• 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!

Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June melting

Threegoofs said:
You’re gonna be shocked when you read contemporary period sources, reflecting the science of OUR day.

LOL
Click to expand...
Not really, I have a finely tuned BS detector.
 
Surface Detail said:
Just as today's newspapers accurately reference the science of the day, I suppose?
Click to expand...
The difference is that if you look at an article, and follow it back to the reference, in many cases today
the author of the article does not understand the science and engages in hyperbole.
This is a bit different from an article stating that a glacier has lost X number of miles off of it's leading edge.
 
longview said:
The difference is that if you look at an article, and follow it back to the reference, in many cases today
the author of the article does not understand the science and engages in hyperbole.
This is a bit different from an article stating that a glacier has lost X number of miles off of it's leading edge.
Click to expand...

Why would cherry picking and exaggeration to make a story be any less rife then than now? Newspapers are written to sell copy, not accurately convey information!
 
longview said:
Very limited period, but the volume is very different than the area, In theory the volume could decrease, without any change in area,
but albedo would be strictly tied to area not volume.
Click to expand...

Yes, the albedo difference between ice and open water.

Still, aerosols change the albedo of ice too.
 
longview said:
The difference is that if you look at an article, and follow it back to the reference, in many cases today
the author of the article does not understand the science and engages in hyperbole.
This is a bit different from an article stating that a glacier has lost X number of miles off of it's leading edge.
Click to expand...

You’re gonna be amazed if you browse climate change articles at Scientific American.
 
Threegoofs said:
You’re gonna be amazed if you browse climate change articles at Scientific American.
Click to expand...
I read them all, I am amazed at how far off the rails a fairly respected science magazine has gone in support of a political agenda.
 
Threegoofs said:
Or... it could be you.
Click to expand...
An article is ether supported by data or it is not.
remember, it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
 
longview said:
An article is ether supported by data or it is not.
remember, it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Click to expand...

I know.

And so does Scientific American.

And so does the IPCC.

And so does the hundred plus National Academies of Science.

And so do all the worlds major scientific organizations.

And so does NASA/NOAA.

Like I said....

maybe it’s you.
 
Threegoofs said:
I know.

And so does Scientific American.

And so does the IPCC.

And so does the hundred plus National Academies of Science.

And so do all the worlds major scientific organizations.

And so does NASA/NOAA.

Like I said....

maybe it’s you.
Click to expand...
So tell me how my opinion differs, since I am still in the same ECS range?
NO, the only difference comes in the subjective opinions of the people making subjective opinions.
not facts, not data, simply opinions.
 
longview said:
So tell me how my opinion differs, since I am still in the same ECS range?
NO, the only difference comes in the subjective opinions of the people making subjective opinions.
not facts, not data, simply opinions.
Click to expand...

I've told you over and over, but you continue to ignore POSITIVE feedbacks. You need to multiply your warming by a factor.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf

Models vary in their projections of how much additional warming to expect, but all such models agree that the overall net effect
of feedbacks is to amplify the CO2-only warming by a factor of 1.5 to 4.5.
 
Media_Truth said:
I've told you over and over, but you continue to ignore POSITIVE feedbacks. You need to multiply your warming by a factor.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-QA.pdf

Models vary in their projections of how much additional warming to expect, but all such models agree that the overall net effect
of feedbacks is to amplify the CO2-only warming by a factor of 1.5 to 4.5.
Click to expand...
The models can say whatever they like, but if the historic 150 Wm-2 of imbalance has only forced 33C of warming,
then the total warming from 2XCO2 (3.71 Wm-2) much lower than the models predict,
I.E. whatever feedbacks exists cancel each other out.
There is no evidence of such large positive feedbacks!
 
longview said:
The models can say whatever they like, but if the historic 150 Wm-2 of imbalance has only forced 33C of warming,
then the total warming from 2XCO2 (3.71 Wm-2) much lower than the models predict,
I.E. whatever feedbacks exists cancel each other out.
There is no evidence of such large positive feedbacks!
Click to expand...

The 150 W/m^2 would indicate that there is about equal negative feedback.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The 150 W/m^2 would indicate that there is about equal negative feedback.
Click to expand...
I read the claim as it takes the 150 Wm-2 of imbalance to sustain the 33°C warmer environment.
If the imbalance dropped, we would start getting colder.
 
longview said:
I read the claim as it takes the 150 Wm-2 of imbalance to sustain the 33°C warmer environment.
If the imbalance dropped, we would start getting colder.
Click to expand...

My point is in agreement with you. Let me elaborate.

The warmers are saying that there is massive positive feedback by water vapor. This may or may not be true, we don't really have any empirical evidence it is happening. Just hypothesis. The same goes with the flip-side of the coin. Other claim that increased clouds reduce the solar radiance to the surface keeping it all in check.

My point is that the negative feedback is approximately equal to the positive feedback, when assuming the 3.71 will be amplified. I say there is approximately equal attenuation as amplification.
 
longview said:
The models can say whatever they like, but if the historic 150 Wm-2 of imbalance has only forced 33C of warming,
then the total warming from 2XCO2 (3.71 Wm-2) much lower than the models predict,
I.E. whatever feedbacks exists cancel each other out.
There is no evidence of such large positive feedbacks!
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that every major scientific organization disagrees with you, I will offer something else. We aren't even halfway to a doubling of CO2 levels, and temperatures are already about 1 deg C above pre-industrial levels. The feedbacks are supposed to intensify, as the ocean is storing a lot of heat, and water vapor atmospheric retention will get greater. Even with POS feedbacks at their current level, we are easily on course for a minimum of 2 deg C, and probably closer to 2.5 deg C.
 
Media_Truth said:
Despite the fact that every major scientific organization disagrees with you, I will offer something else. We aren't even halfway to a doubling of CO2 levels, and temperatures are already about 1 deg C above pre-industrial levels. The feedbacks are supposed to intensify, as the ocean is storing a lot of heat, and water vapor atmospheric retention will get greater. Even with POS feedbacks at their current level, we are easily on course for a minimum of 2 deg C, and probably closer to 2.5 deg C.
Click to expand...

How do they explain the denial of TOA equalization?

Please, tell us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom