• 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

ecofarm said:
Bot test 1.
Click to expand...

Here is ecofarm abandoning a debate format to make trolling postings:

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Excerpt:

Two intellectually-honest tactics

There are only two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

That’s it. Simple! The dishonest list is much longer.
Rules of debate

All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest. Generally, the federal rules of evidence of our courts attempt to make the argument or debate there intellectually honest. Roberts Rules of Order, which were written by my fellow West Point Graduate (Class of 1857) Henry Martyn Robert, are used to govern debate in many organization meetings. For example, one of Robert’s Rules, Number 43 says,

“It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.”

Some debate organizations have rules like the Code of the Debater from the University of Virginia which says among other things:

“I will research my topic and know what I am talking about.

“I will be honest about my arguments and evidence and those of others.
Click to expand...

LINK

Debating the topic must be too hard for you to follow.....
 
Sunsettommy said:
Here is ecofarm abandoning a debate format to make trolling postings:

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

Excerpt:



LINK

Debating the topic must be too hard for you to follow.....
Click to expand...

What does your debate guide say should follow this:

Lord of Planar said:
Well, address his point with understanding instead of ignorance.

Your post was of obvious ignorance.
Click to expand...
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

I am laughing at you because his point is that since we see regional diversity, CO2 is not the primary driver.

LOL...

How can you miss such a simple point?

LOL...
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read some climate papers.
 
ecofarm said:
What does your debate guide say should follow this:
Click to expand...

2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent. Political people on TV often use the phrase “But the real question is___” or “What the American people are really interested in is___” as a preface to changing the subject.
Click to expand...

LINK

bolding mine
 
ecofarm said:
The factors I mentioned can produce wildly different results. We can predict, with certainty, greater extremes and sudden events prevalent in any given region or locale.
Click to expand...
It is still difficult to get away from the fact that Hansen in 1997 expected the forcing warming to be roughly equal in the polar zones, and it is not even close.
Perhaps the Southern zone is the one with fewer variables like soot, and therefore reflects a more accurate CO2 climate sensitivity?
 
longview said:
It is still difficult to get away from the fact that Hansen in 1997 expected the forcing warming to be roughly equal in the polar zones, and it is not even close.
Perhaps the Southern zone is the one with fewer variables like soot, and therefore reflects a more accurate CO2 climate sensitivity?
Click to expand...

Read the IPCC, dude.

Do some basic learning before you tell us the experts have been wrong for 40 years despite nailing predictions right and left.
 
[h=2]Canada’s Missing Heat: Stations Across The Country Show More Cooling Than Warming[/h]By P Gosselin on 12. January 2020
[h=3]By Kirye[/h]and P. Gosselin
Global warming alarmists like claiming that a certain place is seeing more warming and climate change than everywhere else. Remarkably, they say that about almost everywhere, which of course makes no sense.
Today we look at Canadian temperature trends using the data from the Japan Meteorological Institute (JMA) for stations where they have data available going back to at least the mid 1990s.
First we look at December mean temperatures. What follows is a chart depicting the results of 9 stations across Canada:

Of the 9 examined stations, seven show no warming taking place at all in Canada over the past quarter century for the month of December. Data: JMA. ​
The data hardly show the trends you’d expect from a place that is supposed to be “warming faster than anywhere else”.
Canada mean annual temperatures show no warming
Okay, those are only data for December. How about the annual mean temperatures?
What follows are plots for the mean annual temperatures for the 9 stations:
Data source: JMA​
The plots speak clearly enough: we have been seeing more cooling than warming.
Though the surface of the globe may be have warmed modestly as a whole, nothing unusual is going on. What we are likely seeing are mainly natural oceanic cycles at work, which we still know very little about.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Paper praising models’ predictions proves they greatly exaggerate[/h][FONT=&quot]By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, A recent paper by Hausfather et al. purports to demonstrate that models “are accurately projecting global warming”. In reality, and stripped of the now-routine hype and editorializing with which the paper is riddled, the results plainly demonstrate precisely the opposite – that models have exaggerated global warming – and continue…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[h=3]Salvatteci et al., 2019[/h][h=6]“[O]tolith δ18O data from Peruvian catfish (Galeichthys peruvianus) excavated from archeological sites in northern Peru suggest SST ~4 °C warmer than present‐day SST (Andrus et al., 2002).”[/h]
Holocene-Cooling-Peru-SSTs-Salvatteci-2019.jpg
 
[h=3]Fletcher et al., 2019[/h][h=6]“The Pliocene is an intriguing climatic interval that offers important insights into climate feedbacks. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were, at times, as high as modern ones (Fig. 1), but generally show a decreasing trend throughout the Pliocene (Haywood et al., 2016; Pagani et al., 2010; Royer et al., 2007; Stap et al., 2016), Although CO2 estimates from different methods do not converge, the modeled direct effects of these CO2 discrepancies appear to be small (Feng et al., 2017). Of additional importance for comparability to the modern climate system, continental configurations were similar to present (Dowsett et al., 2016). While global mean annual temperatures (MATs) during the Pliocene were only ∼ 3°C warmer than in the present day, Arctic land surface MATs may have been as much as 15 to 22°C warmer (Ballantyne et al., 2010; Csank et al., 2011a, b; Fletcher et al., 2017). Further, Arctic sea surface temperatures may have been as much as 10 to 15°C warmer than modern ones (Robinson, 2009), and sea levels were approximately 25 m higher than present (Dowsett et al., 2016). As a result, the Arctic terrestrial environment was significantly different from today, with boreal ecosystems at much higher latitudes (Salzmann et al., 2008).”[/h]
Arctic-temps-20-C-warmer-Pliocene-Fletcher-2019.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Fletcher et al., 2019[/h][h=6]“The Pliocene is an intriguing climatic interval that offers important insights into climate feedbacks. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were, at times, as high as modern ones (Fig. 1), but generally show a decreasing trend throughout the Pliocene (Haywood et al., 2016; Pagani et al., 2010; Royer et al., 2007; Stap et al., 2016), Although CO2 estimates from different methods do not converge, the modeled direct effects of these CO2 discrepancies appear to be small (Feng et al., 2017). Of additional importance for comparability to the modern climate system, continental configurations were similar to present (Dowsett et al., 2016). While global mean annual temperatures (MATs) during the Pliocene were only ∼ 3°C warmer than in the present day, Arctic land surface MATs may have been as much as 15 to 22°C warmer (Ballantyne et al., 2010; Csank et al., 2011a, b; Fletcher et al., 2017). Further, Arctic sea surface temperatures may have been as much as 10 to 15°C warmer than modern ones (Robinson, 2009), and sea levels were approximately 25 m higher than present (Dowsett et al., 2016). As a result, the Arctic terrestrial environment was significantly different from today, with boreal ecosystems at much higher latitudes (Salzmann et al., 2008).”[/h]
Arctic-temps-20-C-warmer-Pliocene-Fletcher-2019.jpg
Click to expand...

Scary stuff. The Pliocene gives us an idea of what our world will look like at the current level of CO2 once equilibrium is reached. Sea levels 25m higher than today is pretty worrying!
 
The next (coming) chapter:

The Ion and Charged Aerosol Growth Enhancement (ION-CAGE) code: A numerical model for the growth of charged and neutral aerosols

Preprint · September 2019 with 42 Reads 

Cite this publication


The presence of small ions influences the growth dynamics of a size distribution of aerosols. Specifically the often neglected mass of small ions influences the aerosol growth rate, which may be important for terrestrial cloud formation. To this end, we develop a numerical model to calculate the growth of a species of aerosols in the presence of charge, which explicitly includes terms for ion-condensation. It is shown that a positive contribution to aerosol growth rate is obtained by increasing the ion-pair concentration through this effect, consistent with recent experimental findings. The ion-condensation effect is then compared to aerosol growth from charged aerosol coagulation, which is seen to be independent of ion-pair concentration. The model source code is made available through a public repository.

 
Last edited:
[h=2]Ireland Temperatures Cooling Since 1988. [/h]By P Gosselin on 17. January 2020
By Kirye
and P. Gosselin
Yes, climate change is real.
But what they don’t tell us is that in many places that change has gone in the opposite direction of what alarmists like to have us think.
Moreover, that change is obviously driven far more by natural causes, such as solar and oceanic cycles, and has very little to do with man-made CO2.
Today we look at the untampered temperature datasets of the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) that go back to 1988 and which are mostly complete.
Here’s the plot of the 6 stations with adequate data:

Data: JMA​
Five of the 6 stations show cooling or no upward trend. Earlier predictions of rapid warming are proving to be false.
 
Surface Detail said:
First published in 2003, and long since debunked. The predicted cooling never happened. Why are you still flogging this dead horse, Jack?
Click to expand...
Considering that most alarmist are willing to accept a nearly unlimited latency period between
CO2 forcing and ECS, why would it be so absurd to assume that the same latency might apply to other theories?
 
Surface Detail said:
First published in 2003, and long since debunked. The predicted cooling never happened. Why are you still flogging this dead horse, Jack?
Click to expand...

The cooling has begun. Date of onset muddled by El Nino years, but it's under way now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom