Make a substantive argument or keep silent. Your posts are an embarrassment.
 
Jack Hays said:
Make a substantive argument or keep silent. Your posts are an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Stop disseminating lies or go away. Your posts are an affront to science and fact.
 
digitusmedius said:
It's always hilarious when you science deniers try to play the ignorance card. It's projection at its best. But the hilarity multiplies when they throw out a BS grenade like that and then run away.
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish.

Real science is on my side.
 
digitusmedius said:
2017 and 2018 are still among the top 4 hottest years.
Click to expand...

So what ! Given the very short duration of our recorded record which covers a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age one of the three coldest temperature dips in the last 10,000 years !

Why would colder be better ?
 
flogger said:
So what ! Given the very short duration of our recorded record which covers a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age one of the three coldest temperature dips in the last 10,000 years !

Why would colder be better ?
Click to expand...

He is incapable of substantive discussion.
 
flogger said:
So what ! Given the very short duration of our recorded record which covers a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age one of the three coldest temperature dips in the last 10,000 years !

Why would colder be better ?
Click to expand...

Sweet Jeebus, the climate stupidity of science-ignorant deniers seems to grow exponentially by the comment.
 
Jack Hays said:
He is incapable of substantive discussion.
Click to expand...

Even though it seems impossible, the projection of the science deniers (or, is it just plain old rightwing lying?) seems to have no expansion limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom