• 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!

[W: #839] Bad news: possible 10 foot sea rise within a decade

longview said:
If you think it is in there, then quote the passage, otherwise we know who is full of it.
I quoted a passage from a peer reviewed publication, to support my position, can you?
Click to expand...
Like normal, he is full if shit and indoctrination.
 
Threegoofs said:
If you can’t find where it says CO2 is a main driver of warming, its really not my problem.
Click to expand...
How about citing the paragraph, look at the paper it references and see if the paper actually supports the words of the IPCC.

You never fact check!
 
Lord of Planar said:
How about citing the paragraph, look at the paper it references and see if the paper actually supports the words of the IPCC.

You never fact check!
Click to expand...
If you can’t figure out that CO2 drives the warming from the stuff I’ve posted from this over the last decade, why would one more time help?
 
Threegoofs said:
If you can’t figure out that CO2 drives the warming from the stuff I’ve posted from this over the last decade, why would one more time help?
Click to expand...
CO2 does contribute to warming. Prove it is the largest contributor.

Hint... You can't!
 
Threegoofs said:
I suppose I could dig it out, reference it, find it, post it, and get it to you.

Than.. you would handwave it away. And then tomorrow, like Groundhog Day, I would tell you that CO2 has been shown to be a major driver of warming, as I have dozens of times before, and you would totally forget today's conversation.

You really might want to get checked out.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that you attempted to move the goal post, to CO2 forcing, but what is not in the IPCC report is the increasing outbound LW radiation.
You are welcome to try and find it, but so far you have refused to even try to support your position!
 
longview said:
Keep in mind that you attempted to move the goal post, to CO2 forcing, but what is not in the IPCC report is the increasing outbound LW radiation.
You are welcome to try and find it, but so far you have refused to even try to support your position!
Click to expand...
No one cares. You are the one telling us it’s not a big deal because of your napkin math on radiation.
 
Threegoofs said:
No one cares. You are the one telling us it’s not a big deal because of your napkin math on radiation.
Click to expand...
Is that an admission you don't understand napkin math?
 
Threegoofs said:
I dont understand how anyone can take napkin math and think they overturned established scientific consensus.
But then again, I’m a scientist, not some wingnut denier
Click to expand...
Because the way you understand the consensus is an indoctrination of lies.
 
Threegoofs said:
No one cares. You are the one telling us it’s not a big deal because of your napkin math on radiation.
Click to expand...
It is not me but a peer reviewed paper, and the data is different than what should be happening!
Your arguing shows that you do not comprehend the problem!
 
longview said:
It is not me but a peer reviewed paper, and the data is different than what should be happening!
Your arguing shows that you do not comprehend the problem!
Click to expand...
It’s amazing how many papers you interpret over the years that don’t actually say what you think they say.

I don’t comprehend the problem because you’ve shown that your thoughts on it are never with the the time it takes to root out your inevitable laughable errors.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s amazing how many papers you interpret over the years that don’t actually say what you think they say.

I don’t comprehend the problem because you’ve shown that your thoughts on it are never with the the time it takes to root out your inevitable laughable errors.
Click to expand...
So you were not able to find where the IPCC report addressed this finding and are not attempting to pivot.
Here is the study.
Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020
and here are the relevant quotes.
The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020). It is almost compensated by the growing chilling TOA LW (out) (−1.1 W/m2).
Click to expand...
This finding is in conflict with the assumption that further global warming originates mainly from the LW radiation capture caused by greenhouse gases, i.e., a decline of outgoing LW.
Click to expand...
there is no interpretation necessary, the increase in outgoing LW radiation is in conflict with one of the base assumptions of AGW!
 
Last edited:
longview said:
So you were not able to find where the IPCC report addressed this finding and are not attempting to pivot.
Here is the study.
Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020
and here are the relevant quotes.


there is no interpretation necessary, the increase in outgoing LW radiation is in conflict with one of the base assumptions of AGW!
Click to expand...
Well, I guess your single paper published in an obscure journal proves all the other studies wrong.

Odd how no scientist has commented on this revolutionary seminal paper and the only one who recognizes it’s groundbreaking importance is….you

Even LoP doesn’t seem interested
 
psikeyhackr said:
How about the top 6 feet of all of the oceans?

How much volume is that? That is enough to cover the nation of Turkey with water one mile high.

It is the Sun that is heating the surface of the planet. Humans are merely changing the atmosphere to trap more energy which is manifested as temperature. Of course the energy goes more than just 12 ft into the ocean.
Click to expand...
We're in complete agreement here, I can also say "how about that top six feet of the ocean" with utter astonishment. Meanwhile we might also want to figure out what we think about areas where the waves are 12 feet high, or how the vast majority of the worlds biosphere is being excluded (70% if the earth's surface averaging 2 miles deep) along w/ most of the biosphere's mass.

You can set the limit where u want, but my experience is that many AGW advocates point to somewhere much further down. One guy I talked to was saying global warming stopped at the ocean's thermocline about 1000 meters down. Of course, we're ending up w/ a million individual masses of biosphere heating up, all w/ different specific heats and quantities of thermal energy.

Not very scientific imho.
 
longview said:
I agree that the IPCC claiming 3 significant figures is useless, as the thermometers from the late 19th century likely were only good to about
1/2 a degree C.
NASA GISS seems to think they can do better.
Improvements in the GISTEMP Uncertainty Model

But even saying the current error bar is 0.05 °C, and the starting error bar was 0.15 °C, means that
they cannot say it warmed by 1.07°C since the pre 1900 average.
Perhaps they could say 1.07°C ±0.2°C!
Click to expand...
Agreed, much uncertainty there. The irony is that so many individuals we can talk to will take a leap from their vague data sets into conclusions of rock solid certainty. Off hand, it sounds like an agenda.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, I guess your single paper published in an obscure journal proves all the other studies wrong.

Odd how no scientist has commented on this revolutionary seminal paper and the only one who recognizes it’s groundbreaking importance is….you

Even LoP doesn’t seem interested
Click to expand...
The data is the data, and other have reported the increase in outgoing LW radiation.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec.
Click to expand...
So do you think Remote Sensing is also an obscure journal?
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. You alone understand that all previous science has been overturned.

You told us already.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where you get that, but it could simple be that CO2 has a point where the forcing
moves from logarithmic to super logarithmic.
Before the forcing was slightly ahead of the increased radiation from a warmer atmosphere, and now it is slightly behind.
 
(70% if the earth's surface averaging 2 miles deep) along w/ most of the biosphere's mass.
Click to expand...

2 miles deep is not the surface. That biomass is not trying to grow wheat. It sounds like you are just deliberately being obtuse. If there is sufficient temperature problems to cause significant wheat failure then what is happening 2 miles below the surface of the ocean is not going to have much effect on wheat prices and starving people. Whatever changes wheat production is going to affect many other things.

War in the Ukraine is likely to affect wheat production and that is trivial compared to a 2 deg C change in global average surface temperature.
 
psikeyhackr said:
2 miles deep is not the surface. That biomass is not trying to grow wheat. It sounds like you are just deliberately being obtuse. If there is sufficient temperature problems to cause significant wheat failure then what is happening 2 miles below the surface of the ocean is not going to have much effect on wheat prices and starving people. Whatever changes wheat production is going to affect many other things.

War in the Ukraine is likely to affect wheat production and that is trivial compared to a 2 deg C change in global average surface temperature.
Click to expand...
Consider that past wheat failures in Ukraine were from cold, drought, and USSR mismanagement.
As for the 2 degrees C, consider that India is looking to fill the gap in Ukraine wheat production.
India looks to seize gap in wheat export market
I think it would be safe to say that India is already 2 degrees C warmer than Ukraine.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, I guess your single paper published in an obscure journal proves all the other studies wrong.

Odd how no scientist has commented on this revolutionary seminal paper and the only one who recognizes it’s groundbreaking importance is….you

Even LoP doesn’t seem interested
Click to expand...
I have commented on that paper. Why are you lying about me? I just don't see any reason to repeat what I have said to a denier of science like you.
 
longview said:
Consider that past wheat failures in Ukraine were from cold, drought, and USSR mismanagement.
As for the 2 degrees C, consider that India is looking to fill the gap in Ukraine wheat production.
India looks to seize gap in wheat export market
I think it would be safe to say that India is already 2 degrees C warmer than Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Winning debating points is SO important.

You mean higher wheat prices will encourage some people to export food from where it is already needed?

Hunger in India | India FoodBanking Network

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