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

[jc456]

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

You read this entire document?

All 534 pages... twice!

The document has 571 pages on my display and, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.

it's 573 pages on my display. So it appears it depends on the display.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

You read this entire document?

All 534 pages... twice!

The document has 571 pages on my display and, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you.

it's 573 pages on my display. So it appears it depends on the display.

SO I have my font set big... sue me! WAIT!!!! your font is set bigger than mine...





But it is legal typeset..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Science Lessons for Secretary of State John F. Kerry

Well....The article shows the fallacies of the whole AGW meme... Along with the idiot Kerry's ignorance of the subject.

We do not accept gravity and phase transition because science tells us to. We accept these things because they can be empirically tested, repeatedly confirmed and form the bases of solid scientific theories.

Science tells us that climate has always changed and always will be changing. While the radiative forcing effect of CO2 is kind of in the same ballpark as the freezing point of water, the notion that humans are the primary cause of recent climate changes is nothing but a hypothesis which has failed almost every empirical test. This is why many scientists do not accept that this is “settled science.”

This pretty well sums it up all by itself..

 

[Crick]

What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?

The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins. Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.

 

[jc456]

What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?

The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins. Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.

one question, where does most of the funding come from to pay your climate scientist salaries? hmmmmmmm..........Can you say the people? didn't think so, you're so shallow and lost it's obvious you lost track of humanity. The thing is and always will be, you ain't got proof of anything. you have no idea what 20 PPM of CO2 does to anything. you're just mad because folks like me call you out on it daily here.

 

[mamooth]

Nobody's mad. You don't get mad at a child who constantly throws tantrums. You just put them to bed, and you try to teach them that tantrums won't get them what they want.

Debates like this have the fundamental problem in that it only takes a sentence to lie, but it takes pages to refute a lie. And since you can't present evidence in spoken form, deniers are allowed to just fabricate evidence.

In the world of real science, where bad denier lies can be refuted as leisure, the deniers always get laughed out of the room. That's why deniers hate real science so much, because they always lose at it.

 

[jc456]

Nobody's mad. You don't get mad at a child who constantly throws tantrums. You just put them to bed, and you try to teach them that tantrums won't get them what they want.

Debates like this have the fundamental problem in that it only takes a sentence to lie, but it takes pages to refute a lie. And since you can't present evidence in spoken form, deniers are allowed to just fabricate evidence.

In the world of real science, where bad denier lies can be refuted as leisure, the deniers always get laughed out of the room. That's why deniers hate real science so much, because they always lose at it.

in other words, you still have no experiment right? you're admitting you don't know what 20 PPM of CO2 does in the atmosphere.

And therefore, you are a liar.

 

[mamooth]

And jc gives us a fine example of how it only takes a sentence to lie. The point of that tactic, telling the same lie over and over, is that eventually people simply get tired of debunking the same old lie yet another time, which allows the persistent liar to proclaim victory.

jc, thank you for rushing to prove my point like that.

 

[jc456]

And jc gives us a fine example of how it only takes a sentence to lie. The point of that tactic, telling the same lie over and over, is that eventually people simply get tired of debunking the same old lie yet another time, which allows the persistent liar to proclaim victory.

jc, thank you for rushing to prove my point like that.

no the point of the sentence is to secure the experiment that proves what you claim. You are the perfect example of deflection of the request. you demonstrate that everyday here. Just proves you are a liar.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?

The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins. Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.

Let's start by YOU providing the Math, Methods, and data which prove AGW by empirical evidence. Reminder: Models are NOT empirical evidence of anything.

 

[westwall]

What empirical tests has it failed and which "many scientists" do not accept that it is "settled science"?

The truth on both issues is shown by a single point: the world's climate scientists and, actually, all the world's scientists - who certainly know what does and does not falsify a theory at least as well as do you - accept AGW as valid by enormous margins. Neither the emails stolen from CRU nor the hiatus of surface warming in recent years nor anything else you can name has had the slightest impact on the numbers of experts who find the evidence, that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, thoroughly convincing.

How about you show us a single empirical test that AGW theory has passed. That will be a lot less wasted time.

 

[mamooth]

Sure. A couple examples.

AGW theory said it would get warmer. It got warmer.

It said there would be polar amplification. There was.

It said outgoing longwave would decrease in GHG bands. It did.

It said downgoing backradiation would increase. It did.

So far, it's the only theory that explains all of the observed data. And because climate scientists have been so successful with their predictions, they have credibility.

How does the denier theory of climate explain the observed data? "Natural cycles" doesn't explain any of it. I'd say denier science was rejected, but that's incorrect, being deniers refuse to do any actual science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sure. A couple examples.

AGW theory said it would get warmer. It got warmer.

It said there would be polar amplification. There was.

It said outgoing longwave would decrease in GHG bands. It did.

It said downgoing backradiation would increase. It did.

So far, it's the only theory that explains all of the observed data. And because climate scientists have been so successful with their predictions, they have credibility.

How does the denier theory of climate explain the observed data? "Natural cycles" doesn't explain any of it. I'd say denier science was rejected, but that's incorrect, being deniers refuse to do any actual science.

Let me see... No Empirical evidence to show causation... just a throw of to authority that it warmed and ..... without a shred of evidence man caused it...

You, Harbail are a legend in your own mind...

 

[jc456]

Sure. A couple examples.

AGW theory said it would get warmer. It got warmer.

It said there would be polar amplification. There was.

It said outgoing longwave would decrease in GHG bands. It did.

It said downgoing backradiation would increase. It did.

So far, it's the only theory that explains all of the observed data. And because climate scientists have been so successful with their predictions, they have credibility.

How does the denier theory of climate explain the observed data? "Natural cycles" doesn't explain any of it. I'd say denier science was rejected, but that's incorrect, being deniers refuse to do any actual science.

And yet Cold air cannot warm warm air, prove it!

 

[Crick]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

 

[jc456]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

 

[Crick]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

That I don't get?!? I'm the one of us that's taken thermodynamics and heat transfer.

I - and everyone else on this planet that understands high school physics or beyond - are telling you that ALL matter radiates heat, REGARDLESS of its surroundings.

Thus the point is that all matter transfers heat to all other matter and the state of any piece of it is dependent on the interchanges taking place with its surroundings.

Please spell out how you believe the greenhouse effect and AGW are affected by your contention. Please tell us what effect or process or event about which you think we're all mistaken.

 

[jc456]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm air warmer? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

That I don't get?!? I'm the one of us that's taken thermodynamics and heat transfer.

I - and everyone else on this planet that understands high school physics or beyond - are telling you that ALL matter radiates heat, REGARDLESS of its surroundings.

Thus the point is that all matter transfers heat to all other matter and the state of any piece of it is dependent on the interchanges taking place with its surroundings.

Please spell out how you believe the greenhouse effect and AGW are affected by your contention. Please tell us what effect or process or event about which you think we're all mistaken.

First off, I never stated that matter didn't transfer heat. I asked you if cold air can warm warm air. it's a simple question.

 

[Crick]

It is a stupid question. ALL matter radiates heat energy. All of it. No exceptions. So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be. And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat. And it is most definitely a fact. It is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is a goddamned law of nature fact.

 

[jc456]

So when t

It is a stupid question. ALL matter radiates heat energy. All of it. No exceptions. So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be. And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat. And it is most definitely a fact. It is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is a goddamned law of nature fact.

When those two energies meet does it get warmer is the question