CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

These papers are all based on the same fundamental idea that he was banging on about 10 years ago, and based on the nonsense that Steve Goddard had been banging on about before him. And the authors themselves say that their latest paper does disprove the greenhouse effect. Aren’t you a little bit concerned that a theory that (according to the lead author) overturns the greenhouse effect has been in the public domain and receiving plenty of media attention for a decade and hasn’t had an impact on the scientific literature?

Is it more likely that
a) the theory is not robust or plausible or
b) the theory is fundamentally flawed and/or the conclusions are not supported by the data, and any scientist who has seen it has decided that it’s not worthy of their time to pursue it further

You are funny! When asked if you've actually READ any of the papers you say you don't have the knowledge.

When a man with a PhD in Physical Science and his partner with a PhD in fluid mechanics points out the flaws in an experiment over 100 years old that is flawed in assumption and maths, suddenly your expert opinion can call it a straw man argument?

Cmon, pony up and show us the science please. As far as I can see on this thread the only people with concrete science are the 'skeptics and deniers'.

Believers just need consensus and 'faith' apparently.

What about Nabbers Unesco link?

And frankly, the Climate Industry is worth TRILLIONS, which is more likely, a discovery that shows it was all a sham is welcomed or buried?

Just like Zharakova, 10 years ago when she presented her work it was laughed at and ridiculed. Her reply? 'We shall see in 10 years' she's the one who's been vindicated NASA is now following her lead.

SeaBreezes

Just looking at Dr. Nikolov twitter now.
Funnily enough he answers one of your questions previously:

https://mobile.twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/1213559037750464512


Yes, the amount of reflected shortwave radiation by Earth is estimated from satellite measurements. The best system deployed in 2000 is CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System). Here is a comparison of reflected SW radiation from CERES with our model predictions.


Note that our model accurately predicted the observed downward trend in reflected solar radiation by Earth as measured by CERES between 2000 and 2015. CERES data are from Loeb & Doelling (2018): https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s more of a case that this theory is too wrong even for him

Seriously, is Spencer the ONLY person you can find who's debunking the Nikolov theory? Surely you can find others, no? I mean, if these guys are putting it out there as such a groundbreaking discovery, showing how the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been incorrectly applied to spherical bodies all this time, then I can't imagine that there wouldn't be widespread uproar against them in an effort to debunk their claims. It amazes me that you're only quoting him in an effort to discredit them. I can't believe you fully trust him now when you've religously rubbished everything he ever said or stood for before.

Maybe it's because in this case he happens to be saying something you want to hear...

But as I said, it's good to see you're changing your ways. Now if you could likewise just see past your hatred of Bates and actually read his paper...:pac:

Danno

This aged well...

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

This aged well...

This was a report based on a pentagon analysis of what the plausible worst case scenario for abrupt climate change would be.

If you're designing a disaster plan, this is the scenario you should use. If youre designing a sky scraper, upu need to put in fire prevention measures and fire escape routes even if less than 1 in a thousand sky scrapers will ever catch fire

With climate change there are uncertainties in what can trigger abrupt climate change, the gulf stream is already weakening and nobody knows for sure what the threshold is for a complete shutdown of the Gulf stream, or what the exact consequences would be for our climate if this was to happen suddenly

Then there are the predictions that actually have come true, flooding droughts heatwaves and wildfires have all occured and as more evidence comes in, it is becoming more and more attributable to clmate change, and tgere have been conflicts st least partially attributable to climate change and food shortages may not have been the sole cause of the Syrian Civil war in 2006 but it absolutely did inflame an already tense situation...

Ruhanna

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller

Nutjobs, the pair of them. Nikolov in particular is a fantasist who believe in UFOs and imagines he's a genius who has singlehandedly upended all established climate science.

Ruhanna

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

My thoughts turn increasingly to a more political and less science-based emphasis for what I feel I should be trying to do, since the political aspects of the climate change movement trouble me more than the raw science.

Of course it does, because the vast majority of climate science denial (maybe even all of it) derives from political ideology or religious fundamentalism.

Right-wingers and fundamentalists don't like the implications of the physics and climatology, so they try to pretend that the science is flawed.

At this stage the science denialists have no credibility whatsoever, and the only people clinging on to pseudoscience are extremists of one sort of another.

Danno

Ruhanna wrote: »

Of course it does, because the vast majority of climate science denial (maybe even all of it) derives from political ideology or religious fundamentalism.

Right-wingers and fundamentalists don't like the implications of the physics and climatology, so they try to pretend that the science is flawed.

At this stage the science denialists have no credibility whatsoever, and the only people clinging on to pseudoscience are extremists of one sort of another.

You forgot: Racists, Homophobes, Transphobes and Islamophobes, comrade.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Seriously, is Spencer the ONLY person you can find who's debunking the Nikolov theory? Surely you can find others, no? I mean, if these guys are putting it out there as such a groundbreaking discovery, showing how the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been incorrectly applied to spherical bodies all this time, then I can't imagine that there wouldn't be widespread uproar against them in an effort to debunk their claims. It amazes me that you're only quoting him in an effort to discredit them. I can't believe you fully trust him now when you've religously rubbished everything he ever said or stood for before.

Maybe it's because in this case he happens to be saying something you want to hear...

But as I said, it's good to see you're changing your ways. Now if you could likewise just see past your hatred of Bates and actually read his paper...:pac:

Not just Spencer
Ken Rice, a professor of computational astrophysics at Edinburg university https://www.roe.ac.uk/~wkmr/
has written blogs about Nikolov and his ideas over the years (like this one https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/no-pressure-alone-does-not-define-surface-temperatures/ ) but to be honest, he has so little credibility and his papers have had such little impact, there isn't a whole lot to go on out there in the time I have to look

The papers are barely getting cited anywhere despite getting thousands of downloads. There is one paper that cites his latest paper while parrotting the hypothesis but it's by Robert Ian Holmes otherwise known as 1000Frolly, a youtuber and blogger who has disproven the greenhouse effect by comparing a car with its windows closed, with a car with it's windows open on a hot day.

For a 'groundbreaking' theory that overturns probably the most important scientific debate since the 1970s, the fact that it's difficult to find any critiques or positive appraisals of his theory in the literature is most likely because it's so obviously wrong, that anyone who has the expertise knows that its not worth their time to write a paper showing why it is wrong and an hour or two writing a blog is as much attention as it's worth.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

You forgot: Racists, Homophobes, Transphobes and Islamophobes, comrade.

You're kind of proving Ruhanna's point there Danno

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Seriously, is Spencer the ONLY person you can find who's debunking the Nikolov theory? Surely you can find others, no? I mean, if these guys are putting it out there as such a groundbreaking discovery, showing how the Stefan-Boltzmann law has been incorrectly applied to spherical bodies all this time, then I can't imagine that there wouldn't be widespread uproar against them in an effort to debunk their claims. It amazes me that you're only quoting him in an effort to discredit them. I can't believe you fully trust him now when you've religously rubbished everything he ever said or stood for before.

Maybe it's because in this case he happens to be saying something you want to hear...

But as I said, it's good to see you're changing your ways. Now if you could likewise just see past your hatred of Bates and actually read his paper...:pac:

Have you finished reading the Nikolov papers yet? Are you converted to his 'Greenhouse effect is disproven' thesis yet?

Akrasia

The Australian widlfires are likely to have already caused a billion animal deaths including up to 40% of the Koala population

Ecologists in Australia say that this one wildfire season could cause the extinction of some of Australia's unique flora and fauna and dozens of species under threat of extinction have been badly affected by this fire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction

It's not just the animals killed by the smoke and flames, whole ecosystems will be devastated leading to deaths from starvation and habitat loss


I'm sure the usual suspects will be on saying that 'you can't prove these wildfires are caused by climate change' and Gaoth Laidir probably has a graph showing that these fires are actually perfectly normal and it's only the increase in the number of helicopters with cameras on them thats making them look worse, or something like that

I'm fairly certain he'll talk about how Eucalyptus forests need fire to dispense the seeds and he'll probably say that it's the fault of the Australian government for changing something relating to land management that allowed the fires to spread....


Well, stronger wildfires are a prediction of climate change and if these aren't related to global warming, then god help the Australians when the real effects of Climate change start to kick in.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

The Australian widlfires are likely to have already caused a billion animal deaths including up to 40% of the Koala population

Ecologists in Australia say that this one wildfire season could cause the extinction of some of Australia's unique flora and fauna and dozens of species under threat of extinction have been badly affected by this fire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction

It's not just the animals killed by the smoke and flames, whole ecosystems will be devastated leading to deaths from starvation and habitat loss


I'm sure the usual suspects will be on saying that 'you can't prove these wildfires are caused by climate change' and Gaoth Laidir probably has a graph showing that these fires are actually perfectly normal and it's only the increase in the number of helicopters with cameras on them thats making them look worse, or something like that

I'm fairly certain he'll talk about how Eucalyptus forests need fire to dispense the seeds and he'll probably say that it's the fault of the Australian government for changing something relating to land management that allowed the fires to spread....


Well, stronger wildfires are a prediction of climate change and if these aren't related to global warming, then god help the Australians when the real effects of Climate change start to kick in.

Maybe this should be moved to another thread as it's slightly off topic? Mods please feel free to move..

Funny you should mention wildfires, I came across this article today from 2015:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/bushfire-scientist-david-packham-warns-of-huge-blaze-threat-urges-increase-in-fuel-reduction-burns-20150312-14259h.html

I saw it here where they compare raw data against 'adjusted' data:
https://www.sott.net/article/426799-Smoke-and-deception-blanket-Australia



Also this (as I got curious and started googling)
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html


Just to add what is happening is heartbreaking and terrible. But I have seen twitter feeds of Aussie farmers fuming because of this.

But honestly I'm not sure there's any hope for us as a race. They believe Arson is to blame for many fires. Who would do something like that?
The planet will be fine. PEOPLE are f****ed.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Maybe this should be moved to another thread as it's slightly off topic? Mods please feel free to move..

Funny you should mention wildfires, I came across this article today from 2015:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/bushfire-scientist-david-packham-warns-of-huge-blaze-threat-urges-increase-in-fuel-reduction-burns-20150312-14259h.html

I saw it here where they compare raw data against 'adjusted' data:
https://www.sott.net/article/426799-Smoke-and-deception-blanket-Australia



Also this (as I got curious and started googling)
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005.html


Just to add what is happening is heartbreaking and terrible. But I have seen twitter feeds of Aussie farmers fuming because of this.

But honestly I'm not sure there's any hope for us as a race. They believe Arson is to blame for many fires. Who would do something like that?
The planet will be fine. PEOPLE are f****ed.

There are a lot of psychopaths out there who think the world is there as a toy for them to play with and some of them start fires when they think they can get away with it. Others, like Mr Gosselin (no tricks zone) see an opportunity to make himself rich by making up lies and spreading misinformation to a market of people looking for reasons to not believe the evidence before their own eyes

You need to learn to stop letting google do your thinking for you.
It's the easiest thing in the world to type something into google and then just click on the first link that looks like it says what you want it to say.

All of these studies you talk about are in a broader context which are very often misrepresented by bloggers like 'Notrickszone' and then repeated by the very worst 'journalists' like James Delingpole

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

There are a lot of psychopaths out there who think the world is there as a toy for them to play with and some of them start fires when they think they can get away with it. Others, like Mr Gosselin (no tricks zone) see an opportunity to make himself rich by making up lies and spreading misinformation to a market of people looking for reasons to not believe the evidence before their own eyes

You need to learn to stop letting google do your thinking for you.
It's the easiest thing in the world to type something into google and then just click on the first link that looks like it says what you want it to say.

My God Arkasia you impress me more and more. Not only are you psychic and can predict what others are about to say. You can also read a document, check the datasets that are published in the same page and declare it all lies within 2 mins. Genius.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

My God Arkasia you impress me more and more. Not only are you psychic and can predict what others are about to say. You can also read a document, check the datasets that are published in the same page and declare it all lies within 2 mins. Genius.

I'm actually familiar with those papers already so I don't need to read them again.

Have you ever heard of the 'Gish Gallop' as a debating strategy. Basically, you just throw out as many claims as you can in a short period of time knowing that it takes much longer to discredit a claim than it does to make one.

You keep your opponent constantly dealing with your false claims, and when they discredit one claim, it doesn't matter because you've already moved on to 20 other false claims

When someone is using this strategy, it's easier to just point it out and show that they are not an honest or credible source because to play them at their own game is falling into their trap.

Every single year Gosselin puts out the same post claiming he has found x hundred papers that dispute climate change. I spent hours last year reading through them and the amount of lies and misrepresentations i found mean i can now safely discount anything Gosselin says as utterly untrustworthy

Did you watch the video or read the snopes link I posted? How many times does Gosselin have to be caught lying before you stop believing him?

I have also caught him not only misrepresenting data, but actively falsifying graphs which is a line even beyond what most climate change skeptics are prepared to cross.

Oneiric 3

Ruhanna wrote: »

Of course it does, because the vast majority of climate science denial (maybe even all of it) derives from political ideology or religious fundamentalism.

Right-wingers and fundamentalists don't like the implications of the physics and climatology, so they try to pretend that the science is flawed.

At this stage the science denialists have no credibility whatsoever, and the only people clinging on to pseudoscience are extremists of one sort of another.

You have no idea what you are talking about, but you are going to learn, sooner rather than later, that such a simplistic, black and white view of the world is nothing but empty status signaling that holds no relevance in the real world.. at all.

Nabber

More alarmist rhetoric from the bush fires in Australia. Yet again weather being measured in human impact.
To see human suffering and fatalities used to push an agenda. The fires have hit populated areas and popular holiday destinations. They pale in comparison to 1974.
Australian wildfires are the result of direct human impact (not carbon) and began as early as 40,000 years ago, which allowed plants evolved to fire to thrive, notably the eucalyptus tree.



1974-19 Northern Territory bushfires Northern Territory 45,000,000(ha) 110,000,000(ac) 1974/1975 season
1974-75 Western Australia bushfires Western Australia 29,000,000(ha) 72,000,000(ac) 1974/1975 season
1974-75 Queensland bushfires Queensland 7,500,000h(ha) 19,000,000(ac) 1974/1975 season
.....
2019-20 Australian bush fire season New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia
6,300,000 16,000,000 5 September 2019 – present

There is a core belief that has creeped in to populist opinion that greenhouse gases are the cause of all extreme weather, what is witnessed now is less scientific study and investigation into the cause but rather the creation of theorems to support AGW as the predominant factor to our warming planet.

AGW is much like a religion now, any one who challenges it has their life pried open and any personal jibes that can be found are publicized. The data and theory presented is discarded for a witch hunt of the authors integrity.

Politically the message on AGW is very misleading, the general public believe that any change is now carbon related, not that the impact is x%, but rather that any change to climate and weather is 100% a cause and effect of carbon build up. When predictions are wrong there is no follow up in the public domain, this is the political element at work, there is an agenda to push (right or wrong) we wont back track on the severity of the issue. Time has shown that the alarmist predictions are consistently wrong, yet the perpetrates are still invited to make bigger and bolder predictions.


I'm going to keep doing my part, I cycle to work, cycle kids to school, I separate my waste at home, we use an electric car, collect rain water.. ect...
But behind it all I don't know the true carbon cost of the bike, the electric car, the water butt, the recycling company..... I don't think our politicians care as much as people wanna believe they do.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm actually familiar with those papers already so I don't need to read them again.

Have you ever heard of the 'Gish Gallop' as a debating strategy. Basically, you just throw out as many claims as you can in a short period of time knowing that it takes much longer to discredit a claim than it does to make one.

You keep your opponent constantly dealing with your false claims, and when they discredit one claim, it doesn't matter because you've already moved on to 20 other false claims

When someone is using this strategy, it's easier to just point it out and show that they are not an honest or credible source because to play them at their own game is falling into their trap.

Every single year Gosselin puts out the same post claiming he has found x hundred papers that dispute climate change. I spent hours last year reading through them and the amount of lies and misrepresentations i found mean i can now safely discount anything Gosselin says as utterly untrustworthy

Did you watch the video or read the snopes link I posted? How many times does Gosselin have to be caught lying before you stop believing him?

I have also caught him not only misrepresenting data, but actively falsifying graphs which is a line even beyond what most climate change skeptics are prepared to cross.

The links I gave were:
1) A government bushfire advisor in 2015 warning the government that current restrictions will cause problems: That is true.

Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.

2) The plots of GISS "unadjusted data compared to the "homogenized" data: all data sets taken from NASA (true)

3) NASA GISS data plots for Darwin Airport (true)

And the video details 400 papers that have been peer reviewed and published which suggest CO2 is not the only warming driver there are natural variables. (The title of this thread, oddly enough)

And you suggest if an organisation is caught falsifying data or misleading people deliberately, it shouldn't be trusted. Gotcha.

Oh, and I shouldn't let my predjudices bias my opinion when googling. Or read articles that I may agree with. Or trust people who don't read the full scientific papers as they say in the video.

Did I miss anything?

Ruhanna

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You have no idea what you are talking about, but you are going to learn, sooner rather than later, that such a simplistic, black and white view of the world is nothing but empty status signaling that holds no relevance in the real world.. at all.

Fine. Name five to ten established scientists who have presented objective evidence refuting what is generally regarded as the consensus on climate change.

Please cite one or two key studies for each authority.

Thanks in advance.

M.T. Cranium

I agree, the political rhetoric has gotten away from reality into a fantasy world.

As you know I live in Canada. I was just reading an opinion from the mayor of the small city where I live, that Canada will be taking in more and more immigrants fleeing the ravages of climate change. People on the progressive side of politics have adopted this point of view entirely without any evidence. I can't see how even one immigrant to Canada came here to escape problems of climate. But we are told that somehow the messes in Syria and Libya (which lead to some of this immigration through refugee acceptance programs) are caused by climate change.

While the reasons are fairly obvious for those situations, climate has nothing to do with them whatsoever. Libya was always a hot, dry country. Syria has a mediterranean climate that hasn't shifted very much in recent times. But what do they have in common? Right, the factors we are not allowed to mention.

So in this situation, climate change does a useful service to its political managers, it creates an illusion of cause and effect for something that they don't want to tackle (the reasons why those countries are unstable and cannot govern themselves and create massive waves of migrants).

Another country sending us plenty of immigrants in recent years is China. Now would that be because the weather in China went nuts, or something to do with not wanting to live under communism? Well we aren't allowed to think the latter since the apparent end goal of globalists is a form of communism. So we are allowed to imagine they left because of climate change.

"We can expect more of this due to climate change" is really a misreading of the actual cause of most of the effects so described, namely, there are more and more of us in the way, more media of various kinds to record the interactions, more awareness of climate issues than in the past. But as noted above, fires in Australia (for example) have always been a problem in some hot and dry years. The first Europeans to sail around the coast of the land down under noticed that fires were burning and smoke was coming out over the ocean.

We hear the same stuff about wildfires in North America but people have not been informed (whether due to ignorance or suppression) that wildfires caused terrible destruction many decades back, and have always been part of the environment. What has changed is the number of people choosing to live in fire-prone regions, and it doesn't help much that in California the green movement interfered in the practice of clear-cutting electricity rights of way, leading to much faster fire spread in windy weather (once any fire got into the brush under power lines, they would short out and spread much stronger fires towards vulnerable urban areas). This was shown to be a major cause of the 2018 Paradise disaster.

Most of the people who lie awake nights worrying about climate change would be astounded to learn that more people died from hurricane strikes in 1780, 1900, and 1928, than in all the years since 2000.

SeaBreezes

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I agree, the political rhetoric has gotten away from reality into a fantasy world.

As you know I live in Canada. I was just reading an opinion from the mayor of the small city where I live, that Canada will be taking in more and more immigrants fleeing the ravages of climate change. People on the progressive side of politics have adopted this point of view entirely without any evidence. I can't see how even one immigrant to Canada came here to escape problems of climate. But we are told that somehow the messes in Syria and Libya (which lead to some of this immigration through refugee acceptance programs) are caused by climate change.

While the reasons are fairly obvious for those situations, climate has nothing to do with them whatsoever. Libya was always a hot, dry country. Syria has a mediterranean climate that hasn't shifted very much in recent times. But what do they have in common? Right, the factors we are not allowed to mention.

So in this situation, climate change does a useful service to its political managers, it creates an illusion of cause and effect for something that they don't want to tackle (the reasons why those countries are unstable and cannot govern themselves and create massive waves of migrants).

Another country sending us plenty of immigrants in recent years is China. Now would that be because the weather in China went nuts, or something to do with not wanting to live under communism? Well we aren't allowed to think the latter since the apparent end goal of globalists is a form of communism. So we are allowed to imagine they left because of climate change.

"We can expect more of this due to climate change" is really a misreading of the actual cause of most of the effects so described, namely, there are more and more of us in the way, more media of various kinds to record the interactions, more awareness of climate issues than in the past. But as noted above, fires in Australia (for example) have always been a problem in some hot and dry years. The first Europeans to sail around the coast of the land down under noticed that fires were burning and smoke was coming out over the ocean.

We hear the same stuff about wildfires in North America but people have not been informed (whether due to ignorance or suppression) that wildfires caused terrible destruction many decades back, and have always been part of the environment. What has changed is the number of people choosing to live in fire-prone regions, and it doesn't help much that in California the green movement interfered in the practice of clear-cutting electricity rights of way, leading to much faster fire spread in windy weather (once any fire got into the brush under power lines, they would short out and spread much stronger fires towards vulnerable urban areas). This was shown to be a major cause of the 2018 Paradise disaster.

Most of the people who lie awake nights worrying about climate change would be astounded to learn that more people died from hurricane strikes in 1780, 1900, and 1928, than in all the years since 2000.

Actually MT that's something I wanted to ask, I noticed the last year or so there seems to be many more articles of animals/houses/people being struck by lightening.
I was wondering if it has anythIng to do with solar min or just more access to media?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

This was a report based on a pentagon analysis of what the plausible worst case scenario for abrupt climate change would be.

If you're designing a disaster plan, this is the scenario you should use. If youre designing a sky scraper, upu need to put in fire prevention measures and fire escape routes even if less than 1 in a thousand sky scrapers will ever catch fire

With climate change there are uncertainties in what can trigger abrupt climate change, the gulf stream is already weakening and nobody knows for sure what the threshold is for a complete shutdown of the Gulf stream, or what the exact consequences would be for our climate if this was to happen suddenly

Then there are the predictions that actually have come true, flooding droughts heatwaves and wildfires have all occured and as more evidence comes in, it is becoming more and more attributable to clmate change, and tgere have been conflicts st least partially attributable to climate change and food shortages may not have been the sole cause of the Syrian Civil war in 2006 but it absolutely did inflame an already tense situation...

1) If that report is indeed what you say it is, why did the Guardian - which seems to be the go-to source of all climate hyperbole nowadays - not state that, or post a clarification article at a later date. Did they?

2) I can't believe that you're even trying to defend any of the claims made in it. Absolutely baseless.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Have you finished reading the Nikolov papers yet? Are you converted to his 'Greenhouse effect is disproven' thesis yet?

I've almost finished.

Akrasia wrote: »

Not just Spencer
Ken Rice, a professor of computational astrophysics at Edinburg university https://www.roe.ac.uk/~wkmr/
has written blogs about Nikolov and his ideas over the years (like this one https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/no-pressure-alone-does-not-define-surface-temperatures/ ) but to be honest, he has so little credibility and his papers have had such little impact, there isn't a whole lot to go on out there in the time I have to look

The papers are barely getting cited anywhere despite getting thousands of downloads. There is one paper that cites his latest paper while parrotting the hypothesis but it's by Robert Ian Holmes otherwise known as 1000Frolly, a youtuber and blogger who has disproven the greenhouse effect by comparing a car with its windows closed, with a car with it's windows open on a hot day.

For a 'groundbreaking' theory that overturns probably the most important scientific debate since the 1970s, the fact that it's difficult to find any critiques or positive appraisals of his theory in the literature is most likely because it's so obviously wrong, that anyone who has the expertise knows that its not worth their time to write a paper showing why it is wrong and an hour or two writing a blog is as much attention as it's worth.

I'm talking about the 2017 paper.

Akrasia wrote: »

The Australian widlfires are likely to have already caused a billion animal deaths including up to 40% of the Koala population

Ecologists in Australia say that this one wildfire season could cause the extinction of some of Australia's unique flora and fauna and dozens of species under threat of extinction have been badly affected by this fire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/04/ecologists-warn-silent-death-australia-bushfires-endangered-species-extinction

It's not just the animals killed by the smoke and flames, whole ecosystems will be devastated leading to deaths from starvation and habitat loss


I'm sure the usual suspects will be on saying that 'you can't prove these wildfires are caused by climate change' and Gaoth Laidir probably has a graph showing that these fires are actually perfectly normal and it's only the increase in the number of helicopters with cameras on them thats making them look worse, or something like that

I'm fairly certain he'll talk about how Eucalyptus forests need fire to dispense the seeds and he'll probably say that it's the fault of the Australian government for changing something relating to land management that allowed the fires to spread....


Well, stronger wildfires are a prediction of climate change and if these aren't related to global warming, then god help the Australians when the real effects of Climate change start to kick in.

Intelligent post there.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

There are a lot of psychopaths out there who think the world is there as a toy for them to play with and some of them start fires when they think they can get away with it. Others, like Mr Gosselin (no tricks zone) see an opportunity to make himself rich by making up lies and spreading misinformation to a market of people looking for reasons to not believe the evidence before their own eyes

You need to learn to stop letting google do your thinking for you.
It's the easiest thing in the world to type something into google and then just click on the first link that looks like it says what you want it to say.

All of these studies you talk about are in a broader context which are very often misrepresented by bloggers like 'Notrickszone' and then repeated by the very worst 'journalists' like James Delingpole

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Tell others not to Google stuff, then you go and post a link that you probably found through Google.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm actually familiar with those papers already so I don't need to read them again.

Have you ever heard of the 'Gish Gallop' as a debating strategy. Basically, you just throw out as many claims as you can in a short period of time knowing that it takes much longer to discredit a claim than it does to make one.

You keep your opponent constantly dealing with your false claims, and when they discredit one claim, it doesn't matter because you've already moved on to 20 other false claims

When someone is using this strategy, it's easier to just point it out and show that they are not an honest or credible source because to play them at their own game is falling into their trap.

Every single year Gosselin puts out the same post claiming he has found x hundred papers that dispute climate change. I spent hours last year reading through them and the amount of lies and misrepresentations i found mean i can now safely discount anything Gosselin says as utterly untrustworthy

Did you watch the video or read the snopes link I posted? How many times does Gosselin have to be caught lying before you stop believing him?

I have also caught him not only misrepresenting data, but actively falsifying graphs which is a line even beyond what most climate change skeptics are prepared to cross.

Wait a minute, yesterday you said you're not qualified to read these papers. How can you really be satisifed that 100% (your figure) of what he posts is innacurate bull if you don't understand it? Have you gone through 100% of his posts to come up with that number? Again, you're looking at the name rather than the content. :rolleyes:

MiNdGaM3

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

One was about my background. Well today there is "climate science" but when I attended university (1967-71 yikes) there was climatology and meteorology and they were the atmospheric sciences. So I had started into a heavy math and physics program thinking I might become an astronomer actually, not a weather forecaster. But I got very interested in climate and found that I had to switch out of the heavy math-science stream to something more hybrid, further science, math and statistics, but also a lot of geography and specific climatology courses.

Then when I graduated I eventually got interested in the climatology and forecasting of precipitation patterns in the Great Lakes region (which is where I lived in the 1970s and 1980s to 1995) and that took me into a private forecasting company that specialized in air quality forecasting (advising large industries when their emissions might create a health hazard). We already knew that governments were going to lean hard on these industries to reduce their overall pollution so our role was basically to keep them out of trouble in the two or three years they had left to comply. People here in Ireland might have had a different experience of air pollution, but Toronto was getting to be a very dirty and smoggy city around 1970-75 with numerous air quality alerts (and so were other places where some of these clients operated). So this gave me a lot of insight into how the stability parameters of the atmosphere work, which wasn't that irrelevant to my other research into precipitation.

Eventually I developed a computer model for predicting thunderstorm rainfalls and lake effect snow amounts, and the company sold some of that to the government agency in Canada. Then I left that company and worked for Accuweather briefly, helping them develop markets in Canadian media, and participating in their general forecasting day. This is where I got interested in global climate and long range forecasting. Off topic, but a rather senior person there just happened to say casually one day, "it seems to me that every winter full or new moon, there's a big storm on the east coast." So people can see where that led me (I don't think it led him or Accuweather anywhere).

By about 1982 or so, I had reached a sort of dissident scientist status relative to the Canadian government agency and therefore with the weather world in general, but as luck would have it, most of my employment from then on switched out of climate and weather into other computer work and I became a weather enthusiast (that term probably covers a very broad spectrum of individuals from amateur observers to scientists in other professional fields taking a recreational interest in our field, to students and various intelligent laypersons with an interest in weather.

So I can function more or less at the level of a meteorologist, and I am by training a climatologist, I would feel uncomfortable being called a climate scientist because of its political overtones which don't fit me very well. As I've said to numerous bored or about to become bored people, a scientist is a person who drives a scientist's car and lives in a scientist's house.

So, you did some climatology modules in university in the 60s/70s. Could you describe them a little? You've never worked in climatology, published anything in climatology or have any experience studying climatology as anything other than a hobby?

Could you maybe describe the computer model you developed? Or what exactly your input was in creating forecasts for accuweather.

Before the "sceptics" have a go at me for asking some questions, I think it's important establish whether M.T. actually has any valid credentials or experience. None of what's been described counts as being a "climate scientist" or even "qualified in climate science", nor does the vast body of work people have attributed to him matter if they've never been published or tested.

These are important considerations, especially for those that wish to elevate M.T.'s ideas over the work of thousands of actual climate scientists, that have contributed our current understanding of the climate, with which the vast majority of modern experts are in agreement.

Nabber

Akrasia your responses and reasoning are deteriorating.

I think your letting yourself down by trying to defend the exaggerated failed predictions of AGW. Your argument now is to discredit the person and not the data, when presented with examples of poorly formed alarmist predictions you defend them with what can only be described as stubborn confirmation bias.

I think your overall posting has been solid and enjoyable to read.

If your are a serious supporter of AGW and making a difference, distant yourself from the AGW alarmists they are no better than ‘whackos’ you claim are on the ‘skeptic’ side. They feed the fire (no pun intended) of AGW exhausting and diminish the work of reasoned sensible scientists.

M.T. Cranium

There is so much arson involved in wildfire starts that I find it difficult to compare recent stats to historical trends. The big fire that destroyed parts of Fort Mac in Alberta appeared to have either a careless human campfire or deliberate remote location ignition. The only role played by climate was that it happened to be a dry spring (the fire started in late April which is rather early for damaging forest fires in Alberta, June tends to be a peak month).

Not surprisingly there has been chatter on Canadian discussion forums about who might be responsible for starting that fire. I don't have any information so I won't repeat the various scenarios, but the starting point was traced back later to be near a forestry access road about an hour outside the city. It may have been a case of careless campers or off-road enthusiasts tossing a butt or letting a campfire get out of control. Or it could have been something a little more sinister.

As to the Australian situation, catastrophic as it appears, I believe similar widespread damaging fires have happened in other years in the past, even as far back as the 1890s. Obviously the numbers of people affected will increase over time, that's nothing to do with climate but human population growth and changing lifestyle choices. People in Australia, North America and other areas are drawn to the attractive features of living in parkland settings and those of course are naturally prime risk areas for wildfire damage.

Nabber

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

So, you did some climatology modules in university in the 60s/70s. Could you describe them a little? You've never worked in climatology, published anything in climatology or have any experience studying climatology as anything other than a hobby?

Could you maybe describe the computer model you developed? Or what exactly your input was in creating forecasts for accuweather.

Before the "sceptics" have a go at me for asking some questions, I think it's important establish whether M.T. actually has any valid credentials or experience. None of what's been described counts as being a "climate scientist" or even "qualified in climate science", nor does the vast body of work people have attributed to him matter if they've never been published or tested.

These are important considerations, especially for those that wish to elevate M.T.'s ideas over the work of thousands of actual climate scientists, that have contributed our current understanding of the climate, with which the vast majority of modern experts are in agreement.

Go back through MTs posts. He made a large post with all his credentials, previous work, current work and general life story of his involvement in all things weather.

When you say ‘skeptics’, do you mean skeptics of natural climate variability with reduced emphasis on GHGs factor or do you mean skeptic of GHGs solely driving higher climate temps?

oriel36

The demand for academic qualifications to speak on Earth sciences or astronomy is often the refuge of followers rather than innovators. The best response to such queries is a fairly old one as it only distinguishes between who has a rough mind and who is a gentleman, the only true distinction that exists.

Pascal said it best as far as I can remember in academic affairs -

"We should not be able to say of a man, “He is a mathematician,” or a “preacher,” or “eloquent”; but that he is “a gentleman.” That universal quality alone pleases me. It is a bad sign when, on seeing a person, you remember his book. I would prefer you to see no quality till you meet it and have occasion to use it for fear some one quality prevail and designate the man. Let none think him a fine speaker, unless oratory be in question, and then let them think it.

Man is full of wants: he loves only those who can satisfy them all. “This one is a good mathematician,” one will say. But I have nothing to do with mathematics; he would take me for a proposition. “That one is a good soldier.” He would take me for a besieged town. I need then an upright man who can accommodate himself generally to all my wants." Pascal

https://www.bartleby.com/48/1/1.html


Empirical modeling is so narrow that the conclusion is incidental to the inputs among the proponents or opponents of 'climate change' . It may entertain the academics and spectators within the 'scientific method' umbrella but such a dour and dull people will always generate doom and gloom predictions in almost everything.