• 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!

Climate scientists - there are plenty of them out there being ignored or disregarded by mainstream media

Lord of Planar said:
And you are just antagonizing people because you have no expertise to judge. I think its funny, because you just make yourself look really bad in doing so.
Click to expand...
You have no expertise either unless you print your name and full CV

Other than that you have a unproven claim
 
Lord of Planar said:
I just hate what libtards are turning it into.

The USSA. I'll take the USA anyday over you guys' desire to change it to the USSA.
Click to expand...
There you go. Go for the insult!!!


That makes your argument stronger. Lol
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why do you constantly try to knock people down? Do you have an inferiority complex making you feel better when you do so?
Click to expand...
I don't know DR Phil....maybe it goes back to my mom......lol
 
Back to the thread,
There are climate scientist our there who do not agree with the catastrophic predictions,
but claims of modest warming and increasing crop yields, do not make for interesting news.
Sensational stories, no matter how thin the thread is what sells.
Here is a good example.
Hurricane Ian packs 'catastrophic' storm surge threat made worse by climate change
Sea levels around Florida have risen on average 8 inches since 1950, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the bulk of that rise coming in recent years as rising global temperatures have sped up the melting of the polar ice caps. Due to a variety of factors, sea level rise does not happen uniformly, and the ocean has risen in St. Petersburg, which sits on Tampa Bay, by 9 inches, according to the NOAA.
Click to expand...
Let's check the accuracy of the statement.
9 inches of sea level rise since 1950 near Tampa Bay, with the bulk of that in recent years.
The trend (from NOAA) looks fairly uniform, but 0.97 feet per century does equal to about 9 inches in 70 years.
NOAA tide station St. Petersburg, Florida
1664307425420.png
 
Where did we leave off? Oh yes


The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9
 
vegas giants said:
Where did we leave off? Oh yes


The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9
Click to expand...
Gosh.

Looks like the smart, educated people have written statements on this, versus the types who type anonymously on message boards snd brag about knowing the science and napkin math.
 
Madhav Khandekar PhD (Florida State University), meteorology

 
International Academies: Joint Statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
 
Joanne Nova - BS (University of Western Australia), microbiology & molecular biology

 
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11
 
Vincent Gray - PhD (University of Cambridge), physical chemistry

 
U.S. Global Change Research Program

"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
 
The Motto for the Royal Society, Nullius in verba, is Latin for "Take nobody's word for it"
It remains as true today as it was when they choose in in 1660.
 
longview said:
The Motto for the Royal Society, Nullius in verba, is Latin for "Take nobody's word for it"
It remains as true today as it was when they choose in in 1660.
Click to expand...
That's nice
 
To consider a first approximation of the climate's sensitivity, to greenhouse gasses,
one has to start with how the climate responds to warming perturbations.
The predicted warming from added greenhouse gasses is after all,
the forced warming from the added greenhouse times a feedback factor.
The current sensitivity for ECS is that 2XCO2 will force a warming perturbation of ~1.1C,
which when acted upon by climate feedbacks will produce equilibrium warming of 3C.
This is a feedback factor of 2.72, because 1.1C X 2.72 = 2C.
Herein lies a fundamental problem with the prediction.
The temperature record of ~170 years, does not contain that level of feedback for any period of more than one or two years.
All the elements necessary to calculate how the climate has responded to warming perturbations are present,
but the predicted high level of feedback is strangely missing.
As the Motto of the Royal Society states, "Take nobody's word for it" even mine!
Pick any temperature, and select a starting year, average the temperature how ever you like,
but be consistent, in the averaging methodology for all years.
The warming to the start year from the beginning of the record, is the input warming.
The warming for the end year less the greenhouse gas forcing between the start and the end, is the output.
The feedback factor is the output divided by the input.
Spreadsheets are wonderful for these types of evaluations, and luckily most of the temperature data sets
are available in .csv files.
 
Harrison Schmitt - PhD, professor (University of Wisconsin–Madison), and astronaut

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom