Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[HikerGuy83]

... and the 500 calories per gram that takes ... it only takes 100 calories to bring a gram water from freezing to boiling ... and then 500 calories to boil that gram off, and none of these 500 calories has any effect on temperature ...

Unless that water condenses....then that heat (calories) are released to something and if there is not another phase change....then things will sensibly heat up.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Sorry, but that is clearly wrong.

What is wrong ?

Are you addressing his claims or the article in the OP ?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

I am not a fan of the AGW narrative.

However, for the purposes of this thread, did she argue that there is no AGW or just that the so-called "concensus" is manufactured ?

Like so many things, I believe the serious people get frustrated with the attention whores in any area. And that is what this sounds like. She'd like to conduct research without this crap....so that if she finds a counter narrative, she does not have to deal with the backlash.

I don't blame her.

But I didn't see her say no climate change. Did I miss something ?

It's implyed

 

[expat_panama]

.... and NOAA posts the average temperature ....

Please note that while the heading at the top of the page is "Climate Change: Global Temperature", and the heading at the top of the graph is "Global Average Surface Temperature", the label on the Y-axis says "Difference from 1901-2000 average". If you put a pan of water on the stove and I told you that I'd heat it up to a difference of 70 degrees, would it boil?

You don't know. That's why I don't know about AGW.

 

[task0778]

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming

There's a difference between saying that human activity is likely to be a cause of global warming and saying that it is THE cause for global warming. It seems logical to me that since the dawn of the industrial age we have begun to pollute the air and water more as human populations grew quite rapidly and many burned carbon-based fuels for heating and cooking. How much more though is pure speculation, and some people have used fear and hysteria to convince people that the problem is so catastrophic as to threaten the very existence of mankind. Which of course is nonsense, the human race is a very adaptable one that will find ways to deal with a changing environment. Unfortunately, humanity is also gullible and too many have accepted the premise that huge sums of money must be spent on programs and policies that are not proven to move the needle much if at all when to comes to reversing GW.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Sorry, but that is clearly wrong.

For example, there was no Northwest Passage through the Artic Ocean, from Europe to Asia, until 1997, when the Artic ice cap shrank about half its normal size in the summer.
That Northwest Passage had not existed for over 100,000 years before that.
And it was not just an extreme of a normal climate cycle, because the normal warming cycle was about 5,000 years ago, and it is supposed to be cooling off right now.
(There was a convoluted Northwest Passage by hugging the coastal river basins before, but that took 3 years to traverse.)

If you want another example, look at the history of the glaciers that used to be on top of Mt. Kilimanjaro.
The ice layers were over 100,000 years old, and now are all gone.

Nor is there any confusion about the science.
While there are stronger greenhouse gases then CO2, whether solar energy is retained or broadcast out of the earth's atmosphere is determined by the upper atmosphere fringe to space.
And it is only there that is matters.
And there is no water vapor there because it is too cold.
So it is only CO2 that turns radiant infrared photons into vibratory heat that can not conduct away into the vacuum of space.

Make sure you omit any natural occurrences.

 

[jc456]

Sure, and enslave black people again, right? ... so we can compete with China ...

It's the damn Commie/Nazi liberals who invented pull-down menus ... poor child ...

Blacks are enslaved by demofks today! Here of Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson? All enslaved, my solution frees them

 

[jc456]

Unless that water condenses....then that heat (calories) are released to something and if there is not another phase change....then things will sensibly heat up.

Except you can’t prove that! There’s that

 

[dudmuck]

There's a difference between saying that human activity is likely to be a cause of global warming and saying that it is THE cause for global warming. It seems logical to me that since the dawn of the industrial age we have begun to pollute the air and water more as human populations grew quite rapidly and many burned carbon-based fuels for heating and cooking. How much more though is pure speculation, and some people have used fear and hysteria to convince people that the problem is so catastrophic as to threaten the very existence of mankind. Which of course is nonsense, the human race is a very adaptable one that will find ways to deal with a changing environment. Unfortunately, humanity is also gullible and too many have accepted the premise that huge sums of money must be spent on programs and policies that are not proven to move the needle much if at all when to comes to reversing GW.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Except you can’t prove that! There’s that

If you mean I can't prove it happens in the environment....you are correct.

However, I can assure you it occurs (as a matter of thermodynamics).

 

[jc456]

If you mean I can't prove it happens in the environment....you are correct.

However, I can assure you it occurs (as a matter of thermodynamics).

No you can’t

 

[HikerGuy83]

No you can’t

Maybe we are not talking about the same thing.

What I am referencing is condensation.

In a distillation tower, a pure component will condense to the same temperature as the vapor that it started as. However, the cooling water used to condense that liquid will only realize sensible heat (no phase change) and will go up in temperature.

Maybe I am not reading what you are saying.

 

[HikerGuy83]

What we should worry more about is our vulnerability to hurricanes and floods and wildfires, and all of these kinds of hazardous events that have happened since time immemorial. Whether or not they get a tiny bit worse over the course of the century is less important than really figuring out how to deal with them now. If we are concerned about reducing our vulnerability, all the money that we spend thinking we’re reducing CO2 emissions, it could be applied to these other problems, such as better managing water resources, decreasing our vulnerability to extreme weather events and so on. So there are many more sensible things that we could be doing.

Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry

by Judith Curry My recent interview on the Strong and Free podcast.

judithcurry.com

Wow....

She makes some sense.

 

[ReinyDays]

Please note that while the heading at the top of the page is "Climate Change: Global Temperature", and the heading at the top of the graph is "Global Average Surface Temperature", the label on the Y-axis says "Difference from 1901-2000 average". If you put a pan of water on the stove and I told you that I'd heat it up to a difference of 70 degrees, would it boil?

You don't know. That's why I don't know about AGW.

That line is 13ºC ... so the pan on the stove would be ... on average ... 83ºC and not generally boiling ... so after 227 years of carbon pollution emissions, temperatures are up 0NE degree ... makes some wanna pee their knickers ... so the pan is now 84ºF and still not boiling ...

... and that's all you need to know about AGW ... that and plant a tree once a year for your entire life ...

No ... that 13ºC is not scientifically accurate ... other methods give different answers ... what most all methods agree on is that temperatures are up this ONE degree, and most of this has been in the past 40 years ... the sciency term is that the derivatives all agree, we don't care about the constants involved ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Unless that water condenses....then that heat (calories) are released to something and if there is not another phase change....then things will sensibly heat up.

Some water condenses in the upper half of the atmosphere ... and here there's more CO2 below the radiative energy source, and we'll see the Greenhouse Effect in reverse pushing the energy out into space ... how much is something that's currently being researched ...

Convection isn't a large portion of the energy flow ... but it does seem to be improving with temperature ... and is given as one possible explanation of Arctic Amplification (the poles are warming twice as fast as the equator) ... or maybe just another demonstration of how little we understand about the climate system ...

 

[jc456]

That line is 13ºC ... so the pan on the stove would be ... on average ... 83ºC and not generally boiling ... so after 227 years of carbon pollution emissions, temperatures are up 0NE degree ...

CO2 is not pollution.

 

[jc456]

Then learn ... www.weather.gov ... click around ...

there is no data, all the reports are unofficial. Here, take a listen.

 

[ReinyDays]

there is no data, all the reports are unofficial. Here, take a listen.

Is this a video of a pilot? ... because there's several industries that rely of weather forecasts ... they might be amazed there's no data ...

 

[jc456]

Is this a video of a pilot? ... because there's several industries that rely of weather forecasts ... they might be amazed there's no data ...

What it tells you is, there is no central data point for the globe. No Global data, PERIOD. And, why no one could ever pull a report for any one day on this planet for the global readings. Hilarious.

No one can say officially a day broke any fking record on heat or cold.

 

[HikerGuy83]

There's a difference between saying that human activity is likely to be a cause of global warming and saying that it is THE cause for global warming. It seems logical to me that since the dawn of the industrial age we have begun to pollute the air and water more as human populations grew quite rapidly and many burned carbon-based fuels for heating and cooking. How much more though is pure speculation, and some people have used fear and hysteria to convince people that the problem is so catastrophic as to threaten the very existence of mankind. Which of course is nonsense, the human race is a very adaptable one that will find ways to deal with a changing environment. Unfortunately, humanity is also gullible and too many have accepted the premise that huge sums of money must be spent on programs and policies that are not proven to move the needle much if at all when to comes to reversing GW.

Would not that be a great conversation to have !!!!

Do you know of anyone or any group that is trying to do that ?