Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
tomw2000 said:
Interested 'non-proper-scientist' layman on this topic (and the associated 'politics' one in the NPE forum) so please be gentle.
I wanted some help to understand 'increased rate of change' that I see referred to a lot.
Let's assume that manmade C02 is increasing and it is causing global warming/climate change (…).
Is the argument, that the rate of warming is getting quicker now and that rate is increasing because we're pouring more C02 into the atmosphere generally or does the rate of change in manmade warming/climate change increase above certain levels of PPM of C02 in the atmosphere? OR is a combination of the two?
Probably doesn't make sense, but I know what I mean.
What I am trying to understand is why didn't the rate of manmade C02 cause climate/warming accelerate a lot quicker once the Industrial Revolution kicked off and we started burning coal like billy-o. But I'd guess that's because population levels were loads lower and total C02 output was an order of magnitude lower then?
Just re-read and still not sure I am making sense, hopefully someone will work it out and clarify for me.
I think in summary: - does the rate of increase in manmade climate change/warming accelerate exponentially as the total PPM C02 in the atmosphere increases?
Computer models would suggest yes. Actual real world observations would suggest no, not really. I wanted some help to understand 'increased rate of change' that I see referred to a lot.
Let's assume that manmade C02 is increasing and it is causing global warming/climate change (…).
Is the argument, that the rate of warming is getting quicker now and that rate is increasing because we're pouring more C02 into the atmosphere generally or does the rate of change in manmade warming/climate change increase above certain levels of PPM of C02 in the atmosphere? OR is a combination of the two?
Probably doesn't make sense, but I know what I mean.
What I am trying to understand is why didn't the rate of manmade C02 cause climate/warming accelerate a lot quicker once the Industrial Revolution kicked off and we started burning coal like billy-o. But I'd guess that's because population levels were loads lower and total C02 output was an order of magnitude lower then?
Just re-read and still not sure I am making sense, hopefully someone will work it out and clarify for me.
I think in summary: - does the rate of increase in manmade climate change/warming accelerate exponentially as the total PPM C02 in the atmosphere increases?
If the change from 300-415ppm of CO2 was as correlated to temperature as the believers would have everyone believe, then we'd all be cooking by now or in the next couple of years.
stew-STR160 said:
Computer models would suggest yes. Actual real world observations would suggest no, not really.
If the change from 300-415ppm of CO2 was as correlated to temperature as the believers would have everyone believe, then we'd all be cooking by now or in the next couple of years.
thanks. As I tried to say, to me, from what we're constantly told these days, it feels like we should have already melted. If the change from 300-415ppm of CO2 was as correlated to temperature as the believers would have everyone believe, then we'd all be cooking by now or in the next couple of years.
tomw2000 said:
stew-STR160 said:
Computer models would suggest yes. Actual real world observations would suggest no, not really.
If the change from 300-415ppm of CO2 was as correlated to temperature as the believers would have everyone believe, then we'd all be cooking by now or in the next couple of years.
thanks. As I tried to say, to me, from what we're constantly told these days, it feels like we should have already melted. If the change from 300-415ppm of CO2 was as correlated to temperature as the believers would have everyone believe, then we'd all be cooking by now or in the next couple of years.
If our weather changes and the hysteria starts, just look up www.windy.com and look to see where the warm/cold air is coming from - it's altitude adjustable - and the weather systems as they track across the Atlantic. That warm spell/heatwave we had recently that gained a few people more grants was very clear on Windy that it was warm air blowing up from Africa.
jshell said:
...and that's the problem for the 'new scientists', we're not melting.
If our weather changes and the hysteria starts, just look up www.windy.com and look to see where the warm/cold air is coming from - it's altitude adjustable - and the weather systems as they track across the Atlantic. That warm spell/heatwave we had recently that gained a few people more grants was very clear on Windy that it was warm air blowing up from Africa.
It's interesting (and probably logical) that there is not global standard definition of a "Heat Wave".If our weather changes and the hysteria starts, just look up www.windy.com and look to see where the warm/cold air is coming from - it's altitude adjustable - and the weather systems as they track across the Atlantic. That warm spell/heatwave we had recently that gained a few people more grants was very clear on Windy that it was warm air blowing up from Africa.
It appears the the Met Office has recently revised the definition for the UK and nominally made it a 3 day period of temperatures a certain amount over the expected ambient for the time of year in whichever part of the country seems to be affected.
I think it use to be 5 days rather than 3. And historically my hazy recollection of the definition (which few people ever bothered to check because there was no need to do so) back in the day was more like a week or 10 days.
Making the duration of the period of anomalous temperature shorter seems like a certain way of increasing the potential for recording "more" heatwaves as opposed to having to categorise them as just "warm periods".
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/w...
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat-wave-meteo...
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/energy/2018/...
Edited by LongQ on Friday 23 August 15:31
Professor Judith Curry writes
https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/22/climate-change-...
https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/22/climate-change-...
Judith Curry said:
Publication status
Since I resigned my faculty position, there has been little motivation for me to publish in peer reviewed journals. And I don’t miss the little ‘games’ of the peer review process, not to mention the hostility and nastiness of editors and reviewers who have an agenda.
However, one of my clients wants me to publish more journal articles. This client particularly encouraged me to publish something related to my Special Report on Sea Level and Climate Change. I submitted a shorter version of this paper, in a more academic style, for publication in a climate journal. It was rejected. Here is my ‘favorite’ comment from one of the reviewers:
“Overall, there is the danger that the paper is used by unscrupulous people to create confusion or to discredit climate or sea-level science. Hence, I suggest that the author reconsiders the essence of its contribution to the scientific debate on climate and sea-level science.”
You get the picture. I can certainly get some version of this published somewhere, but this review reminded me why I shouldn’t bother with official ‘peer review.’ Publishing my research on Climate Etc. and as Reports ‘published’ by my company allows me to write my papers in a longer format, including as many references as I want. I can also ‘editorialize’ as I deem appropriate. In summary, I can write what I want, without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’ Most of my readers want to read MY judgments, rather than something I think I can get past ‘peer reviewers.’
Mainstream climate science is a politicised laughing stock.Since I resigned my faculty position, there has been little motivation for me to publish in peer reviewed journals. And I don’t miss the little ‘games’ of the peer review process, not to mention the hostility and nastiness of editors and reviewers who have an agenda.
However, one of my clients wants me to publish more journal articles. This client particularly encouraged me to publish something related to my Special Report on Sea Level and Climate Change. I submitted a shorter version of this paper, in a more academic style, for publication in a climate journal. It was rejected. Here is my ‘favorite’ comment from one of the reviewers:
“Overall, there is the danger that the paper is used by unscrupulous people to create confusion or to discredit climate or sea-level science. Hence, I suggest that the author reconsiders the essence of its contribution to the scientific debate on climate and sea-level science.”
You get the picture. I can certainly get some version of this published somewhere, but this review reminded me why I shouldn’t bother with official ‘peer review.’ Publishing my research on Climate Etc. and as Reports ‘published’ by my company allows me to write my papers in a longer format, including as many references as I want. I can also ‘editorialize’ as I deem appropriate. In summary, I can write what I want, without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’ Most of my readers want to read MY judgments, rather than something I think I can get past ‘peer reviewers.’
Gadgetmac said:
She can’t get her paper past peer review, big surprise to nobody in the climate science field.
“One of her clients” wants her to publish more articles, who’s that then?
Never mind, you can all read about her findings on the GWPF’s web site shortly I’m sure.
Is it ok that she can’t get her paper past peer review not because of any problem with the actual science itself?“One of her clients” wants her to publish more articles, who’s that then?
Never mind, you can all read about her findings on the GWPF’s web site shortly I’m sure.
I couldn’t care less who the client is. The actual science itself is what is interesting.
Or do you think what is scientifically correct depends on who funded the work?
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
She can’t get her paper past peer review, big surprise to nobody in the climate science field.
“One of her clients” wants her to publish more articles, who’s that then?
Never mind, you can all read about her findings on the GWPF’s web site shortly I’m sure.
Is it ok that she can’t get her paper past peer review not because of any problem with the actual science itself?“One of her clients” wants her to publish more articles, who’s that then?
Never mind, you can all read about her findings on the GWPF’s web site shortly I’m sure.
I couldn’t care less who the client is. The actual science itself is what is interesting.
Or do you think what is scientifically correct depends on who funded the work?
tomw2000 said:
Interested 'non-proper-scientist' layman on this topic
Ok, here goes.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
HarryW said:
Gadgetmac said:
The very first paragraph is denialist flat earth thinking. After that the rest of the post isn't worth reading and has all been dealt with before.
??cymtriks said:
Ok, here goes.
Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Totally correct (the bolded bit) - the number of times i've read on all the climate threads that 97% of scientists agree........etc. Is a load of crap. Not one scientist NOT ONE has ever been asked a single question!! The so called consensus is soley based on word searches of abstracts. The consensus is just that - a great big con.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
So just remember the next time somebody states on these threads "97% of all climate scientists agree....blah blah" ask yourself how can that be so if no scientist has actually been asked a single question?
Gadgetmac said:
The very first paragraph is denialist flat earth thinking. After that the rest of the post isn't worth reading and has all been dealt with before.
Would you care to choose any one of the points I raised and tell me exactly why they are wrong?I suspect you can't actually do that.
cymtriks said:
Gadgetmac said:
The very first paragraph is denialist flat earth thinking. After that the rest of the post isn't worth reading and has all been dealt with before.
Would you care to choose any one of the points I raised and tell me exactly why they are wrong?I suspect you can't actually do that.
dickymint said:
cymtriks said:
Ok, here goes.
Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Totally correct (the bolded bit) - the number of times i've read on all the climate threads that 97% of scientists agree........etc. Is a load of crap. Not one scientist NOT ONE has ever been asked a single question!! The so called consensus is soley based on word searches of abstracts. The consensus is just that - a great big con.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
So just remember the next time somebody states on these threads "97% of all climate scientists agree....blah blah" ask yourself how can that be so if no scientist has actually been asked a single question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
cymtriks said:
Ok, here goes.
Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Totally correct (the bolded bit) - the number of times i've read on all the climate threads that 97% of scientists agree........etc. Is a load of crap. Not one scientist NOT ONE has ever been asked a single question!! The so called consensus is soley based on word searches of abstracts. The consensus is just that - a great big con.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
So just remember the next time somebody states on these threads "97% of all climate scientists agree....blah blah" ask yourself how can that be so if no scientist has actually been asked a single question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-93...
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
cymtriks said:
Ok, here goes.
Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Totally correct (the bolded bit) - the number of times i've read on all the climate threads that 97% of scientists agree........etc. Is a load of crap. Not one scientist NOT ONE has ever been asked a single question!! The so called consensus is soley based on word searches of abstracts. The consensus is just that - a great big con.Everything you hear about climate is highly biased, fake news, politically motivated or cherry picked data.
The truth is as follows
1) There is no consensus among scientists
2) There has been no "extreme" weather
3) There is no evidence for "greenhouse" gasses
4) All warming over centuries is explained by solar heating (sunspot cycles)
5) All warming over millennia is explained by Milankovitch cycles
6) All warming over many millions of years is explained by pressure (that changes too)
Now your head is overloaded and I don't blame you at all. some explanation is now due.
For (1) Google Oreskes result. The claim that all, sometimes quoted as 97%, of scientists agree is done on the basis of word searches of paper abstracts. There are a number of criticisms of this method, all sorts of words were counted as "in favour" of man made change and if these words were detected the paper was counted as proof. The actual number of papers that specifically claimed that a human input had been detected was very small
For (2) there are graphs of storm intensity going back decades and Holocene temperature covering the last few thousand years that show there is nothing weird about our weather. It has been warmer in the past. Medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Egyptian warm period, Holocene Optimum.
For (3) you can prove this yourself. Go to Wikipedia on the "Atmosphere of Venus" page and copy the altitude-pressure-temperature chart into excel. Change C to K by adding 273. Fit a power law curve from 92 bar to 0.5 bar. That's the Troposphere, lower pressures behave differently which is why only Venus, Earth and Titan are comparable. Now convert the Venus data to an Earth orbit ( Tv^4 * (Ov/Oe)^2 )^0.25. Put in 1 bar and you get 288K. That's 15C, bang on. Do the same for Titan, that gives within 5K. The conclusion is that either the "greenhouse" gas is so small that the entire atmosphere of Venus gives no significant effect or that the effect is actually zero.
For (4) find a graph of sunspot integral versus temperature. Not sunspots versus temperature, that is only a rough guide, you need the time integral one. Basically it adds up how much heat is put in and how much heat is lost every year. You can check it yourself on Excel by downloading the SILSO sunspot records and the HADCRUT4 database. You will see that sunspot integral correlates very nicely with temperature going back 160 years and not so badly against proxies for temperature going back another 150 years.
For (5) google it. There are plenty of nice visual aids and graphs that show the Milankovitch effect on plunging us in and out of iceages.
For (6) Remember what I said about (3) ? Well you've realised that only Solar output and pressure can change the Earth's temperature. Have you heard how there was more Oxygen when dinosaurs were around? Also higher temperatures? Giant insects, ditto. Well the higher temperatures 60 million years ago can be explained by a 20% increase in pressure which is explained very nicely by the claimed higher amount of oxygen in the atmosphere back then. Hold on, where does pressure go to? The answer is in rocks. Three out of every five atoms in limestone for example are oxygen and the Earth's crust is constantly being recycled and blasted through by volcanic activity and continental drift.
Ok, part 6 is a bit left-field and an obscure research area but I can't see another explanation. You can check (3) and (4) yourself on Excel. The rest you can Google.
Edited by cymtriks on Monday 26th August 19:42
So just remember the next time somebody states on these threads "97% of all climate scientists agree....blah blah" ask yourself how can that be so if no scientist has actually been asked a single question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...
and NOT ONE scientist was asked a single question...........fact!!dickymint said:
You know exactly which 'consensus' is constantly being quoted in here and NOT ONE scientist was asked a single question...........fact!!
That’s not where the 97% figure now comes from though is it? It’s not just the original 97% figure from studying published papers, it’s also now based on surveys and the study of papers and positions of scientific institutions etc. and NOT ONE scientist was asked a single question...........fact!!That’s the point, when people talk about the consensus, it isn’t just one consensus. It’s an amalgamation of lots of consensus and questionnaires and surveys and the original study of papers.
That’s what a consensus is, it’s the collective judgement of the scientific community. Not just one study.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff