Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Yeah, "Koutsoyannis makes no claim about the cause of warming", but your No Tricks Zone QUACKERY article sure didn't see it that way. Here's what the Royal Society has to say about causality of Co2 and Temperature. Careful, this is real science - it could be hazardous to your denial.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2022.0529



(1) above is the Koutsoyannis proposed causality detection methodology.

 

And I am about as far from being a "denier" as you can get, which is a huge fail for you.

 

*facepalm*

We can talk about what I had already mentioned multiple times. The decay of organic material that had been trapped in permafrost for tens of thousands of years. That is a hell of a place to start right there. Also there is simply the increased CO2 caused by human activities. Like agriculture, animals we keep as pets and eat, and a ton of other things related to humans but not related directly to fossil fuel use.

Why do you think I keep mentioning over and over again that the only actual way to lower CO2 levels to the degree that so many claim to want would involve killing 75% of the humans on the planet? What, do you think I was kidding about that? Globally, the CO2 footprint of a human is over 4 tons per year. That is over 32 billion tons. If you really care so much, you had better start thinking of ways to drastically reduce the human population. Because otherwise you are just whistling in the dark.

 

All good points. Thanks for the historical/paleontological tour. Interestingly though, to take Australian East Coast examples that I know dear to heart, while some people do like far north tropical Cairns, given the choice the prime real estate is over a thousand miles south in subtropical Brisbane, Byron Bay and further south (i.e. cooler in the southern hemisphere). I'm guessing Africans have less choice in that matter and that type of migration would take them over a pesky national border. Do you think it's purely a coincidence that cool South Africa has ended up being the most developed country in sub-saharan Africa?

There are lifestyle changes as well to note with modern humans. Most people wear some kind of clothing thar covers most of their body, we prefer to live in insulated houses with roofs and we seem to be a lot busier. In terms of energy input, we don't seem to have either issue with or motivation to undertake 'inputting energy' multiple times a day. Some people even enjoy this burden

 

I have no idea. You keep bringing it up.

As far as I know, it isn't happening.

 

Here's a video I just came across which maintains that the climate is changing but that it's a natural change that's not being caused by people.

Climate The Movie



I found it here.

Video: Climate – The Cold Truth. The Massive Scam which Promotes Global Warming / Climate Change
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-climate-cold-truth/5854501


What was said seemed to make sense but I didn't like the end of the movie. It said that it was okay to keep on producing goods at the present rate without discussing the other problems that all that production cause such as pollution and the damage caused by plastic in the environment.


This is a good companion video which shows more of the big picture.

Planned Obsolescence documentary - The Light Bulb Conspiracy (2010) RENT / BUY TO MORE GREAT WORK



The first video seemed to make a good argument that the rise in temperature and the increase in CO2 is natural but I'm new to this issue so I'm not taking a firm stand.

 

The connection is obvious.

 

You asked for peer-reviewed research and you got it. The fact that the result undermines the current consensus makes it more, not less interesting.
“The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly. Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong. . . . There is no other effective way in which discoveries might be generated.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

The fly rarely has a good word for the swatter.
What the critics can't get away from is the isotope signature pointing toward natural processes and away from human activity.
“In science, as in the playing card experiment, novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

The fly rarely has a good word for the swatter.
What the critics can't get away from is the isotope signature pointing toward natural processes and away from human activity.
“In science, as in the playing card experiment, novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

It has been observed for a long time that CO2 increase lags temperature increase.
Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
". . . one generally sees in the ice cores that CO2 lags the temperature by typically a few hundred years, not vice versa! . . ."

 

The temperature/CO2 graph is merely an illustration of how to make visual impact by artful scaling of a graph.

 

The temperature/TSI graph is merely an obsolete propaganda presentation. Try something more recent for TSI.
Solar Irradiance - Forcings in GISS Climate Model

NASA GISS Data (.gov)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov › modelforce › solar.irradiance

Jun 26, 2018 — Kopp, G., and J. L. Lean, 2011: A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 38, ...

More recently updates to TSI and spectral irradiance have been based on new calibration of the solar 'constant' to ~1361 W/m2 (Kopp and Lean, 2011). (Note this does not yet include updates for the recalibration of the group sunspot number (Clete et al., 2015)).


CMIP5 data available for download here (TXT file with 190 spectral bands, 850-2000).

Post-CMIP5 data available for download here (TXT file with 190 spectral bands, 1610-2014).

 

I asked a question. You provided an answer. I appreciate that.

 

So what motivates you to ask why I said something I didn't say?

 

Right. One big one would be to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

It's a Mitty thing.

 

You just can't resist makin' $#!+ up, can you? I neither collected the data nor performed the statistical analysis on it, as you know perfectly well. My arguments are about the scientific logic of climate claims and the causal mechanisms involved.

Sure I can. If by "recent" you mean the last couple of years (temperatures had been declining, not increasing, for several years before that), I can point out the facts that:

1. the sun unexpectedly became unusually active starting about two years ago, although astrophysicists had expected Solar Cycle 25 to be a quiet one;
2. La Nina became El Nino last year; and
3. two years ago, the Hunga Tonga undersea volcano injected >140MT of water vapor into the stratosphere, suddenly boosting the "greenhouse" effect there; volcanoes on land and above the ocean surface inject mostly SO2 into the stratosphere, which has a cooling effect because it forms reflective particles.

There you go again, just makin' $#!+ up...

Do you actually know how to do anything else? We know you have no science education above the high school level, despite your transparently false claim to hold a PhD in plant physiology. You don't get a PhD in science, not even in plant science, without demonstrating at least a passing acquaintance with scientific methodology, which you self-evidently and indisputably do not possess and never have.

<yawn> What do you mean by "recent"? From the early 1940s to the early 1970s, atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperatures moved sharply in opposite directions. Temperature records have been retroactively falsified to remove the inconvenient truth of that cooling trend, but people who were actually alive at the time remember it well. There were even scientific conferences on the alarming global cooling trend.

 

I think there may be another factor: modern farming methods have dramatically reduced the topsoil thickness in many locations. This represents removal of billions of tons of organic matter from the soil. Most of the carbon likely ended up in the atmosphere. Where else could it have gone?

 

Why do you always feel you have to just make $#!+ up? Don't you have any honest comments to contribute?

I already explained to you why those graphs are disingenuous nonscience, and you have not even attempted to defend them.

That's like asking what on earth the historical record of seasonal temperature change has to do with the cause of the recent increases in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

An oldie but a goodie:

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

Fig. 1: Correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate. Nope, it is not proof that CO2 is a major climate driver, since CO2 can be driven by temperature changes. Specifically, warmer oceans requires larger atmospheric partial pressures of CO2 to contain the dissolved gas in them. Of course, some of the temperature could be the result of CO2 amplifications, but there is no way of knowing what fraction.
Of course, the beautiful correlation between CO2 reconstructions and temperature on Earth over the multi-millennial time scale, as it apparent in the figure, is often used to demonstrate how CO2 plays a role in large climate variations. This often misleads the laymen to believe that CO2 is the climate driver, whereas in fact it could be the opposite, that the global temperature affects the equilibrium levels of CO2. In reality it could be somewhere in between, that CO2 is affected by the temperature and that it in turn causes a larger temperature variation. Just by itself, however, this correlation cannot be used to quantify the effect of CO2 on the climate, which could be anywhere from no effect to all the effect. Thus, it is no proof that CO2 is the main cause of the variations over the 20th century. There is no such evidence. . . .

Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming. . . .

 

Actually, there is: the leading and lagging correlation coefficients. I.e., you can calculate the correlation coefficient between CO2 at time T0 and temperature at time T0, T1, T2, etc. and also times T-1, T-2, etc. It turns out that CO2 is much more strongly correlated with previous than with subsequent temperatures (the maximum correlation is typically with temperatures several centuries before), proving that the effect of temperature on CO2 is much greater than the effect of CO2 on temperature. And we can calculate the effect of temperature on CO2 because we know exactly how temperature affects its solubility in seawater.

 

I'll defer to you on that.

 

An MDPI 'special edition'.

For context, here's a bit about MDPI:

MDPI is known for aggressively spamming academics to edit special issues, often in fields that are far away from the expertise of the recipient of the frequent and insisting emails. Twitter is full of colleagues complaining that they get several invitations per week to contribute to journals they didn’t know existed and that lie outside of their domains....

https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/


_________________

Still others tried different strategies. Some tried annoying university officials with numerous emails and letters, often sent as PDF attachments, with fancy letterhead, informing the university how I was hurting its reputation. They kept sending the emails to the university chancellor and others, hoping to implement the heckler’s veto. They tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop. The publisher MDPI used this strategy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5493177/


_______________

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org...volume-at-mdpi-and-frontiers-the-1b-question/



critics suggesting it sacrifices editorial and academic rigor in favor of operational speed and business interests...

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/#comments

"I also think it’s important to mention the special issue model that MDPI uses. This effectively outsources paper acquisition and editing work to guest editors and their networks. This also helps to explains the growth IMO."

MDPI is like the McDonalds of publishing. They push reviewers with a 7 day deadline (fastest in the industry as far as I know) and send a lot of reminder emails. Their production values are pretty budget and 95% is done by the authors when using their Word template (proofs are also in Word).

"I’ve published in an MDPI journal and reviewed at a few – most reviews are not very rigorous and I personally don’t put a lot of effort in when reviewing for MDPI because I know that even if I recommend reject it will come back for revisions. It doesn’t matter if none of the numbers add up, the paper will get up.

So like fast food it’s fine occasionally but not a good idea to go there all the time."
________________


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies

__________

There's more but that'll do.

@Bowerbird

 

And what are the credentials of "The Scholarly Kitchen"?