• 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

Threegoofs said:
Only in denierland.

The process is underway to update it again for a sixth time.

And every time, the evidence gets stronger and stronger that AGW is real and an impending, looming major problem. Clearly, with the last few years spike in temps and disasters, it’s going to be even more certain.
Click to expand...

Warming has been solar driven, as the newest peer-reviewed research shows.
 
vegas giants said:
Well that is clearly wrong
Click to expand...


[h=3]Analyzing changes in the complexity of climate in the ... - Nature[/h]www.nature.com › scientific reports › articles
OBSPCngDnjVjOM4JEmCaZqUy2UAKpUKANVqlVKppF1fgbsc 0W6Bi4A2u029Xqd7XaL53lsNhu63S6O4xBFEZ7nEccxwC1wqbP9eZWz Ncxafz6nN8BSm6nE0arwKIAAAAASUVORK5CYII=




by A Delgado-Bonal - ‎2020
Jan 22, 2020 - Article; Open Access; Published: 22 January 2020 ... Delgado-Bonal, A. Quantifying the randomness of the stock markets. Scientific Reports 9 ...
 
Threegoofs said:
So is this.

IPCC ? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Click to expand...
Strange that is not what the IPCC says!
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FS_ipcc_assess.pdf
In the assessment process, emphasis is placed on the evaluation of all cited literature and of its
sources. Contributions to IPCC reports take full advantage of peer-reviewed3
and internationally available literature.
Sources other than scientific journals also provide crucial information for a
comprehensive assessment. Examples include reports from governments, industry and research institutions,
international and other organizations, and conference proceedings. Information about certain experiences
and practices in mitigation and adaptation activities in particular may be found in sources other than
traditional scientific and technical journals.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
You are being left behind.
Click to expand...

Yes. Just like the last five times you told us ‘cooling is beginning’ and we continued to break temperature records, even as you cut and pasted more blogs trumpeting ‘the pause’ and ‘cooling’.

Spare me.
 
Threegoofs said:
I get it.

You dont understand what peer review is.
Click to expand...
If the IPCC says that they use data both peer reviewed and other sources,
why would you choose to not believe them?
 
Says it all.

GlobalWarming.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
Trying out for forum jester again?

Do you agree or disagree that pressure affects temperature?

Why do you guys dismiss the whole paper just because it has an element you disagree with? Science evolves. We take the understanding we have of it, and learn by both our wins and failures.

In the end, when you have an atmosphere, the S-B law no longer applies because albedo and emmisivity have a different relationship on opaque vs. translucent objects. When spectral emmisivity + spectral albedo ≠ 1, then you cannot use the SB law. It also doesn't properly average out on a rotating sphere by just converting the sphere to a disk.

The paper did a fantastic job of relating planetary variables together.

The authors don't dismiss CO2 as a greenhouse gas. They greatly reduce it's sensitivity to 0.24 degrees for a doubling.

Did you even read the paper, or just deny it outright?
Click to expand...

The authors are 'greenhouse' effect deniers. They believe that ONLY atmospheric pressure causes warming, and that the 'greenhouse' effect doesn't even exist. They confuse pressure with compression. They can't even explain where the imaginary additional pressure is supposed to be coming from. Anyone with half a brain can immediately see that their nonsense manuscript violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Even junkscience blogs like WUWT laugh at Nikolov and his silly pseudoscience nonsense.

Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach for setting the Nikolov-Zeller silliness straight | Watts Up With That?
 
Lord of Planar said:
It doesn't.

Do you understand how a heat pump works? That doesn't violate thermodynamics, does it?

Think about air changing altitude, which changes pressure.
Click to expand...

Jesus, read the paper LOP. They are claiming that it's ONLY pressure that warms the planet above 255k (-18°C). They believe the 'greenhouse' effect doesn't even exist. Their hypothesis requires additional "pressure " magically created from nowhere, which violates the 1st LoT. They also confuse compression with pressure and misapply the ideal gas law.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make it pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious from your posts that it's you who didn't understand it. But that's not surprising, you're attracted to pseudoscience.
 
Threegoofs said:
I said the IPCC report IS peer reviewed.
Click to expand...

But it is not!
The reports have not undergone peer review , and as the report states , not all of the references are peer reviewed, so you cannot say the IPCC reports are peer reviewed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Threegoofs said:
And you understand it, but you don’t have time to explain it.

[emoji6]
Click to expand...

It's always funny that the more LoP waffles on, the more he reveals just how sketchy he is about basic science, including how the 'greenhouse' effect works. The Nikolov manuscript is clearly a 'greenhouse' effect denying paper inconsistent with the laws of physics. The fact that he didn't see that straight away tells me a lot.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Haven't you noticed, that I often explain things when someone outside of you, or some other denier of science asks me to?

I'm too intelligent to waste my time trying to educate you. You have proven that you refuse to learn. All you do is deny, deny, deny...
Click to expand...

I notice how often you get simple things wrong in your waffly 'explanations'. Always good for a laugh. It's pretty obvious you've never even read any "Introduction to..." textbooks like those free copies I provided.
 
longview said:
But it is not!
The reports have not undergone peer review , and as the report states , not all of the references are peer reviewed, so you cannot say the IPCC reports are peer reviewed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But I just did.
 
Quaestio said:
It's always funny that the more LoP waffles on, the more he reveals just how sketchy he is about basic science, including how the 'greenhouse' effect works. The Nikolov manuscript is clearly a 'greenhouse' effect denying paper inconsistent with the laws of physics. The fact that he didn't see that straight away tells me a lot.
Click to expand...

He’s an autodidact.

That’s like homeschooled but without a competent mom to teach you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom