Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Bubba]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate ... doscience/

[Coydog]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

He's not a climatologist, but another octogenarian PhD (granted, Nobel prize winner in quantum physics for work done in the 70's) pontificating on an area of science way outside of his expertise. His main thesis seems to be because plants require CO2, our ever increasing release of it into the atmosphere is beneficial.

We just had our second “500 year” flood in 12 years right here in Vermont. By applying his Nobel laureate logic, we can rest easy since plants need water, all the flooding up and down the state must also be beneficial.

[Mister Moose]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

He's not a climatologist, but another octogenarian PhD (granted, Nobel prize winner in quantum physics for work done in the 70's) pontificating on an area of science way outside of his expertise. His main thesis seems to be because plants require CO2, our ever increasing release of it into the atmosphere is beneficial.

We just had our second “500 year” flood in 12 years right here in Vermont. By applying his Nobel laureate logic, we can rest easy since plants need water, all the flooding up and down the state must also be beneficial.

Are you certain 4 inches in an hour is a 500 year event?

[Stormchaser]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

He's not a climatologist, but another octogenarian PhD (granted, Nobel prize winner in quantum physics for work done in the 70's) pontificating on an area of science way outside of his expertise. His main thesis seems to be because plants require CO2, our ever increasing release of it into the atmosphere is beneficial.

We just had our second “500 year” flood in 12 years right here in Vermont. By applying his Nobel laureate logic, we can rest easy since plants need water, all the flooding up and down the state must also be beneficial.

Are you certain 4 inches in an hour is a 500 year event?

A 500-year storm and a 500-year flood are not the same thing.

Storm events are based on intensity of rainfall. Flood events are based on extent of flooding. (A 50-year rainstorm, could produce a 500-year flood under certain conditions.)

4" in an hour in central Vermont is a 500-year storm event...or more accurately...4" of r*in in an hour has a likely occurrence of 0.2% annually.

[Big Bob]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

He's not a climatologist, but another octogenarian PhD (granted, Nobel prize winner in quantum physics for work done in the 70's) pontificating on an area of science way outside of his expertise. His main thesis seems to be because plants require CO2, our ever increasing release of it into the atmosphere is beneficial.

We just had our second “500 year” flood in 12 years right here in Vermont. By applying his Nobel laureate logic, we can rest easy since plants need water, all the flooding up and down the state must also be beneficial.

Are you certain 4 inches in an hour is a 500 year event?

A 500-year storm and a 500-year flood are not the same thing.

Storm events are based on intensity of rainfall. Flood events are based on extent of flooding. (A 50-year rainstorm, could produce a 500-year flood under certain conditions.)

4" in an hour in central Vermont is a 500-year storm event...or more accurately...4" of r*in in an hour has a likely occurrence of 0.2% annually.

4" of r*in an hour would equate to 40" of snow per hour at a 10:1 ratio! Holy Sh*t!!

[Rez]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

He's not a climatologist, but another octogenarian PhD (granted, Nobel prize winner in quantum physics for work done in the 70's) pontificating on an area of science way outside of his expertise. His main thesis seems to be because plants require CO2, our ever increasing release of it into the atmosphere is beneficial.

We just had our second “500 year” flood in 12 years right here in Vermont. By applying his Nobel laureate logic, we can rest easy since plants need water, all the flooding up and down the state must also be beneficial.

His main thesis per article says nothing about the benefits of CO2 to plant growth but talks about something very different. Where did you read his thesis is based on the CO2 photosynthesis relationship and benefits to plant growth?

[rogman]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate ... doscience/

Your point continues to be that until we have 100% buy in from every scientist living and dead, we can safely ignore the problem.

[Bubba]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate ... doscience/

Your point continues to be that until we have 100% buy in from every scientist living and dead, we can safely ignore the problem.

Actually, I made no point, nor have I ever said do nothing and ignore the issue.

[rogman]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate ... doscience/

Your point continues to be that until we have 100% buy in from every scientist living and dead, we can safely ignore the problem.

Actually, I made no point, nor have I ever said do nothing and ignore the issue.

Oh puhleeze. You only quote denialist piffle. Can you point to any of your posts that have suggested otherwise; that maybe we have a problem that should be taken seriously? But I do applaud your attempt to troll.

[Mister Moose]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate ... doscience/

Your point continues to be that until we have 100% buy in from every scientist living and dead, we can safely ignore the problem.

I'll settle for theory that looks good in the 10-20 year rear view mirror. What if we continue to study the climate, tone down the doomsday talk, and plan on adapting to the changes instead of a one country one solution carbon only approach? <Googling 'piffle' now.>

[Bubba]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate ... doscience/

Your point continues to be that until we have 100% buy in from every scientist living and dead, we can safely ignore the problem.

Actually, I made no point, nor have I ever said do nothing and ignore the issue.

Oh puhleeze. You only quote denialist piffle. Can you point to any of your posts that have suggested otherwise; that maybe we have a problem that should be taken seriously? But I do applaud your attempt to troll.

If you can find one post where I either denied the existence of climate change or said to ignore it, I’ll be happy to discuss it with you. If not, take your piffle and

[Rez]

Rogman didn't even read the article and can't accept that maybe the current climate change (the climate has always changed) isn't headed for catastrophe.

[rogman]

Rogman didn't even read the article and can't accept that maybe the current climate change (the climate has always changed) isn't headed for catastrophe.

Actually I did. Premise is that the increase in CO2 ultimately results in more white clouds reflecting sunlight back into space the net result being no change in the earth’s overall energy balance. Granted, modeling that effect is non trivial, however even a passing understanding of feedback systems makes it obvious that the results won’t actually cancel.

The “climate has always changed” argument is tired. The reasons are well understood because of science has provided the answers. Truth is the climate and the sea level have been stable for about 6000 years. That’s actually a bit unusual. The very recent rate of sea level rise should be concerning to anyone with children or grandchildren.

It’s a bit of a moot point. Insurance companies rates for coastal regions are going to make certain areas untenable long term. It’s already happening.

[Coydog]

NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”

He's not a climatologist, but another octogenarian PhD (granted, Nobel prize winner in quantum physics for work done in the 70's) pontificating on an area of science way outside of his expertise. His main thesis seems to be because plants require CO2, our ever increasing release of it into the atmosphere is beneficial.

We just had our second “500 year” flood in 12 years right here in Vermont. By applying his Nobel laureate logic, we can rest easy since plants need water, all the flooding up and down the state must also be beneficial.

His main thesis per article says nothing about the benefits of CO2 to plant growth but talks about something very different. Where did you read his thesis is based on the CO2 photosynthesis relationship and benefits to plant growth?

It's one of the primary positions of the CO2 Coalition, along with the notion that past geological sequestering of CO2 lowered concentrations to the detriment of plants and humankind's subsequent combustion of fossil fuels is thus a benefit. Clauser recently joined the CO2 Coalition as a board member, so as a leader, I assume he agrees with this and other core positions of the organization.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Just a comment on the “hottest day on this planet” nonsense being shipped by the MSM and a response to belittling the opinions of Nobel-winning scientists.

If you ACTUALLY KNOW how a “global mean temperature” metric is calculated... you actually laugh when they make these announcements about “hottest day/year ever” are made.

You could not possibly give me a “Mean Temperature of Killington Vermont for One Day” and have produced a meaningful metric. Where did you put the thermometer(s)? How many/ how sited / at what precise location (sun/ shade/ location off the ground/ at what times measured/ method of spacial integration of data/ method of temporal integration of data/ etc/ etc.

How could you generate a GLOBAL mean temperature for a day or a year???

What would be the precision of the metric? If most of your instruments usually give data to +/- 0.1 degrees (I supplied data from Aqaba Jordan for one year from a Stevenson Screen Station)... how can you produce a mean value of +/- 0.01 degrees (the mean is ten times as accurate as the data??). Hopefully you were taught and remember the concept of significant figures. You would flunk a HS Chemistry class for mistakes at that level.

“Climate Scientists” are mostly grifters paid to generate scary stories. If you are unwilling to go along with the grift you:
get no government funding (which is virtually all “climate science” funding) AND… you
cannot call yourself a “climate scientist.” (ask Judith Curry).
Report a NEW RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE to +/_ 0.01 degree and your funding will continue. This is fraud.

These Nobel Prize-winning scientists should be ignored because they can’t understand “climate science???”

NOBODY understands ALL the components of “climate science.”

A partial list of things you would need to be an expert at to understand all the components of the “earth climate system:
Radiative physics, quantum mechanics (for cloud nucleation events, at least), hydrology, oceanography, ecology, geology, meteorology, soil biology, botany/transpirational dynamics, physical chemistry, computer coding, statistical analysis, advanced mathematics, etc.

NOBODY has even modest expertise in ALL those areas.

So how many pieces do you need to fully understand to deserve the label: ”climate scientist?” Is an expert on “dendrochronology” a climate scientist, but an award-winning expert on radiative physics shouldn’t critique the greenhouse effect (radiative energy transfer) because he is not a “climate scientist.”

You could be a dendrochronologist, label yourself a “climate scientist,” know virtually nothing about the details of radiative transfer and BELITTLE the analysis of Will Happer and Freeman Dyson, geniuses with celebrated contributions in radiative transfer… about their analysis of the role of radiative transfer in climate dynamics… because they are not “climate scientists.”

Feels like we are living through the actualization of the script from Idiocracy. It horrifies me that so much of modern science is degrading so intensely. (There is an actual “Replication Crisis” in science.)

That’s why you can find plenty of actual geniuses with comprehensive training in the hard sciences (physics, geology, chemistry, etc) who think climate science is not science at all They understand that it is more like a religious a cult. See https://defyccc.com/scientists/ (Three Nobel Prize winning scientists (physics /chemistry) on that list)

They have a truly deep understanding of one aspect of the jumble labeled “climate science.” Radiative physics or statistical analysis for example. They read from a paper on “climate science” and see that their particular specialty is misused or misrepresented in “climate science.” So they start looking into other aspects of this field.

No matter what some jokers on this board suggest you do not need a degree in a particular topic to notice flaws in scientific analysis in this field. Science has an inherent logic that anyone who has learned well can utilize to evaluate any system. Everything beyond that is just working hard to become familiar with the relevant details. The internet exists and except for paywall issues ( my previous job allowed me unlimited access) you can read all the science in the world if you want to. (It is my indoor hobby) (Outdoor hobbies are mostly skiing and trout fishing)

So when someone suggests that the opinions of Nobel-winning scientists can be ignored for climate science…. Realize you are talking to someone from a religious cult who DEEPLY misunderstands how science actually works.

More Eminent Scientists who dissent from the "climate consensus": http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/0 ... f-agw.html