Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,848
Reaction score
11,050
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome..

6 Phd's were asked to debate the framed subject of the IPCC documents. All were members of the APS.

In January, 2014 the American Physical Society (APS) held a one day workshop on climate change and invited six climatologists to participate. A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists. The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic. Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer. The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.

Short biographies of each of the speakers can be seen here. Someone new to the climate change debate would have a hard time telling the alarmists from the skeptics from this transcript. They were all very professional and they stuck to the science as their host, Dr. Koonin, requested. Climate science and the debate about it are much more complex than the media, the politicians and public know. This workshop drills down to the root of the disagreements and reading it reveals the considerable uncertainty in estimates of both climate sensitivity to CO2 and the effect of natural long term climate cycles.
Three from each side of the debate and it seems the skeptical side was well prepared while the alarmist side was a bit tongue tide.. Dr Koonin set very strict rules for the debate and all were very professional following his request. The Outcome was not unexpected if your a skeptic. Adhom attacks and appeals to authority were not allowed. They discussed the unfettered science of the issue.

The article is an excellent read and I am finding the transcript very enlightening as specifics were expressed by all. My take on most of the participants is they are in agreement that we really dont know what is causing the climate to change and have not quantified an anthropogenic source at all.

Source

APS Transcript
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,848
Reaction score
11,050
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
"No unsubstantiated appeals to authority were allowed by Dr. Koonin. Not a single participant mentioned “the 97% consensus!” Uncertainty and the quantification of uncertainty, particularly of climate forcings, was the topic of the day."

Not one person brought up the Cook Et Al lie... And they lambasted the press as being fear mongering media.. It seems when your on the record you dont spout crap...

This is a refreshing thing to observe.. We might be getting some sanity and reality back into the discussion of real science..
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,848
Reaction score
11,050
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
It Just dawned on me that the alarmist side of the debate are all climate modelers who were pummeled by the fact all of their models fail empirical review. The skeptic side of the debate were all empirical scientists looking for empirical evidence to support or falsify the modeling...

Dr Christy published this graphing of the vertical transport temperatures which show modeling failure and exaggeration of temperatures by a factor of greater than 3.. OUCH!



"The vertical axis is in pressure units but goes from the surface of the Earth at the bottom up to the stratosphere. And, you can see that the models all overestimate the rate of temperature increase significantly. Dr. Christy wanted this sort of illustration to be in the IPCC report, but it was not put in."
Like I said..... OUCH! The mid tropospheric hot spot that AGW demands does not exist in empirical evidence.. Total Model failures...
 

S.J.

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
37,666
Reaction score
7,597
Points
1,140
Location
So. Cal.
I've never thought the alarmist side had an argument. Their predictions have all failed to materialize, they've been caught falsifying research results trying to manipulate public opinion, and they're being paid to say there's a crisis when there isn't one. What credibility do they have?
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,572
Reaction score
28,341
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"

Take that away and you get crickets
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,069
Reaction score
1,443
Points
275
Location
N/A
At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"

Take that away and you get crickets
Take away the overwhelming majority opinion of mainstream science and you get crickets? That would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it's not true. Take away the good science and you get crap. Like yours.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,572
Reaction score
28,341
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"

Take that away and you get crickets
Take away the overwhelming majority opinion of mainstream science and you get crickets? That would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it's not true. Take away the good science and you get crap. Like yours.
Oh right. I forgot. When you ask them for evidence linking 120PPM of CO2 to temperature, they post a chart WITHOUT A TEMPERATURE AXIS!! as "proof" then call you a liar for asking "where's the proof"
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
90,919
Reaction score
9,352
Points
2,030
At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"

Take that away and you get crickets
Take away the overwhelming majority opinion of mainstream science and you get crickets? That would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it's not true. Take away the good science and you get crap. Like yours.
Is that so,. Post that experiment there buddy. Oh that's right you don't have one!
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
90,919
Reaction score
9,352
Points
2,030
Your willingness to tell blatant lies over and over again is simply astounding
Your willingness to avoid posting the experiment proves my point!
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,069
Reaction score
1,443
Points
275
Location
N/A
I have. The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.

 
Last edited:
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,848
Reaction score
11,050
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
I have. The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.

Again you cannot determine what is causing the warming. this only SUGGESTS that it is possible. It proves nothing!
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,848
Reaction score
11,050
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
How's this?

Again an epic fail.. Anyone can stretch out and make correlation "appear" to be there when it is not... Again correlation does not imply causation.. If the correlation was there then the last 18 years of decoupling would now lay that premise waste undisputably...

Co2-Temp divergance.JPG
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
24,848
Reaction score
11,050
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
CO2 Regrssion - Knorr.JPG

As Knorr Et Al shows, there is no coupling and the rate of CO2 induced LOG rise in temperature that should be present is not. Empirical evidence is not your friend.
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
115,572
Reaction score
28,341
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
I have. The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.

Note: No temperature axis.

Using the above chart posting by our resident fucking retard, answer the following question:

Q. What's the expected temperature increase from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM

1. DENIER!!! DIE YOU FUCKING DENIER!!!!
2. Turn on the Weather Channel you FUCKING DENIER!!!!
3. OMFG!!! You're so retarded, why should I explain it to you, you fucking Denier!

Crick, that's for showing everyone what a dishonest fucking asshole you are
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,069
Reaction score
1,443
Points
275
Location
N/A
Your willingness to tell blatant lies over and over again is simply astounding
What lies? The text of the debate was provided! Proof! where are the lies?
That would be the lie that he has never been shown experiments demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased equilibrium temperatures.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,069
Reaction score
1,443
Points
275
Location
N/A
I have. The fact that you never made it through high school physics 101 is your failing, not mine.

Again you cannot determine what is causing the warming. this only SUGGESTS that it is possible. It proves nothing!
Suggests??!?!? Really? How about SUGGESTING a means by which warming could NOT be taking place.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top