• 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!

The Reckoning: big oil execs to face congressional hearings on decades of deliberate, systematic campaigns of public disinformation on climate change

The climate feedbacks in the observed temperature record are between .95 and 1.25,
A climate feedback necessary to cause 3C of warming would have to 2.72.
Got any peer-reviewed and published studies to back those numbers up? Or are they all just the ramblings of a climate denialist who likes to make stuff up?
There is nothing to suggest that the feedbacks will be any different in the future!
Sure there are. I guess this means you are still refusing to read the IPCC's latest report and the new studies it references.
 
Got any peer-reviewed and published studies to back those numbers up? Or are they all just the ramblings of a climate denialist who likes to make stuff up?

Sure there are. I guess this means you are still refusing to read the IPCC's latest report and the new studies it references.
Actually just choosing an emissions pattern close to the observed, I.e. TCR, yields a much lower 2xCO2 number!
 
I
Actually just choosing an emissions pattern close to the observed, I.e. TCR, yields a much lower 2xCO2 number!

Wow, you’re still at this after all these years? When is this going to be “polished” enough by posting on internet chat sites before you publish in a peer reviewed journal and formally present your amazing insights at formal scientific conferences already? I don’t see any polishing happening over the years. You just keep posting the same thing over and over.

Say, you’re not trolling, are you?
 
I

Wow, you’re still at this after all these years? When is this going to be “polished” enough by posting on internet chat sites before you publish in a peer reviewed journal and formally present your amazing insights at formal scientific conferences already? I don’t see any polishing happening over the years. You just keep posting the same thing over and over.

Say, you’re not trolling, are you?
The idea of catastrophic AGW, is a flawed concept, and has many weak exposures!
You might have noticed, that over the years,
I have been looking at several different areas.
As for publishing, I might, after I retire, as I think my position might be a conflict of interest.
 
Actually just choosing an emissions pattern close to the observed, I.e. TCR, yields a much lower 2xCO2 number!
Of course, choosing TCR is going to yield a lower number. It is a methodology that gives an inherently lower number because it doesn't include all the additional warming associated with equalization and the long-term feedbacks.

But why are you now talking about TCR? The numbers in your last post that I asked you to back up are your made-up "feedback factor". And we all know you love to reference ECS and TCR numbers that are not all directly comparable to each other or to your feedback factor but it is just intellectually dishonest to just switch between them for no real reason.

The fact of the matter is that switching back and forth between these three measurements of climate response as if they are all the same and are directly comparable is just more of your typical denialist misinformation.

So... do you think you can back up the numbers you cited in post #124 without changing the subject or not?
 
I

Wow, you’re still at this after all these years? When is this going to be “polished” enough by posting on internet chat sites before you publish in a peer reviewed journal and formally present your amazing insights at formal scientific conferences already? I don’t see any polishing happening over the years. You just keep posting the same thing over and over.

Say, you’re not trolling, are you?
I am beginning to think it is more his desire to misinform the public than trolling. He has mentioned that he has a conflict of interest. I think he has a lot of money invested in the oil companies and he is afraid that if the public knew the truth and caused the government to really start doing something about AGW that his investments would start failing.
 
I am beginning to think it is more his desire to misinform the public than trolling. He has mentioned that he has a conflict of interest. I think he has a lot of money invested in the oil companies and he is afraid that if the public knew the truth and caused the government to really start doing something about AGW that his investments would start failing.

He is either trolling or getting paid to donthia. No one who has some original and worthwhile original scientific insight would spend years just repeating it on an internet chat site.
 
He is either trolling or getting paid to donthia. No one who has some original and worthwhile original scientific insight would spend years just repeating it on an internet chat site.
You might be right. I have, at times, wondered if someone is paying him as well. But I also know there are a lot of people who are denialists in a more fanatically religious kind of way and believe that what they are doing is good for the planet.

But no matter the reason that long is the way he is it is all not good for the planet as all he is doing is making people who believe him ignorant on the subject.
 
Of course, choosing TCR is going to yield a lower number. It is a methodology that gives an inherently lower number because it doesn't include all the additional warming associated with equalization and the long-term feedbacks.

But why are you now talking about TCR? The numbers in your last post that I asked you to back up are your made-up "feedback factor". And we all know you love to reference ECS and TCR numbers that are not all directly comparable to each other or to your feedback factor but it is just intellectually dishonest to just switch between them for no real reason.

The fact of the matter is that switching back and forth between these three measurements of climate response as if they are all the same and are directly comparable is just more of your typical denialist misinformation.

So... do you think you can back up the numbers you cited in post #124 without changing the subject or not?
The only equalization remaining in TCR would be the feedbacks from year 60 to year 70, so TCR is much more realistic than ECS.
As far as climate feedbacks in the observed record, it is what it is, if you think you can show a sustained period of 2.72 or greater, the do so?
FYI, the 2.72 is the required feedback to make 1.1C of 2XCO2 forcing, 3C of equalized warming!
 
Back
Top Bottom