• 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!

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

Into the Night said:
Big deal. Absorption of surface infrared does not warm the Earth. Remember, the surface is cooled by emitting the infrared.

Big deal. Air can be warmed by contact with the surface as well.

Nothing more than another for the surface to warm the air above it. That does not warm the Earth.

WRONG. You are creating energy out of nothing. If the CO2 does emit the same energy, then NONE of that energy went into surrounding molecules before energy was emitted.

CO2 is the same material. It always has the same properties.

What warming? No gas or vapor can warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface.
Click to expand...
Please go read up some on the quantum energy states of CO2.
CO2 even if it absorbs a 15 um photon, will likely never emit a photon, because it will come into contact with millions of other atoms and
molecules, long before the 10 to 50 milliseconds elapse for spontaneous decay.
Weather you like it or not, the 667 cm-1 energy level caused from the 15 um photon, does represent a minor amount of energy.
and the first law of thermodynamics states that that energy must be accounted for.
 
VanCleef said:
I have posted proof.

2,000 pages of it.
Fourth National Climate Assessment
Climate Science Special Report


You are incapable of directly refuting the proof. There is only a 97% consensus because there is overwhelming evidence.
Click to expand...

Ignorant false narrative talking point: "97% of all scientists believe man causes alarming atmospheric changes and man can fix those presumed damaging weather patterns." That is a lie. Not even 50% of qualified scientists believe men have somehow miraculously affected the weather and men can reverse those effects some miraculous how.
 
marke said:
Ignorant false narrative talking point: "97% of all scientists believe man causes alarming atmospheric changes and man can fix those presumed damaging weather patterns." That is a lie. Not even 50% of qualified scientists believe men have somehow miraculously affected the weather and men can reverse those effects some miraculous how.
Click to expand...

97% Of climate scientists. Most importantly. 88% of the Meteorologist Society, less importantly.

Both are irrelevant though, the overwhelming evidence is what is important. Evidence no one has refuted.
 
VanCleef said:
97% Of climate scientists. Most importantly. 88% of the Meteorologist Society, less importantly.

Both are irrelevant though, the overwhelming evidence is what is important. Evidence no one has refuted.
Click to expand...
Again there is minimal empirical evidence, you have not cited any!

Also your should really read Cook's abstract on how they got to 97%.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta
97% of the 33.6% of papers expressing an opinion, 97.1% of those
endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
not a level, but simply human activity is causing global warming.
 
longview said:
Again there is minimal empirical evidence, you have not cited any!

Also your should really read Cook's abstract on how they got to 97%.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta
97% of the 33.6% of papers expressing an opinion, 97.1% of those
endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
not a level, but simply human activity is causing global warming.
Click to expand...

I've cited massive amounts of evidence. Thousands of pages and hundreds of studies. In your opinion it isn't valid.

But as we all know here, opinions mean little in the face of facts.
 
VanCleef said:
I've cited massive amounts of evidence. Thousands of pages and hundreds of studies. In your opinion it isn't valid.

But as we all know here, opinions mean little in the face of facts.
Click to expand...

Quantity does not equal quality. The central claim for AGW, human activity causing warming, remains undemonstrated.
 
VanCleef said:
I've cited massive amounts of evidence. Thousands of pages and hundreds of studies. In your opinion it isn't valid.

But as we all know here, opinions mean little in the face of facts.
Click to expand...

If you think that, then you do not understand what constitutes "evidence"!
Everything in AGW ties back to CO2 climate sensitivity, there very limited empirical evidence
that increasing the CO2 level actually causes warming, plenty of hypothesis, but minimal evidence.
 
Jack Hays said:
Quantity does not equal quality. The central claim for AGW, human activity causing warming, remains undemonstrated.
Click to expand...

I directly linked massive amounts of data demonstrating this in the form of 1000s of pages and 100s of peer reviewed studies from well respected groups. You were incapable of refuting even 1 sentence.

It's why there is a scientific consensus and why there is going to be a public consensus soon. Overwhelming evidence does this.
 
VanCleef said:
I directly linked massive amounts of data demonstrating this in the form of 1000s of pages and 100s of peer reviewed studies from well respected groups. You were incapable of refuting even 1 sentence.

It's why there is a scientific consensus and why there is going to be a public consensus soon. Overwhelming evidence does this.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there is exactly zero evidence of human attribution of warming.
 
VanCleef said:
I directly linked massive amounts of data demonstrating this in the form of 1000s of pages and 100s of peer reviewed studies from well respected groups. You were incapable of refuting even 1 sentence.

It's why there is a scientific consensus and why there is going to be a public consensus soon. Overwhelming evidence does this.
Click to expand...

If someone writes a paper, stating that if something happens, then this will be the result, that does not constitute empirical evidence!
Evidence of greenhouse gas forcing, would look like a change in energy imbalance, that could not be attributed to any other cause.
Feldman, came close, but the minor signal observed, could have other causes,
and even if we attribute 100% of the of the observation to changes in CO2,
it would still place CO2's sensitivity below the what is assumed in the models.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is in NCA4 no evidence that human activity has generated warming.
Click to expand...

There are multiple examples in both reports I listed. Click those links, press control-F, search Human. I'm done this too many times to quote the passages and studies here yet again.

If you disagree with their findings, please provide a peer reviewed study directly stating so after quoting said inaccurate passage.

You refuse to do this. Until you do, I will state for a fact AGW is real.
 
VanCleef said:
There are multiple examples in both reports I listed. Click those links, press control-F, search Human. I'm done this too many times to quote the passages and studies here yet again.
Click to expand...

How about quoting the studies they reference instead of a governemnt piece of propaganda?

Why do you trust activism in government so much?
 
VanCleef said:
There are multiple examples in both reports I listed. Click those links, press control-F, search Human. I'm done this too many times to quote the passages and studies here yet again.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the evidence you claim does not exist. There are examples of correlations, and as we know correlation is not causation. There is not now, nor has there ever been, evidence to show human activity causes warming.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How about quoting the studies they reference instead of a governemnt piece of propaganda?

Why do you trust activism in government so much?
Click to expand...

Because they put it in a rather nicely formatted package, which has yet to be refuted.

Oh and citation that it is a propaganda report? Or was that just your opinion as most posts here are?
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the evidence you claim does not exist. There are examples of correlations, and as we know correlation is not causation. There is not now, nor has there ever been, evidence to show human activity causes warming.
Click to expand...

Very interesting opinion. But I will continue to refer to the overwhelming data stating otherwise.

Remember, Facts > Feelings. There is a reason why an entire field of science disagrees with you.
 
VanCleef said:
Very interesting opinion. But I will continue to refer to the overwhelming data stating otherwise.

Remember, Facts > Feelings. There is a reason why an entire field of science disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

As you wish. The data you claim to rely on do not exist.
 
Jack Hays said:
As you wish. The data you claim to rely on do not exist.
Click to expand...

It not only exists, but is overwhelmingly abundant resulting in a climate science consensus and a major shift in public opinion. Fortunately rising every year, due to said evidence also increasing every year.
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd that most scientists who study this claim the opposite.

Especially odd since they tell us what the data is, quite clearly.
Click to expand...

VanCleef said:
It not only exists, but is overwhelmingly abundant resulting in a climate science consensus and a major shift in public opinion. Fortunately rising every year, due to said evidence also increasing every year.
Click to expand...

Nope. They don't say what you claim they say.

In fact, there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
 
Threegoofs said:
There’s no single piece...there’s a BOATLOAD of pieces!
Click to expand...

Please cite any of the riders in that boat?
and which section specifically show empirical evidence the added CO2 causes the claimed forcing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom