The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[ding]

excalibur

Yeah. Such "junk science" that about 98% of scientists from different fields of science say that global warming is a reality.

Science isn't a popularity contest.

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha​

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am no expert, but it is my opinion you are wrong about that.

{...
An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]

In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6]
...}

Ice age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From YOUR link you didn't read:

"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]"

You are wrong since we are CURRENTLY in an Ice Age that are divided by long GLACIATION periods with short periods of Interglacial time which we are near the end of.

 

[Rigby5]

From YOUR link you didn't read:

"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]"

You are wrong since we are CURRENTLY in an Ice Age that are divided by long GLACIATION periods with short periods of Interglacial time which we are near the end of.

Wrong.

What I linked and copied is the traditional climate swing that has been going on for over a million years.
At least 12 cold and warm cycles.
They have always been long cooling but with short warming.
That is because the cooling comes from the ubiquitous plants being continually successful and absorbing CO2, while the warming comes from their sudden frosty death and decay back to CO2.

That is what had been happening up until about 1800.
We were at the end of the normal warming, and it was supposed to start cooling, as plant growth used up too much CO2, allowing too much heat to escape into space.

But since 1800, the industrial revolution has artificially replaced the CO2 used up by plants, and initiated a whole new, additional warming cycle on top of the existing normal hot part of the natural cycle.
The current warming is NOT from decaying plants giving up their CO2.
It is from artificially dug up carbon that had been sequestered under ground, over hundreds of millions of years.
We are totally screwing up the normal cycle, with something that has never happened, ever before.
The result of which likely will be much hotter temperatures than the world has ever seen.
Plants usually have a death cycle every 60 thousand years from it getting too cold.
But the NEXT massive plant die off will be from it being too HOT instead of too COLD, so it will add positive feed back.
Instead of swing the cycle back and forth, the next plant death cycle from current global warming will produce POSITIVE FEEDBACK, that will start a race condition, making the planet much hotter than it has ever been.
Making life on the planet impossible, most likely.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wrong.

What I linked and copied is the traditional climate swing that has been going on for over a million years.
At least 12 cold and warm cycles.
They have always been long cooling but with short warming.
That is because the cooling comes from the ubiquitous plants being continually successful and absorbing CO2, while the warming comes from their sudden frosty death and decay back to CO2.

That is what had been happening up until about 1800.
We were at the end of the normal warming, and it was supposed to start cooling, as plant growth used up too much CO2, allowing too much heat to escape into space.

But since 1800, the industrial revolution has artificially replaced the CO2 used up by plants, and initiated a whole new, additional warming cycle on top of the existing normal hot part of the natural cycle.
The current warming is NOT from decaying plants giving up their CO2.
It is from artificially dug up carbon that had been sequestered under ground, over hundreds of millions of years.
We are totally screwing up the normal cycle, with something that has never happened, ever before.
The result of which likely will be much hotter temperatures than the world has ever seen.
Plants usually have a death cycle every 60 thousand years from it getting too cold.
But the NEXT massive plant die off will be from it being too HOT instead of too COLD, so it will add positive feed back.
Instead of swing the cycle back and forth, the next plant death cycle from current global warming will produce POSITIVE FEEDBACK, that will start a race condition, making the planet much hotter than it has ever been.
Making life on the planet impossible, most likely.

Your link doesn't agree with you:

"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]"

The current Ice age we live in is nearly 3 million years long interspersed with long periods of Glaciation and short periods of Interglacial phases.

We are living in an Ice House phase of Earths Climate

LINK

Now I am wondering how many beers you drank this morning.

 

[Rigby5]

Science isn't a popularity contest.

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha​

There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.
Anyone can easily see it, as the Arctic ice cap that never opened up for at least tens of thousands of years, suddenly has easy summer and winter shipping lanes.

The only people who are skeptical about the need to do something about the global warming, are those who think it will not go into extreme, positive feedback, race condition, because there are natural negative freed back moderators.
Specifically, they think warming will increase atmospheric moisture, which will result in clouds that reflect out more sunlight, increasing the Earth's albedo.

I think the risk is way too high to pin our species survival on, and who wants to live on a planet with perpetual cloud cover? No more astronomy, no more stars in the night sky. No more astral navigation. Possibly perpetual fog, making air travel riskier.

 

[Rigby5]

Your link doesn't agree with you:

"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]"

The current Ice age we live in is nearly 3 million years long interspersed with long periods of Glaciation and short periods of Interglacial phases.

We are living in an Ice House phase of Earths Climate

View attachment 611977

LINK

Now I am wondering how many beers you drank this morning.

Wrong.
What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.

So I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You are not adding any information.
Everyone knows all about the past 12 known iceage cycles.

Everyone also knows that with cold and warm parts together, the whole cycle is about 110,000 years long.
Everyone also knows that the current artificial additional warming is starting on top of a natural warming, and will then make it about twice as hot as it has been in hundreds of millions of years.

Explain yourself.
You keep saying we all have it wrong and only you have it right, but you have NOT at all said what you think we have wrong?

 

[ding]

There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.
Anyone can easily see it, as the Arctic ice cap that never opened up for at least tens of thousands of years, suddenly has easy summer and winter shipping lanes.

The only people who are skeptical about the need to do something about the global warming, are those who think it will not go into extreme, positive feedback, race condition, because there are natural negative freed back moderators.
Specifically, they think warming will increase atmospheric moisture, which will result in clouds that reflect out more sunlight, increasing the Earth's albedo.

I think the risk is way too high to pin our species survival on, and who wants to live on a planet with perpetual cloud cover? No more astronomy, no more stars in the night sky. No more astral navigation. Possibly perpetual fog, making air travel riskier.

We're in an interglacial cyle. That's what happens during interglacials. And scientists have disagreed that man is causing the planet to warm.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[ding]

Wrong.
What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.

So I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You are not adding any information.
Everyone knows all about the past 12 known iceage cycles.

Everyone also knows that with cold and warm parts together, the whole cycle is about 110,000 years long.
Everyone also knows that the current artificial additional warming is starting on top of a natural warming, and will then make it about twice as hot as it has been in hundreds of millions of years.

Explain yourself.
You keep saying we all have it wrong and only you have it right, but you have NOT at all said what you think we have wrong?

You are using those terms incorrectly.

We transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago. Our planet is an icehouse planet now. There have been over 30 glacial and interglacial cycles since the transition to an icehouse began.

 

[Rigby5]

We're in an interglacial cyle. That's what happens during interglacials. And scientists have disagreed that man is causing the planet to warm.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

That is wrong because it does not disagree with the fact we are causing global warming artificially.
No one can deny that.
All they are trying to do is claim there is so much constant noise that this current and unique trend may be not that significant.
And the reason that we know that approach is wrong is because we KNOW there are lots of positive feedback mechanism that greatly risk a race condition that could wipe out all life on the whole planet.
They include things like water vapor and methane that is currently frozen in tundra and ocean bottoms.

The natural warming/cooling cycles is over 1000 times slower than the current trend.
The current trend is NOT natural, is warming on top of the highest natural warming, and likely will result in a climate that has not existed in over 100 million years. It is true we may well survive, but we also may not. The whole concept of rolling the dice to find out, is ridiculously stupid. No one should want to risk going back to a climate of the Cambrian era, even if we could survive it. Things like perpetual fog and oceans 240' higher, are not positive things.

Again, the point is we have lots of buried land mines that could go off.
There are a billion years of sequestered carbon in frozen tundra, ocean bottoms, etc., that have NEVER been unfrozen.
If we do succeed in unfreezing them, it is possible the whole planet will never go back.

 

[ding]

Wrong.
What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.

So I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You are not adding any information.
Everyone knows all about the past 12 known iceage cycles.

Everyone also knows that with cold and warm parts together, the whole cycle is about 110,000 years long.
Everyone also knows that the current artificial additional warming is starting on top of a natural warming, and will then make it about twice as hot as it has been in hundreds of millions of years.

Explain yourself.
You keep saying we all have it wrong and only you have it right, but you have NOT at all said what you think we have wrong?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, checking in...

Have a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board outsmarted the global scientific community yet?

No?

Ok, will check back later.

 

[ding]

That is wrong because it does not disagree with the fact we are causing global warming artificially.
No one can deny that.
All they are trying to do is claim there is so much constant noise that this current and unique trend may be not that significant.
And the reason that we know that approach is wrong is because we KNOW there are lots of positive feedback mechanism that greatly risk a race condition that could wipe out all life on the whole planet.
They include things like water vapor and methane that is currently frozen in tundra and ocean bottoms.

The natural warming/cooling cycles is over 1000 times slower than the current trend.
The current trend is NOT natural, is warming on top of the highest natural warming, and likely will result in a climate that has not existed in over 100 million years. It is true we may well survive, but we also may not. The whole concept of rolling the dice to find out, is ridiculously stupid. No one should want to risk going back to a climate of the Cambrian era, even if we could survive it. Things like perpetual fog and oceans 240' higher, are not positive things.

Again, the point is we have lots of buried land mines that could go off.
There are a billion years of sequestered carbon in frozen tundra, ocean bottoms, etc., that have NEVER been unfrozen.
If we do succeed in unfreezing them, it is possible the whole planet will never go back.

You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right? The IPCC is blaming the urban heat island effect on CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.

 

[ding]

So, checking in...

Have a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board outsmarted the global scientific community yet?

No?

Ok, will check back later.

Yes. For no other reason than we think that science is harmed whenever anyone claims the science is settled. That's like saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It's not good for science.

 

[Rigby5]

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Sorry, but nonsense.
We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
(For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)

This is not at all difficult.
We are adding over 50 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year.
It accumulates because CO2 can not break down unless plants do it, and the plants can't keep up.
So the CO2 has already increased by over 40%.
And when there is more CO2 at the boundary to space, it prevents heat escape from radiating out, because CO2 converts radiant to vibratory heat, that can't leave the planet.
The science is totally incontrovertible.
All that can be argued with whether or not increasing cloud cover will neutralized the increase.

 

[ding]

Sorry, but nonsense.
We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
(For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)

This is not at all difficult.
We are adding over 50 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year.
It accumulates because CO2 can not break down unless plants do it, and the plants can't keep up.
So the CO2 has already increased by over 40%.
And when there is more CO2 at the boundary to space, it prevents heat escape from radiating out, because CO2 converts radiant to vibratory heat, that can't leave the planet.
The science is totally incontrovertible.
All that can be argued with whether or not increasing cloud cover will neutralized the increase.

Again... You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right? The IPCC is attributing the urban heat island effect to CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.

 

[ding]

Sorry, but nonsense.
We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
(For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)

This is not at all difficult.
We are adding over 50 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year.
It accumulates because CO2 can not break down unless plants do it, and the plants can't keep up.
So the CO2 has already increased by over 40%.
And when there is more CO2 at the boundary to space, it prevents heat escape from radiating out, because CO2 converts radiant to vibratory heat, that can't leave the planet.
The science is totally incontrovertible.
All that can be argued with whether or not increasing cloud cover will neutralized the increase.

You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you have no underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate. All you can do is argue we should blindly accept what we are told. That is decidedly unscientific and ultimately harmful to science.

 

[Rigby5]

You are using those terms incorrectly.

We transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago. Our planet is an icehouse planet now. There have been over 30 glacial and interglacial cycles since the transition to an icehouse began.

View attachment 611988

Wrong.
The time scale you are using is entirely wrong.
The whole planet was much warming hundreds of millions of years ago, but that was because at one time the earth has a methane and ammonia atmosphere and not an oxygen and nitrogen one.
It was plants that switched it over.
And it took a long time for plants to use up enough CO2 in order to cool the planet off.

The icehouse/greenhouse cycles are about 110,000 years long, and we have had about 12 of them consecutively.
Your graph is all wrong, and over much too long of a period to even begin to consider.

Here is the real data, from Antarctic ice cores.

 

[Rigby5]

You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right? The IPCC is blaming the urban heat island effect on CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.

Wrong.
Ice cores and tree rings are NOT effected by urban heat islands, and solar variability has ZERO correlation to current heat accumulations that match CO2 increases.

We know all about solar variability.
We know about 13 year long solar cycles, etc.
That has all been taken into account.

 

[Rigby5]

You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you have no underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate. All you can do is argue we should blindly accept what we are told. That is decidedly unscientific and ultimately harmful to science.

Wrong.
I know at least 100 times more than you about icehouse/greenhouse cycles.
Most people just do not call them that.
I just switched over to using them because they are useful.
Most people call the cooling simply an "ice age", and the warming "interglacial".
It makes no sense to call the whole time span of the 12 known cooling and warming cycles to be collectively the "ice age", because it includes both warming and cooling, and was not changing on average over time, UNTIL NOW!

I know exactly what drives the planet's climate.
Before plants, it was mostly orbit, like precession and nutation.
There also are solar cycles.
But we know all about these, these are NOT the current cause, and these generally are MUCH slower than the current change.
The current change is almost entirely due to the carbon/plant cycle.
And we know all about it because unlike planetary inputs, the carbon/plant cycle conditions are EASY to duplicate in laboratories we can experiment on.
We know for sure that CO2 forces heat retention.
It can not do otherwise.
By the way, I do have a degree in physics, not that a degree makes one infallible.