• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

So many flat earthers it seems in the USA, not one argument to disprove man having a big effect on global warming, every argument by the deniers is easily debunked.

Odd that someone in England should be unaware of research results published by Oxford University.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]
[url]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/48/1/1.18/220765

[/URL]

by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 315 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - Data on cloud cover from satellites, compared with counts of galactic cosmic rays from a ground station, suggested that an increase in cosmic ...
 
This is not a map. It's a chart. It is random numbers. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no reference point.

The Artic ice is floating. Melting it would not change the sea level at all. Most of the Antarctic is floating. Melting it would not change the see level at all. Neither is melting.

Here's a science experiment for you. Put a foot long, 3" wide icicle in a cup of water. Place at atmospheric temperature. Did you need a mop?
 
Odd that someone in England should be unaware of research results published by Oxford University.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]
[url]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/48/1/1.18/220765

[/URL]

by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 315 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - Data on cloud cover from satellites, compared with counts of galactic cosmic rays from a ground station, suggested that an increase in cosmic ...

Nice try, but again, the experts (from London BTW) prove you wrong.

Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change - Scientific American

The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
...
The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.
...
Their findings indicated that, overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less and cannot have contributed more than 10 percent to global warming in the 20th century.
 
Odd that someone in England should be unaware of research results published by Oxford University.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]
[url]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/48/1/1.18/220765

[/URL]

by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 315 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - Data on cloud cover from satellites, compared with counts of galactic cosmic rays from a ground station, suggested that an increase in cosmic ...

They are actually saying it is happening as do 98% of scientists.
 
Sea level rise map.

View attachment 67252226

The map shows an average of a 80mm rise since the mid '90s. That's 8 cm, which is a little over 3 inches. You probably wouldn't notice that on your boat dock - huh? However, we should all heed the warning. You can double that in 10 years, and quadruple it in 20 years, etc, etc... Then you look at a high tide, and all of a sudden the infrastructure isn't adequate, and the salt water flooding wreaks havoc, including contamination of the fresh water.

If some of these huge glaciers Arctic and Antarctic start breaking loose, that's when we would incur catastrophic, instantaneous sea level rise. Next thing, you'll be saying --- "More government, more government --- fix my dock, find my boat"...

Run for the hills!!! A foot by 2100!
 
Nice try, but again, the experts (from London BTW) prove you wrong.

Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change - Scientific American

The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
...
The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.
...
Their findings indicated that, overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less and cannot have contributed more than 10 percent to global warming in the 20th century.

Sorry, but that's easily refuted. It falls prey to the same omissions and false assumptions that undermine almost all orthodox AGW attempts to deny solar influence.

Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776
 
They are actually saying it is happening as do 98% of scientists.

The error made by orthodox AGW advocates is an error of attribution. Roughly half of 20th century warming derived from solar influence, not greenhouse gases.
 
The error made by orthodox AGW advocates is an error of attribution. Roughly half of 20th century warming derived from solar influence, not greenhouse gases.

I'd say more than half. More like 65% to 80%, of the actual warming. Then don't forget, meteorological stations have skewed readings and adjustments too.
 
The error made by orthodox AGW advocates is an error of attribution. Roughly half of 20th century warming derived from solar influence, not greenhouse gases.

So 98% of the greatest scientific minds are wrong and little old you are correct....LOL, i bet you are a trump supporter also.
 
So 98% of the greatest scientific minds are wrong and little old you are correct....LOL, i bet you are a trump supporter also.

Never voted for or supported Trump.
Not sure who the "greatest" scientific minds are, but the two I admire are Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Former created the concept of cosmoclimatology and will one day, I believe, be awarded the Nobel Prize. He's at the Danish Technical University. Latter is the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS). You may recall IAS as the place where Einstein worked after he immigrated to the US.
 
Never voted for or supported Trump.
Not sure who the "greatest" scientific minds are, but the two I admire are Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Former created the concept of cosmoclimatology and will one day, I believe, be awarded the Nobel Prize. He's at the Danish Technical University. Latter is the Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS). You may recall IAS as the place where Einstein worked after he immigrated to the US.

And what have they to do with the debate on global warming, are they in the 2% camp against the 98% camp? and the pair of them have never said man has nothing to do with global warming.
 
And what have they to do with the debate on global warming, are they in the 2% camp against the 98% camp? and the pair of them have never said man has nothing to do with global warming.

Their position would be that human activity was responsible for about half the warming of the 20th century, with solar influence accounting for the other half. With the sun approaching minimum we're looking at a substantial period of modest cooling.
 
Their position would be that human activity was responsible for about half the warming of the 20th century, with solar influence accounting for the other half. With the sun approaching minimum we're looking at a substantial period of modest cooling.

They could be right and man is responsible for 50% of global warming or they could be wrong and man is responsible for 100% of global warming.
 
More irrefutable evidence that we have a real problem.

Of course its refutable if you just look at the natural precedents from the last few thousand years (Taken from Kobashi 2011 Peer Review)

4000yearsgreenland_nov2011_gprl.webp
 
They could be right and man is responsible for 50% of global warming or they could be wrong and man is responsible for 100% of global warming.

By all means show me how an extra 0.01% in our atmospheric envelope of a benign beneficial and naturally occurring gas (that is part of your own respiration cycle) can be responsible for all this alleged horror ?
 
Sorry, but that's easily refuted. It falls prey to the same omissions and false assumptions that undermine almost all orthodox AGW attempts to deny solar influence.

Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776

You obviously didn't read the link, or perhaps the science was too much for your background. The article stated that many other groups did similar studies on solar forcing, and not one study came up with over a 10% attribution. The IPCC incorporates all those studies into the previously posted Forcing graph.

As for Shaviv. He spoke at Heartland Institute's ICCC7 (7th Annual International Conference on Climate Change). Over $67 Million was put up by Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers, and the Scaife Foundation. He spoke at ICCC2. Over $47 Million from energy companies and right-wing foundations.

If Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers Heartland Institute invest $114 Million into a couple conferences, and they use Shaviv as their keynote speaker, you can bet your life that he made enough in 2 speeches to retire.

Nir Shaviv - SourceWatch
 
'Gold standard' evidence of man-made global warming


OSLO • Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a "gold standard" level of certainty, adding to pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said.

"Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals," the US-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change, referring to satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth's surface had reached a "five-sigma" level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

Such a "gold standard" was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

Dr Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and lead author of the study out on Monday, said he hoped the findings would win over sceptics and spur action.

"The narrative out there that scientists don't know the cause of climate change is wrong," he told Reuters. "We do."

Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.

Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat pointed out that it is very difficult to project spending needs so far ahead, although the different ministries have done some preliminary estimates.
Related Story
Preparing for climate change over the long term and making Singapore a global city and home for all
Related Story
Climate change an 'imminent' security threat, risk experts say
Related Story
How a 7th grader's strike against climate change exploded into a movement
Related Story
ST Climate of Change series: More stories
US President Donald Trump, who has often cast doubt on global warming, plans to pull out of the 197-nation Paris climate agreement which seeks to end the fossil fuel era this century by shifting to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.

Sixty-two per cent of Americans polled last year believed that climate change has a human cause, up from 47 per cent in 2013, according to the Yale Programme on Climate Change Communication.

Monday's findings, by researchers in the United States, Canada and Scotland, said evidence for global warming reached the five sigma level by 2005 in two of three sets of satellite data widely used by researchers, and in 2016 in the third.

Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which runs the third set of data, said there were still many gaps in understanding climate change.

His data shows a slower pace of warming than the other two sets. "You may see a certain fingerprint that indicates human influence, but that the actual intensity of the influence is minor (as our satellite data indicate)," he told Reuters.

Separately, in 2013, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded it is "extremely likely", or at least 95 per cent probable, that human activities have been the main cause of climate change since the 1950s.

Dr Peter Stott of the British Met Office, who was among the scientists drawing that conclusion and was not involved in Monday's study, said he would favour raising the probability one notch to "virtually certain", or 99 per cent to 100 per cent. "The alternative explanation of natural factors dominating has got even less likely," he said.

The last four years have been the hottest since records began in the 19th century. The IPCC will next publish a formal assessment of the probabilities in 2021.

"I would be reluctant to raise to 99-100 per cent, but there is no doubt there is more evidence of change in the global signals over a wider suite of ocean indices and atmospheric indices," said Professor Nathan Bindoff, a climate scientist at the University of Tasmania.

'Gold standard' evidence of man-made global warming, Europe News & Top Stories - The Straits Times
 
You obviously didn't read the link, or perhaps the science was too much for your background. The article stated that many other groups did similar studies on solar forcing, and not one study came up with over a 10% attribution. The IPCC incorporates all those studies into the previously posted Forcing graph.

As for Shaviv. He spoke at Heartland Institute's ICCC7 (7th Annual International Conference on Climate Change). Over $67 Million was put up by Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers, and the Scaife Foundation. He spoke at ICCC2. Over $47 Million from energy companies and right-wing foundations.

If Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers Heartland Institute invest $114 Million into a couple conferences, and they use Shaviv as their keynote speaker, you can bet your life that he made enough in 2 speeches to retire.

Nir Shaviv - SourceWatch

Quite the uninformed comment. Your own link refutes your dollar figure claims for conference funding.
If you had ever taken the time to read Shaviv's work you would understand why the AGW advocates under count solar influence.
 
'Gold standard' evidence of man-made global warming


OSLO • Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a "gold standard" level of certainty, adding to pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said.

"Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals," the US-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change, referring to satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth's surface had reached a "five-sigma" level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

Such a "gold standard" was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

Dr Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and lead author of the study out on Monday, said he hoped the findings would win over sceptics and spur action. . . .


'Gold standard' evidence of man-made global warming, Europe News & Top Stories - The Straits Times

The "gold standard" is fool's gold.

Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper

Posted on March 1, 2019 by curryja | 124 comments
by Ross McKitrick
Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.
Continue reading
 
Here's a science experiment for you. Put a foot long, 3" wide icicle in a cup of water. Place at atmospheric temperature. Did you need a mop?

If the cup is big enough that the icicle will float, no.
 
Nice try, but again, the experts (from London BTW) prove you wrong.

Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change - Scientific American
False authority fallacy. Neither scientific American nor the religious opinion of of a couple of scientists is a proof. Science has no proofs.
The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
He is ignoring what heats the Earth. What 'global warming'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'.
The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.
This itself is a religious statement.
Their findings indicated that, overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less and cannot have contributed more than 10 percent to global warming in the 20th century.
What 'global warming'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
They are actually saying it is happening as do 98% of scientists.

There's that old '98%' random number again. You are denying statistical mathematics. You are also clueless where this number comes from.
 
Back
Top Bottom