• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Search results

  1. S

    Ice Melt is 20 Years Ahead of Schedule

    No, it isn't extraordinary - as istodolez just pointed out. And no, s/he wasn't suggesting that they landed planes on a mountain. That was a different, but related, point.
  2. S

    Deniers, explained.

    Of course I know what mean free path is, but it is completely beside the point. You appear to be incapable of following a single train of thought. My sole point is that, contrary to your assumption, simple logic tells you that ECS must indeed depend on CO2 concentration. So stop pretending that...
  3. S

    Deniers, explained.

    Again, the same old crap. No actual references, just supposition and guesses. "It is likely...", "It is just a suspicion on my part...". Anyway, the point is made. The ECS is not a constant value, as you appear to imagine when making your arguments, but is actually dependent on the...
  4. S

    Deniers, explained.

    Right, we're slowly getting somewhere. You have at last acknowledged that the CO2 response is indeed dependent on the actual concentration. Now perhaps you can justify your "likely quite a bit before 1 ppm" claim.
  5. S

    Deniers, explained.

    I didn't say 1 ppm, I said 1 molecule. Do you really think that adding 1 more molecule to a single molecule in the atmosphere would have the same effect as moving from 300 ppm to 600 ppm? That the presence of a single additional molecule could raise the temperature of the Earth by a degree or...
  6. S

    The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

    Yes, for the simple reason that CO2, unlike H2O, is a non-condensable greenhouse gas. Because its concentration is itself temperature dependent, H2O has the effect of amplifying changes in temperature caused by gases like CO2 rather than initiating such changes. The American Chemical Society...
  7. S

    Deniers, explained.

    Yes, I am sure about that. To take an extreme example, doubling the total number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from 1 to 2 would have no effect on temperature whatsoever, whereas doubling the current concentration would certainly have an effect. Ergo, the effect of doubling the CO2...
  8. S

    Deniers, explained.

    The effect of doubling the concentration of CO2 depends on the absolute concentration of CO2. That is, doubling the concentration from, say, 10ppm to 20ppm would not have the same effect as doubling from 200ppm to 400ppm. When we talk of the ECS, we mean the effect of doubling from its current...
  9. S

    New Climate Models Even More Wrong

    More scientifically illiterate gibberish. And badly written at that.
  10. S

    Yesterday, in the middle of summer, greenland gained a record-smashing 4 gigatons of snow and ice

    SMB =/= total ice mass! When are people going to learn this! Greenland did not gain 4GT of snow and ice in one day. While 4GT of snow and ice may accumulated on the surface of the ice, large amounts were also lost in glacial flow to the sea. Overall, Greenland is losing far more ice through...
  11. S

    Climate Attribution Claims Questioned

    Isn't this the exact opposite to what Svensmark was claiming? If I remember correctly, Svensmark reckoned that falling solar activity would result in an increase in cosmic radiation reaching Earth and hence greater cloud formation and resultant cooling. But this study says the Earth is warming...
  12. S

    Paper Suggests No Global Temperature Change for 100 Years

    An interesting read. Obviously it is not possible to determine the absolute global surface temperature with any degree of accuracy, which is why we determine the change in global temperature by averaging over the changes in temperature at individual locations (anomalies) rather than by...
  13. S

    The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

    "If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases." I wish you would actually read what I write before replying!
  14. S

    The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

    But the rate of evaporation of water is a function of its temperature. If all other conditions are kept the same, the rate of evaporation can only increase if the temperature of the water increases. It's physically impossible for additional energy to increase evaporation without an accompanying...
  15. S

    Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

    Oh, don't worry about Jack. Painting himself as the victim of some imaginary slight is his usual modus operandi when he's losing the argument. It's a typical diversionary tactic.
  16. S

    Global Cooling Is Under Way

    This is what Jack is seeing :roll:
  17. S

    Global Cooling Is Under Way

    But you've previously claimed that there was no warming between 1997 and 2015. How is that compatible with your current claim that there was warming until 2016?
  18. S

    Global Cooling Is Under Way

    So what is your basic view? That global cooling is under way as per your OP dated January 2013, or that rising CO2 and warming are the dominant drivers of Earth’s strong post-1980s greening trend as per that post? They can't both be true - the Earth cannot be simultaneously cooling and warming!
  19. S

    The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

    Published on 22 July 2020: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence "We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S . This evidence includes feedback...
  20. S

    The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

    Yes, it's quite bizarre. He really does appear to believe that scientists routinely decide on a result (or are given one by politicians) and then try to manipulate the data to obtain that result. If he had ever worked as a scientist or had any idea at all of how science works, he'd realise how...
Top Bottom