• 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

[h=2]The List Grows – Now 100+ Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 12. December 2019
[h=4]Within the last few years, over 50 papers have been added to our compilation of scientific studies that find the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) ranges from <0 to 1°C. When no quantification is provided, words like “negligible” are used to describe CO2’s effect on the climate. The list has now reached 106 scientific papers.[/h]Link: 100+ Scientific Papers – Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity
A few of the papers published in 2019 are provided below.
[h=3]Krainov and Smirnov, 2019 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C, 2X anthroCO2 = 0.02°C)[/h][h=6][/h]
Low-Climate-Sensitivity-Krainov-and-Smirnov-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Krainov and Smirnov, 2019[/h]
[h=3]Ollila, 2019 (2XCO2= 0.6°C)[/h][h=6]“If a climate model using the positive water feedback were applied to the GH effect magnitude of this study, it would fail worse than a model showing a TCS value of 1.2°C. If there were a positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere, there is no scientific grounding to assume that this mechanism would start to work only if the CO2 concentration exceeds 280 ppm, and actually, the IPCC does not claim so. The absolute humidity and temperature observations show that there is no positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere during the longer time periods. … The contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is 7.3% corresponding to 2.4°C in temperature. The reproduction of CO2 radiative forcing (RF) showed the climate sensitivity RF value to be 2.16 Wm-2, which is 41.6% smaller than the 3.7 Wm-2 used by the IPCC. A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC’s climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.”[/h]
[h=3]Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h][h=6]“The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. … Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.”[/h]
Troposphere-temperature-changes-do-not-support-AGW-Varatsos-Efstathiou-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h]
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]The List Grows – Now 100+ Scientific Papers Assert CO2 Has A Minuscule Effect On The Climate[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 12. December 2019
[h=4]Within the last few years, over 50 papers have been added to our compilation of scientific studies that find the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) ranges from <0 to 1°C. When no quantification is provided, words like “negligible” are used to describe CO2’s effect on the climate. The list has now reached 106 scientific papers.[/h]Link: 100+ Scientific Papers – Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity
A few of the papers published in 2019 are provided below.
[h=3]Krainov and Smirnov, 2019 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C, 2X anthroCO2 = 0.02°C)[/h][h=6][/h]
Low-Climate-Sensitivity-Krainov-and-Smirnov-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Krainov and Smirnov, 2019[/h]
[h=3]Ollila, 2019 (2XCO2= 0.6°C)[/h][h=6]“If a climate model using the positive water feedback were applied to the GH effect magnitude of this study, it would fail worse than a model showing a TCS value of 1.2°C. If there were a positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere, there is no scientific grounding to assume that this mechanism would start to work only if the CO2 concentration exceeds 280 ppm, and actually, the IPCC does not claim so. The absolute humidity and temperature observations show that there is no positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere during the longer time periods. … The contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is 7.3% corresponding to 2.4°C in temperature. The reproduction of CO2 radiative forcing (RF) showed the climate sensitivity RF value to be 2.16 Wm-2, which is 41.6% smaller than the 3.7 Wm-2 used by the IPCC. A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC’s climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.”[/h]
[h=3]Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h][h=6]“The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. … Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.”[/h]
Troposphere-temperature-changes-do-not-support-AGW-Varatsos-Efstathiou-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019[/h]
Click to expand...

Predatory journal crap. Half of it isn't even grammatically correct, let alone scientifically correct! Real journals are edited.
 
Surface Detail said:
Predatory journal crap. Half of it isn't even grammatically correct, let alone scientifically correct! Real journals are edited.
Click to expand...
Another fun fact about the LotsOfTricks list: It lists 100 articles... dating back to at least the 1970s. That is a tiny fraction of all papers written about ECS and/or CO2, let alone climate change in general.
 
Surface Detail said:
Predatory journal crap. Half of it isn't even grammatically correct, let alone scientifically correct! Real journals are edited.
Click to expand...

Visbek said:
Another fun fact about the LotsOfTricks list: It lists 100 articles... dating back to at least the 1970s. That is a tiny fraction of all papers written about ECS and/or CO2, let alone climate change in general.
Click to expand...

I suppose that if the data are against you then your best option is to try to make the discussion about something else.
 
[h=2]The toxic rhetoric of climate change[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on December 14, 2019 by curryja | 141 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
“I genuinely have the fear that climate change is going to kill me and all my family, I’m not even kidding it’s all I have thought about for the last 9 months every second of the day. It’s making my sick to my stomach, I’m not eating or sleeping and I’m getting panic attacks daily. It’s currently 1 am and I can’t sleep as I’m petrified.” – Young adult in the UK
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
I suppose that if the data are against you then your best option is to try to make the discussion about something else.
Click to expand...

That's what one of them did on this very thread when I posted some of the comments from the IAC questionnaire about problems with the IPCC.
He ran like a porch thief.

But on topic, Shaviv's "theory" historically correlates much better to temperature swings than CO2.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here is a discussion of key elements in the new paradigm.

Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
Click to expand...

New paradigm? :lamo Svensmark has been banging this drum for nearly 2 decades, and all that time predicting imminent cooling which never happened. Didn't you say something about new paradigms being quickly adopted by the expert community, Jack? That's certainly not the case here - hardly anybody takes Svensmark's claims seriously any more. It's a failed paradigm, not a new paradigm.
 
Surface Detail said:
New paradigm? :lamo Svensmark has been banging this drum for nearly 2 decades, and all that time predicting imminent cooling which never happened. Didn't you say something about new paradigms being quickly adopted by the expert community, Jack? That's certainly not the case here - hardly anybody takes Svensmark's claims seriously any more. It's a failed paradigm, not a new paradigm.
Click to expand...

Too many careers and reputations are invested in the old paradigm to encourage an early embrace of the new, but it's coming. The critical last piece was Svensmark et al 2017. The Force Majeure link which I doubt you read, gives a good picture of the synthesis underlaying the new paradigm. As Shaviv has pointed out, the new paradigm fits the observational record better than the old. It's only a matter of time now.
 
Jack Hays said:
Too many careers and reputations are invested in the old paradigm to encourage an early embrace of the new, but it's coming. The critical last piece was Svensmark et al 2017. The Force Majeure link which I doubt you read, gives a good picture of the synthesis underlaying the new paradigm. As Shaviv has pointed out, the new paradigm fits the observational record better than the old. It's only a matter of time now.
Click to expand...

Your faith is quite touching, but also amusing.

And on the day that Australia endures hottest day on record.

Cooling to start any time now though, eh, Jack?
 
Surface Detail said:
Your faith is quite touching, but also amusing.

And on the day that Australia endures hottest day on record.

Cooling to start any time now though, eh, Jack?
Click to expand...

Just more "hottest blah blah" BS.

Record Heat In Australia

Posted on December 17, 2019 by tonyheller
On this date in 1938, Bourke, NSW began a 37 day heatwave over 100F, which included a week which averaged 116F. Peak temperature was 119F. The hottest temperature in Bourke’s current forecast is 114F. . . .


It seems unlikely that this year’s heatwave will match the 1938-1939 heatwave.
​
The press is, as always, engaged in their usual lies about the climate.



 
Jack Hays said:
Just more "hottest blah blah" BS.

Record Heat In Australia

Posted on December 17, 2019 by tonyheller
On this date in 1938, Bourke, NSW began a 37 day heatwave over 100F, which included a week which averaged 116F. Peak temperature was 119F. The hottest temperature in Bourke’s current forecast is 114F. . . .


It seems unlikely that this year’s heatwave will match the 1938-1939 heatwave.
​
Click to expand...

Someone needs to tell Tony Heller that Bourke, NSW isn't synonymous with the whole of Australia :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom