Can We Be Certain That Modern Climate Science Is Based On Stupidity?
Glaciers and climate — The Norwegian Glacier Museum
The Norwegian Glacier Museum claims an incredible climate sensitivity of 8°C per 100 PPM CO2, or 1°C per 10 PPM CO2. Through burning of coal and petroleum products mankind has increased the amount of carbon dioxide as much as the natural difference between ice ages and interglacials, which is the equivalent to 8 °C.
Yet their graph shows a climate sensitivity of zero. As CO2 has risen 100 PPM over the past century (red line), there has been no corresponding increase in temperature (blue line. )
The lack of correlation over the past century shows that changes in CO2 have historically been a response to temperature changes, not the cause of them. An entire field of science is based around a fundamental inability to read graphs and think logically.
Read more at realclimatescience.com
Trackback from your site.
Joseph A Olson
| #
Climaclownology ~ an elaborate twentieth hoax, powered by overt feral government funding of bobble head professors, teaching Chicken Little science, with Jack in the Beanstalk “sustainable” solutions that are net energy losers.
Reply
Richard111
| #
Clever sarky comments don’t help the layman understand the problem.
CO2 is a radiative gas. When any CO2 molecule in the atmosphere releases a photon, the chances of that photon reaching the surface of the earth is slightly less than 50%. The chances of that photon escaping to space is slightly more than 50%. With about 6kg of CO2 in every 10,330kg of atmosphere just how much warming of the surface will take place?
Reply
oldbrew
| #
Overlooking convection leads to wrong thinking about atmospheric processes.
Reply
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
When any author propounds a theory that relies on tens of thousands of scientists who have studied phenomena for their lifetime, thousands of civil servants, and the vast majority of intelligent people who have studied the science suffer from “a fundamental inability to read graphs and think logically”, there is an extremely high probability that they are (a) incorrect, (b) probably suffering from exactly the problem of which they accuse everyone else.
When their sole piece of evidence is a set of graphs from an obscure Nordic museum, you know they are also probably incapable of surveying the literature and making a balanced judgement on it.
This website states that its mission is to champion the traditional scientific method, rather than an unusual category based on justifying preconceived notions. This post appears to be from the second type.
If you are looking for a Popperian discussion of the evidence for CO2 causing warming, try this from Skeptical Science (it has better graphs, for a start):
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm
Have a lovely day!
Pete
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Pete,
Science is based upon observations (experimental results some times). I have been bringing governmental data before readers of PSI. So, I do not know how you can claim I am practicing Skeptical Science. Why haven’t you given me a ‘good job’ comment?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Lots of poor science in the disciplines of meteorology and climatology is based on observation. Real science is based on reproducible experimental evidence, not observation. Much of what is taken for granted in meteorology is just as worthless as the worst climatology. Observation alone is for fools.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
If you are looking for a Popperian discussion of the evidence for CO2 causing warming, try this from Skeptical Science (it has better graphs, for a start):
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm
LOL. How is this Popperian? Answer my question you vague nitwit.
James McGinn
Reply