You're asking questions he doesn't have the answers to. It's clear by now that he doesn't actually understand any of the stuff he copies from somewhere else. Like most climate "skeptics" he's basically following a recipe, and he hopes to throw enough sciencey-sounding stuff at you that you'll a) not be able to respond to it all or b) believe that he's actually an authority on the matter.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
You're asking questions he doesn't have the answers to. It's clear by now that he doesn't actually understand any of the stuff he copies from somewhere else. Like most climate "skeptics" he's basically following a recipe, and he hopes to throw enough sciencey-sounding stuff at you that you'll a) not be able to respond to it all or b) believe that he's actually an authority on the matter.
Read the Hansen quote. Hansen explains increasing temperature on earth in terms of less OLR emitted to space. That is nonsense.
Satellite data emissions show a pause after 2003, with a spike for the 2015/2016 El Nino. But they tell me the pause is a denier myth. The pause is real, and contradicts the idea that CO2 is the agent of warming.
Hansen says that. Hansen is wrong. The basic model of CO2 causing climate warming is wrong.
So every single climate scientist is sitting there hoping that someone like you just isn't going to look at the graph, which would disprove their entire model? How's that work, do you think? Sounds like a fairly massive conspiracy, which has to involve literally tens of thousands of people.
The alternative is that you simply don't understand what you're seeing, or reading.
What I always wonder is; why do people bother with creating a hoax to make people believe the climate is changing if it's not. I'd say it's money? But isn't the money incentive roughly a gazillion times stronger on the other side? Wouldn't it be more plausible that the fossil fuel lobby has a monetary incentive to fabricate a deniers hoax?
We're fecked either way though, since the modern day conservative sees denying climate change as some sort of weird batch of honor. Proudly declaring in unison that we should stop step out of our bubble and think for ourselves.
Fecking irony of it all
We're fecked either way though, since the modern day conservative sees denying climate change as some sort of weird batch of honor. Proudly declaring in unison that we should stop step out of our bubble and think for ourselves.
Fecking irony of it all
it's similar to flat earthers. people like Mark Pawelek think they somehow know the secret, that everyone else is wrong and he's right. it's an ego thing. makes himself feel better about himself i guess. that he's a free thinker, and we're just all sheep. that's if he actually does believe the shit he's spouting and it isn't just a WUM. i hope it's the latter.
I often find that climate change deniers basically do so because they don't want to have to give up the lovely things they have. The lovely fast petrol car, their beautiful meat, the ease of plastic use. They'd rather deny (stupidly) that it's happening than succumb to the idea that they'll have to give up these things should it come to it.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf
That's the paper, by the way, if anyone is interested in reading it. Suffice it to say that @Mark Pawelek quoted from the introduction of a 30-page scientific paper, which has dozens of graphs and probably close to a hundred other scientific sources, written by four actual scientists, and he thinks he has disproved the entire thing by looking at a graph he found in a blog and thinking "hey, that goes up when it should go down".
They will really be kicking themselves when they hear that Mark off RedCafe has invalidated their several decades worth of combined education and research.
That's the paper, by the way, if anyone is interested in reading it. Suffice it to say that @Mark Pawelek quoted from the introduction of a 30-page scientific paper, which has dozens of graphs and probably close to a hundred other scientific sources, written by four actual scientists, and he thinks he has disproved the entire thing by looking at a graph he found in a blog and thinking "hey, that goes up when it should go down".
They will really be kicking themselves when they hear that Mark off RedCafe has invalidated their several decades worth of combined education and research.
Last edited:
I think it's more a social thing. People get stuck in these bubbles of people with the exact same opinion as them and start to identify with said opinion. Every differing opinion is a seen as a personal attack and has to be discredited. It's quite interesting really.
Another such case is our local far right dickstain Thierry Baudet. His party voted against the banning of gay conversion therapy together with a few conservative christian parties. Whilst also touting to be the party of intellectuals and freedom. The mental gymnastics his voters resort to to justify that is nothing short of hilarious.
I'm not saying that these bubbles are exclusive to conservatives of course. There's plenty of left wing nutjobs that do the same. It's just the lack of self awareness that makes it so silly. Especially the ones accusing others of groupthink.
And the other one is here for the record.
Hansen has a PNAS paper from 2012 which I believe was sort of controversial at the time, but I think he's just about been proved right in recent years. He's basically saying that a small increase in average temperature will give rise to a larger chance of extreme weather events.
There are still people who deny climate change?
Mark. Honestly. What's the game here?
You have displayed misunderstandings of basic facts and phraseology, either misunderstood how graphs, data and the scientific method work or pretended to and used deliberately provocative language all whilst trying to point score using sixth form debating techniques.
Do you want to actually talk about this subject and are you actually interested in exchanging ideas and debating? Or are you cobbling together bollocks that sounds plausible to you that you saw on some bullshit websites and then trying to defend it despite not having properly looked into or understood the issue?
It's tedious if it's the latter and you are welcome to continue to draw spurious conclusions based on politically motivated nonsense but you're unlikely to have a normal conversation anywhere outside of very particular aspects of the web. If it's the former, admit when you don't understand the science, don't use bullshit terms like "woke" which are red flag to people tired of trying to debate with nonsense and stop trying to pretend anyone thinks an (admirable and passionate as an aside) 12 year old is an expert. Although, frankly, I bet she's put more work into understanding this matter than you.
Last edited:
That actually highlights a very important point. Hansen could turn out to be completely wrong about something, without that then invalidating the entire field of climate science and disproving anthropogenic climate change. So it's pointless for someone to sit here trying to poke holes in individual hypotheses and theories. Mark is never going to have an "aha!" moment, where he finally brings the entire thing down, because the entire thing doesn't rely on James Hansen or any individual.
This is an insignificant effect. Like I said. Because oceans have 272 times the mass of atmosphere, and the heat capacity of water is 4 times that of air. Allowing oceans ~ 1050 times the heat storage capacity of the atmosphere. If heat is stored anywhere, it's in oceans.
Your basic climate warming model is wrong. James Hansen says:
This is the climate consensus explanation I'm quoting. Hansen said earth warms because less outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, emits to space. Is that true? What does the data say? That data says the more OLR was emitted to space since 1985 (since we've measured it).
Hansen's climate consensus explanation of how warming happens is contradicted by the facts.
Did you read the Dewitte & Clerbaux paper? Like, at all? Because it contradicts your argument in the introduction.
No. No he didn't.
The data supports my argument. Dewitte & Clerbaux cannot rewrite the data.
Climate change doesn't make sense if the earth is flat anyway.
Also, vaccinations are dangerous and 9/11 was fake.
Hansen is completely wrong. His model is completely wrong. It was never derived from data, as a good model should be. It cannot be validated or verified with respect to data. In fact when Ferenc Miskolczi proposed an alternative greenhouse gas effect model, derived from data, he is called a climate denier. He was forced to quit his job. His model is pronounced denial. Climate alarmists are today's Witchfinder Generals. Any chance the Spanish Inquisition will have an "aha" moment? Based on my experience, no. Fanatics don't have "aha" moments; they become ever more fanatical.
You just don't understand the data. It really is that simple. You think you're Galileo standing up against the Catholic Church, but in reality you're Jenny McCarthy standing up against a united scientific community. Although it wouldn't surprise me if you're an anti-vaccer on top of being a climate change denier, these things often go hand in hand. What else, though? Moon landing? UFO abductions? Lizard people?
Climate alarmists are today's Witchfinder Generals? Stop taking the piss Mark.
The irony is that he's very accurately describing his own situation, it's just that he thinks he's describing the other side. So close to self-awareness, and yet so far.
What is your day job?
From the intro:
Earth’s climate is determined by the Earth Radiation Budget (ERB). For a climate in equilibrium, the gain of energy from Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR) is in balance with the loss of energy through Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). Any perturbation of this radiative energy balance at the Top of Earth’s Atmosphere (TOA) is known as a radiative forcing, and is a driver of climate change. Compared to the pre-industrial period, the increase of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) primarily CO2 reduces the OLR; this represents a positive (heating) radiative forcing.
My emphasis in bold.
Can you see why you're misinterpreting the data yet?
Denier's guide to the galaxy:
Randomly assemble some technical terminology that appears to be clever. The really clever ones throw in a few equations and who could possibly argue with that? It is the favourite denial argument of engineers as it appears to have a hint of science attached to the denial. So by default the claim is that CO2 is a GHG, there is an increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels, that Earth has a natural balancing process leading to a small increase in temperature, but everything will be fine and 100 years of science is entirely wrong.
Randomly assemble some technical terminology that appears to be clever. The really clever ones throw in a few equations and who could possibly argue with that? It is the favourite denial argument of engineers as it appears to have a hint of science attached to the denial. So by default the claim is that CO2 is a GHG, there is an increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels, that Earth has a natural balancing process leading to a small increase in temperature, but everything will be fine and 100 years of science is entirely wrong.
Please take some time off to read up on the history and ideas of climatology. climate science is not anthropogenic climate change. "Anthropogenic climate change" is the invention of science activists like Hansen. It is neither science nor climate science. The explanation, I gave, of how the sun dominates earth's climate is climate science.
Prior to 2017:
Count of published papers featuring climate modeling is over 15,000.
Count of published papers of controlled experiments, measuring surface warming caused by carbon dioxide = 0.
Zero published science papers for anthropogenic climate change. 15,000 modeling papers.
In the world I live in controlled experiment = practical science.
Last edited:
Nah, man, good models can be made from first principles.
Said Ptolemy.
Indeed. His model was settled science for 1500 years. Surviving far longer than any other scientific model I know of.
Said any physicist ever.
Is there actually a mechanical force or is it just a name? I am not familiar with light radiation and/or heat.
You cannot make a single experiment measuring just the effect of CO2 on the average temperature because you cannot isolate it from the rest of the atmosphere. What you can do is study light-matter interactions and realise CO2 has a few different vibrational frequencies which resonate with radiation in the IR spectrum. By knowing that yes, CO2 does indeed absorb light, or energy, of certain frequencies and thus keeps it in the atmosphere for longer you can start measuring the atmospheric CO2 concentrations and correlate them with e.g. average temperature. If you do this long enough you get to the point where CO2 keeps correlating with the gradual warming whereas other things might not. In this way you can rule out some potential contributing factors and narrow it down to the important ones. In this case the CO2 concentration. Note that I'm certainly not saying nothing else can contribute (neither is anyone else) but CO2 is a big part of it. Sure water vapour also contributes very significantly to the greenhouse effect but what are you gonna do about that? CO2 we can limit.
It's not a mechanical force, it's just terminology. It's called a "forcing" because it shifts the climate in a particular direction.
climate in equilibrium - Your first fallacy
radiative forcing - Second fallacy.
radiative forcing ... is a driver of climate change - 3rd.
(GHG) primarily CO2 reduces the OLR - 4th fallacy.
Are any of your assumptions (1 to 4) derived from actual experiment or careful observation? I don't think so. I don't think you can post any experimental derivation, nor validation, for your mumbo jumbo, masquerading as science.
You realise that's not my words, but is copied from the paper that you presented but clearly haven't read?
That "first fallacy" is why you showing a plot of OLR since 1985 doesn't actually support your argument.
Maybe take a minute to think about it.
Okay, I thought so but just wanted to be sure. I think its a terrible name but just my opinion
.Climate religious fanatics are unable to do a single experiment measuring anything which supports their AGW metaphysics. They are modelers, speculators, word-smiths and political actors. Not scientists. Their expertise in back-stabbing other scientists whom they demonize as climate deniers far out-weight their skills in doing science experiments. I would not be surprised if they became modelers because they have no experimental skills.
If AWG, 'forcing', 'CO2 warms the surface', etc. were true it would all be supported by experimental evidence and unambiguous observation. None of it will be. I doubt the people promoting it know how to do controlled experiments. They do not believe in science; not science as I understand it = that science which from 1600, gave us unprecedented wealth and prosperity.
Can massive spikes in irony impact the climate?
The sun, and earth's relationships with the sun control our climate.
Well Mark, you see your points were in support of an alternative and unproven theory to do with solar radiation.
So I posted an accurate prediction, from a company not known for its green activism, made 40 years ago, which supports CO2 based global warming.
You do realise that the ability to make accurate predictions is why we prefer one theory over another, right?
If you are too obtuse to see the point there, there's no hope for you.
It's proven. You are the fools who believe in AGW climate forcing idea - which does not have a shred of evidence behind it.
You seem very angry. Maybe relax by taking 10 minutes to read the paper that you cited to support your assertions?