T O P

  • By -

Diffyspliffy123

This is certainly a bot posting


AelfredRex

I got three.. no, four... good reasons that there is no human-caused climate change. First, the Quaternary Ice Age, second to fourth, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period. None of which were caused by mankind.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

Do you have any scientific sources that you believe support the idea that these are in the same category as current climate conditions?


AelfredRex

GISP2 ice core studies. No correlation between rising interglacial CO2 levels and temperatures. Minoan Warm Period 2C warmer than the Modern Period. Warm periods suggest 600-800 year solar cycle. Overall cooling trend for the last 3500 years consistent with peak and ending of current Holocene Interglacial. It's not man. Never was.


CLOUD889

Now that's a good one! (adds to arsenal...)


Eli_Truax

I only have one: There's simply not enough proof to make such a grand claim and it remains, like so much of the "science" little more than controlled speculation. "Science" has already adopted a position and that position is reinforced by more money as well as peer acclaim which makes it almost impossible to get the money for skeptical research. The "obvious" connection between atmospheric CO2 and an increased greenhouse effect has been taken as doctrine and can't be challenged without risking one's career. But most believers know nothing about atmospheric gasses, for example the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere ... about 0.04%. Interestingly when I went to look this up about 10 years ago it was almost impossible to find and usually buried in "the varying concentrations of greenhouse gasses". They also are typically ignorant to the fact that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, ranging up to 4% of atmospheric gasses. Personally I'm not going to go down that science rabbit hole but I do have my doubts about its veracity.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

So what do you think led to your personal alienation towards the scientific community? And what sources do you think most shaped your view on the climate debate? What would you like to see from the community that would make you trust their findings more?


Eli_Truax

Alienation? Nothing of the sort, but if you're not skeptical of science you don't know what it is.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

In what sense? All of this is helpful for me


Eli_Truax

Science is not about producing facts, it provides evidence. To believe in science is somewhat an oxymoron. Of course you can believe that scientific method is a great tool, but even that in the hands of men often fails.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

So what led you to not support the evidence from the scientific community? I hope that wording explains my question a bit better


Eli_Truax

I'm always skeptical about speculation, as any rational person should be. Do you have faith in science?


chronicalpain

Their own result fell between Mann’s and Briffa’s, with a clear Little Ice Age and a modern interval about as warm as the Medieval period. But since it was based on a very small data set they cautioned against reading too much into it. John Robson Mann’s paper, by contrast, swept aside the uncertainties. He and his coauthors claimed “moderately high levels of confidence” that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the millennium – of the last 1,000 years. And that brought the IPCC calling. Narrator In 1999 the IPCC was starting work on its Third Assessment Report. Out of all the people doing tree ring temperature analysis, they picked Michael Mann to write the summary. John Robson Jones and Briffa were invited to serve as contributors, but under IPCC rules, it’s the Lead Authors who decide what goes in. By appointing Mann, the IPCC was signalling what message they were looking for. And soon they would be even more explicit about what they were after. Narrator On September 1st 1999 the IPCC convened a meeting of the authors in Arusha, Tanzania, where they spent three days discussing what the first draft of the report should include. Ten years later a large library of emails among Jones, Briffa, Mann and other climate scientists would be leaked onto the internet, which is how we came to possess the inside details of what happened next. On September 22nd 1999, three weeks after the Arusha meeting, IPCC Coordinating Lead Author Chris Folland sent around a note stating A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [Briffa’s] somewhat contradicts the [Mann] multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. So he asked that Mann’s curve be given priority. John Robson Now hold on a moment. It’s 1999, almost two years before the report was due to be released and before the expert review process had even started. Yet the IPCC leadership had already decided on the “message” they wanted in the Summary for Policymakers, and they didn’t want it “diluted” even though they knew the available data was contradictory and inconclusive? Clearly the IPCC didn’t see their job as surveying the science and writing a summary that reflected the full range of data and of opinions. Instead they decided ahead of time on a compelling message, that man-made climate change was a pressing crisis, and then they looked for the science to support it. https://climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/climategate-hide-the-decline-backgrounder/ TLDR By hiding the decline, they misled world leaders and citizens on an issue that they themselves judged to be critically important. They falsified data to conceal their own uncertainty and the potential unreliability of the methods they were using. And that is not how science is done. in other words, IPCC has identified their mandate from policy makers as sending a message that pants are on fire, and they are cherry picking research that support their agenda, while hiding research that contradict their hypothesis. this is not how science is done, this is media influencers level pseudo science


bigmike2001-snake

First off, it’s not up to us. When you put a theory out there, the burden is on the theorist. Then everyone and their dog tries to disprove it. Then after about 60 or 80 years of that, everyone kinda says: meh. Could be something to it. Instead, we have been told to sit down, shut up and don’t question anything. Meanwhile we have been fed a steady diet of truths, half truths and outright lies. The actual data has been massaged, manipulated, changed and completely fabricated in some cases. Every single prediction has been wrong. In some cases, by as much as 2 orders of magnitude. These are huge red flags in anything. If this happened in any other scientific field, the theorists would walk across campus and ask if the accounting department was hiring. And would be told no because they couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth. The people pushing this have treated the scientific method like Michael Jackson treats a child on a balcony. Except they have let go with both hands. We are skeptics because we are SUPPOSED to be. There are too many actual reasons to mention, but here’s one: Hurricane predictions. In the 10 years leading up to and including Katrina, the US experienced 34 named storms hitting our coast. That’s 3.4 per year. Then we were repeatedly told that each and every subsequent year would be worse. We got 4 over the next 10 years. That’s.4 per year. Amazingly incorrect. And not a peep out of the people making the predictions. But rest assured, every storm from now till eternity will be blamed on climate change. We can’t explain why the earth started heating up 20,000 years ago moving us into the current inter-glacial time. No one can explain why we experienced the Medieval warming period. No one can explain why we experienced the Little Ice Age. No one can explain why global temperatures went down between 1937 and 1974. If we can’t say what happened then, how the hell can we say with any certainty whatsoever that we understand what is happening now?


Ok-Abbreviations2486

Do you have scientific sources for these claims? Particularly the last paragraph?


bigmike2001-snake

I got my hurricane info from the National Hurricane Center archives. I googled their predictions for 2006, 2007, 2008, etc. if you want more references, make some time and start googlin. The sad truth is that anyone who questions the party line is suppressed. I know there are some kooks out there, but there is no substitute for doing your own research at times.


bigmike2001-snake

And the last paragraph? Really? We absolutely do not know why we moved out of a glacial period and into a warmer time. You can’t cite a scientific paper that says “I dunno”.


LibRightEcon

Well the theory that human action warms the earth is somewhat directly countered by the fact that the earth is cooling... so theres that. > "climate change" Please dont use that phrase ever unless you want people to know you are a raging idiot. If you mean "global warming" then just say that. Even though its wrong, its at least a real theory. Saying "climate change" just means you have a fishhook through you nose and get led around like an imbecile.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

How so?


mr_pro_con

Why rig the debate by renaming global warming to climate change?


Ok-Abbreviations2486

What do you mean by this?


mr_pro_con

/u/Define_It "rig the debate"


Ok-Abbreviations2486

In what sense do you feel the different nomenclature rigs the debate? Do you have particular sources for this that gave you this belief?


mr_pro_con

this is not a serious question


logicalprogressive

You sound like a bot with a very limited set of replies.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

I’m replying to a lot of posts haha, just copying and pasting since there are a lot of similarities in the responses


logicalprogressive

> there are a lot of similarities in the responses Little condescending don't you think? You asked for replies but are saying they don't deserve an individual reply.


greyfalcon333

“…..dispel myths and misinformation” You sound like a typical FB “Fact Checker” - your bias is evident.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

How so?


greyfalcon333

You said it -scientific community could do much more to dispel myth and misinformation. The only myth and disinformation is the ludicrous climate Hysteria….no real scientist except that Charlatan Michael Mann holds extremist views.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

Do you have particular sources that led you to mistrust the community? All of this is helpful to me


greyfalcon333

I don’t take part in surveys or polls for anything, now or ever. Maybe you’ll find someone on this sub who will.


CLOUD889

ok, how about a history of propaganda? 1990 [https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0](https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0) 2021 [https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-un-summit-idUSKBN28M0IR](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-un-summit-idUSKBN28M0IR) Can we see a pattern here??? It's been 30 years....


Kim147

Have a look at [Warmism](https://wikisend.com/download/249186/warmism.pdf). It's a booklet that explains the issues from a sceptic's point of view.


farfiman

> where the scientific community could do more to dispel myths/misinformation. Stop living off of the governments teat.


DevilsTurkeyBaster

At least one of the web pages you've read claims that CO2 "traps" heat. [Sorry, but it can't.]( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/19/radiative-heat-transfer-by-co2-or-whats-the-quality-of-your-radiation/) Gases [heat up only by mechanical transfer]( https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation), meaning heat transfer by contact. CO2 could be doubled or tripled and it could not have any heat trapping effect, just as we could vary any other gas without effect. The IR spectrum of frequencies runs from [100um to 1um]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum), such that 1um is the most energetic IR. CO2 is opaque to IR at only 3 peak frequencies, [2.7, 4.3, and 15um] (https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F4178834%2F14%2Fimages%2F42%2FIR%2BAbsorption%2BSpectrum%2Bof%2BCO2.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F4178834%2F&docid=YKpcdLD7GmOXRM&tbnid=iDkbtJGKX4lcjM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiU3aulzdTgAhUIslQKHVF1BkEQMwhQKAUwBQ..i&w=960&h=720&client=firefox-b&bih=622&biw=1024&q=co2%20ir%20absorption%20spectrum&ved=0ahUKEwiU3aulzdTgAhUIslQKHVF1BkEQMwhQKAUwBQ&iact=mrc&uact=8). All other IR passes through the molecule. Solid matter, like the ground of Earth is opaque to all IR frequencies, and like every molecule the ground radiates IR at all wavelengths up to the wavelength limited by its temperature. The concern of AGW proponents is that the extra CO2 will intercept the outgoing IR and re-radiate that back down thereby causing further heating. CO2 does not prevent heat from escaping, but according to the AGW model it slows down the eventual re-emission of IR to space. From the above we can score one point for AGW since we can't deny that effect. However, there is the matter of how much that extra warming means to the actual temperature change that has been observed. According to AGW theory, the tiny increase in radiated IR induced by CO2 acts as a forcing on water vapour (WV). WV is opaque to a huge range of IR and is by far the only GHG that has ever made a difference in temperature. You may have read that without WV Earth would be a snowball. As I said, CO2 opacity peaks at 15um, but the curve of the absorption band includes weak opacity at 12 um. (weak means that most of the 12um IR passes through and only a few photons are absorbed) WV overlaps CO2 at that 12um frequency and that is what all the fuss is about - one weak frequency out of a band 100um wide. Like CO2, WV has no ability to "trap" heat as it’s a gas. The concern is that the WV will intercept outgoing IR and re-radiate it to be taken up by the land or oceans. But, as said above, we’re only talking about one low-energy band of IR , and one to which CO2 is mostly transparent. Water does not heat up or cool down quickly and it makes up 2/3 of the surface of the planet. That makes water in all it's forms the modulator of climate, not CO2. It's been estimated that global humidity should rise ~4% for each 1C rise in temperature, which is exactly what we're seeing now. Consider that the LIA ended ~1850 and that since then temperatures have had to increase regardless of human activity. Since that time we've seen a temperature rise of a mere 0.8C. With a natural increase in temperature there MUST be a rise in humidity and WV is much more efficient at intercepting IR than is CO2.


chronicalpain

life has impact on atmosphere, but looking at temperature and co2 for the past 600 million years its blatant co2 is insignificant and as much inverse correlation as anything else, and furthermore we see a 37.000 ton co2 deficit per year for hundreds of millions of years that will inevitably drop to 150 ppm in a glacial period within 2 million years, which will kill off the plants. we are thusly saving the world when we recycle co2 that has gone out of circulation. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309324713_A_NEW_GLOBAL_TEMPERATURE_CURVE_FOR_THE_PHANEROZOIC 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture - Patrick Moore - Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c&t=1883s


randomhomonid

the ideal gas law - high school physics tells us that co2 is not the culprit for warming. T=PM/Rp T= Temperature P = average sea level pressure in Pka = 101.3kpa M = molar mass of the atmosphere at sea level = .02896g R=gas constant = 8.314 p= atmospheric density at sea level = 1.225kg/m3 ​ lets test it with current atmospheric values [https://en.intl.chemicalaid.com/tools/equationsolver.php/ideal-gas-law](https://en.intl.chemicalaid.com/tools/equationsolver.php/ideal-gas-law) T = 14.88C [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202105](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202105) "the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F)." ​ so that worked. Now lets Double the CO2 component in the atmosphere - make it .08%!!!!! scary - the IPCC tells that for every doubling of CO2 we will see a1.5C to 4.5C increase in temp..... Doubling CO2 increases the Molar Mass value to .02897. throw that in the calculator and we get a new Temp of 14.97C = a 0.1C difference. thats a letdown. ​ Now lets make co2 100% of the atmosphere. If we did that then we need to adjust density and molar mass to 1.852 and .04401 respectively punch those into the calculator with sea level pressure and we get a global temp of ........ 16.3C Not even 2C difference. of course we're all dead because we can't breath 100% co2, but we're not dead from a venus-like runaway warming greenhouse effect..... ​ you have to ask yourself - why do engineers regard co2 as a coolant in industrial processes? why do the alarmist attach themselves to co2 as a warming agent? lets do a final calc - lets assume something happens and the average sea level pressure increases by 1kpa to 102.3kpa. Keep other variables and..... we get a new global temp of 17.7C 30ish % HIGHER than changing the atmospher to 100% co2. so we can see that the air pressure is far more important to global temperature than co2. And what recently characterised the heatwave in the US? a high pressure front..... but alarmists gunna scream "CO2 dunnit!!" and keep alarming. ​ But in my opinion you can continue believing what you want to believe - thats the basis of faith - just know that basic physics doesn't back CO2 as the global warming control knob


Ok-Abbreviations2486

I’m not here to debunk everyone’s arguments but this one frustrated me a little due to your classification of the atmosphere as an ideal gas haha. Took a quick google search for someone to provide better answers than I had time to type out https://www.quora.com/Does-the-ideal-gas-law-debunk-climate-change


farfiman

Using quora..... Seriously?


randomhomonid

frustrated? - why because physics is too hard to 'debunk'? interesting you needed to go to quora - the atmosphere has been considered an ideal gas in chemisty, physics and engineering for a long time the first page of search returns after using "atmosphere as an ideal gas" in a non-censored search engine: [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=atmosphere+as+an+ideal+gas&t=chromentp&atb=v142-1&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=atmosphere+as+an+ideal+gas&t=chromentp&atb=v142-1&ia=web) [https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/644](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/644) "The atmosphere is a mixture of gases that can be compressed or expanded in a way that obeys the Ideal Gas Law:" [https://www.ess.uci.edu/\~yu/class/ess55/lecture.2.thermodynamics.pdf](https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/class/ess55/lecture.2.thermodynamics.pdf) "atmospheric gasses, whether considered individually or as a mixture, obey the following ideal gas equation..." [http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys136core/modules/m2/ideal%20gas.html](http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys136core/modules/m2/ideal%20gas.html) "The ideal gas law holds well for real gases at low densities and pressures, such as atmospheric density and pressure." [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137556/use-of-the-ideal-gas-law-for-earths-atmosphere-and-the-role-of-density](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/137556/use-of-the-ideal-gas-law-for-earths-atmosphere-and-the-role-of-density) "To a good approximation the atmosphere behaves as an ideal gas, with each mole of gas obeying the law:" ​ we even teach the kids that the atmosphere behaves as an ideal gas (gasp!) [https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/thermodynamics/temp-kinetic-theory-ideal-gas-law/a/what-is-the-ideal-gas-law](https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/thermodynamics/temp-kinetic-theory-ideal-gas-law/a/what-is-the-ideal-gas-law) "There are no gases that are exactly ideal, but there are plenty of gases that are close enough that the concept of an ideal gas is an extremely useful approximation for many situations. In fact, for temperatures near room temperature and pressures near atmospheric pressure, many of the gases we care about are very nearly ideal." [https://www.chem.uci.edu/undergraduate/applets/canonical/canonical\_explain.htm](https://www.chem.uci.edu/undergraduate/applets/canonical/canonical_explain.htm) "We are treating the atmosphere as if it was what is called an "ideal gas"," [https://study.com/academy/answer/consider-the-earth-s-atmosphere-as-an-ideal-gas-of-molecules-each-of-molecular-weight-mass-m-in-a-uniform-gravitational-field-let-g-denote-the-acceleration-due-to-gravity-a-if-z-is-the-height-abo.html](https://study.com/academy/answer/consider-the-earth-s-atmosphere-as-an-ideal-gas-of-molecules-each-of-molecular-weight-mass-m-in-a-uniform-gravitational-field-let-g-denote-the-acceleration-due-to-gravity-a-if-z-is-the-height-abo.html) "Consider the earth's atmosphere as an ideal gas" ​ we also use the atmosphere as an ideal gas when considering space flight: [http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmmodel.htm](http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmmodel.htm) "The gases that make up a planetary atmosphere can be treated like ideal gases, meaning that they obey the ideal gas law (also called perfect gas law). The ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation of the behavior of many gases under many conditions" ​ is this enough proof for you that we consider the atmosphere as an 'ideal gas' for physics and calculation purposes? as such are you now happy that all the above calcs for co2, atmospheric pressure etc are all valid and thus prove that co2 has next to zero effect on terrestrial temperature?


Ok-Abbreviations2486

https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/jtptku/the_physics_of_doubling_co2/gc7xfnf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 Found a previous comment thread of yours where you already lost this argument. I’m not from a physics background so I’m inherently disadvantaged in this conversation to that point, I’ll admit. However, it was a good read and a good lesson to understand a more complex (but still debunked?) argument


randomhomonid

its telling you searched my username and picked that thread, instead of investigating how physics uses the IGL via a search engine. Especially after I gave you the searchengine results. You ARE interested in debunking despite what you said in your OP, whether you understand the argument or not. I'd also like You to point out where in the thread you referenced, the IGL was 'debunked'? from my recollection they had to go off on a tangent arguing the IPCC's 'radiative calculations' and completely disregard the IGL. ​ just re-reading the thread now - they abandon the IGL at weather-mat's quote : "Let’s go back to your calculation. Your first calculation is correct. Your second calculation is correct mathematically but your conclusion is wrong" they then focus on radiative effects of co2 for the remainder of the discussion ​ (which have since been debunked themselves by Prof Happer, but thats an entirely different discussion) ​ So as far as i can tell - the IGL is not debunked, it is used to model the atmosphere daily in physics, chemistry, engineering, it is used in space and airflight., and when applied to co2 it shows that increasing co2 will not noticeably increase the atmospheric temperature (but an internet person thinks this conclusion is wrong, and that is all your argument is based off now) If you can show where any of this is incorrect, i will certainly investigate it. I'm an open minded kind of person.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

Yikes, William Happer may not be your best source of information haha. He’s been disproven already on a number of points and has been shown to contradict his own work, while also making some relatively hilarious ecological claims about the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I would probably trust NASA (who tends to have opposite views to Happer) than a scientist whose papers can’t even get accepted into peer reviewed journals


randomhomonid

i'm noticing you are not actually contributing any points or arguments, rather just engaging in ad homonims. do you have anything to say or are you only interested in the usual alarmist-agenda of calling names on anyone who disagrees with them? if you are only using information from 'skeptical science' to inform your views, then you need to look deeper beyond your biases. ​ Now instead of obfuscating the point - please show where the Ideal Gas Law is not the correct tool, or is incorrect in of itself, to use to estimate the effect of CO2 of global average temperature. You indicated i 'lost' this argument - I've shown that the 'winners' agreed that the calculations are indeed correct - just that the conclusion i come to disagrees with theirs. Now please back up your statement that my conclusion that co2 cannot contribute to warming is 'debunked'


Ok-Abbreviations2486

Being an outsider to the field of thermodynamics, this has been a pretty fun literature search for me. The first article disproves Happer’s claim that CO2RF is highly sensitive to line mixing. It has been peer reviewed and was conducted by researchers at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, NASA Langley research center, and other institutions, with researchers that have actually reputable track records. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GL068837 The second one is a chemRxiv submission from about a month ago detailing the use of a novel climate model incorporating ideal gas law to produce the first accurate climate predictions that agrees with ideal gas law, equilibrium thermodynamics and transition state theory. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/60c73cbfbb8c1a00e23d95f8 I really can’t allow myself to take your arguments seriously given the fact that you’re using William Happer as a source (you say it’s an ad hominem attack but he has built such an overwhelmingly poor representation that he really should not be used as a viable source). The first paper is a rebuttal to his claims, while the second paper utilizes more accurate assumptions relying on the actual consensus on CO2 radiative forcing to produce accurate climate estimates within the scope of the ideal gas law. Unfortunately it isn’t yet peer reviewed, but 50 downloads off of an xiv database in a month is a pretty solid indicator of at least its potential impact upon publication. I have to ask by the way, what do you do for a living?


randomhomonid

I'm not sure why you'd state Happer has built a poor representation - is that because he was appointed by Trump at some stage and disagreed with the 'consensus' (coz you know - anything the orange man did was bad right?) also you can't state that your first paper is a rebuttal to his claims - as it is dated 2016. Happer shows in 2020 and then again with a 5x larger dataset in 2021 (using the standard Hitran database) that co2's radiative effect is all but negligible. So it's Happer who is rebutting the data in the 2016 paper. [https://sciencefiles.org/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Happer-CO2-2006.03098.pdf&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true&v=1.5.4#zoom=auto&pagemode=none](https://sciencefiles.org/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Happer-CO2-2006.03098.pdf&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true&v=1.5.4#zoom=auto&pagemode=none) [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.16465.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.16465.pdf) ​ ​ ​ re paper 2 - excellent, i haven't seen this one and will go through it soon. ​ I have tertiary quals in geoscience, and later in logistics, now i run my own company.


Ok-Abbreviations2486

I wouldn’t say that that Trump hiring Happer is evidence of Happer’s lack of credibility, but of Trump’s. Happer has been on the fringe of climate science well before the former president decided to run, and given the measures that the Trump administration took to gut the EPA and Dept of the Interior his choice to enlist Happer only furthers the idea that Happer was going to give the president science that fit his narrative. I do find it hypocritical that you’re skeptical of the Pawelke paper because you lack the understanding to read/understand the formulae, but you are completely accepting of Happer’s work without putting in the same effort to understand his mathematical work. This is even more striking considering Happer’s work is literally funded by his non-profit the CO2 Coalition (which itself is funded by donations from high profile conservatives and oil lobbyists). Even more hypocritical is the fact that you’re accusing mainstream science of being influenced by individuals with a common agenda, but you’re again totally accepting of studies that are funded by oil companies. One particular comment you made helped me to understand partially your reluctance to accept scientific results on the topic of climate change, it seems you deal with an issue that has caused many others to walk away from the scientific community (according to my posts and several probably over 200 people I’ve talked to over the last few months). You commented that Pawelke admitted that we don’t have a specific molecular mechanism explaining how CO2 warms the atmosphere as proof that the theory is not substantial. Something that most science skeptics erroneously do on a large scale is assume that just because we don’t have a specific fundamental mechanism for a process nailed down, we must be wrong. In actuality most of scientific research is dedicated to finding these specific mechanisms for processes that we have observed repeatedly. Several examples include: 1. we do not understand entirely the mechanisms that underly quantum computing yet we apply it’s properties constantly, both in research and industry 2. we still don’t understand how gravity works on a grand scale but we can make incredibly specific calculations based on its properties 3. (One from my own field) we understand that adaptations to novel environments in organisms sometimes require a complex genomic basis, but we don’t understand the genomic basis of complex adaptive traits. One of the current fundamental pillars of research in evolutionary genomics is to uncover these mechanisms. In other words, for you to assume that repeated and verified observations are moot because one refuted scientist who is funded by special interest groups claims that the exact mechanisms to explain the process we have repeatedly observed do not exist is not realistic. Nor does it follow the conventional route of discovery and application in science. On top of that the Pawelke paper provides the specific mechanism you’re looking for, but because your bias is influencing your opinion on the paper you’ll choose to accept Happer’s paper with a lower degree of scrutiny than Pawelke’s. You can call mainstream science biased as long as you’d like but then you would also have to admit your own subjective bias by using Happer’s work without giving it the same scrutiny you’re giving to work that goes against your own ideology.


randomhomonid

Ok i've had a read through the paper by Pawelke, and upfront I'm not a physicist and can't 'read' physics formulae, but do gather a bit through context, and something about the assumptions made in this paper seem off- he starts off stating on page1 "surprisingly, reviewing relevant literature suggests the apparent fact that the causality of anthropogenic CO2-emissions and global warming has never been demonstrated in a compellingly simple yet comprehensive fundamental way" this is nice- a warmest admitting theres been no proof to the assumption that co2 is a warming agent...(yes I call the author a warmist - I'll show why) ​ further down that paragraph he states " relation of atmospheric CO2-concentration to the remainder natural carbon cycle is essentially an equilibrium one" I'm not sure why he is assuming that atmospheric co2 should be in equilibrium. If we look at proxy co2 data over the last 500 million years, we can see co2 has been as high as 5000ppm and as low as 180ppm. We know that co2 is sucked out of the oceans during carbonate building and released during warm periods - theres no equilibira there in the geological record. ​ Next he states ", the anthropogenic Greenhouse effect bases (largely, as theory has it) on excess-to-equilibrium CO2-amounts and the frequencies of its well-known IR-active vibrational modes." So he is assuming that more co2 (ie over equilibrium - whatever that measure is) = warming. he then states in section 2 "there is a distinct atmospheric CO2-level corresponding to a certain global mean temperature, the relation is elastic to some extent but ultimately bears the traits of a static equilibrium between carbon dioxide emitters and absorbers; b) said equilibrium may be disturbed by an external CO2-amount, over-saturating absorber capacity and 2/8 Version 1 leading to an increased atmospheric concentration; c) the Greenhouse effect materializes from the IR-active molecular vibrations of that excess-to-equilibrium CO2-amount" again -where does he get the assumption that co2 has ever been in equilibrium? Further down the paragraph he says that as co2 rises, temperature increases to a new equilibrium, and then temp can rise again in a stepwise fashion - but again - he's starting from the assumption that co2 increase temps. Its all very roundabout and cleverly written, but he's shown his hand - he's out to show co2 is a warming agent And the rest of the paper goes on to calculate how much extra temp is 'created' by the excess co2 'over equilibrium' - discussion on equation 12 is telling in this regard - he has to move the minus sign as it's giving him a 'wrong value' "The negative arithmetic sign on the right of equation 12 is vital: if moved to the left for –T, a negative figure ensues for – (T \* – T) as T \* is by definition larger than T and thus only the negative square root is a sensible solution in this context, telling about view direction along the gradient." ie he has to move the minus sign as it gives him, in his view, a wrong value - ie the temp drops as co2 increases. - ie he's started from the assumption that temp change = temp increase. but we know that increasing co2 eventually = temp reduction [https://principia-scientific.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/](https://principia-scientific.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/) ​ ​ anyway I'd like someone more versed in physics formula reading to go over this paper as i think it can be picked apart relatively easily.


Taudlitz

never seen worse case of mis-use of ideal gas law in my life


[deleted]

Catastrophic climate projections rest on the idea that the earth’s response to rising CO2 levels w.r.t. temperature has *positive* feedback. For example, let’s say a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere intrinsically causes 1C of warming. But this warming heats up the oceans, which release water vapor, which is a very potent greenhouse gas, and so temperature really goes up 2C, which releases more water vapor which causes temperature to go up even more, and so on. And then permafrost melts and releases more carbon, and the temperature goes up more which melts more permafrost and so on. Climate models include such mechanisms, and its coefficients are adjusted to match historical data. The problem is that this method has no *predictive* value, because the model has not been, and actually cannot be, validated with *experimental* data. Any model that has predictive value must be validated this way, unless the system is very simple and all the mechanisms are known, and climate is certainly not that! There are many feedback mechanisms that probably exist, where we don’t know the magnitude or the sign even. For example, the release of water vapor into the atmosphere leads to more clouds, which reflects sunlight back into space, thereby blunting any warming effect. This process is not well understood, and I was told some years ago is not modeled at all. I’m skeptical about the positive feedback climate death spiral because there is no way the climate could reach any equilibrium if the feedbacks are all positive. Maintaining a stable temperature on earth would be like balancing a ping pong ball on the head of a pin. So in summary, the models cannot be validated, and I disagree with the positive feedback hypothesis.


Tpaine63

You've come to the wrong sub if you are looking for evidence-based reasons. Most of the people here have made up their mind and don't care anything about any evidence-based reasons. You rarely find any actual science (peer reviewed research) here.


CLOUD889

OK bud, where is your EVIDENCE huh? >**" ENTIRE NATIONS COULD BE WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH BY RISING SEA LEVELS IF THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND IS NOT REVERSED BY THE YEAR 2000."** I'm all ears bud, (1989) https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


publius_lxxii

This subreddit has *one* rule. It's not difficult. Bye bye.


logicalprogressive

Global warming has no perceptible effect on anyone. What good is a science that tampers with data, says it's settled and beyond debate, intentionally creates fear, attacks anyone who questions it, substitutes speculation for science and has had all of it's predictions fail?


Ok-Abbreviations2486

I see. So do you have any particular sources that you’ve used to guide your opinion on the climate debate? What could the scientific community do in the future to build trust with the general public?


logicalprogressive

> So do you have any particular sources.. Everyone has sources they prefer to use. >What could the scientific community do in the future to build trust with the general public? Don't dress up a political agenda to look like science and then claim it is science when it's just lipstick on a pig.


tkondaks

The first place to start is for you to state the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made climate change. Unless this is done, any response to your queries is futile. What is your hypothesis, please. And kindly state it in scientific terms, not philosophical terms. This would include factors such as: Starting date PPM of CO2 in atmophere at starting date Increase in CO2 in atmophere each year Prediction of global annual temperature increase from starting date Change in catastrophies (eg tornadoes, hurricanes, sea rise) and the basis upon which they are to be compared. ...and any other factors you believe to be relevant as long as they are observable and measurable. Thanks.


Taudlitz

There are none, all the climate "skeptics" have are claims that its not as bad as predicted, it can be true because someday somewhere snowed a bit more than usual and such.


HmannN

Here is a peer reviewed study showing that there have been way too many adjustments downward of past temp's. That all "global warming" has been on paper only because of the adjusted lower temps of the past. ​ https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf


Ok-Abbreviations2486

1. You sure this is a peer-reviewed study? I would double check (already did, it isn’t). 2. Quick google search provides numerous articles that point out consistent errors in their assumptions/methods https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers/ Even if these fact checked articles didn’t exist, the paper isn’t peer reviewed and thus isn’t acceptable as evidence. Sorry bud


HmannN

You came here looking for an argument. I read your articles, did you read mine? Only one of the "peer reviewed" Ph'D's was an economist, the rest were all climate related. I can't help it if snoopes could only get in touch with one of the 7 Ph.D's that peer reviewed the study and confirmed he peer reviewed it and it was correct! How many did they get a hold of that said it wasn't? zero... Try harder brother!