What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

Wikipedia-continuing:.....:

In February 2011, it was reported that climate scientist Andrew J. Weaver had sued Ball over an article Ball wrote for the which was later retracted. In the article, Ball described Weaver as lacking a basic understanding of climate science and stated, incorrectly, that Weaver would not be involved in the production of the IPCC’s next report because he had concerns about its credibility. Ball contended that the lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to silence him because of his skeptical position on global warming. In February, 2018 Andrew Weaver’s defamation suit against Ball was dismissed completely. The judge noted that Ball’s words “lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory” and concluded that the “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views…".

Ball also found himself at the center of controversy in February 2011 when he told an anonymous interviewer that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State,” due to Mann’s role in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Mann then sued Ball for libel, and stated that he was seeking punitive damages and for the article to be removed from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s website, on which it was originally published. On 7 June 2019 the Frontier Centre For Public Policy published a retraction and apology for the “untrue and disparaging accusations which impugned the character of Dr. Michael Mann”. This did not settle Mann’s claims against Ball, who remained a defendant.

---

So it looks like Mann and Weaver were both vindicated by the courts in their finding that Ball’s accusations were not to be taken seriously, and therefore did not amount to defamation.

 

[Theo520]

YIKES, not good for Tesla - solar panels spontaneous combustion

Stormy Weather In Solarville: Amazon Joins Walmart In Saying Its Tesla Solar Panels Spontaneously Ignited – Watts Up With That?

 

[phaster]

MichaelP3:

Are there any persons who actually changed their viewpoint because if this thread?

nobody here disputes the repeated assertions that CO2 is a GHG. No need to change minds there bud.

???

HarryStotle:

And the scientific fact on the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature is that there is very little historical correlation, primarily because global temperatures are dependent upon a large number of variables and CO2 hardly registers as a determiner. Just naming it a “greenhouse gas” doesn’t make the case.

It is a greenhouse gas because it traps infrared heat radiation.

FYI,…

Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change

Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change reports results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming.

The study found that 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why. In this assessment, only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F.

…Americans also recognize their own limited understanding of the issue. Only 1 in 10 say that they are “very well informed” about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans about the issue.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2010_10_Americans’-Knowledge-of-Climate-Change.pdf

catholics (like the public at large) are divided over climate change and view the issue thru political affiliation (see pew research study)

Catholics Divided Over Global Warming | Pew Research Center

where among other things like the widely held sentiment that,… “the American way of life is not up for negotiation”

In climate talks, it's always been America first

along w/ a well documented fear of government intervention (i.e. a power grab)

The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States

underlies hesitation about believing the basic science (of climate change) by some of the faithful,… as I have tried to point out

the simple truth is,

“science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”

which is something Einstein said,…

FWIW a parable “proof” of sorts,… Jesus Of Nazareth (1977) "movie scene curing the blind man AND the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees (matthew 23)

http://www.bible.com/bible/42/MAT.23.CPDV

 

[FortressGiant]

I’m no scientist but I can’t see how we wouldn’t be making some negative impact on the planet’s climate. While this is an important issue, I think there are many extremists on both sides that cloud the reality of the situation (as always). From what I understand, the Earth getting warmer and then cooling down is not something strictly new or ancient. Here is an article that talks a bit about this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...es-were-warmer-than-today-say-scientists.html

• FG

 

[Theo520]

???

Back at you. Both statements are true

• I’m confident @HarryStotle believes CO2 is a GHG
• Harry then just pointed out accepted facts of the historical record, that ice cores confirm CO2 levels lagged past warmings, so they could not have been the cause.

You need to read what people say more carefully

 

[LeafByNiggle]

phaster:

???

Back at you. Both statements are true

• I’m confident @HarryStotle believes CO2 is a GHG
• Harry then just pointed out accepted facts of the historical record, that ice cores confirm CO2 levels lagged past warmings, so they could not have been the cause.

The lag is small, and so CO2 could still be part of a feedback loop - affecting and being affected by temperature simultaneously. But more importantly, even if CO2 was not the major cause of warming in the past, that does not mean it is not the major driver of warming now.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

The data was made available to other climate scientists. Mann just did not feel compelled to open up his raw lab notes to the blogger who just compared him to a sex abuser.

It wasn’t made available to the court. That is why he lost his case in court.

The court was acting because of the blogger. As I said, the data exists, and Mann isn’t the only one with data. Many independent climate scientists also have their own data that confirms global warming.

Except it isn’t “their own data” it is the same data released by NOAA and NASA and manipulated by the scientists there.

The rest of the scientific community doesn’t have the resources to “have their own data.”

 

[Theo520]

The lag is small, and so CO2 could still be part of a feedback loop - affecting and being affected by temperature simultaneously. But more importantly, even if CO2 was not the major cause of warming in the past, that does not mean it is not the major driver of warming now.

Yes, increasing CO2 levels are very likely a feedback to cyclical natural warming. So what?

It’s not a point of dispute and does nothing to tie historical warming to present day man made warming.

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

phaster:

???

Back at you. Both statements are true

• I’m confident @HarryStotle believes CO2 is a GHG
• Harry then just pointed out accepted facts of the historical record, that ice cores confirm CO2 levels lagged past warmings, so they could not have been the cause.

The lag is small, and so CO2 could still be part of a feedback loop - affecting and being affected by temperature simultaneously. But more importantly, even if CO2 was not the major cause of warming in the past, that does not mean it is not the major driver of warming now.

I suppose the entire question of whether or not CO2 is a “major driver of warming now” rests on whether or not there actually is inordinate warming now.

According to NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) there has been no warming since the network went on line in 2005, and if anything the US is slightly cooler now than it was then. The USCRN is made up of “114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.”

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html

So if we ignore the fabricated or interpolated temperatures of the climatologists bent on “proving” warming according to what they hope or imagine to be happening, we are left with no appreciable warming and, possibly, a slight cooling since 2005.

Where does that leave your argument that a CO2 “feedback loop” that affects and is affected by temperature is currently in play?

It seems that the only place the “feedback loop” is active is in the imaginations of the hysterical climate alarmists.

Expect more of the same in the coming months as real data is ignored, buried or interpolated, and rhetoric becomes the predominant agent in the alarmists’ claims – this is where a real “feedback loop” (i.e., between the media and tainted science) is fully in play today to manufacture hysteria.

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

nobody here disputes the repeated assertions that CO2 is a GHG. No need to change minds there bud.

???

HarryStotle:

And the scientific fact on the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature is that there is very little historical correlation, primarily because global temperatures are dependent upon a large number of variables and CO2 hardly registers as a determiner. Just naming it a “greenhouse gas” doesn’t make the case.

It is a greenhouse gas because it traps infrared heat radiation.

FYI,…

Just to be clear, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule so its effect AS A GREENHOUSE GAS is very likely to be indiscernible.

This is why warmists punt to what they call “the feedback loop” wherein a tiny amount of CO2 triggers a cascade of effects which magnifies the impact of CO2 in terms of warming.

Here are Tony Heller’s responses to the idea of “runaway feedback” or “feedback loop” involving CO2.

 

[Theo520]

Just to be clear, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule so its effect AS A GREENHOUSE GAS is very likely to be indiscernible.

I disagree. As I recall the science indicates doubling of CO2 levels will add 1C in warming due to increased radiative forcing. If it were to then double again, it would add slightly less warming because the curve is logarithmic.

This is based on measurable radiative forcing at known CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

 

[MichaelP3]

Well I am really glad you are not disputing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So there is at least that.

The other point you seem to be missing is that “questions by critics” can sometimes be confusing and misleading. Even to informed people in the field that is being discussed.

I for one do not understand the obsession with regards to feedback and so on. (Yes I know the concept, just wondering about its relevance)

Critics aren’t normally known for their “knowledge of the field they are criticising” but rather for just stating an opinion.

But all that aside. I am first-hand working with these kind of problems and in the industry CO2 is bad and it needs to be reduced (That is a fact). But also CO2 is the best gas to be released if you consider the alternatives. That is why you have a thing called a “flare” that rather burns all nasty hydrocarbons to CO2 and release rather than just release those gasses. So in a way many on this thread are correct. CO2 is okay if you compare it to the alternatives. I mean, look at what a car releases from its exhaust, CO2 is not your problem there…

 

[MichaelP3]

it would add slightly less warming because the curve is logarithmic.

Maybe to save me some time, what curve is this?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

The data was made available to other climate scientists. Mann just did not feel compelled to open up his raw lab notes to the blogger who just compared him to a sex abuser.

It wasn’t made available to the court. That is why he lost his case in court.

The court was acting because of the blogger. As I said, the data exists, and Mann isn’t the only one with data. Many independent climate scientists also have their own data that confirms global warming.

Except it isn’t “their own data” it is the same data released by NOAA and NASA and manipulated by the scientists there.

The rest of the scientific community doesn’t have the resources to “have their own data.”

Not true. Independent data has been gathered by independent researchers using multiple techniques. And there is no NOAA-wide or NASA-wide conspiracy to corrupt data. That is just a wild conspiracy theory that doesn’t even make sense, when you stop and think of all the people that would have to be in on it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The lag is small, and so CO2 could still be part of a feedback loop - affecting and being affected by temperature simultaneously. But more importantly, even if CO2 was not the major cause of warming in the past, that does not mean it is not the major driver of warming now.

Yes, increasing CO2 levels are very likely a feedback to cyclical natural warming. So what?

By saying it is part of a feedback loop you are admitting that CO2 has an effect on temperature. That’s what feedback means. This is contrary to HarryStottle’s claim that “so they could not have been the cause.”

It’s not a point of dispute and does nothing to tie historical warming to present day man made warming.

No, there are other experiments that do that. I was just addressing this one issue of the lag.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I suppose the entire question of whether or not CO2 is a “major driver of warming now” rests on whether or not there actually is inordinate warming now.

According to NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) there has been no warming since the network went on line in 2005, and if anything the US is slightly cooler now than it was then.

But according to the USHCN, which agrees perfectly with the USCRN in the 8 years where they overlap, the US is warming. And it is only the US. The world is warming, no matter how Anthony Watts tries to twist it.

Just to be clear, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule so its effect AS A GREENHOUSE GAS is very likely to be indiscernible.

How did you arrive at that scientific conclusion?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I suppose the entire question of whether or not CO2 is a “major driver of warming now” rests on whether or not there actually is inordinate warming now.

According to NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) there has been no warming since the network went on line in 2005, and if anything the US is slightly cooler now than it was then.

But according to the USHCN, which agrees perfectly with the USCRN in the 8 years where they overlap, the US is warming. And it is only the US. The world is warming, no matter how Anthony Watts tries to twist it.

Just to be clear, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule so its effect AS A GREENHOUSE GAS is very likely to be indiscernible.

How did you arrive at that scientific conclusion?

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s the opinion of Gerhard Gerlich who is not a climate scientist. Who confirms his work?

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s the opinion of Gerhard Gerlich who is not a climate scientist. Who confirms his work?

I would suppose they (Gerlich and Tscheuschner) don’t need a “who” to confirm their work, they only need a complete and unassailable scientific argument. That would be sufficient, regardless of the opinions of climate scientists.

Just as Georges Lemaître didn’t require anyone to “confirm” his work, he just required a proper scientific case to be made. Just as then, the consensus opinion among physicists, including Einstein, who refused to accept his work, was that Lemaître was in error, until their opinions were properly dispelled by Lemaître’s science, not his opinion.

Your point that Gerlich is not a climate scientist might just as cogently be answered by stating that climate scientists are not physicists and as a result may not properly understand the physics (thermal conductivity, for example) behind their claims of CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

If the physics behind claims about CO2 as a greenhouse gas do not hold up under scrutiny then neither do the repercussions regarding its effect on the wider climate.

Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 ◦C
warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. About 80 percent of
this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If
such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving
concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind
of ‘superinsulation’ violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2
such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
Therefore, in this paper, the popular greenhouse ideas entertained by the global climatology community are reconsidered within the limits of theoretical and experimental physics.

Conclusion to Section 3 of the paper…

It is interesting to observe,
• that until today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear
– in any fundamental work of thermodynamics,
– in any fundamental work of physical kinetics,
– in any fundamental work of radiation theory;
• that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different
and, partly, contradict to each other.

So the grounds upon which the entire “greenhouse gas” claim is made does NOT rest on any properly researched work in physics, radiation theory or thermodynamics.

That would seem to be a problem, no?

I would suggest that you read the paper.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Did you read the paper and check all the math?