• 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!

Scientists warn that greenhouse gas accumulation is accelerating and more extreme weather will come

longview said:
It's not really that, there are some true believers like James Hansen, who are environmental activists.
They see subjective data and a plausible mechanism, and can say that is not an impossible outcome.
The real danger to science is that consensus brings compliancy, people stop questioning if something is real,
and then assume it is real without question. This is not how science advances.
Feynman said ,
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."
People see what they want to see!
By the time a young PhD is on tenure track, they know how to advance, what to say, what not to say,
what subjects to avoid. Winning grants brings lab space, Course release, research assistants, ect.
They cannot lie, but can get shade from a consensus. If you look you will see it a lot,
phrases like assuming the IPCC's position is correct.
Click to expand...

Scientists make a name for themselves by finding cracks and exceptions in the existing paradigms, not by finding shade in them.

Most scientists will readily acknowledge that their latest models are just that- the latest models, based on the latest, best observations and data- not claims of finally having found ultimate truth. If they start seeing things that question those latest models, they will be overjoyed- because they will have something with which to stir the pot with new articles and at their next conference.

But they really better be sure their data and observations are solid and well supported. If they just walk in there and start talking about alien UFO abductions, autism-causing vaccines, cancer causing wind turbines, seeing Elvis at the grocery store shopping with Bigfoot, and climate change hoaxes, they will be laughed out of the meeting and their careers. So it’s a delicate rope to walk.

The current climate change models/paradigms persist for no different reason than any other well-established current models in science: from Cancer research to quantum mechanics. The most recent established models in all of them are not getting overthrown- not because no one wants to, but because no one has been able to find the data and observations to do so.

You don’t have the first idea about how science or the science culture work. That’s why I am skeptical about your claims of having worked in science ever. You speak the language of science with poor grammar and with a thick accent that betrays that you are a foreigner to it, not a native speaker.
 
longview said:
The scientific organizations exists to support their members, and keeping the grant money flowing does that.


So cite and quote the peer reviewed study that validates with observed data that added CO2 causes warming?


Sorry this is what empirical data looks like. They measured that between 2000 and 2022 that energy imbalance in the shortwave spectrum
increased, while the energy imbalance int he longwave spectrum decreased!

I have supported what I am saying with citations and quotes from peer reviewed studies, have you?
Click to expand...
So you think scientists should work for free? They are all being paid; either by their university or research facility. They don't sit around waiting for the next grant to show up. That's the province of the conspiracy theorist; the same idiots who blame pharmaceutical companies for daring to be profitable. Your sources are 'open access', not peer review. Open access sources accept and publish articles for a fee. That is not peer review.
 
ataraxia said:
Scientists make a name for themselves by finding cracks and exceptions in the existing paradigms, not by finding shade in them.

Most scientists will readily acknowledge that their latest models are just that- the latest models, based on the latest, best observations and data- not claims of finally having found ultimate truth. If they start seeing things that question those latest models, they will be overjoyed- because they will have something with which to stir the pot with new articles and at their next conference.

But they really better be sure their data and observations are solid and well supported. If they just walk in there and start talking about alien UFO abductions, autism-causing vaccines, cancer causing wind turbines, seeing Elvis at the grocery store shopping with Bigfoot, and climate change hoaxes, they will be laughed out of the meeting and their careers. So it’s a delicate rope to walk.

The current climate change models/paradigms persist for no different reason than any other well-established current models in science: from Cancer research to quantum mechanics. The most recent established models in all of them are not getting overthrown- not because no one wants to, but because no one has been able to find the data and observations to do so.

You don’t have the first idea about how science or the science culture work. That’s why I am skeptical about your claims of having worked in science ever. You speak the language of science with poor grammar and with a thick accent that betrays that you are a foreigner to it, not a native speaker.
Click to expand...
I take it you have never worked at a University or in research and development, I have been doing it for more than 4 decades,
and a decade of that was spent running the science and engineering labs at a University.
Sure there are scientist who would like to make a name for themselves, but there are plenty of cautionary
tales of researchers who moved too soon, Pons and Fleischmann come to mind.
Most of the scientist I have worked with want what we all want, a stable income that allows us a nice lifestyle.
Most have some area of specialization close to their heart, that they want to research, grants are the path to allowing
them to do the research they want. The money allows for lab space and equipment, course release, and research assistance.
To get the money may require doing research that they may not be that interested in, but who likes every aspect of their jobs?
 
longview said:
It is you who misunderstands, they can calculate the energy under the curve from a line by line analysis, but it still does not tell them how that will happen in the atmosphere!
Click to expand...

That's what the simulation is for!

"Sophisticated models, like Coupled General Circulation Models, combine many processes to portray the entire climate system. The most important components of these models are the atmosphere (including air temperature, moisture and precipitation levels, and storms); the oceans (measurements such as ocean temperature, salinity levels, and circulation patterns); terrestrial processes (including carbon absorption, forests, and storage of soil moisture); and the cryosphere (both sea ice and glaciers on land). A successful climate model must not only accurately represent all of these individual components, but also show how they interact with each other.

Climate models are constructed with two types of essential building blocks: physical, chemical, and biological laws founded on theory (the laws of thermodynamics and Newton’s laws of motion, for example, are critical to understanding circulation) and data collected from observation. These data are the record of how the climate has actually behaved in the past: the temperature of the air and oceans, the expansion or contraction of sea ice, inches of precipitation, proportion of salinity in ocean water. Models are built with these data, and are held together by the glue of laws or observed relationships in the absence of a law. The resulting model exemplifies the theory of emergence, which holds that something complex can arise out of comparatively simple pieces. A climate model, therefore, is more than the sum of its parts: by combining information on many separate processes, the model begins to portray the complexity of the entire system."

news.climate.columbia.edu

A Beginner’s Guide to Climate Models

Climate models are an important tool for scientists to understand the complexities of Earth’s climate. These computer simulations incorporate both theory and direct observations of the past and present in order to project climate into the future. Because of this synthesizing role, and because...
news.climate.columbia.edu news.climate.columbia.edu

longview said:
There are many variables at play.
Click to expand...

Do you think climate scientists don't know this?

"How exactly do GCMs simulate circulations? In order to model the climate system, a GCM uses a set of equations that explains how energy, momentum (e.g., moving air), and water interact and change within the atmosphere and oceans. GCMs simulate the Earth as a giant three-dimensional grid and calculate how different variables (e.g., temperature, rainfall, etc.) change at each grid point. The models further simulate how heat and other climate variables travel to and influence values in other grid points. "

Please read:

blog.ucs.org

What Is a Climate Model and How Does It Work?

They're incredibly accurate, and predicted how much the earth would warm by now in the 1990s.
blog.ucs.org
 
snakestretcher said:
So you think scientists should work for free? They are all being paid; either by their university or research facility. They don't sit around waiting for the next grant to show up. That's the province of the conspiracy theorist; the same idiots who blame pharmaceutical companies for daring to be profitable. Your sources are 'open access', not peer review. Open access sources accept and publish articles for a fee. That is not peer review.
Click to expand...
What made you think I was saying scientist should work for free?
Grants do not just show up, Places like the NSF issue RFPs request for proposals, those
wishing to apply for the grant submit what they hope is a winning proposal.
If they win, they conduct the required research, report the results and if the grant allows
try to publish the results in peer reviewed journals.
BTW Open Access usually refers to the article being free to access online, i.e you do not need a subscription,
and most are peer reviewed, as is the case for the cited articles those were peer reviewed.
 
Bonnot said:



View attachment 67575781


Thankfully the US elected the most anti intellectual and anti science regime possible that also wants to scrap FEMA. And the states that helped usher this in, totally aren’t the ones that will be hit the hardest by this.
Click to expand...

Florida? Many of those tornado states are Red as well.

They are going to suffer their lack of forethought.
 
George50 said:
The study you keep quoting but don’t seem to understand.
Click to expand...
What is not to understand, the CERES instruments were put up on satellites to measure the energy flows in and out of Earth.
They recorded that between 2000 and 2022 Earth gained energy in the shortwave spectrum, and lost energy in the longwave spectrum.
The hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming, requires that Earth gain energy in the longwave spectrum, via a reduction in the OLR.
Increasing the CO2 level cannot alter the amount of available sunlight that reaches the surface.
 
longview said:
What make you think I am in disagreement with the "entire scientific community"?
Click to expand...
You believe the entire scientific community is wrong regarding CO2 and you and a handful of other people with zero scientific background know the truth.
longview said:
They and I agree that the warming since 1979 is mostly from Human activity.
Click to expand...
They have shown it is from CO2.
longview said:
The hypothesis that added CO2 is the cause of the warming is just that a hypothesis, and an untested one at that.
Click to expand...
You have been shown it is not untested or just a hypothesis.
longview said:
The tests they have been able to run have failed.
Click to expand...
No they haven’t.
 
longview said:
What is not to understand, the CERES instruments were put up on satellites to measure the energy flows in and out of Earth.
They recorded that between 2000 and 2022 Earth gained energy in the shortwave spectrum, and lost energy in the longwave spectrum.
The hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming, requires that Earth gain energy in the longwave spectrum, via a reduction in the OLR.
Increasing the CO2 level cannot alter the amount of available sunlight that reaches the surface.
Click to expand...
This has been repeatedly proven false.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
That's what the simulation is for!

"Sophisticated models, like Coupled General Circulation Models, combine many processes to portray the entire climate system. The most important components of these models are the atmosphere (including air temperature, moisture and precipitation levels, and storms); the oceans (measurements such as ocean temperature, salinity levels, and circulation patterns); terrestrial processes (including carbon absorption, forests, and storage of soil moisture); and the cryosphere (both sea ice and glaciers on land). A successful climate model must not only accurately represent all of these individual components, but also show how they interact with each other.

Climate models are constructed with two types of essential building blocks: physical, chemical, and biological laws founded on theory (the laws of thermodynamics and Newton’s laws of motion, for example, are critical to understanding circulation) and data collected from observation. These data are the record of how the climate has actually behaved in the past: the temperature of the air and oceans, the expansion or contraction of sea ice, inches of precipitation, proportion of salinity in ocean water. Models are built with these data, and are held together by the glue of laws or observed relationships in the absence of a law. The resulting model exemplifies the theory of emergence, which holds that something complex can arise out of comparatively simple pieces. A climate model, therefore, is more than the sum of its parts: by combining information on many separate processes, the model begins to portray the complexity of the entire system."

news.climate.columbia.edu

A Beginner’s Guide to Climate Models

Climate models are an important tool for scientists to understand the complexities of Earth’s climate. These computer simulations incorporate both theory and direct observations of the past and present in order to project climate into the future. Because of this synthesizing role, and because...
news.climate.columbia.edu news.climate.columbia.edu



Do you think climate scientists don't know this?

"How exactly do GCMs simulate circulations? In order to model the climate system, a GCM uses a set of equations that explains how energy, momentum (e.g., moving air), and water interact and change within the atmosphere and oceans. GCMs simulate the Earth as a giant three-dimensional grid and calculate how different variables (e.g., temperature, rainfall, etc.) change at each grid point. The models further simulate how heat and other climate variables travel to and influence values in other grid points. "

Please read:

blog.ucs.org

What Is a Climate Model and How Does It Work?

They're incredibly accurate, and predicted how much the earth would warm by now in the 1990s.
blog.ucs.org
Click to expand...
The general circulation models all start by assuming a perturbation, a positive longwave energy imbalance.
The flaw is that they assume that added CO2 ALWAYS produces a positive longwave energy imbalance.
The problem is that the assumption is false, the observations show that the greenhouse gas levels increased,
but no positive longwave longwave energy imbalance resulted, (A slight negative one did show up).

We can discuss the "why" the added greenhouse gases did not produce a positive longwave energy imbalance,
but not that it was not observed.
I suspect that CO2 at some lower concentration may fit the forcing curve, but once the central band became saturated,
it moved to a different (lower sensitivity) curve. Like a vacuum roughing pump when it transitions from viscus flow to molecular flow,
the efficiency of the pump decreases dramatically.
 
rahl said:
You believe the entire scientific community is wrong regarding CO2 and you and a handful of other people with zero scientific background know the truth.

They have shown it is from CO2.

You have been shown it is not untested or just a hypothesis.

No they haven’t.
Click to expand...
I do not think the entire scientific community is in agreement about CO2, the consensus
is that Human activity is capable of changing the climate, I agree.

Computer simulations have shown the warming is from CO2, but they begin with the assumption
added CO2 causes a positive longwave energy imbalance.

So far the idea that added CO2 causes warming is just a hypothesis, and you have not shown empirical evidence otherwise.

The CERES instruments were the test, they would prove once and for all that added CO2 caused a positive longwave energy imbalance.
the problem was they showed the opposite, the longwave energy imbalance was negative.
 
rahl said:
This has been repeatedly proven false.
Click to expand...
What part?
Between 2000 and 2022 Earth did loose energy in the longwave spectrum.
For added CO2 to cause warming, it would have to do so by decreasing the OLR, it did not!
 
longview said:
I do not think the entire scientific community is in agreement about CO2, the consensus
is that Human activity is capable of changing the climate, I agree.
Click to expand...
No, it’s consensus that CO2 is the cause.
longview said:
Computer simulations have shown the warming is from CO2, but they begin with the assumption
added CO2 causes a positive longwave energy imbalance.
Click to expand...
This has been repeatedly proven false.
longview said:
So far the idea that added CO2 causes warming is just a hypothesis, and you have not shown empirical evidence otherwise.

The CERES instruments were the test, they would prove once and for all that added CO2 caused a positive longwave energy imbalance.
the problem was they showed the opposite, the longwave energy imbalance was negative.
Click to expand...
This has been repeatedly proven false.
 
rahl said:
No, it’s consensus that CO2 is the cause.

This has been repeatedly proven false.

This has been repeatedly proven false.
Click to expand...
No read about the consensus, they specify Human activity and do not say CO2.

Here is a link again describing how forcing is calculated.
CO2-Dependence of Longwave Clear-Sky Feedback Is Sensitive to Temperature
To compute the radiative forcing F2<em>x</em> (W/m2) at (CO2,T<em>s</em>), we simulate the OLR decrease per CO2 doubling,
Click to expand...
There are other sources that show this assumption.

You have yet to cite and quote a source that shows empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming.
All you seem to have is words.
 
rahl said:
You’ve been given the peer reviewed research proving your uneducated claims wrong.
Click to expand...
And yet you cannot cite where you supposedly cited this research, still only words.
Please prove me wrong, cite where this mysterious citation occurred?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom