[OT] [GW] Why the current CO2 narrative is flawed, and an alternate hypothesis

Desperate nonsense from hysterical deniers

One can see you're headed for a Nobel Prize, for the ability to rebut in a concise scientific manner an 80-minute deeply-scientific presentation only seven minutes after you first heard of it.

I'm not a rabid believer in man-made climate change but the greenhouse effect does not break either the first or second law of thermodynamics, nor does it conflict with the Stefan-Boltzman law.

Correct. Only the manner in which it is expressed, seems to.

How long did you search to find something to confirm your views? And ignore the vast amount of evidence from real scientists?

Well, it seems from the video linked by Another Dave, the presenter said something along the lines of "we're not sure about more clouds or less clouds" and also "water is a powerful greenhouse gas", which also seems to amplify the effect of CO2 - it's just that no-one seems to be able to quantify the amplification. Why didn't the presenter run with just water vapour as the greenhouse gas, there's much more of it about than CO2, and avoid this issue?

Ha ha! Love it!

Bill

He should join forces with Doom.

Doom's got a collection of books, some of them going back 100 years, proper books as well no pictures just tables, which prove all these scientists are wrong.

bb

Yes, they do. And what's more, *anyone* within reach of a decent libary can substantiate my findings for themselves. But they don't want to do that. Too lazy. They'd rather sit on their sofas, stuffing their faces with Greggs' pasties and look up what they want to find out on Wikipedia. The value of such information from sources like Wiki is worth exactly what you pay for it: nothing. Do the *proper* research FFS. --

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

Like a proper scientist in fact.

Do you know what that extract means? As it stands, the sentence needs the context of the original text to make sense. Irony noted.

Pretty much the first rule when evaluating content is question your source. You have the carrier - Youtube. OK. And the author:

Pretty much the first rule when evaluating content is question your source:

Me neither.

Somewhere towards the end of that presentation there is mention of clouds and a feedback mechanism. neither of which are explained. Yet the COP is telling us about future planetary temperatures to a fraction of a degree. How, one might ask, can we produce such predictions based on such a poor understanding?

Spike

Ouch!

This is one for a bookmark, if not a bookcase...

"DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

During the late 20th century, the hypothesis that the ongoing rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a result of fossil fuel burning became the dominant paradigm. To establish this paradigm, and increasingly since then, *historical* *measurements* indicating fluctuating CO2 levels between 300 and more than 400 ppmv *have* *been*

A re-evaluation has been undertaken of the historical literature on atmospheric CO2 levels since the introduction of reliable chemical measuring techniques in the early to middle 19 th century. More than 90,000 individual determinations of CO2 levels are reported between 1812 and 1961. The great majority of these determinations were made by skilled investigators using well established laboratory analytical techniques. Data from 138 sources and locations have been combined to produce a yearly average atmospheric CO2curve for the northern hemisphere.

Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis?

Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel. Evidence for lacking evaluation of methods results from the finding that as accurate selected results show systematic errors in the order of at least 20 ppm [28, 29, 30, 31, 57, 73]. Most authors and sources have summarised the historical CO2 determinations by chemical methods incorrectly and promulgated the unjustifiable view that historical methods of analysis were unreliable and produced poor quality results [2, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,

THAT is a question you can ask.

Another Dave

What it boils down to is looking for a CO2 signal in a bunch of weather noise, when even the values of the noise are highly open to question. The problem is that the alarmist narrative depends on three presumptions

- that man made CO2 is the dominant cause of rising CO2 levels

- than these rising CO2 levels are the predominant cause of any warming

- that this presumed warming is overall bad for humanity.

The first presumption is clearly false, because the weather noise is way bigger than any long term signal.

The second presumption is extremely dubious as such science as there is needs massive positive feedback by mechanisms that have been shown not to exist, to fit the narrative.

The third presumption is also open to question - humanity has in general flourished in post glacial high temperature regimes, and a general warming of te polar regions would lead to huge tracts of taiga and tundra all across Canada and Asia becoming quite nice places to live.

One could ask what the error bars are on these predicted temperatures; perhaps Greta can tell us.

The Natural Philosopher snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid wrote

That?s not really a presumption given the massive recent spike in atmospheric CO2 levels. Tho certainly one question is why the spike started so late given that so many were heating their houses burning coal etc in the 19th century.

Yeah, that?s the main flaw in the hysterical hyperventilation.

That?s weather, not CO2.

And did fine in the roman warm period and when the vikings farmed in greenland etc. Sure we did see a massive rise in sea levels and it would be harder to handle that now than when were were just hunter gatherers and farmers.

Dunno, the mossies would have 4 engines. F*ck that. Nice and warm tho.