If the ipcc seems biased

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Sep 28, 2019.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And thereby suggest - by innuendo, without evidence or accountability - that it will be 40% of the subsequent century's warming - which takes him way out of the projections from observational data. He's not even in the range the IPCC uses to justify its lowball estimates.

    Scafetta has no expertise in climate or weather recent or past, and has never done any relevant research in the field. He lacks the expertise necessary to obtain the job of weatherman on a local TV channel.

    He isn't one of those "astrophysicists" you claim to have been talking to, is he? Because he isn't an astrophysicist - in the field of astronomy he's a numerologist, essentially, a physicist out of his area of expertise who for some unspecified reason has been massaging carefully chosen bulk data to find correlations he likes. The kinds of correlations he likes to find are described by his readers like this:
    Here's a quote from the man himself:
    C'mon - you've heard that kind of language before, right?
    No mechanism, no physical cause or even mediation - that isn't astrophysics, or any other kind of physics. That is the same thing the people who find numerological correlations between earthquakes and the Koran are doing.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    bible language
    he will be direct sales targeting the new age christian right who think climate change is not gods will and they should not worry about it too much and real christian science thinking can explain such things.

    nothing new

    he is probably trying to negotiate a evangelical church tour and get paid a few million tax free/tax dodger/tax thieve/tax liars
    ... liars and thieves ...
    nothing new
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    This caught me by surprise, although in hindsight it shouldn't have:
    Exxon et al are still at the top of the denial peddling pyramid - actually having the research in hand while sinking tens of millions in efforts to deny it is a unique situation - but others pull their weight, especially in opposition to legislation, regulation, etc.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Recently I was discussing this on another forum. Someone brought up that they thought or at least wondered why conduction wouldn’t create an equilibrium in the atmosphere before there was any meaningful IR back radiation. He kept insisting that conduction destroys the claims that increased c02 will create more warming... has anyone heard this argument before?
  8. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    I would love to hear someone chime in about my above post. I tried explaining a few things, but I’m not sure if I got anywhere. I think there is probably a fairly simple to understand way of putting it that is escaping me.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That's one of the sillier claims I've heard.

    Right now the average temperature at the surface of the Earth is about 15C. At 35,000 feet it's -60C. At 150,000 feet it's back up to about 0C. By 270,000 feet temperatures hit 600C during the day. Conduction doesn't prevent any of that right now - why would that change in the future?

    And there is a HUGE amount of meaningful IR back radiation right now from the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere right now, mainly water and CO2. If there wasn't we'd all be dead (or at least living underground for protection from the ice.)
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  10. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    I pointed out that the back radiation can and is being measured. Also, that the atmosphere is not a closed system, and there is no reason to believe it will ever achieve equilibrium.. didn’t do it for him. He agrees that co2 absorbs IR, but he claims that when it’s absorbed, that energy gets released via conduction and emission simultaneously. I couldn’t get him to give any specific conditions on how that would occur.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You might point out that if CO2 was absorbing energy and "conducting" it away we would see a rise in temperature of the stratosphere. But we're seeing a drop in temperature in the stratosphere because the lower CO2 is blocking re-radiation of IR.
    Truck Captain Stumpy and zgmc like this.
  12. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Here is something else I’ve never heard before:

    “AGW theory relies on an increasing atmospheric volume, with co2 layers continually being pushed higher and higher...”
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2019
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    this is deliberate miss information propaganda

    they are attempting to directly confuse the heat exchange basic physics process of atmospheric warming & cooling and the layer of critical heat exchange point relative to the base line of sea level and atmospheric water vaporization.

    cult members whom call them selves christians have been indoctrinated to think like a brainwashed cult member about science.
    all systems are effectively closed to their base principals because all things are either god or the devil so all things are intentionally created as good or bad.

    this is a typical American christian(cult) brain
    what a piece of shit
    clinically i think he may be a narcissist feeding his internal black hole of OCD where his self esteem and self worth should be sitting.
    all plastered over with cult brainwashing labelled as christianity.

    sad and dangerous to be allowed to try and brain wash children with such hateful anti community ideology.

    and the cult member indoctrinated people look to these people as intellectual leaders.
    yet they are racist xenophobic hate spreaders seeking to place their own ego as the only truth in the world and then get everyone else to agree with them.

    and the zombies call them normal and want them to be brain surgeons for everyone else as long as they themselves dont need brain surgery.
    its fuckin sick

    does he beat his wife & kids because the bible tells him to ?
    maybe that doesnt serve his 10-year-old-confused-boy-narcissistic-socially-driven ego.
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2019
  14. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Can you expand on this a bit. I want to develop a better understanding as well. I think this is the bit I was stumbling on. Knowing that he had something incorrect, but I just couldn’t pinpoint it.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    atmospheric heat exchange point

    where is it ?
    does it stay in one place ?
    how is it effected by and what is it made up of ?

    etc ...

    C02 blocks part of the range of Radiation from the sun
    simple fact

    greenhouse effect and heat exchange distribution point are 2 separate scientific concepts in their own physical models of collective iteration.

    the only possible format of equilibrium based collective modality would be if the Co2 was evenly distributed and not cycled in any way.
    like a fog that never moves.
    however, that is clearly not the way the earth atmosphere and gases work.
    more radiation comes in at the poles, less in the equator but has more heat
    etc etc etc...

    such deliberate confusion by someone claiming to know science is a clear sign they are a propaganda media person
    i would simply stop interacting with them and list them as hazardous considering who they will be associating with and working for.

    they are attempting to pander/sell to a indoctrinated brain washed audience who are brain washed to follow bipartisan ideology fence jumping.
    e.g if its not god it must be the devil...
    if Co2 does this... AGW must be fake ....
  16. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    He read some fake paper that talked about conduction and equilibrium. He isn’t claiming to know, but has been somewhat convinced that said paper might be valid.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Where did you read this?
  18. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    He continues to be stuck on the idea that conduction will happen with greenhouse gasses before any “meaningful” IR is transferred back into the system. The IR that is absorbed will be conducted away before it is re-emitted.
  19. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    I’m having a discussion with someone elsewhere and this was something he said to combat the fact that the upper mesosphere has been observed to be cooling. Can you make sense of it? I said that it didn’t make sense to me, and he replied with something to the effect, what? You’re not familiar with the defense of the saturation point?
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That sounds like the "CO2 absorption bands are saturated" argument, which is a common one. This is a claim that there is already so much CO2 that doubling it won't have any effect in terms of IR absorption.
    zgmc likes this.
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    so they are saying 2 things
    1 how the earths climate works and the physics properties(which would be clearly opposite to agreed basic scientific principals)
    2 that there is some type of magic combination relationship that is happening between 2 items which are potential compounds.

    heat absorption is relative to Radiation absorption
    combined with
    loss of heat

    the 3rd element is the greenhouse effect of collective warming inside the system(earths atmosphere)

    changing the power going into a house hold heater and changing its elements, and changing the weather conditions around it are fairly obvious to the average person when they are simplified.

    it sounds like they are attempting to lay in flat earth mathematics

    IR in general is a part of things
    IR bounces off Co2
    but the massive amount of total radiation coming in to the poles areas where there is very little Bouncing off Co2 is MASSIVE !

    it is all a spinning liquid electrical system

    trying to suggest it is all sitting still like a dense fog in a valley is just crazy crack pot talk
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    not familiar with that one
    i have avoided the tin foil hat media for some years
    zgmc likes this.
  23. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Yes, but I have never heard that the atmosphere has to keep expanding to avoid the saturation point?

Share This Page