15 of 19 people found the following review helpful
quite an eye-opener,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science (Kindle Edition)
Very clear writing style, aimed at the layman. Sets out precisely the issues and all the shenanigans that have gone on to hijack the as scientific community and thus the people.
This book is a must-read for everyone interested in democracy and freedom.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Dec 2014 20:46:03 GMT
If you tell me the reasons you think Humans aren't causing global warming, i will gladly prove you wrong in laymans terms. You have been misled, so its not your fault.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Dec 2014 23:52:44 GMT
Well, you've no idea how relieved I am to be told by you that it's not my fault. It must be quite a responsibility to be the arbiter of opinion amongst us plebs who are so easily misled. But do educate us as to how much global warming is down to us filthy humans and then we won't be misled in future. We await your enlightenment.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2014 00:35:46 GMT
I am very happy to enlighten you.
To put it simply there is no alternative to humans causing warming. If you believe in the laws of physics then you have to believe it.
Energy can't be created or destroyed, simply change form. Basic conservation of energy, i'm sure you know this. The sun puts in a certain amount of radiation into the earth (At the moment the sun is in a low phase of activity, so we know it's not the sun). Plancks equations show that the earth without an atmosphere would be 225 kelvin (-48c), and i'm sure even you can realize that it is quite a bit higher due to greenhouse gases. This shows that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and is essential to life on earth. so even you must admit that there is a correlation between greenhouses gases and rising temperatures. if less energy is emitted, there has to be warming. in order to balance the energy budget as the same amount is coming in. hot things are better emitters.
So people who are skeptical say water vapour is more important, and it's not CO2. However H20 isn't more influential than C02, that is a common misinterpretation of the fact that H20 is a stronger greenhouse gas, but that doesn't make it more influential. H20 would be more influential in an evenly mixed atmosphere with equal amounts of H20 from top to bottom, however that is not what we have. Due to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation the vapour pressure increases as temperature increases, meaning hot air can hold more H20. The atmospheric lapse rates dictate that air in the upper atmosphere is colder. I'm sure you realise it's colder at the top of a mountain than at the bottom. therefore there is less H2O in the upper atmosphere and it is this part of the atmosphere that is most important as it is where the emission of energy back into space takes place. C02 operates more strongly in this area than H20, therefore it is more influential. Less energy being released back into space due to the greenhouse effect which we know exists means that the only way the energy balance can be restored (basic physics) is for this part of the atmosphere to heat up as due to wienn's law hot bodies are better emitters, hence global warming. I'm sure you've realised that hot things release more heat.
So we know that CO2 is the most important gas in causing global warming.
So if we know that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas and we know that rising C02 correlates with rising temperatures, is it really too big a mental leap to realise that if human have increased C02 concentration to 400 parts per million which is higher than for at least the last 750,000 years, then the planet will warm up?
there are 100s of other reasons or pieces of evidence I could mention, however this is just the physical basis for it, if you don't believe in these things then to be honest then you don't believe in the laws of physics.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2014 00:54:24 GMT
Wow that's fantastic and it's very good of you to assume that "even I" would know about these things. Whether I "believe" in the laws of physics is neither here nor there. I take it you're not alleging physics is a religion? I also take it you wouldn't be so foolish as to think we humans know everything there is to know about how the climate works. You might even admit actually we know very little of how the climate works.
You make an assumption from nothing that I do not accept humans have some effect on global warming - I have no idea whether they do any more than any other being on this planet has an effect. And even if they do I would suggest we know very little on how much effect we do have or if it's "catastrophic" as we're constantly told by the "climate scientists". Your physics as set out by the IPCC does not add up unless they bring in "feedbacks" - hardly "physics" as they cannot measure or predict these "feedbacks" over the short term let alone the long.
But anyway, what did you think about the book, after all that is the point of this review.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2014 01:41:10 GMT
My physics is not from the IPPC, its just physics. The laws of physics which have been accepted by every scientist. If you want to test them then try jumping off a cliff and see if there is any gravity or try holding a burning coal to see if it is hot.
Humans don't know everything about the climate, however one thing we have known for over 100 years is that if you put a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, you have to have warming. there is no alternative.
Feedbacks can be predicted. they can't be modelled 100% accurately but that doesn't mean we don't know about them. we know hotter oceans will release more C02 into the atmosphere. we know less ice will result in decreased albedo and that will lead to further warming. Feedbacks are vital in making the case for catastrophic warming as you put it but these feedbacks have operated before, we couldn't have had ice ages and then got out of ice ages without them so we know they exist and that they work. you put feedbacks in quotations marks as if they're something imaginary, all that does is show you don't really know what they are. it can be shown that the climate is very sensitive to changes, you can see in the past how volcanic eruptions have affected global temperature. so if the climate is sensitive putting lots of C02 into the atmosphere is only going to have one outcome.
I think the book is terrible, skepticism is healthy for science, its essential for science. however denial is not.
You only have to look at who funds climate skepticism to understand its true motives. Books like this turn people against reality and that can never be a good thing.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2014 11:28:10 GMT
"The laws of physics which have been accepted by every scientist." Fatal if true. I contend that the laws are accepted for the present but should be actively probed and tested - science is NEVER settled.
I have no problem with physics as determined by scientists who are after increased knowledge. Particularly when practised in the recognised scientific methodology - ie publish ALL underlying data, allow discussion and scepticism so that their theories are falsifiable. Unfortunately some of today's climate scientists do not do that, in many cases they actively hide data, cherry-pick results and go to great lengths to close down any discussion or theories that go against the "consensus". Indeed many are activists - no problem with that but they can't do both and hope to be taken seriously.
Feedbacks, I put these in inverted commas not because I don't think they exist but because the understanding of them and their effects are not fully known - indeed you wouldn't argue we know all the feedbacks?
For that reason, no, they cannot be modelled accurately - which is the main reason ALL of the models are running too hot. In any other science this would be the time to revisit the scientific theory a la Feynman. Despite that climate scientists and the IPCC (I appreciate this is a political body but propped up by the activist scientists) still insist on making dour predictions even when their previous prognostications of doom fail to materialise. Crying wolf even louder is no longer working and the public / tax payers are becoming more and more cynical about the whole process. After all as you point out feedbacks have taken us into and out of ice ages and warm periods long before humans can have affected any of this and the climate scientists have come up with over 50 reasons to "explain" the current warming hiatus - which was never predicted.
The saddest part of all this is the damage done to science itself and this is why I have given the book the review I feel it deserves. Scientists are human and suffer from all the frailties the rest of us humans suffer, self survival, greed, ego etc. The actions of self-styled climate scientists have done much harm to their honourable profession both for the actions they have taken and perhaps more importantly for remaining silent when they see their colleagues acting without principle.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2014 11:57:26 GMT
They have been probed and tested, as has the theory of AGW. Both have been accepted.
I agree that scientists should publish their data, however it is only really Mann who has been accused of not doing that and yes he did use a strange statistical method, his work has some issues but its very old now, it was pioneering at the time so has a few problems but so much work after that which has all of its data published has come to the same conclusions.
I would argue that our knowledge of feedbacks is sufficient yes, its not perfect but it is sufficient to understand climate change. Things can't be modelled accurately not due to not understanding them, but due to chaos. its very easy to model a wave breaking, but impossible to model accurately how every grain of sand on the beach will move in response. Models are not the science, they came as a response to the science. To be honest with you you are very correct in that fact models are probably the weakest link in the whole thing, lots of scientists don't understand the limitations of models. but people didn't make models and then decide the climate will warm, they decided the climate will warm then tried to model it, so its not the basis for it all. We can't model anything because humans are too important in influencing climate and we don't know about our socio-economic future scenarios.
Most scientists thing the IPPC is actually too cautious if anything, due to the fact it has to please politicians.
The current warming hiatus doesn't exist. 1998 was an unusually hot year, it stands out as being exceptionally hot. so for some time after that if you only look at data from 1998, it looks like there is no warming. basically it is achieved by cherry picking data. however now 2014 is set to the hottest year on record and the last 10 years is the hottest on record. Warming may have slowed slightly due to the oceans taking up more heat than predicted, if you look at ocean heat content you will see that it has continued to rise rapidly. scientists cannot predict the future but that doesnt mean that the underlying science is wrong.
well we can agree to disagree on that one, there are some journals published that try to disprove AGW however look at the journals they are published in. they are either in poorly regarded journals, journals with a declared political agenda or journals that the author pays to get published in. usually they are done by statisticians or people who don't understand climate. Look at the highly regarded journals like Nature and see how many are in favour of climate change.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2014 16:38:35 GMT
Ihaterain, you and I are not going to agree on AGW (or at least the overall affect and timing - the "C" bit of CAGW) but I'm glad we settled down to a reasonable discussion after a defensive start on both our behalves! I'm sure you, like I, have seen discussions on this that have descended into utter unpleasantness in a very short time - it is after all a very emotive subject.
As long as we can accept that we both have genuine reasons for our respective positions (after all I suspect neither you nor I gains anything from our respective stance other than our hope for the outcome we both desire) and keep open minds then hopefully over time the real position will become clearer. Regards John
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Dec 2014 17:12:38 GMT
Yes i'm also glad we were able to have a decent debate about it. I gain plenty from my stance as my whole career is based on it haha so i hope it won't be dis-proven over night!
If the C bit is the cause of doubt for you then that is a very reasonable stance to have even though its not the stance i myself would have
Take care, have a nice christmas!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›