Oh feck, Mark's back. Here we go again.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
We're at solar minimum now yet the global temperature in 2018 was fourth hottest on record. Not my area of research, but all the current science points to the solar cycle having a fairly weak influence on global temperatures. It may be a little more complicated regionally due to changes in overall pressure patterns.The sun controls earth's climate.
Not emissions, nor humans.
When 6 most significant solar cycles are combined (red). Plotted against proxies for global temperature anomaly (black) over last 260 years we see lovely correlation. Citation. doi: 10.5194/cpd-8-4493-2012.
Peer review:
- I've seen pure junk peer reviewed, published and retracted 3 months later. So my respect for peer review is minimal.
- I never said it was peer reviewed.
- It's published in the open peer review journal anyhow. Every single scientist on the planet can review it. A normal peer review often takes less than 1 hour. Sometimes only ½hour. Just a little longer than it takes to read it.
- Has anyone made a significant criticism of it? Doesn't look like it.
- You really need to find a fault in the paper yourself if want to persuade me. The radiosonde data is out there. All their data is open access. Refute them if you can. I don't think you will be able to. You may quibble over their explanation for the phase changes they found. You cannot refute their equations of state.
I'm more suspicious of other climate scientists. No one else analysed the radiosonde data that way. I assume that's because other scientists are stuck in a nonsense paradigm - the greenhouse gas effect.
Einstein ... in 1919, showed that if a gas was in thermodynamic equilibrium the rate of adsorption by an infrared gas ... was equal to the rate of emission. In other words, if you increase the amount of infrared active gases in the atmosphere you will increase the rate of absorption but at the exact same time you will increase the rate of emission. So if the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium you won't get a greenhouse effect. It won't store the energy, and what we have shown, by our data, is yes ... the air is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate models have decided to ignore Einstein.
Einstein said ... the infrared active gases will aid the transfer of energy from a hot area to a cold area but it won't store the energy
-- Time: 48:38
Einstein said ... the infrared active gases will aid the transfer of energy from a hot area to a cold area but it won't store the energy
-- Time: 48:38
What you meant to say was "I'm more suspicious of climate scientists," because neither of them is a climate scientist. Hell, one of them isn't even remotely any kind of scientist.
No it was not. If you're talking about temperatures being hot - it was very hot in the 1930s. If you're saying global temperatures are 4th warmest, I doubt your source data.
Besides - you never made a point about the correlation between combined solar cycles and temperature. Variations in solar insolation are low. Variations in magnetic activity is huge. Low magnetic solar activity allows more cosmic rays into the solar system. Cosmic rays make an ionisation cascade ending with cloud condensation nuclei. Which means more cloud.
As you know, the skeptic explanation for global warming in 1980s and 1990s was less cloud cover. Data shows it. If cosmic ray bombardment of the atmosphere increases, during lower solar activity, and more low-level cloud forms, which blocks more sun - then you are refuted. This is the standard skeptic position know. If we don't see cooling in the next 10 years you will be right.
I believe the greenhouse gas effect to be pseudoscience. I'm waiting to see what happens in the next 10-12 years, especially after the next solar cycle is over about 2030, and the inter-cycle solar magnetic minimum in acutest.
A lot of current temperature series are corrupt by
- making a whole range of adjustments which should not be done
- not properly accounting for the urban heat island effect
2019 Sept: 3.65°F
2019 Oct: -2.27°F
Why isn't your beloved greenhouse gas effect keeping the heat trapped as theory says it does?
@Mark Pawelek do you believe the climate conspiracy was invented to make money, or is there more to it?
You really aren't as bright as you think, buddy. I'll try and get back to this tomorrow, all I can say right now is that this is very, very silly.
Jesus Christ. I’d imagine I feel about your posts as others do about mine in the Nazi thread.
Brilliant
I got banned once for using too many gifs, so just picture an alpaca slowly turning around to stare at the camera, dumbfounded.
Last edited:
USCRN. Temperature anomaly for USA falls 6°F in only 1 month. Explain that using your beloved greenhouse gas effect.Brilliant
I got banned once for using too many gifs, so just picture an alpaca slowly turning around to stare at the camera, dumbfounded.
If anyone dies during any solar minimum it may be due to people like you. So I hope you have a good laugh over it; as at least some good would've been done if it makes you amused.
IPCC say that 90% of modern climate change is man made. So what were people in USA doing to cause a temperature anomaly fall of 6°F in just 1 month (September to October).Brilliant
I got banned once for using too many gifs, so just picture an alpaca slowly turning around to stare at the camera, dumbfounded.
I really want you self-appointed climate experts to explain this to me. Because you say nearly everything is man-made climate change. So go on. Explain the massive fall in temperature.
Please stay. IPCC say 90% of modern climate change is man made. I'd like you to explain what people in USA did to cause a temperature anomaly fall of 6°F in just 1 month (September to October).
It's no wonder I'm not bright when people like you chicken out of explaining the changing climate to us. Please explain this temperature anomaly fall.
Obviously global weather patterns dictate area specific temperature fluctuations in the short term.
Pagan rituals
One month is a meaningless data point when it comes to the global climate. One year isn't very meaningful either, for that matter. The reason it's been pointed out so often lately that month Y in year X was the hottest month on record, or that year X was the hottest year on record, is that these things are not solitary events, they're part of a larger trend.
It doesn't matter if a summer is abnormally hot or a winter is abnormally cold. No one has ever said that you won't or can't have monthly or yearly variance in global temperature if global warming is true. And so to point out that there is such variance isn't the gotcha moment you think it is. It's essentially a non sequitur.
Last edited:
Climate --> Average weather for the last 30 years.
One of the biggest effects of the assumed (given that we do not all seem to agree that this is a thing) climate change is volatile weather. Meaning that we will see more extreme temperatures and patterns on both ends of the scale. Like your example of last month, which was the coldest October recorded in US if I'm not mistaken, is an example of...
I would urge you to try to start with a more holistic approach to your choice of cases or arguments.
I already know how a temperature anomaly is calculated and about the 30 year rule. That's Climate 101 stuff and definitional.
I want to know how the high priests are able to claim such and such a hurricane is caused by climate change. Yet cannot tell us how this dramatic fall in the temperature anomaly (6°F over 1 month) is due to climate change.
If you don't know, don't bother writing anything. I don't know for sure. That's why I'm not saying. High priests of climate say they are sure so I expect one will pop in to explain.
Could you give a citation as to which high priest of climate suggested that a specific hurricane was caused by climate change. They would be wrong to do so.
What is the actual principle involved here? It is:
Now, to the best of my knowledge, Kirchoff's law (not sure where Einstein comes in, this was decades before him) says nothing about the direction of absorption. And also I was a chemist some years ago, never a physicist, so I'll always be more comfortable at the molecular level.
A CO2 molecule that absorbs an IR photon, gets excited, and then goes back to ground state by emission, can emit that photon in any random direction. So even though the earth is radiating low-energy IR photons outwards, after their absorption and re-radiation by CO2 in the atmosphere, roughly half would be emitted back inwards.
The CO2 molecules indeed do not store energy. They re-direct radiation from an aggregate outward direction to an aggregate random direction, this means that some of the radiation goes back to the surface.
Side note - adsorption is the "capability of all solid substances to attract to their surfaces molecules of gases or solutions with which they are in contact." Nothing to do with the interaction of molecules and radiation, that should be absorption.
What's a family run research centre? I thought that was limited to funerals etc. Founding your own journal to then publish your "research" to give it "peer-reviewed" status is insane!
Is it any wonder no criticism exists on their own blog? If it was a scientific journal where are all the publishings from other scientists? Where is the review board?
They can delete all the stuff that disagrees in one second. No real criticism exists on their site but does elsewhere on the web.
Last edited:
its weather
Nobody with any sense is going to deny that the Sun is the primary driver of earths climate. However, that doesn't mean that other things cannot have an impact. If it was true that only the sun and the Milankovitch and other solar cycles would impact the earths climate, but this is simply not the case, and we have evidence of periods of climate shift in the geological record that correspond to things like, volcanic eruption, meteoric impacts etc. If the sun centric climate model is the balancing point, any outside input can throw that system out of balance, and it remains out of balance until the outside input is neutralized, typically through geological time, at which point "normal" returns.
It's the height of naivety to believe that human activities are not capable of throwing a wrench into this cycle. It's one thing I think to suggest that at this current stage, that mankind could reverse the current trend in climate shift. It's another entirely to suggest that we could help it along. It's like pushing a boulder up a hill, or pushing a boulder over the precipice. One is extremely difficult, one isn't.
Alright, here I am. I took the liberty to only post those two (or whatever) lines yesterday as I was doing it from the toilet. Anyway, let's start with the post I quoted yesterday:
I too have seen a lot of crap published. Most of that crap have been of a sufficiently high quality to pass review by peers. That most likely means there are at least some useful stuff in the paper but that the whole story isn't that great.
Is the current peer-review system flawed? Most certainly. Does that mean we should all just open our own journals and publish there? That's a resounding "no", obviously.
Any serious scientist will first and foremost publish their work in respected journals for the reason that it helps them gain exposure and that in turn helps them gain funding again. Furthermore, no one is going to waste their precious time doing voluntary peer-review for a journal started solely with the aim of getting the founders' work out. Scientists aren't paid to do peer-review so it's hard enough to get them to do it for the high-impact journals.
Firstly, saying "climate models have decided to ignore Einstein" is the sort of argument you'd find in a sitcom or something. It's a trick to make whatever else you say sound scientific to the layman. The truth is Einstein isn't some omnipotent being who could never be wrong. He probably was plenty of times, he wasn't quite onboard with quantum mechanics for instance. Most scientists are wrong plenty of times throughout their career. Einstein was obviously brilliant though.
Now back to the considerations of IR absorption and subsequent emission. I'd like you to find me a scientist who would, with a straight face, say that the rate of emissions doesn't go up when you increase the rate of absorption. If that wasn't the case you'd have some serious conservation of energy concerns. Incidentally, just talking about absorption and emission in loose terms like above isn't very useful. What are the orders of magnitude involved? Is there a characteristic time etc.? There's nothing there, it's pseudoscientific guff.
As @berbatrick explained to you, this is how it works, and this is the exact point you're missing (although you're admittedly very far from it, as illustrated by the below figure).
Figure 1. (Left) A sketch showing a simplified working principle of the greenhouse effect. (Right) Mark Pawelek avoiding discussing the credentials of the Connollys. Not to scale.
IR photons are emitted away from the earth. They all have some probability of interacting with various molecules on their way to space. Some of them might pass straight through the atmosphere (that's how probabilities work, after all), and some of them will interact with e.g. CO2 on their way. They'll excite the vibrational modes of CO2 effectively putting the CO2 molecule in a higher energy state. This excited state has a certain lifetime, and this is important, upon relaxation the emission from the CO2 molecule will be radiated out in a random direction. This new photon might go straigt to space, might go back to earth, might interact with a new molecule thus repeating the process.
By putting more and more molecules in the atmosphere that aren't transparent to IR radiation we'll effectively increase the probability of IR photons interacting one, two, three etc. times on their way to space. This means that the energy associated with these photons linger in our atmosphere longer on average (due to the lifetime of these excited states) meaning we raise the temperature (as temperature is defined from energy).
No one is disputing that emission from CO2 molecules is going up as well. The fact any given IR photon takes longer to exit the atmosphere is the issue. It's like you pouring water continuously into your sink while slowly blocking more and more of the drain. No one is saying the water won't get out, we're just saying that it won't be fast enough with the continuous pouring of water.
And stop posting shit about weather during one month. Stop posting shit about weather in one location. It's irrelevant. Global warming is the whole bloody planet. Some regions might end up colder, some will end up warmer. The problem is that on average the planet will be a couple of degrees warmer.
And of course this is peak irony, given you are citing actual self-appointed experts, one of which is literally a plasterer cum electrician. I'm definitely not a climate expert but at least I have a PhD in physics.
If you have a system(global climate) that was previously stable for T>>>>>>t amount of time, then changes in input(carbon put into the in the atmosphere due to human activities) and system parameters(CO2 PPM, solar reflection, temperature etc) happens over a short amount of time t, and the system is unable to absorb/transform the input (carbon sinks like the ocean) etc then the system becomes unstable until a new stable state is reached. If system is unstable, then output(weather) can become more volatile.
Hurricanes as a phenomenon are not directly created by man-made climate change, it is their magnitude and frequency that is. More volatile weather can create stronger hurricanes at a higher frequency and in places that previously did not experience hurricanes before.
Climate change is currently and will continue to cause more extreme weather. Like your record low temperature in October with a 3.33*C fall in temperature.
I agree with some of this: underlined, but some of it is made up or supposed by you: strike through, some of the rest I can't say. It could be my prejudice coincided with yours when I agree. I doubt you have evidence your much of what you said, possibly for any of it. I certainly have evidence showing greenhouse gas effect is a myth: Connolly & Connolly, 2014.
Oh Mark's back! Has he gone around the loop of calling his own evidence junk because someone explained that he'd misread it yet?
Perhaps Lynchie would like to show his competence in climate by writing about the papers I cited? Or, maybe he's ignorant and can only make personal attacks against other posters?
I'll remind you all of what the paper does and a claim made by the paper's author:
Scientific observations of data from 20 million weather balloons enabled a plot of molar density against pressure (for air). From the plots they discovered equations of state for atmosphere. The equations are simple linear relationships with correlations of (R² = 0.997). These are, effectively, new laws for atmospheric gases.
... data from the weather balloons has shown quite categorically there is no greenhouse effect ...
-- Dr Michael Connolly (time. 52:41)I'll remind you the greenhouse gas effect, is, and always was, just a thought experiment. I'm still waiting for a scientist to refute this. I've posted it in science forums. None can refute it.
Last edited:
Mate, I went down that road last time around. Now you're just sealioning.
You already agreed earlier that CO2 absorbs and emits IR photons. If the lifetime of the excited state of CO2 is different from 0, then you also agree there's a greenhouse effect.
No one is saying a greenhouse stays warm forever, just in case you thought so.
Connolly & Connolly might be less qualified than you to talk about science.
They both have doctorates. They discovered new equations of state for the atmosphere. What did you discover? Who are you to cast aspersions on their qualifications when you, likely, discovered nothing?
How does Mark explain snowball Earth or any ice age for that matter? 
I mean, the sun didn't just decide to turn off for a few millennia, or did it?
I mean, the sun didn't just decide to turn off for a few millennia, or did it?I have seen some arrogant pricks in my time here in the caf. I think you take the trophy by a country mile.
They didn't discover shit. The son might have a doctorate, though not in anything approaching climate science. The father is a builder and an electrician. If he has a PhD, it's probably from an online University he founded himself. How can you be so oblivious? You're being utterly had by two charlatans.
Which equations? What's your own scientific training? Because from what I've read on this page you're unlikely to even have taken GCSE science.
So this guy Michael Connolly is a co-discover of new state equations for the atmosphere. His status is already miles above yours. The data he looked at - weather balloons - was ignored for decades by conceited, navel-gazing, pseudo-scientist modelers who think their models represent some kind of "reality" because they say so; and because their political masters pay them to say so. If any of those modelers were curious enough to look at the radiosonde data, it seems they never published their findings. IMHO it was because they were so lost, gazing at their navels, they could not imagine anything useful outside their paradigm. Much like Joseph Priestley, a good chemist, was never able to ditch phlogiston theory despite ample evidence right before his eyes. It's amusing how scientists think they are so clever and intellectually liberated while they are often lost in metaphysics such as the greenhouse gas effect.
PS: I'm not interested in what the activists and green hangers on have to say. Only scientists. This is a new scientific finding (5 years old now). But the usual tricks of character assassination and name calling (denier, shill, flat-earther) don't work. I'd still love you to try that so you can show yourselves up for the thick bozos you are. Please call me names. BTW: My skin is as thick as a nuclear reactor containment shell.
Yup, you're definitely a troll.
Isn't the current events forums public and therefore searchable on google? if so he should be banned and his posts deleted because he is spouting pure bile and lies and it's dangerous for that to be visible to anyone doing an internet search.