You’re Calling Me “Anti Science?” 

Posted: May 14, 2017 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, opinion
Tags: ,

Credit: BBC

A brief run-through of some of the problems with ‘man-made warming’ theories, which so often get swept under the carpet and treated as unmentionable.

One of the main accusations launched by climate activists is that anyone arguing against man-made global warming is “anti-science.”

They tell us that the science is “settled,” and that anyone who objects is ignoring a blindingly obvious set of facts.

But what to do about someone like me, asks Steven Wright in Climate Change Dispatch?


I’m in hearty agreement that the global climate has warmed by roughly one degree Celsius over the past 150 years. However, my study of the relevant geology and physics leads me to believe that solar variability, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for this warming.

And so, it is precisely because of science that I am skeptical of man-made warming. Should I still be labeled “anti-science?”

Of the people who deride climate “deniers,” I’d like to ask some basic questions:

  • Do you know that carbon dioxide progressively loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases?
  • Do you know that man-made warming theory relies on water vapor, not carbon dioxide, to drive future warming?
  • Do you know that cloud formation contradicts this water vapor “feedback?”
  • Do you know that climate scientists have never solved this “cloud problem?”
  • Do you know that solar activity in the 20th Century increased to its highest levels in at least 2,000 years?
  • Do you know that every previous warm period over the past few thousands of years coincided with strong solar output?

These are just a few basic questions about climate science. But they help to illustrate why the climate debate is not as simple as many would assume.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    ✔️✔️✔️

  2. The good news is that the so called modern warming period is now in the process of ending(now – through coming years) as solar activity is becoming very weak and will become weaker as we move forward.

    I expect global mean temperatures to be at or below 30 year average means within the next 12 months.

    I think it is a very low solar/increase albedo /lower overall sea surface temperature play that will result in lower global temperatures as we move forward from here.

    Low solar – If solar irradiance deceases say by .15% that is a .2c reduction in global temperatures just do to that factor alone.

    Increase albedo – even a 1/2 of 1% increase will result in a significant global temperature drop. Albedo should increase in response to very low solar conditions which should result in an increase in major volcanic activity , increase in global cloud coverage and sea ice/snow coverage.

    Increasing galactic cosmic rays being a main factor for major volcanic activity to increase and global cloud coverage to increase while less EUV light should result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation which would also result in more clouds and also greater snow coverage.

    I think at the start of global cooling the atmospheric circulation becomes more meridional only later to transition to a more zonal circulation.

    Overall lower sea surface temperatures – this should happen as a result of weakening UV light which penetrates the ocean surface to significant depths which should impact the surface ocean temperatures.

    My solar criteria which is now coming into play are

    solar flux 90 or less

    solar wind 350 km/sec or less

    cosmic ray counts 6500 units or greater

    euv light less then 100 units and uv light lessening just below visible light wavelengths

    solar irradiance off by .15%

    imf – 4.2 nt or lower

    ap index – 5 or lower but isolated spikes which could contribute to an increaae in geological activity

    All of this in combination with a weakening geo magnetic field which should compound given solar effects.

    The test is on now that solar is finally reaching my cooling criteria and if global temperatures do not drop despite these low solar conditions I will be wrong, on the other hand if they do I think we will have to conclude that AGW theory is dead.

  3. In the big picture Milankovitch cycles are favorable on balance and the land /ocean arrangements are very favorable for global cooling.

    Precession /obliquity — Precession very favorable while obliquity is lessening and becoming more favorable as compared to the Holocene Optimum period of time and this is why I think the global temperatures in general have been on a decline overall since the Holocene optimum however with fits and starts due to solar activity changes /volcanic activity and enso superimposed upon this general trend.

  4. In closing the test is on, bring it on, and let’s see where the global temperatures go from here.

    COOLING DUE TO VERY LOW SOLAR OR WARMNG DUE TO CO2 INCREASING.

    Let’s see.

  5. wolsten says:

    Reblogged this on Wolsten.

  6. oldbrew says:

    How many ‘marchers for science’ and their ilk know that CO2 is a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which only a small portion (max ~1/3rd) can possibly be due to human activity?

    Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

  7. old brew that article is full of BS

  8. CO2 THUS GHG EFFECT IS IN RESPONSE TO THE CLIMATE/ENVIROMENT IT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE ENVIROMENT /CLIMATE

  9. oldbrew says:

    SdP – try this one from NASA/Wikipedia: increase = 4, uptake = 2 (50%)

  10. gallopingcamel says:

    Scott Adams (Dilbert) is one smart cookie. He pokes fun at the pompous thieves who promote climate alarmism. He also seems to understand the Trump phenomenon better than most.

  11. Fast says:

    Camel:

    I agree. Adams has a very very large audience and his logic is flawless common sense. I think many people will be influenced by his reasoning.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Alan Carlin: The IPCC has been using a poor tool and not admitting that the tool has little if anything to contribute to solving the alleged problem.

    Why the UN Climate Models Are Inherently Unreliable, and Should Be Abandoned in Favor of More Top-Down Approaches
    Alan Carlin | May 11, 2017

    http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3575

  13. nzrobin says:

    This reminds me of a conversation I had with a protester in Australia six years ago. http://www.kiwithinker.com/2011/05/a-discussion-with-a-protestor-at-st-leonards-station/

  14. peterandnen says:

    Oldbrew
    Climate activists can’t save the planet, science can! There’s more than 50 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the air. Cool the oceans a degree or two and any frightening amounts of this trace gas in the atmosphere will be sucked up into the deep oceans (back where it came from). Cooling the oceans is trivial. Blast SO2 into the upper troposphere (Mount Pinatubo style) or blast charged particles into the stratosphere or sprinkle fairy dust between us and the sun. Cost of these geo-engineering options is a fraction of the useless international agreements to kill fossil fuel use. If climate activists want global cooling, I say give it to them!

  15. […] Source: You’re Calling Me “Anti Science?”  | Tallbloke’s Talkshop […]

  16. oldbrew says:

    The whole idea of large scale geo-engineering assumes a level of understanding of the system that doesn’t in fact exist. So unintended consequences would be an expected result.

  17. peterandnen says:

    Oldbrew
    You believe CO2 science is well understood? So unintended consequences of current policies would also be an expected result? Why spend £billions ineffectively tackling global warming when a much smaller budget might fix it?

  18. oldbrew says:

    ‘You believe CO2 science is well understood?’ – no, of course not.

    We understand what it is they are claiming, that’s all.

  19. tom0mason says:

    I presume that within this ‘settled science’ there is a complete explanation of how clouds work?
    No? Oh dear.
    Well to understand clouds we would have to have a complete understanding of how water operates in all its states. As far as I can find out there is no complete scientific record covering all of water’s many attributes.
    See http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_unexpected.html
    also
    http://phys.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/en/lab-group/a-04.html and http://phys.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/en/lab-group/a-05.html

    And for the known anomalies of water there’s http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html. I wonder if all of these are taken into account in those climate models.
    If water is not well understood, climate can not be understood.

  20. oldbrew says:

    Tom – this is Judith Curry’s POV as well i.e. too many uncertainties and unknowns (aka natural variation) to go around shouting doom and gloom with any confidence at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s