Yes, The Climate Changes

Posted: August 13, 2022 by oldbrew in climate, opinion
Tags:

.
Climate has many variables over many timescales. Pretending a few trace gases are all that matter is never going to work.

Science Matters

Michael Foley writes at Quora(Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.)

Q:  Why do most scientists believe that the climate is changing? 

A:  Because it is. But most scientists do not believe
human activity is the cause of the change.

The 97% of scientists belief fraud, which has been proven to be a fraud over and over again, was based on a review of the scientific literature on climate. Over 10,000 papers were reviewed and of those only about 2,000 mentioned climate change of those 1,900 were eliminated for various reasons (some of those reasons were bias based) resulting in 100 papers. Of those 100 papers 97 concluded that man’s activity may have a roll in climate change. They ranged from very likely to maybe, which is what came to be reported as the 97% figure.

There is no argument that the climate is changing,
it always…

View original post 972 more words

Comments
  1. catweazle666 says:

    97% of “climate scientists” believe whatever whoever is funding their research tells them to believe (and they’re not alone in that, look at the pharma brigade!).

  2. MrGrimNasty says:

    It’s tired and obvious but:
    Belief is religion.
    Consensus is politics.
    Scepticism is the basis of scientific progress.

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

    Can˚True persuasion affect climate belief? Absolutely (in the totalitarian sense) : no.

  4. Johna says:

    High resolution ice core data (Caillon et al) shows that co2 lags air temperature. Paleo climate data also shows similar co2 lags – cause and effect. Direct air temperature (dry bulb) data has been around since 1717 and if a thermometer is placed inside a stevenson screen, situated between 1.2 and 2 meters above soil in an area free of trees with a good all round view of the horizon and kept away from buildings pavements, roads and houses which capture heat from the Sun throughout the day and can make the thermometer data artificially warm (UHI), it gives far more accurate data than the satellite data which cant measure temperature nor the surface (where people live) – source NIST/NASA. What the Met office measured at Cambridge, which forms the BBC’s/UK Governments declaration of CO2 caused climate change, does meet these accepted measuring standards or scientific findings.

  5. Gamecock says:

    ‘There is no argument that the climate is changing’

    ‘The climate’ is nonsense.

  6. Johna says:

    Correction; What the Met office measured at Cambridge, which forms the BBC’s/UK Governments declaration of CO2 caused climate change, does NOT meet these accepted measuring standards or scientific findings. I.E. most MET office data is corrupted by the UHI effects which massively alters localised climate temperatures and weather.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    [in part:]
    Jul 27, 2022MEDIA ADVISORY: 96% OF U.S. CLIMATE DATA IS CORRUPTED. Official NOAA temperature stations produce corrupted data due to purposeful placement in man-made hot spots.

    ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (July 27, 2022) – A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/

  8. Gamecock says:

    There is no such thing as ‘climate data.’

    We have weather data. Analysis of that data produces ‘climate.’

  9. Saighdear says:

    Locally the rivers dried up in the summer of 1953: Cattle could cross over to the enighbours, Bulls met and fought in the middle. https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/the-weather-of-august-1953-WpuUVtrGUc What’s changed ? well the rivers were dammed for Hydro power which caused flooding & Drowning in the winters ( poor management )

  10. Peter Rogers says:

    Here is the simplest proof wot we never dunnit guv!

    The Anthropogenic theory of Global Warming (AGW) is said to prove our culpability for warming the planet because it shows that our CO2 emissions accelerate the thermal potency of the Greenhouse Effect thereby causing the temperature to rise from its otherwise “natural” level.

    Whilst there is no empirical evidence for the thermal potency of the GE it is agreed by all parties that if we had no atmosphere then the temperature would be at least 33K cooler than now and this is the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE).

    IPCC say that since there is no other explanation possible this ATE$ must prove the potency of the GE.

    It is irregular to claim circumstantial evidence as proof of a claim in this way without empirical support, but if what IPCC say can be shown to be true – that there is no other explanation for the ATE – then they could be forgiven for their assertion.

    The problem is that there is another very solid explanation for the ATE, which runs as follows.

    If the force of gravity was lower then the atmosphere would be bigger because the weight of the atmosphere would be less and therefore the pressure lower and the state of compression less.

    Notwithstanding this the thermal content of the atmosphere would be the same,

    Accordingly the thermal energy per unit volume would be less, because there are more units of volume, and therefore the temperature would be lower.

    The particular force of gravity determines the particular size of the atmosphere so that is why we have an ATE.

    Accordingly the GE does not explain the ATE therefore the AGW is false.

    I would appreciate it if anyone could eliminate this theory, which would involve the falsification of one of its component parts, which are as follows.

    1. the particular extent of the Force of Gravity determines the weight of the atmosphere
    2. The weight of the atmosphere determines the pressure at the base.
    3.The Pressure at the base determines the state of compression (the degree of loss of atmospheric volume)
    4. The total thermal energy content of the atmosphere comes from the surface and is not affected by its size.

    Unless somebody can show that one or more of these components of the theory is false then Gravity is indeed what causes ATE.

    So far no-one has been able to falsify any of this, but instead dismiss it without ceremony and put their own theory forward in substitution and that is not how science is supposed to work.

    Accordingly please falsify one or more of these components or recognise the truth that Gravity, not the GE causes the ATE when you discover that you cannot

  11. Gamecock says:

    “IPCC say that since there is no other explanation possible this ATE$ must prove the potency of the GE.”

    “So far no-one has been able to falsify any of this, but instead dismiss it without ceremony and put their own theory forward in substitution and that is not how science is supposed to work.”

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Appeal to ignorance.

    Lack of evidence for one theory is not evidence for another theory. Their failure to find another explanation adds no credence to their favored theory. “You can’t prove me wrong” is not an argument, especially when they will dismiss out of hand any other theory.

    Their logic is juvenile.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Not available to read in today’s alarmist media…

    3.2 The latitudinal temperature gradient defines the planet’s climate

    The climate of the early Eocene, the Cretaceous, and early Paleogene, is defined as equable, characterized by a warm world with reduced LTG and low seasonality. The failure of modern climate theory to explain these periods has been termed the “equable climate problem” (Huber & Caballero 2011).

    https://judithcurry.com/2022/08/15/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-iii-meridional-transport/
    – – –
    However the 2011 paper seems to think ‘greenhouse’ gases can solve the problem 🙄

    We find that, with suitably large radiative forcing, the model and data are in general agreement for annual mean and cold month mean temperatures, and that the pattern of high latitude amplification recorded by proxies can be largely, but not perfectly, reproduced.

    Where would this ‘suitably large’ supposed forcing come from?

  13. oldbrew says:

    It is known that CO2 concentrations were above modern during
    the Eocene (Pearson and Palmer, 2000; Pearson et al., 2009;
    Pagani et al., 2005; Henderiks and Pagani, 2008; Lowenstein
    and Demicco, 2006; Doria et al., 2011), and estimates are as
    high as ∼4700 ppmv
    (Fletcher et al., 2008)
    [bold added]

    https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=easpubs

    And warmist climate theory says we have problems, caused by humans, at 420 ppmv?

  14. catweazle666 says:

    More recent estimates since Arrhenius show somewhat different values for “climate sensitivity”.
    https://postlmg.cc/47w6x3Cg

    It is interesting to extrapolate the ECS and TCR trends out beyond 2025 – 2030…

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 )

Connecting to %s