Skeptics’ Climate Arguments Are Inconvenient Facts That Can’t Be Refuted WRITTEN BY PIERRE GOSSELIN ON MAR 14, 2024. POSTED IN NEWS AND OPINION
The science of climate change is very complex and there are many different points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics.
Skeptics’ Climate Arguments Are Inconvenient Facts That Can’t Be Refuted
WRITTEN BY PIERRE GOSSELIN ON MAR 14, 2024. POSTED IN NEWS AND OPINIO
The science of climate change is very complex and there are many different points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics.
1. Natural Climate Variability
The Earth’s climate has always changed in the past, often dramatically, even without human influence. The current warming is therefore likely just part of a natural cycle and one that is capable of reversing on its own. [emphasis, links added]
2. Climate Models Are Still In Their Infancy
Climate models are complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the climate system. These models provide different resultsand are unable to accurately reproduce past climate changes. All are filled with assumptions and guesses.
The climate is a highly complex, chaotic system and so much of it is still poorly understood. Much remains a complete mystery, which means it is impossible to accurately model. Model outputs are thus unreliable.
Remember that with chaotic systems like weather and climate, even very small changes in the initial inputs, which are many, can be amplified over time, thus making long-term predictions impossible. That’s a hard fact of life that climate scientists have to accept.
3. The Influence Of The Sun
The sun is the Earth’s main energy supplier and its activity certainly greatly influences the climate. Hundreds of publications show this. Many of these impacts are poorly understood, and so climate scientists like to pretend they don’t exist.
4. Limited Effects Of Trace Gas CO2
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace “greenhouse” gas that human activities release into the atmosphere. Many scientific publications show that CO2’s impact on global warming is overestimated.
5. Oceanic Cycles Hugely Impact Climate Change
The ocean acts like the Earth’s giant heat re-distributor. Many cycles impact climate. Ocean currents move warm water from the equator towards the poles, and from higher depths to lower depths, thus redistributing energy.
Ocean cycles play a crucial role in regulating Earth’s temperature and weather patterns. Changes to these cycles can have significant consequences for global climate.
The heat content of the oceans is about 100 times that of the atmosphere, so even small heat redistribution changes cansignificantly impact the atmosphere above.
Predictions are difficult because there is little historical data available from the ocean depths and scientists can only speculate what the oceans will do next.
6. Economic Consequences Of Climate Change
Measures to combat climate change entail extremely high costs and are especially socially unbearable for the poor.
Study after study suggests these costs far outweigh the negative consequences of climate change, which we are unable to steer in the first place.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Believe = religion
Think = opinion
Know = science
What I know follows.
What do you know that’s different?
Published (SubStack, X, MSN, PAPundits, et. al.)
Peer reviewed (the world)
And undisputed (so far)
ISR at ToA = 1,368 W/m^2.
From the Sun’s perspective Earth is a flat, discular, pin head.
To average that discular energy over a spherical surface divide by 4.
(disc = π r^2, sphere = 4 π r^2)
1,368/4=342.
(Not even close to how the Earth heats & cools + this is Fourier’s model which even Pierrehumbert says is no good.)
Deduct 30% albedo.
(Clouds, ice, snow created by GHE/water vapor.)
342*(1.0-0.3)=240.
Deduct 80 due to atmospheric absorption.
(If this were so ToA would be warmer than surface.)
Net/net of 160 arrives at surface.
Per LoT 1 160 is ALL!! that can leave.
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 (by remaining diff) LWIR = 160
Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”
So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
It is a theoretical calculation.
It is not real.
It is a duplicate “extra.”
It violates LoT 1.
396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.
Not that it matters.
Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.
IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.
There is no GHE.
There is no GHG warming.
There is no CAGW,
The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!
Disagree?
Bring science which is not appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gas lighting and insults.
Being sceptical is great - you will always strive for facts, empirical data, the truth and won’t be rinsed by self serving, con merchant shills - if there was more scepticism, there’d be better science, less crime, more understanding