Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[Crick]

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming, which is regularly supported by fact-check articles.

However, this slogan has been challenged by a number of prominent scientists over the years. Esteemed physicist and 2022 Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser recently stated he does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. Scientist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman also championed his belief that “there is no significant man-made global warming” before his death in 2018.

These statements are not challenging the existence of the consensus, fool.

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.” Published in over a hundred scientific papers, Curry’s decades-long research includes hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Where is her work on polling and surveys?

Curry argues this false slogan about an “overwhelming consensus” has been fueled by scientists who pursue “fame and fortune.” Scientists who study man-made global warming are more likely to be quoted in popular culture while receiving celebrity-like status and lucrative grants from the federal government.

Was that supposed to be something new?

This has created “climate hysteria” among the general public, it but isn’t believed by scientists like Curry.

Let's see. Thousands of active, published scientists accept the IPCC conclusions but early-retired, unemployed, inactive Curry, who has always been a denier and only gets published in denier sources, does not.

Comment:
The Left uses Climate Change fear to control dumb people.
There is no scientific consensus.
There is no climate crisis.

And your evidence is that Judith Curry made the above statement?

You people are like world champions at stupid.

 

[Crick]

The biggest mistake I see is when scientists say "surface", they don't mean a volume ... they mean a surface, one layer of molecules if you like ...

Have some balls and say it outright. Do you think science is unaware of the distinctions you're making here? Do you think they're trying to take advantage of it in some manner?

The Sun heats the Earth's surface, and it is this surface that heats the air ...

Solar irradiation is absorbed by the surface of the Earth because it is opaque. Solar irradiation goes much deeper into the oceans, ice and other partially transparent materials. And, of course, it is the surface of the Earth and the oceans that contact the air. You seem to be suggesting that you are correcting a mistaken assertion mainstream science has made. If so, please show us some examples of such assertions.

then buoyancy happens and we have Atmospheric Circulation) ... climatology attempts to "average out" the turbulence ...

It is TIME that averages out the turbulence. Studying climate is not a method of avoiding the behavior of weather.

This is simple and straight forward if we remember to treat statistical results like an annoyed tarantula ... very judicially ...

This is just another method applied by deniers in an impotent attempt to convince people not to trust mainstream science.

Really fucking pathetic.

 

[Crick]

The thing we learn in middle school science is that we can take a temperature of a surface but we can't put heat into it or take heat out of it. It's possible that the earth's surface is warming (tho I've yet to see the measurements) but the green house affect can't heat it up. We can only put heat into a mass. A surface is not a mass.

You're a fucking idiot if you think this semantic bullshit has any significance beyond supporting your badly (and deservedly) bruised ego.

 

[Crick]

... but the atmosphere does have mass ... and the more GHGs in the atmosphere, the higher the surface temperature ... which in turn heats the atmosphere and/or evaporates water ... I did mention this "surface" is about a centimeter thick in ocean water ... 71% of the Earth's surface ...

Are you having trouble Reiny? Your audience seems a little lost in your advanced technicalities. Make certain not to point out their laughable ignorance as you gently correct them.

 

[ReinyDays]

The satellites and balloons were the TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps.

Which satellite band are you using as a proxy for temperature? ... the government posts these to the internet in real time ...

Why do you think ... [giggle] ... the reported high by the NWS for Akron on May 23rd, 1927, is any different than the high reported by the Akron Sun-Times-Chronicle on May 24th, 1927? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

You're a fucking idiot if you think this semantic bullshit has any significance beyond supporting your badly (and deservedly) bruised ego.

Here's our resident expert on bruise egos ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... did you ever find out why the deep sea is 4ºC? ...

 

[Crick]

Here's our resident expert on bruise egos ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... did you ever find out why the deep sea is 4ºC? ...

Three different posts of mine in which I clearly explain why, you fucking idiot

Here is one paper investigating the possibility that they are due to the collapse of thermohaline circulation (THC) known in the Atlantic Ocean as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). High salinity water in North Atlantic cools and as it approaches maximum density (4C) it sinks several kilometers. A slow bottom flow then proceeds south and at the equator runs into a mirror image current coming from the southern pole. The two rise, bringing large amounts of dissolved nutrients to the surface at the equator. Warmed water slowly flows north (and south) to close the two loops. There is very little of such flow in the Pacific due to the low salinity of the water in the North Pacific. Even cooled to maximum density, it is not driven to sink. The difference between the behavior of the two basins has been recreated in a wide range of models. But there are strong indications that the current situation in the Atlantic is unstable and that it could be stopped altogether by a large input of fresh water, from melting ice in the Arctic and Greenland. Since this flow is responsible for the moderate temperature in Europe, the result would be catastrophic cooling there. That info is from the paper's abstract. Visit the link if you want more.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.97.4.1347 [PNAS = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

Here is another paper that reports on an spontaneous abrupt cooling that took place in a high resolution model with sensitive sea-ice modelling. The cooling lasted approximately one century and stopped as abruptly as it had started. I'll let them explain: "The event was simulated in the preindustrial control run of a high-resolution climate model, without imposing external perturbations. Initial cooling started with a period of enhanced atmospheric blocking over the eastern subpolar gyre. In response, a southward progression of the sea-ice margin occurred, and the sea-level pressure anomaly was locked to the sea-ice margin through thermal forcing. The cold-core high steered more cold air to the area, reinforcing the sea-ice concentration anomaly east of Greenland. The sea-ice surplus was carried southward by ocean currents around the tip of Greenland. South of 70°N, sea ice already started melting and the associated freshwater anomaly was carried to the Labrador Sea, shutting off deep convection. There, surface waters were exposed longer to atmospheric cooling and sea surface temperature dropped, causing an even larger thermally forced high above the Labrador Sea. In consequence, east of Greenland, anomalous winds changed from north to south, terminating the event with similar abruptness to its onset"

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1304912110

Here is a third paper that points out that "complex environmental systems are never in equilibrium" being constantly driven by oscillating inputs such as seasonal cycles, Milankovitch forcing and internal climate oscillations (ENSO, PDO, etc). This is a broader discussion than just the interglacial cycle but it does point out that under non-equilibrium conditions it is possible to have multiple alternative pseudo-stable states under identical forcing conditions between which a system can be "tipped" by small changes in external forcing. Abrupt Climate Change in an Oscillating World - Scientific Reports [Nature magazine]

If you don't understand what I said, you can ask me to explain it in private. If not, I can do it here.

Like every other fluid, if you take some room temperature water and start to chill it, it shrinks; its density increases. Unlike almost every other fluid, though, when it begins to approach its freezing point, it turns it about due to the shape of its molecules, and starts to expand again. The greatest density for water occurs at 4C (about 40F). It has to get below 4C before it starts losing density and floats back up. Once it freezes, it becomes much lighter and really floats. Now the salt in seawater lowers its freezing point to -1.8C and the top several hundred feet of ocean has to get to that temperature before ice will start forming at the surface. The relatively warmer 4C water sinks to the bottom. If anyone ever asks you what is the temperature at the bottom of the ocean, you can pretty confidently reply "Why, 4C of course".

So, warm water from some northward current like the Gulfstream or the Kurushio pushes up near the poles. The weather is very cold up there and it chills the water. When it gets down near 4C, it starts to sink. A great deal of it will sink all the way to the bottom. Once it is there, it will find that more 4C water is coming down from above and it has to get out of the way. That bottom water eventually gets pushed towards the poles. It is very slow but very broad. And being as cold as it is, it is carrying about as much oxygen as water can carry. That oxygen is good for deepwater fish. And as it flows along it will pick up dissolved minerals and organics that have fallen to the bottom from dying phyoplankton and zooplankton. That will come in handy at the next phase. When this water reaches the equator, it runs into a mirror current coming from the other pole. When the two currents collide, they've got nowhere to go but up. They upwell at the equator bringing oxygen, minerals and organics that feed the plankton there. That plankton is the base of the food chain for all the marine life in the tropics.

So, in case you hadn't heard this, but when ice freezes, the salt is forced out - the ice is fresh water. And, in Antarctica, Greenland and anywhere that glaciers slide into the sea, that ice forms originally from snowfall and so, of course, is also fresh. So, what happens when a lot of that ice melts. Well, it starts diluting the salt water and that lowers its density. It will still hit maximum density before it freezes, but there will not be as large a density difference with deeper water and the flow of that thermohaline current will slow and could even stop.

Slow or stop that rich upwelling at the Equator and you will see massive losses of fish and marine life. This will lead to widespread population loss in the oceans and a significant loss of human food as well.

Because I think that having taken 15 semester hours of oceanographic topics on my way to a BSc in Ocean Engineering and having worked my entire professional life in the field, there's an excellent chance I know oceanographic topics far better than do you.

At what temperature does water achieve maximum density? How did that 4C water get to the bottom? What happens at the equator?

A while back, in attempting to explain why you spoke to me without hostility on a post in your own thread, you claimed that you judged these things on a case by case basis of some sort. But given your frequent insults of my intelligence - as you have done here - with no cause whatsoever, the claim that you are making any sort of fact-based judgement simply fails.

So, your conclusion, that of someone who feels they have sufficient expertise in science that folks should listen to what you have to say, is that the greenhouse effect has very little effect on ocean heat content. Is that correct?

 

[expat_panama]

... but the atmosphere does have mass ... and the more GHGs in the atmosphere, the higher the surface temperature ... which in turn heats the atmosphere and/or evaporates water ... I did mention this "surface" is about a centimeter thick in ocean water ... 71% of the Earth's surface ...

The mass of the ocean is almost a thousand times that of the atmosphere--

• Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10 18 kg
• Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10 21 kg

--and I understand that most folks into this climate stuff say that hundreds of meters of ocean are heating. If you've heard different I'd be grateful if you'd share your source.

 

[ReinyDays]

The mass of the ocean is almost a thousand times that of the atmosphere--

• Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10 18 kg
• Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10 21 kg

--and I understand that most folks into this climate stuff say that hundreds of meters of ocean are heating. If you've heard different I'd be grateful if you'd share your source.

[smile] ... thank you for doing your home work ... things get A LOT worse when we consider it takes four times the energy to heat water 1ºC than dry air ...

Only the top meter is important to the radiative physics ... and only the top centimeter for our convective forces in the atmosphere ... of course the energy will be conducting down the water column, but that tends to be very slow ...

"Hundreds of meters" ??? ... sheesh ... 60% of Earth's entire surface is covered by 5,000 meters of water {WikiCite} ... so only the top 1.4 x 10^20 kg of water? ...

My source is a class I took many many years ago ... and just following the weather closely these past 50 years ... and I think you nailed this controversy to the cross ... you are absolutely right that all this water is stopping climate change, the atmosphere can't warm without warming the oceans ... and it's going to take more than this pissy little bit of forcing to warm the oceans very much ...

Titanium dioxide is what kills coral reefs ... and mammal urine ...

 

[jc456]

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."

Same with our problems. Everyone wants them solved but no one wants to lift a finger in the effort.

you all have never stated the problem. can't solve something you don't know about.

 

[jc456]

Please post your data ... a link is fine ... thanx in advance ...

Tell us again which satellite band you're using for a proxy for temperature ...

why don't you show the global readings.

 

[Woodznutz]

you all have never stated the problem. can't solve something you don't know about.

Problem: Illegal immigration.
Solution: Finish the wall and guard it.

Problem: Cyber bullying.
Solution: Don't log onto social media.

Problem: Obesity.
Solution: Don't eat so much.

Problem: Debt.
Solution: Stop borrowing money.

Problem: Alcoholism, drug addiction.
Solution: Check into rehab.

Problem: Drug trafficking.
Solution: Lock up the addicts and users.

Problem: Low income.
Solution: Second job, or better job.

Problem: Teachers quitting.
Solution: Expel troublesome students. Fire liberal administrators. Elect conservatives to school boards.

Problem: Cops quitting.
Solution: Lock up criminals.

Problem: Poor health.
Solution: Take better care of yourself.

Problem: High food costs.
Solution: Cook more.

Problem: Unwanted pregnancy.
Solution: Use birth control products. Don't have unprotected sex when you are fertile (note to gals, guys are always fertile).


See how easy this is.

 

[jc456]

Problem: Illegal immigration.
Solution: Finish the wall and guard it.

Problem: Cyber bullying.
Solution: Don't log onto social media.

Problem: Obesity.
Solution: Don't eat so much.

Problem: Debt.
Solution: Stop borrowing money.

Problem: Alcoholism, drug addiction.
Solution: Check into rehab.

Problem: Low income.
Solution: Second job, or better job.

Problem: Teachers quitting.
Solution: Expel troublesome students. Fire liberal administrators.

Problem: Cops quitting.
Solution: Lock up criminals.


See how easy this is.

Sure so what is the climate problem, I see you avoided that easy one!

Hahaha con job caught

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's China's way of driving the US economy into the dirt.

They build 2 new coal plants each and every week and the USA is expected to pay the price. You can tell who works for the CCP at USMB by their dire AGW posts

 

[Woodznutz]

Sure so what is the climate problem, I see you avoided that easy one!

Hahaha con job caught

That is easy. Just reduce your carbon footprint. Actually, addressing those other problems would greatly reduce GHG emissions.

 

[jc456]

That is easy. Just reduce your carbon footprint. Actually, addressing those other problems would greatly reduce GHG emissions.

Why, you didn’t state the problem

 

[Flash]

To get back to full scientific consensus, those who have spoken out will now be defunded, cancelled, and sacked.

Moon Bats don't any more about Climate Science than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

Firing those that disagree with them is a great way to get consensus.

 

[ReinyDays]

why don't you show the global readings.

These are the values NOAA comes up with ... and follow the links for their methodology ...

 

[ReinyDays]

That is easy. Just reduce your carbon footprint. Actually, addressing those other problems would greatly reduce GHG emissions.

Why, you didn’t state the problem

This is the solution to the problem of PAYING TOO MUCH FOR ENERGY ... if you're made of money, then don't bother reducing your carbon footprint ... for everyone else, decide your own balance and remember:

Conservative saves money ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Problem: Illegal immigration.
Solution: Finish the wall and guard it.

Problem: Cyber bullying.
Solution: Don't log onto social media.

Problem: Obesity.
Solution: Don't eat so much.

Problem: Debt.
Solution: Stop borrowing money.

Problem: Alcoholism, drug addiction.
Solution: Check into rehab.

Problem: Drug trafficking.
Solution: Lock up the addicts and users.

Problem: Low income.
Solution: Second job, or better job.

Problem: Teachers quitting.
Solution: Expel troublesome students. Fire liberal administrators. Elect conservatives to school boards.

Problem: Cops quitting.
Solution: Lock up criminals.

Problem: Poor health.
Solution: Take better care of yourself.

Problem: High food costs.
Solution: Cook more.

Problem: Unwanted pregnancy.
Solution: Use birth control products. Don't have unprotected sex when you are fertile (note to gals, guys are always fertile).


See how easy this is.

Problem: Manmade global warming
Solution: have the biggest emitter, China (double USA CO2) cut their output in half