Unthreaded
Your first link is known in the trade as a Gish Gallop.
Feb 11, 2018 at 10:38 PM | Entropic man
Only by dishonest trrades.
golf charlie
Neither "climate scientists" nor entropic men concede that the "greenhouse effect" is due to lack of convection as distinct from suppressed radiation: what happens when greenhouse vents are opened?
On that same principle, on WUWT Willis Eisenbach is demonstrating the cooling effect of tropical storms which limit sea surface temperatures to 30C. Warmists dare not accept the trivial effect of CO2 - to do so would put 'em out of business.
Brent Hargreaves
"Don't believe anyone who tells you that you can take perfect measurements.
All measurements are estimates"
You manage to be patronising and irrelevant in two short sentences. Not all estimates are measurements.
DaveS
EM hasn't noticed because he doesn't read subversive literature.
Feb 11, 2018 at 5:07 PM | Supertroll
He does. Meanwhile, Phil Clarke also quotes Junior Hockey Team Science
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
"While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on"
Why "move on" from unbroken science?
At the same time, why do Climate Scientists fixate on proving/confirming the Hockey Stick? Simple, they get taxpayers money for it. Gergis proved it, twice! Nobody got a refund, and Peer Reviewed Gergis 2016 has not been withdrawn or retracted by Climate Science.
Climate Science is in Denial. They have no evidence to support their claims and salaries. I think Trump could cut expenditure by 97%, and the quality of Climate Science would improve, if they Ditch The Stick.
golf charlie
Radical rodent
Don't believe anyone who tells you that you can take perfect measurements.
All measurements are estimates
Your first link is known in the trade as a Gish Gallop. It is a long string of dubious and wrong statements designed to overwhelm a reader and stop them checking. I will treat it with the contempt it deserves.
Your second link is the old compressed atmosphere hypothesis. Pages on the Schrodinger's Cat GHG thread were spent explaining why this doesn't work. In case you have forgotten, there are two problems.
Firstly it doesn't generate enough energy. It produces a measurable effect on Jupiter, but rocky planets do not have enough atmosphere. Secondly, you can only do it once. Compress the atmosphere and it warms. Then the heat radiates to space and the planet's cools. You cannot produce sustained warming.
Entropic man
Feb 11, 2018 at 8:45 PM | Entropic man
Some kind of correlation between CO2 and temperature?
Proof that the Medievals burnt lots of coal, and then stopped would help.
Did the Industrial Revolution cause Arctic Ice to recede, allowing the Franklin Expedition in, never to be seen again, until their vessels were found in the last ten years?
The burden of proof lies with Climate Scientists, and all they have done is lie and cheat science and taxpayers. Try looking at Climate Science's imminent cash flow crisis from a different angle.
What proof will Trump now require, to continue to fund the UN's IPCC and US Climate Scientists, given the Democrats frauds and corruption since Climategate?
Without US Dollars, what will happen to Climate Science?
Will anyone notice, or even care?
The World does have genuine problems, that need cash to fix. Why waste money on non existent ones, that only emerge from flawed computer models being fed with dodgy dossiers of data?
golf charlie
Whoa, Gwen! Please, don’t hold back! Give it to them with both barrels – they have certainly asked for it! I – and, I suspect, many others – understand the frustration you feel as you try and knit the fog of minds locked into the mantra.
Entropic man – if you read the abstract carefully, in the first sentence you will find this: “…calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases." [my bolding] Do note: the word “estimates” does not make it a measurement, and it thus invalidates much of the rest of the paper as anything like evidence for what you adhere to.
In your second link: “They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.” So, rising CO2 levels from sources other than fossil fuel emissions don’t count? Eh-oh… As it is acknowledged that the human contribution to the rising CO2 is small, this is yet another assumption that should cast doubt upon the paper’s credibility. (The very next sentence is also highly contentious, but let’s not bother.)
You obviously continue to fail to understand that correlation does NOT necessarily mean causation; also, a closer correlation would be required to even consider any causation – while fossil-fuel consumption has soared away exponentially, CO2 rise plods along at much the same rate as it was, nearly 200 years ago; while CO2 has risen at a reasonably constant rate, temperatures have risen, fallen, risen and flat-lined, totally out of sync, one would have thought. Now, temperatures look to be on the verge of plummeting; what will be your argument should that be the case? (I would wager it you would still blame (western) man-made CO2, and fret about your grandchildren enduring a human-induced ice age.)
Anyway… here are two links for you to peruse:
https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-p-greenhouse-gas-theory-1980-2018/
https://principia-scientific.org/whats-really-going-on-with-venus-two-gas-planets-comparison/
I doubt you will bother, of course, but others will.
Radical Rodent
Feb 11, 2018 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered Commenter golf charlie
None of them have moved on. They are still following the advice of Steven Schneider from way back in 1978. Still stuck in the groove of the bullshit advice he gave then. Weeping like that F**K.W weepy Bill McKibben
here
Kleinefeldmaus
Ross lea
Enlighten me. What do you think evidence linking increasing CO2 and increasing global temperature would look like?
Entropic man
Poor debaters have a habit of throwing out accusations which projections of their own flaws
BTW .... EM quoted 2 links to proof of real world CO2 warming proof
The first was a Nature paper (which was paywalled)
- The second was a piece based on that Nature Paper
(Phys.org is not a journal or high science site. All it does is grab science stories and sticks adverts around them)
Saying "A measurement is the same as an estimate" is just trying to redefine language
..they are not the same thing.