User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Globa

  1. #11
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496563
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,573x in 94,411 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Man-made climate change is supported by much more than computer climate models. It is supported by physics and simple calculations based on climate forcings and climate sensitivity. Solar driven climate change can't explain any of the warming during the past 50 years.
    Yes they can. The grand solar maximum that we are leaving towards a new grand solar minimum. The blue thing in my post is a link.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. #12
    Points: 41,437, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 413
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Lummy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6307
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    12,618
    Points
    41,437
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    4,948
    Thanked 6,307x in 4,359 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    It is supported by physics and simple calculations based on climate forcings and climate sensitivity. Solar driven climate change can't explain any of the warming during the past 50 years.
    "Climate forcings" and "climate sensitivity"? Your source? Also, his/her academic credentials?
    Last edited by Lummy; 09-21-2020 at 10:40 PM.

  3. #13
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 78.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43648
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,065
    Thanked 43,653x in 28,243 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Man-made climate change is supported by much more than computer climate models. It is supported by physics and simple calculations based on climate forcings and climate sensitivity. Solar driven climate change can't explain any of the warming during the past 50 years.
    Can you tell us more about your qualifications and why your information should be credible.

  4. #14
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    Can you tell us more about your qualifications and why your information should be credible.
    I have a B.S. in Physics and I took 1 independent study course in atmospheric science. I also have a degree in electrical engineering.

    I have read many articles on climate science over the past 19 years. I started out with realclimate.org, a site with articles written by some of the top climate scientists in the world. That was a

    good source for learning the basics of climate science. I have read many of the rebuttals to skeptical arguments on climate at skepticalscience.com and I have read many other articles at other

    climate blogs.

    I don't present information on this forum that isn't scientifically sound and reasonable.

  5. #15
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    "Climate forcings" and "climate sensitivity"? Your source? Also, his/her academic credentials?

    Wikipedia is a good source for the definition of "radiative forcings" and it discusses climate sensitivity. Each of the greenhouse gases can be converted into an equivalent radiative forcing at
    the top of the atmosphere. Both naturally occurring aerosols and anthropogenic aerosols can be converted into radiative forcings -something external to the system that forces the earth's
    climate system and surface temperature to respond in order to restore equilibrium.

    Climate sensitivity can be derived from studying the ice age transition periods and that number can be multiplied by the climate forcings that exist today relative to the pre-industrial era.
    That will yield an equilibrium global mean temperature for the earth. Since we are not in radiative or thermal equilibrium that temperature will represent a greater temperature than currently exists.
    Climate sensitivity represents all of the climate feedbacks that respond to the total climate forcings. It is not known with a high degree of accuracy, to say the least.

    I use 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 with a range of 2.0 to 4.0, but the range could be larger. The uncertainty in climate sensitivity is the major source of debate among

    climate scientists.

    Radiative forcing is the difference between insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.[1] Changes to Earth's radiative equilibrium, that cause temperatures to rise or fall over decadal periods, are called climate forcings.[2] Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space. This net gain of energy will cause warming. Conversely, negative radiative forcing means that Earth loses more energy to space than it receives from the sun, which produces cooling. A system in thermal equilibrium has zero radiative forcing.
    Radiative forcing is meaningfully quantified at the tropopause and at the top of the stratosphere as flux of watts per square meter, and calculated as an average over the Earth's total surface area. Radiative forcing varies with solar insolation, surface albedo, and the atmospheric concentrations of radiatively active gases - commonly known as greenhouse gases - and aerosols.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-22-2020 at 04:43 AM.

  6. #16
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Yes they can. The grand solar maximum that we are leaving towards a new grand solar minimum. The blue thing in my post is a link.
    There is disagreement among scientists over the whether or not we have been in a grand solar maximum. A discrepancy between the Wolf sunspot number and the Group sunspot

    number was corrected in 2017. This result is shown below.

    https://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/






    "The Sunspot Number, the longest scientific experiment still ongoing, is a crucial tool used to study the solar dynamo, space weather and climate change. It has now been recalibrated and shows a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries. The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public today at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawai`i, USA."


    The graph below shows no significant change in solar irradiance since 1850. This is from NASA's blog, "There is no impending mini ice age".

    https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/t...-mini-ice-age/



  7. #17
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zelmo1234 View Post
    How do you explain all of the warning and cooling trends before the industrial revolution and all of the carbon emissions that resulted from that???
    The warming and cooling trends prior to the industrial revolution were all caused by nature, except for the clearing of land.

  8. #18
    Points: 7,664, Level: 20
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    934
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,142
    Points
    7,664
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,493
    Thanked 924x in 547 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    .


    All of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence points to warming of about 0.18 degrees C. per decade since 1970 that is anthropogenic, not natural.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

    Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming







    The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming





    The IPCC projections since 1990 have been reasonably accurate. I don't understand what is being plotted on the vertical axis of your graph.

    Oh my!

    You didn't address post one article at all, what you did was post a deflection to something unrelated since what I posted was 100% based on data, properly formatted, to show that C02 has a minor impact on RATE of temperature change, month to month, year to year.


    Your post are based on modeling constructs, that doesn't begin to address the rate of change between CO2 and Temperature, a relationship you and other warmist/alarmists don't address, maybe because it quickly shows that the observed warming since around 1980 is mostly natural, the CO2/Temperature change relationship makes that clear.

    Your temperature charts are based on data that have been altered many times, NASA own PAST charts demonstrate that well, where the well known significant cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's are almost erased.

    It is this recurring lie is why the AGW nonsense has been discredited, all you have are a bunch of tuned models, only a few 100 of them to year 2050 and 2100, they are unverifiable and junkscience.


    I showed that the RATE of per decade warming has greatly decreased since 1998 as compared to 1988, you didn't address it.

    I showed that CO2 has a very small effect on the RATE of temperature change, across time frames, you didn't address it.

    None of those "peer reviewed" papers address "CO2 has a very small effect on the RATE of temperature change, across time frames".

    Your deflection is quite revealing.....
    Last edited by Sunsettommy; 09-23-2020 at 10:32 AM.
    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

  9. #19
    Points: 7,664, Level: 20
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    934
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,142
    Points
    7,664
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,493
    Thanked 924x in 547 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Man-made climate change is supported by much more than computer climate models. It is supported by physics and simple calculations based on climate forcings and climate sensitivity. Solar driven climate change can't explain any of the warming during the past 50 years.

    Bla, bla, bla..... Zzzzz..



    You talk like an ideologist, which is why you fall hard on long into the future climate models, useless, unverifiable and doesn't run with The Scientific Method at all.
    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

  10. #20
    Points: 7,664, Level: 20
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    934
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,142
    Points
    7,664
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,493
    Thanked 924x in 547 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    It shows they really worked to make it more complicated than they needed to.

    I don't know why they just did not plot temperature vs CO2 since they used two scales anyways. Then everyone would understand that the CO2 is not increasing with the temperature increase.


    It shows that CO2 emission rate of change bears a negligible relationship with temperature change of many time frames as shown in the post one chart.

    Many times Temperature drops significantly, while CO2 continues to go up unabated. The 1999-2001 and the 2016-2018 drops were massive, yet CO2 goes up every year, mostly unaffected by the rate of temperature changes.

    This is an area warmists/alarmists completely fail in, it is a valid test they ignore or don't know how to do.
    That is why their AGW conjecture is a failure, but they irrationally hang onto it long after it has been discredited.
    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts