• 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!

Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

The paper's final paragraph:

In summary, the tropospheric temperature has not increased over the last four decades, in both hemispheres, in a way that is more amplified at high latitudes near the surface. In addition, the lower stratospheric temperature did not decline as a function of latitude. Finally, the intrinsic properties of the tropospheric temperature are different from those of the lower stratosphere. Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities. The temperatures used are often estimated indirectly from satellite observations of radiances (e.g. Cracknell and Varotsos, 2007, Cracknell and Varotsos, 2011). It would be interesting to directly analyse these radiances to answer questions about warming or cooling.

Jack, don't you know that peer review only counts when it agrees with the dogma!
 
Your link was actually to the nutcase blog, not the paper.

Anyway, what the hell is "The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence" supposed to mean? It's not even grammatically correct, and that's supposed to be one of the highlights! Any person with intact critical thinking facilities should immediately smell a rat here.

We know for a fact that global warming has occurred over the past 40 years. If their results are unable to show this, there would appear to be a problem with their data collection and/or analysis techniques.

It is always plain that the other guy really knows he's beat but in denial when the best he can do is attack the spelling of grammar.
 
A great article by Scientific American about Climate Change, and what to expect in 2019.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-missions-will-probe-the-changing-climate-in-2019/

As urgency grows around the need for stronger climate action, so does demand for a deeper understanding of how the planet is already changing—and what to expect in the coming decades.

Climate scientists have published study after groundbreaking study in the past year. They’ve investigated the ways climate change has influenced extreme weather events, including everything from Hurricane Florence to record-breaking heat in Europe. They’ve documented accelerating ice loss in Greenland, new melting spots in Antarctica and alarming losses of Arctic sea ice. They’ve investigated changes in enormous ocean currents and major atmospheric patterns.

So im supposed to take their science as truth but the science on gender dysphoria, the gender pay gap, or immigration costs we choose to ignore
 
Jack, don't you know that peer review only counts when it agrees with the dogma!

It is always plain that the other guy really knows he's beat but in denial when the best he can do is attack the spelling of grammar.

This has been a good thread, especially since #42, when SD walked into my punch. I guess he didn't see the journal page in the post. :shock::mrgreen::lamo
 
Jack, don't you know that peer review only counts when it agrees with the dogma!

As I have said on many occasions, peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. It's not my fault that you science deniers can't seem to understand the difference :shrug:
 
As I have said on many occasions, peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. It's not my fault that you science deniers can't seem to understand the difference :shrug:
Does that not also speak to the quality of any peer reviewed publication?
 
Does that not also speak to the quality of any peer reviewed publication?

Obviously the quality of peer review does vary, but once again: peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. This means that while non-peer-reviewed material is generally not worthy of consideration, peer-reviewed material should still be treated with proper scepticism.
 
As I have said on many occasions, peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. It's not my fault that you science deniers can't seem to understand the difference :shrug:

It's not our fault you dodge research results you don't like.
 
Obviously the quality of peer review does vary, but once again: peer review is a necessary condition for scientific acceptability, not a guarantee of quality. This means that while non-peer-reviewed material is generally not worthy of consideration, peer-reviewed material should still be treated with proper scepticism.
The question is, what is the "proper" amount of skepticism?
I think for research to be worth while, it must be repeatable, and testable.
The methodology of how they arrived at their conclusion, spelled out in a way that others can independently validate their work.
A falsifiable criteria should also be included.
Einstein said that the Sun's gravity would bend light, and that stars behind the sun should be visible
during an eclipse. The Stars behind the sun were photographed, validating his theory.
Had the stars not been visible, that portion of his theory would have been invalidated.
AGW lacks many of these features.
 
The question is, what is the "proper" amount of skepticism?
I think for research to be worth while, it must be repeatable, and testable.
The methodology of how they arrived at their conclusion, spelled out in a way that others can independently validate their work.
A falsifiable criteria should also be included.
Einstein said that the Sun's gravity would bend light, and that stars behind the sun should be visible
during an eclipse. The Stars behind the sun were photographed, validating his theory.
Had the stars not been visible, that portion of his theory would have been invalidated.
AGW lacks many of these features.

Well... there’s this.

1a0999c62b51451db78d993f8cd6fbde.jpg
 
The paper linked in #43 does not dispute the warming. It disputes the attribution to anthropogenic GHG's.

Sure. And other threads if yours dispute the warming. Others dispute the models. Others dispute the fact that CO2 is a GHG. Others say the warming is well within natural variability.

Get back to us when you have a consistent argument.
 
Sure. And other threads if yours dispute the warming. Others dispute the models. Others dispute the fact that CO2 is a GHG. Others say the warming is well within natural variability.

Get back to us when you have a consistent argument.

1. I don't think you can find a thread of mine that disputes the warming.
2. Yes, the models are inaccurate.
3. CO2 is a GHG. The question is whether climate sensitivity is high enough for that to matter; I don't think so.
4. Of course, if the observed warming has not been caused by anthropogenic GHG's then it is by definition within natural variability.

Consistent argument: Earth's climate is predominantly governed by solar influence and the GCR flux.
 
1. I don't think you can find a thread of mine that disputes the warming.
2. Yes, the models are inaccurate.
3. CO2 is a GHG. The question is whether climate sensitivity is high enough for that to matter; I don't think so.
4. Of course, if the observed warming has not been caused by anthropogenic GHG's then it is by definition within natural variability.

Consistent argument: Earth's climate is predominantly governed by solar influence and the GCR flux.

What's your denial this week? 2016 > 2017 > 2018? Oh wait - that would be a response that disputes warming.
 
No. That does not dispute warming when there was warming. Since 2016 we have been cooling.

And the pause! Don’t forget the pause!
LOL.

And remember, the ice isnt melting, because the temperature stations are all in the wrong places showing its not really warming, plus the oceans aren’t warming as much as scientists say, unless they are trying to say cosmic rays are doing it, and its soot anyway.
 
And the pause! Don’t forget the pause!
LOL.

And remember, the ice isnt melting, because the temperature stations are all in the wrong places showing its not really warming, plus the oceans aren’t warming as much as scientists say, unless they are trying to say cosmic rays are doing it, and its soot anyway.

Cosmic rays generate cooling, not warming.
 
1. I don't think you can find a thread of mine that disputes the warming.
2. Yes, the models are inaccurate.
3. CO2 is a GHG. The question is whether climate sensitivity is high enough for that to matter; I don't think so.
4. Of course, if the observed warming has not been caused by anthropogenic GHG's then it is by definition within natural variability.

Consistent argument: Earth's climate is predominantly governed by solar influence and the GCR flux.

No correlation. Next.

cosmic_rays.jpg

https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
 

Not that simple (or simple-minded).

[FONT=&quot]". . . Rising temperatures with falling solar activity from the 1990's. The argument here is of course that the negative correlation over this period tells us that the sun cannot be the major climate driver. This too is wrong.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]First, even if the sun was the only climate driver (which I never said is the case), this anti-correlation would not have contradicted it. Following this simple logic, we could have ruled out that the sun is warming us during the day because between noon and say 2pm, when it is typically warmest, the amount of solar radiation decreases while the temperature increases. Similarly, one could rule out the sun as our source of warmth because maximum radiation is obtained in June while July and August are typically warmer. Over the period of a month or more, solar radiation decreases but the temperature increases! The reason behind this behavior is of course the finite heat capacity of the climate system. If you heat the system for a given duration, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium. If the heating starts to decrease while the temperature is still below equilibrium, then the temperature will continue rising as the forcing starts to decrease. Interestingly, since the late 1990’s (specifically the 1997 el Niño) the temperature has been increasing at a rate much lower than predicted by the models appearing in the IPCC reports (the so called “global warming hiatus”).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 . . . . " [/FONT]
[h=2]My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion[/h]
 
[h=2]The Climate Non-Problem…Major Aspects Of Japan’s Climate Have Seen No Change In 100 Years[/h]By P Gosselin on 25. January 2019
By Kirye in Tokyo
In Japan we often hear about “climate change” and how citizens are told by their elected officials that it is necessary to act quickly to combat it.
Leaders worldwide want to have trillions of already scarce dollars to “mitigate climate change”.
But what if there hasn’t been any real changes in climate and so really nothing much to mitigate, except changes that exist only in models?
What if the changes that have been taking place are all within the range of natural variability? Does it really make any sense to risk bankrupting the planet to fight a problem that doesn’t really exist?
In my home country of Japan we also keep hearing how our own weather is becoming more extreme and storms more intense because of rising CO2. Yet, when we look at the statistics for Japan over the past decades, we see some very surprising developments. . . .
 
Just more BS. When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.

This is what right wingers thing passes and as argument. A group of scientists that spend their lives focusing on particular topic, going to school, researching, reading tons of material, have an article with backing from numerous scientific studies. All a right winger needs to say is BS and that's it.


nd people wonder why right wingers are viewed as complete morons. And once again showing all opinions are not equal. just look at all the dumb one line post void of any intelligence what so ever from the right wingers
 
Last edited:
This is what right wingers thing passes and as argument. A group of scientists that spend their lives focusing on particular topic, going to school, researching, reading tons of material, have an article with backing from numerous scientific studies. All a right winger needs to say is BS and that's it.


nd people wonder why right wingers are viewed as complete morons. And once again showing all opinions are not equal. just look at all the dumb one line post void of any intelligence what so ever from the right wingers

You are factually challenged. The article is an opinion piece written by a journalist.
 
This is what right wingers thing passes and as argument. A group of scientists that spend their lives focusing on particular topic, going to school, researching, reading tons of material, have an article with backing from numerous scientific studies. All a right winger needs to say is BS and that's it.


nd people wonder why right wingers are viewed as complete morons. And once again showing all opinions are not equal. just look at all the dumb one line post void of any intelligence what so ever from the right wingers

The academia is not teaching the full story. There are other variables that have changed not spoken much about. Over 99.5% of the research money granted is to show AGW is real, and a threat.

Follow the money. AGW gets overwhelming funding compared to any related funding of pure fact.

This has become such a huge political issue that you cannot trust any agency funded by governments.

Unless... you trust the politicians of the world...
 
Back
Top Bottom