XF Forum banner

1 - 20 of 274 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I can see yet another thread developing. :)
"Nuclear winter", whatever that may mean, is to be averted by the election of Trump, or more specifically the non-election of Clinton, according to this thread non-starter.

The inference that the globe is to experience a return of the Maunder Minimum, thought to be causally connected to the period of global cooling entitled "the little ice age", appears to have been erroneously connected to the CAGW theory. The two cannot be connected. Both cannot be the causes of the observed temperatures.

The precise mechanisms for these startling non sequiturs remain unexplained. Please don't provoke any further analysis of this inane assertion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
"Nuclear winter", whatever that may mean, is to be averted by the election of Trump, or more specifically the non-election of Clinton, according to this thread non-starter.

The inference that the globe is to experience a return of the Maunder Minimum, thought to be causally connected to the period of global cooling entitled "the little ice age", appears to have been erroneously connected to the CAGW theory. The two cannot be connected. Both cannot be the causes of the observed temperatures.

The precise mechanisms for these startling non sequiturs remain unexplained. Please don't provoke any further analysis of this inane assertion.
There are two different winters being referred to by BMWrep, the potential nuclear winter being avoided by electing Putin's chum thus avoiding a nuclear war (which is obviously nonsense), and the ice age winter which is just nonsense and comes from reading only a very select part of the internet, which has no connection with reality or science or indeed reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
There are two different winters being referred to by BMWrep, the potential nuclear winter being avoided by electing Putin's chum thus avoiding a nuclear war (which is obviously nonsense), and the ice age winter which is just nonsense and comes from reading only a very select part of the internet, which has no connection with reality or science or indeed reason.
Gosh, thanks. How would I follow all this complicated stuff without you.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
22,463 Posts
I am so pleased that, albeit several threads late, we have this one. :)
I have read so much rubbish from climate deniers and those that ignore rising temperatures and so on and now I can let you fight among yourselves :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I am so pleased that, albeit several threads late, we have this one. :)
I have read so much rubbish from climate deniers and those that ignore rising temperatures and so on and now I can let you fight among yourselves :)
What rising temperatures would those be? From 1850?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
No I'm not. Yes they do, no we're not. Yes they have. Nothing to do with "closed vessel in a lab". No it's not. NO one mentioned an "amplification effect". Yes we have.
You are. Orbital theory is different from both cosmic ray theory (sunspots) and CAGW theory (CO2 forcing).

The absorption of IRR by CO2 is well known. In a closed glass vessel it produces a very modest increase in temperature. There is no evidence that this effect occurs in the atmosphere. The IRR is absorbed by the air but there is no mechanism to increase the atmospheric temperature as a result of this absorption. That is a deduced effect for which there is no direct evidence.

Furthermore, the deduced effect is further compounded by the idea that the deduced modest effect we know of is amplified by other so called greenhouse gases, principally water vapour. Without this presumed amplification none of this CAGW theory works at all.

Check it out, this information, or rather lack of information, is readily available.

Facts: measured average global temperature has not changed detectably for about 30 years now. Any purported measurements show changes less than the margin of error for the measurements and resulting calculations. Scientifically speaking, CAGW has not yet been detected let alone to the extent requiring explanation. The paleontological record shows past temperature fluctuations calculated to be in excess of anything apparent today even assuming the measurements and calculations might be correct. The CO2 record still shows a reverse correlation with temperature despite significant efforts to process the data to show otherwise.

Over to you now: what are your facts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
I am so pleased that, albeit several threads late, we have this one. :)
I have read so much rubbish from climate deniers and those that ignore rising temperatures and so on and now I can let you fight among yourselves :)
Just one rubbish quote from a denier who is also a scientist, any kind of scientist will suffice*, would be nice. Since you'll be selecting from such a rich seam of rubbish according to your own claim this ought to be child's play.

* Donald Trump is a denier without any scientific training, or I suspect any scientific knowledge and is therefore disqualified, for example. Just one rubbish assertion of alleged fact will do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I am very clear in my mind, others may be in some difficulty:)
Clarity of thought is common in those suffering from hallucinations also, take no comfort from that. Indeed, given the pace of acquisition of scientific knowledge you should never achieve clarity of mind on any scientific topic, just in case.

You do realize that nobody has proved the globe is heating up let alone by how much. The energy budget calculation underpinning the CAGW hypothesis ( heat in minus heat out equals a positive number, heat raises temperature, therefore temperature is rising) is just speculation since the satellites employed to derive the quantities cannot measure the heat. A new set of satellites is being launched that can measure the radiation balance accurately, or do it is hoped. Those will start delivering real facts over the next five years or so. Then we'll know.

The energy budget is estimated to be some positive number but no correlating temperature rise can be observed. So, the latest adjustment is to deduce the "extra heat" is going into the ocean, except when we look for it there no extra heat can be found. So, the warmistas postulate that the extra heat can be absorbed by the ocean without raising its temperature....which of course relies on there being no global warming at all unless we are redefining what "warming" means (tip, it means an increase in measured temperature).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Have you read this?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why[/QUOTE] I suspect he is a climate denier per se (it's always the physicists). He start off with a nicely rehearsed scientific scepticism riff, which sounds reasonable, but he freely admits later on that even if the models worked he wouldn't be happy although this is good enough for a theory to be useful in physics. Then he plonks in some numbers which don't support warming. Unfortunately for him in the years since 2012 the only way is up on temperatures. Whatsupwiththat is a denier blog so anyone on there will be a denier. Doesn't make them wrong but we can surely be suspicious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Have you read this?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why I suspect he is a climate denier per se (it's always the physicists). He start off with a nicely rehearsed scientific scepticism riff, which sounds reasonable, but he freely admits later on that even if the models worked he wouldn't be happy although this is good enough for a theory to be useful in physics. Then he plonks in some numbers which don't support warming. Unfortunately for him in the years since 2012 the only way is up on temperatures. Whatsupwiththat is a denier blog so anyone on there will be a denier. Doesn't make them wrong but we can surely be suspicious.[/QUOTE] What on earth is a denier? I'm a flat earth denier, for the record. How about a link to some proven climate facts? For a start, how about proving that more energy is reaching the earth's surface than is radiating away? The earth's energy budget. Try and find those facts. Can't be done. You can get a Mickey Mouse pictograph showing how we could calculate it if we had the data, but those all assume the input data are correct. We don't know the correct input data. How about proving that the average global temperature is in fact rising? Can't be done. The measurements are subject to errors exceeding the calculated results. The list of nothings goes on and on. The GCM produce, frankly, garbage which bears no rational relationship to reality. So called deniers are simply stating facts. Warmistas are religious zealots paying lip service to the rigorous requirements of science. WE DON'T KNOW WHATS GOING ON!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
What on earth is a denier?

I'm a flat earth denier, for the record.

How about a link to some proven climate facts?

For a start, how about proving that more energy is reaching the earth's surface than is radiating away? The earth's energy budget. Try and find those facts. Can't be done. You can get a Mickey Mouse pictograph showing how we could calculate it if we had the data, but those all assume the input data are correct. We don't know the correct input data.

How about proving that the average global temperature is in fact rising? Can't be done. The measurements are subject to errors exceeding the calculated results.

The list of nothings goes on and on.

The GCM produce, frankly, garbage which bears no rational relationship to reality.

So called deniers are simply stating facts. Warmistas are religious zealots paying lip service to the rigorous requirements of science.

WE DON'T KNOW WHATS GOING ON!
With regard to "denier" I was merely responding to Tennant's assertion that the linked article wasn't by a CAGW denier, when it clearly was. The term is now in widespread use and everyone else knows what it means. What's GCM?
 
1 - 20 of 274 Posts
Top