• 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!

No experimental evidence for the significantanthropogenic climate change

Tim the plumber

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMIAbstract.​

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC reportAR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the globaltemperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperaturechange leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green housegases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use avery large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Furtherthey have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in orderto magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes inthe low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the science deniers will have to say about this. I don't expect much input.
 
The only science deniers are those who refute AGW. It shares all the traits of other conspiracy theories and theorists like 9/11 truthers.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I wonder what the science deniers will have to say about this. I don't expect much input.
Click to expand...

Aristaeus said:
The only science deniers are those who refute AGW. It shares all the traits of other conspiracy theories and theorists like 9/11 truthers.
Click to expand...

Aristaeus said:
The only science deniers are those who refute AGW. It shares all the traits of other conspiracy theories and theorists like 9/11 truthers.
Click to expand...

"... a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8°C." - John Paul Holdren - senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues- Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
 
Tim the plumber said:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf



You should get in touch with that university. Tell them that their professors are not scientists. You knowing all and all.
Click to expand...

The paper brings up some interesting points.
In the IPCC 3rd report was a paper Baede et al., 2001, that describes the core of the concept of AGW.
Baede was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive reference.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Click to expand...
If we break down the estimate of ECS we see that 1.2°C was from the doubling of CO2,
and somewhere between .3°C and 3.3°C was from feedbacks in response to the 1.2°C of forcing warming.
There is a spread of 3°C that is attributable in a large part to "our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."
This paper is saying that some of that clouds play a larger role in negative feedbacks, which considering the
3°C error bar the IPCC attaches to clouds, it is not implausible.
 
So it is a paper that refutes the IPCC? What a monumental waste of time. The IPCC is a government body that pushes propaganda not science. Nobody need refute anything by the IPCC because it never had any credibility. A government institution that collects scientific papers and twists them to support their Marxist ideology to further expand government and redistribute wealth.

It certainly isn't worth trying to refute anything they claim in a peer-reviewed publication. All they had to say is that it was published by the IPCC and it is automatically discredited.
 
Glitch said:
So it is a paper that refutes the IPCC? What a monumental waste of time. The IPCC is a government body that pushes propaganda not science. Nobody need refute anything by the IPCC because it never had any credibility. A government institution that collects scientific papers and twists them to support their Marxist ideology to further expand government and redistribute wealth.

It certainly isn't worth trying to refute anything they claim in a peer-reviewed publication. All they had to say is that it was published by the IPCC and it is automatically discredited.
Click to expand...
I disagree, it is worth refuting the IPCC, because governments are using the IPCC reports and the basis for
changes that could effect everyone's quality of life.
 
longview said:
I disagree, it is worth refuting the IPCC, because governments are using the IPCC reports and the basis for
changes that could effect everyone's quality of life.
Click to expand...

Of course governments are using IPCC propaganda, its part of their name - Intergovernmental Panel... A propaganda report to any government that supports a Marxist ideology. Which includes all the EU members, naturally. It also explains why only Democrats buy IPCC propaganda in the US and nobody else does. It is specifically written for leftists, not scientists. Which is why it was a complete waste of time writing a peer-reviewed paper to refute the IPCC. Governments will never read the paper, and those who do read peer-reviewed papers will dismiss it out of hand knowing it to be obvious already.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
Of course governments are using IPCC propaganda, its part of their name - Intergovernmental Panel... A propaganda report to any government that supports a Marxist ideology. Which includes all the EU members, naturally. It also explains why only Democrats buy IPCC propaganda in the US and nobody else does. It is specifically written for leftists, not scientists. Which is why it was a complete waste of time writing a peer-reviewed paper to refute the IPCC. Governments will never read the paper, and those who do read peer-reviewed papers will dismiss it out of hand knowing it to be obvious already.
Click to expand...
My fear is that their twisting of science for political purposes, could cause irreparable damage to
the idea that Science is the way to solve the issues we will face in the future.
It has taken several centuries to drag people out of the darkness of superstition,
I would hate to see us regress!
 
longview said:
My fear is that their twisting of science for political purposes, could cause irreparable damage to
the idea that Science is the way to solve the issues we will face in the future.
It has taken several centuries to drag people out of the darkness of superstition,
I would hate to see us regress!
Click to expand...

Your fear is well founded, because that is precisely what the IPCC was created to do. As a government entity there is no possibility of the IPCC doing any harm to science, no matter how they misrepresent it. All it takes is to dive randomly into any IPCC report and look up any of their referenced peer-reviewed papers and you will typically find it completely misrepresented by the IPCC. It does not harm those peer-reviewed papers, because they are still an accurate representation of science. All it really does is discredit the IPCC, which never had any credibility since its founding anyway.
 
Glitch said:
Your fear is well founded, because that is precisely what the IPCC was created to do. As a government entity there is no possibility of the IPCC doing any harm to science, no matter how they misrepresent it. All it takes is to dive randomly into any IPCC report and look up any of their referenced peer-reviewed papers and you will typically find it completely misrepresented by the IPCC. It does not harm those peer-reviewed papers, because they are still an accurate representation of science. All it really does is discredit the IPCC, which never had any credibility since its founding anyway.
Click to expand...
If a lie is repeated often enough, people will be unable to distinguish the truth.
The constant repetition about the scientific consensus, ties this concept of AGW (Not a real theory) to science.
At some point, the house of cards, they have built, will collapse, I only hope peoples faith in Science is not collateral damage!
 
Glitch said:
Your fear is well founded, because that is precisely what the IPCC was created to do. As a government entity there is no possibility of the IPCC doing any harm to science, no matter how they misrepresent it. All it takes is to dive randomly into any IPCC report and look up any of their referenced peer-reviewed papers and you will typically find it completely misrepresented by the IPCC. It does not harm those peer-reviewed papers, because they are still an accurate representation of science. All it really does is discredit the IPCC, which never had any credibility since its founding anyway.
Click to expand...
On further reflection, Science will likely be just fine, it survived the collapse Eugenics.
Galton Laboratory - Wikipedia
Galton Professors of Eugenics/Genetics
Originally established as the Galton Chair in National Eugenics, the post was renamed under Penrose to be the Galton Professor of Human Genetics.
Click to expand...
They just changed the name and carried on!
 
longview said:
On further reflection, Science will likely be just fine, it survived the collapse Eugenics.
Galton Laboratory - Wikipedia

They just changed the name and carried on!
Click to expand...

Well, during the 19th century we were just cutting our teeth on science. In a lot of ways science was shaped by society at the time. Dr. Louis Agassiz is a good example of a biologist and geologist who allowed his bigoted Christian views shape his understanding of science. Instead of making observations and drawing conclusions from those observations, Professor Agassiz would draw his conclusions and then seek out observations that supported his predetermined conclusion. In Agassiz's case, he was attempting to prove that glaciation was the mechanism God used to completely wipe out humanity and restarted. He was a devote Creationist and an enemy of Charles Darwin. Yet as an esteemed professor at Harvard, he helped shape scientific thought in the US, and he was by no means alone.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
My fear is that their twisting of science for political purposes, could cause irreparable damage to
the idea that Science is the way to solve the issues we will face in the future.
It has taken several centuries to drag people out of the darkness of superstition,
I would hate to see us regress!
Click to expand...

That is the biggest trouble coming along.

We need that law i keep talking about, lie and call it science and go to jail.
 
Glitch said:
Of course governments are using IPCC propaganda, its part of their name - Intergovernmental Panel... A propaganda report to any government that supports a Marxist ideology. Which includes all the EU members, naturally. It also explains why only Democrats buy IPCC propaganda in the US and nobody else does. It is specifically written for leftists, not scientists. Which is why it was a complete waste of time writing a peer-reviewed paper to refute the IPCC. Governments will never read the paper, and those who do read peer-reviewed papers will dismiss it out of hand knowing it to be obvious already.
Click to expand...

Yes, the IPCC is purely a propaganda body, but the climate nuts frequently cite them as supposed "scientists" with their usual appeal to authority nonsense.
 
PoS said:
Yes, the IPCC is purely a propaganda body, but the climate nuts frequently cite them as supposed "scientists" with their usual appeal to authority nonsense.
Click to expand...

Anyone who cites the IPCC as an authority can be dismissed out of hand. They might as well cite some comic book for all the credibility it will have. That is how you can separate those who are interested in having a serious conversation and those who are just trolling. If they cite peer-reviewed papers, they want a conversation. If they cite the IPCC, they are just trolling and should be ignored.
 
Glitch said:
Anyone who cites the IPCC as an authority can be dismissed out of hand. They might as well cite some comic book for all the credibility it will have. That is how you can separate those who are interested in having a serious conversation and those who are just trolling. If they cite peer-reviewed papers, they want a conversation. If they cite the IPCC, they are just trolling and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Whilst I disagree that the IPCC is any good it is the bible of the cause. When you use the numbers out of it to show that there is no reason to worry they have few places to go to given that you are using their bible.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I disagree. Whilst I disagree that the IPCC is any good it is the bible of the cause. When you use the numbers out of it to show that there is no reason to worry they have few places to go to given that you are using their bible.
Click to expand...

All you are really doing is propagating their propaganda. If you are going to cite anything it should be the underlying paper that the IPCC sourced, because it will invariably be different from what the IPCC claims the paper says. Citing the IPCC reflects poorly on those who choose that source as well because it demonstrates that they are willing to deliberately lie and use propaganda. Making anything they say on the subject less credible.
 
Glitch said:
All you are really doing is propagating their propaganda. If you are going to cite anything it should be the underlying paper that the IPCC sourced, because it will invariably be different from what the IPCC claims the paper says. Citing the IPCC reflects poorly on those who choose that source as well because it demonstrates that they are willing to deliberately lie and use propaganda. Making anything they say on the subject less credible.
Click to expand...

No, the difficulty in arguing about the complex physics of atmospheric modeling is that you will never convince anybody who does not understand it. That is almost everybody.

The reason the weak point of the argument from teh Alarmists is the impact of the worst case is that that worst case is not at all bad.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I wonder what the science deniers will have to say about this. I don't expect much input.
Click to expand...

When it actually gets into a journal and gets a peer review, get back to us.

Oh, wait.... you didn’t know this was just a manuscript?


Low quality ‘science’, but the deniers don’t care. It uses big words and says what we like!
 
Threegoofs said:
When it actually gets into a journal and gets a peer review, get back to us.

Oh, wait.... you didn’t know this was just a manuscript?


Low quality ‘science’, but the deniers don’t care. It uses big words and says what we like!
Click to expand...

Its far better than what your messiah, Greta Thundberg has, and the clowns you worship at the IPCC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom