• 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

“Through the theories they embody, paradigms prove to be constitutive of the research activity. They are also, however, constitutive of science in other respects, and that is now the point. In particular, our most recent examples show that paradigms provide scientists not only with a map but also with some of the directions essential for map-making. In learning a paradigm the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
 
In 6 New Studies Scientists Agree Clouds Play A ‘Central Role’ In Regulating The Earth’s Climate

By Kenneth Richard on 4. June 2020
Share this...


Polar ice melt, Earth’s radiation budget, sea surface temperatures, water circulation, and climate variability are all “controlled” or “crucially regulated” by clouds.

Antarctic-ice-sheet-melt-determined-by-cloud-Gilbert-2020.jpg

Image Source: Gilbert et al., 2020

1. Gilbert et al., 2020
2. Lee et al., 2020
3. Li et al., 2020
4. Pan et al., 2020
5. Yin and Porporato, 2020
6. Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020



 
feedbacks
Cloud Feedback, if there is any, is Negative

Guest post by Mike Jonas, Maybe, after all the attention being paid to the Wuhan virus, it’s time to do a bit of climate science again. I have submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, and, remarkably, the journal says it is happy for me to put it up on the web while it is…

Guest post by Mike Jonas,
Maybe, after all the attention being paid to the Wuhan virus, it’s time to do a bit of climate science again.
I have submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, and, remarkably, the journal says it is happy for me to put it up on the web while it is in review, so here it is. But it hasn’t been easy getting to this point: I think that what I describe in the paper is of great significance to climate science, as you can tell from some of the wording in the paper, so I was keen to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal – the IPCC are supposed to work only from peer-reviewed papers. The first journal I submitted it to (in November 2019) took two months to tell me that the paper was outside the scope of the journal – a curious claim, I thought, since one of the relevant papers that I was citing had been published in that journal. The second journal took four months to tell me that it hadn’t yet been seen by a reviewer and it needed a different format for references, plus a few other minor format changes. So I withdrew the paper. I have made modest improvements to the paper over that period, but I doubt they will make much difference to reviews. Anyway, here’s hoping for third time lucky!
Here is the paper (and after the paper I’ve made some comments about how it relates to Richard Lindzen’s “Iris” theory):
– – – – – the paper: – – – – –
Cloud Feedback, if there is any, is Negative
Author: M Jonas
Affiliations: None
ABSTRACT
Virtually all the climate models referenced by the IPCC show a strong positive cloud feedback. Cloud feedback is the process by which a changing surface temperature affects cloud cover, which in turn affects surface temperature. In this paper, all monthly satellite data for sea surface temperatures and cloud cover over the oceans, for the whole available period of July 1986 to June 2017, is analysed, in order to test this feature of the climate models. As expected, the trends for the overall period are of rising sea surface temperatures and of falling cloud cover. But the analysis also shows an unexpected relationship between sea surface temperature and cloud cover: increases in sea surface temperature are associated with increases – not decreases – in cloud cover over the next few months. Moreover, the cloud cover increases tend to intercept a greater proportion of incoming solar radiation than they do of outgoing ocean radiation. The inevitable conclusion is that cloud feedback is negative. In any case, the observed reduction in cloud cover over the oceans between 1986 and 2017 could not have been a feedback from rising temperature. The implications for climate models are devastating. . . . .

 
[h=2]Natural Climate Forces Dominate: New Paper Shows CO2 Doesn’t Lead To More Weather Blocking: “Quite Some Nonsense”[/h]By P Gosselin on 9. June 2020
Share this...



Image cropped from Met Office here. ​
By Die kalte Sonne
(German text edited by P. Gosselin)
On June 3, 2020, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science published a study by Athanasiadis et al. 2020, in which the authors investigated the question of whether changes in the frequency of blocked weather situations in the North Atlantic and Central European region are predictable.
“Quite some nonsense”
Previously, scientists inclined towards climate alarmism had told us that CO2 would lead to more and more blocked weather situations. Quite some nonsense as it now turns out, because the blockings are more likely to be due to the 60-year AMO ocean cycle, which in turn affects the NAO. These are exciting results.
Here’s the abstract:
Decadal predictability of North Atlantic blocking and the NAO
Can multi-annual variations in the frequency of North Atlantic atmospheric blocking and mid-latitude circulation regimes be skilfully predicted? Recent advances in seasonal forecasting have shown that mid-latitude climate variability does exhibit significant predictability. However, atmospheric predictability has generally been found to be quite limited on multi-annual timescales. New decadal prediction experiments from NCAR are found to exhibit remarkable skill in reproducing the observed multi-annual variations of wintertime blocking frequency over the North Atlantic and of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) itself. This is partly due to the large ensemble size that allows the predictable component of the atmospheric variability to emerge from the background chaotic component. The predictable atmospheric anomalies represent a forced response to oceanic low-frequency variability that strongly resembles the Atlantic Multi-decadal Variability (AMV), correctly reproduced in the decadal hindcasts thanks to realistic ocean initialization and ocean dynamics. The occurrence of blocking in certain areas of the Euro-Atlantic domain determines the concurrent circulation regime and the phase of known teleconnections, such as the NAO, consequently affecting the stormtrack and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Therefore, skilfully predicting the decadal fluctuations of blocking frequency and the NAO may be used in statistical predictions of near-term climate anomalies, and it provides a strong indication that impactful climate anomalies may also be predictable with improved dynamical models.”
​
 
[h=2]Cooling In Eurasia, North America, Africa, Australia, South America, Greenland, Antarctica Undercuts ‘Global’ Warming[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 11. June 2020
Share this...


[h=4]In recent decades there have been “notable cooling trends” throughout many regions of the globe according to several new studies.[/h]A year ago NoTricksZone (NTZ) announced Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable Or Gaining Ice.
Six months ago NTZ cited several scientific papers indicating The Region From 50-70°S Has Cooled Since The 1980s As North Atlantic SSTs Have Cooled 1°C Since 2004.
Three months ago we reported A Massive Cooling Of 2°C In 8 Years (2008-2016) Has Jolted Large Regions Of The North Atlantic.
A few days ago we shared a New Study Finds The Larsen Ice Shelf (Antarctic Peninsula) Has Cooled More Than 2°C Since 1991.
Now we shine the light on 3 more studies that assess “Eurasia, North America, Africa, Australia, South America, and Greenland experienced notable cooling trends” from 2002 to 2013 (Xu et al., 2020), and both West and East Antarctica have been rapidly cooling since the mid-2000s (Hrbáček and Uxa, 2020 and Fatras et al., 2020).
At some point the question may need to be asked: Just how global is recent “global warming”? . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Cooling In Eurasia, North America, Africa, Australia, South America, Greenland, Antarctica Undercuts ‘Global’ Warming[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 11. June 2020
Share this...


[h=4]In recent decades there have been “notable cooling trends” throughout many regions of the globe according to several new studies.[/h]A year ago NoTricksZone (NTZ) announced Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable Or Gaining Ice.
Six months ago NTZ cited several scientific papers indicating The Region From 50-70°S Has Cooled Since The 1980s As North Atlantic SSTs Have Cooled 1°C Since 2004.
Three months ago we reported A Massive Cooling Of 2°C In 8 Years (2008-2016) Has Jolted Large Regions Of The North Atlantic.
A few days ago we shared a New Study Finds The Larsen Ice Shelf (Antarctic Peninsula) Has Cooled More Than 2°C Since 1991.
Now we shine the light on 3 more studies that assess “Eurasia, North America, Africa, Australia, South America, and Greenland experienced notable cooling trends” from 2002 to 2013 (Xu et al., 2020), and both West and East Antarctica have been rapidly cooling since the mid-2000s (Hrbáček and Uxa, 2020 and Fatras et al., 2020).
At some point the question may need to be asked: Just how global is recent “global warming”? . . .
Click to expand...

3G et. al. must be having meltdown, because your blog link actually has excepts from actual peer reviewed papers, like theirs never do.
 
Lord of Planar said:
3G et. al. must be having meltdown, because your blog link actually has excepts from actual peer reviewed papers, like theirs never do.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah.

Big meltdown

A blog was posted.

Written by a guy with a name. Not much other credentials tho.

But boy. So devastating. I might read it if I get really really really bored one day.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh yeah.

Big meltdown

A blog was posted.

Written by a guy with a name. Not much other credentials tho.

But boy. So devastating. I might read it if I get really really really bored one day.
Click to expand...

Did you open the linked papers?
 
Lord of Planar said:
No.

That isn't what I asked.

You continued to show us you have a comprehension problem.
Click to expand...

Why would bother to go to a website that constantly lies and misconstrues studies and is written by a guy with literally no credentials and who functionally is equivalent to some anonymous commenter on an AOL chatroom?

If you guys really wanted to discuss papers, they'd be presented and linked, and competent commentary would be highlighted. But you cite Kenneth Richard and pretend that some brain dead denier is the best source for scientific literature.
 
Threegoofs said:
Why would bother to go to a website that constantly lies and misconstrues studies and is written by a guy with literally no credentials and who functionally is equivalent to some anonymous commenter on an AOL chatroom?

If you guys really wanted to discuss papers, they'd be presented and linked, and competent commentary would be highlighted. But you cite Kenneth Richard and pretend that some brain dead denier is the best source for scientific literature.
Click to expand...

Here you go. I'm eager to learn your next data-dodging excuse.

Xu et al., 2020
Hrbáček and Uxa, 2020
Fatras et al., 2020.
 
Threegoofs said:
So now you want me to look at articles that some denier picked out? But wont actually discuss them yourself?

If you cant put forth effort to even discuss your own articles, I, not sure why you think I would.
Click to expand...

They are published research papers. I have read them, read about them, and discussed them. You have avoided them.
 
Irredentist said:
I've never been too worried about a "climate catastrophe". Changes on such a large scale tend to happen gradually, not suddenly. Nevertheless, I do believe in reducing pollution, development and construction, and carbon emissions wherever possible. Not because I fear the end of the world, but because I believe the natural ecosystems of this world are best preserved by limiting the overall impact of humans to as small a degree as possible.
Click to expand...

Then you support reducing population as well? Because that's the only way you're going to achieve the goals you mentioned. As Michael Moore has correctly pointed out.
 
Waddy said:
Then you support reducing population as well? Because that's the only way you're going to achieve the goals you mentioned. As Michael Moore has correctly pointed out.
Click to expand...

Population is already on track to decline in some parts of the world. Generally speaking, the wealthier a population is, the fewer children they have. Which is a good thing because rich people also consume far more resources and produce more pollution than poor people.

For wealthy countries like America, the focus should be on improving energy efficiency, reducing consumption, and minimizing waste.
 
Irredentist said:
Population is already on track to decline in some parts of the world. Generally speaking, the wealthier a population is, the fewer children they have. Which is a good thing because rich people also consume far more resources and produce more pollution than poor people.

For wealthy countries like America, the focus should be on improving energy efficiency, reducing consumption, and minimizing waste.
Click to expand...

The USA has been on track for improving efficiency for decades.

Where have you been?
 
Lord of Planar said:
The USA has been on track for improving efficiency for decades.

Where have you been?
Click to expand...

Climate alarmists have one goal = bring America to a neo-luddite Stone Age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom