Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Ponderer]

Yes it is misleading because pressure and volume is left out. The soda bottle experiment I have described only really works because of the pressure the CO2 is under.
But so is that solubility table without context. In fact, that table plays right into the hands of those that support the theory that the oceans are a source of atmospheric CO2 ------- What is the average surface temperature of the Oceans? This is precisely the point the detractors are making when criticising the current studies as tabled and reported in the AR 5.
It isshould be all about undertaking a complete study taking into account, ALL the variables.

Fixed.

You must lick the hand that feeds you, and not bite it.
Also.
Be careful not to antagonize someone that invested in BS science.
They expect a return on their investment, and do not take kindly to the truth.
Tim Noakes can tell you all about it.

 

[RaptorSA]

You should drink some Glyphosate while watching that video. Just to prove how right Patrick Moore is.

 

[Gordon_R]

Yes it is misleading because pressure and volume is left out. The soda bottle experiment I have described only really works because of the pressure the CO2 is under.
But so is that solubility table without context. In fact, that table plays right into the hands of those that support the theory that the oceans are a source of atmospheric CO2 ------- What is the average surface temperature of the Oceans? This is precisely the point the detractors are making when criticising the current studies as tabled and reported in the AR 5.
It is all about undertaking a complete study taking into account, ALL the variables.

Old saying: It is one thing to keep an open mind, quite another to let your brains fly out altogether...

When you start questioning the laws of physics and chemistry, just because YOU do not understand them, then this becomes a farce.

Most of the oceans consist of deep water, with turnover times of hundreds of years. Comparing the surface temperature and CO2 saturation levels, with the great bulk of the ocean is not a valid comparison.

I can't begin to go into detail (and I am not an oceanographer), but I suggest reading some basic articles in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_carbon_cycle

 

[Geoff.D]

Old saying: It is one thing to keep an open mind, quite another to let your brains fly out altogether...

When you start questioning the laws of physics and chemistry, just because YOU do not understand them, then this becomes a farce.

Most of the oceans consist of deep water, with turnover times of hundreds of years. Comparing the surface temperature and CO2 saturation levels, with the great bulk of the ocean is not a valid comparison.

I can't begin to go into detail (and I am not an oceanographer), but I suggest reading some basic articles in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_carbon_cycle

I am not challenging the laws of physics and the oceanic carbon cycle at all. or questioning them. I am questioning whether the CC scientists ARE using the theory and the data correctly. I know pretty much enough about it.

No, my statements are about writing off the paper in OPs post without first seeing exactly WHAT the authors were referring to. The paper presumably (we don't know because ref 6 is yet to be published) deals ONLY with the 92/90 transfer between the atmosphere and the oceans.



The above is the diagram used in AR 1 to explain the Oceanic carbon cycle in 1990 in the AR 1. Notice then the numbers used to show the flows between the atmosphere and the oceans, 92 unit Into the oceans and 90 units OUT of the oceans. Two rather very close numbers would you agree? and, at that stage of the CC debate. See the units that were used for fossil fuels at the time just for perspective.

5 units into the atmosphere from fossil fuels versus a net 2 units out of the atmosphere into the oceans. In real terms a flow of 92 units out of the atmosphere into the oceans.

Give me a chance and I will show what AR 2, 3, 4 also say about this cycle.

It goes as far back as AR 1 where the very first statements were made on this carbon cycle in the form of a rather superficial description of the cycle accompanied by a picture (see above). As you quite rightly point out, almost 20 years later a lot more is known about the complexities of that cycle.
I will have a look at your link.

edit:/wow! Wikipedia uses the IPC as its reference! Amazing. A fancy version of the same diagram first published by the IPCC in AR 1 dolled up and in colour!

Oceanic Carbon Cycle, Credit: IPCC

Makes you think does it not.

Edit 2:/ Imagine that. The Wikipedia article talks about Henry's Law! Now there's a thing. I must be a genius. Because I actually understand the basis of the process without ever reading the wiki link until you posted it.


Dissociation of carbon dioxide following Henry's Law


(Aside, we were taught the Gas laws INCLUDING Henry's Law in Matric Physics in standard 9 and 10 in 1966/67).

Come on Gordon, there is no need to make this personal and attack other's the way you are doing. We are MyBB friends after all.

 

[Gordon_R]

I am not challenging the laws of physics and the oceanic carbon cycle at all. or questioning them. I am questioning whether the CC scientists ARE using the theory and the data correctly. I know pretty much enough about it.

[snip]

Come on Gordon, there is no need to make this personal and attack other's the way you are doing. We are MyBB friends after all.

You have reinforced my point exactly: Why question if the best scientists in the world are using the laws of physics and chemistry correctly (based on your knowledge), if not to discredit climate science? It just feeds the trolls, and adds to the miasma of disinformation...

Appealing to friendship cuts no ice with me on this (or any other) topic. If I see BS in a public forum, I will say so, and its not an attack to point out factual inaccuracies...

 

[lumeer]

To all these posters who are poking holes in climate science: don't you think that the clever, learned climate scientists who study these things for a living, would also have thought of these things?

 

[access]

scientists say, that most people will believe anything that starts with, scientists say

 

[Swa]

To all these posters who are poking holes in climate science: don't you think that the clever, learned climate scientists who study these things for a living, would also have thought of these things?

That's exactly it, we don't have to poke holes in it. This is largely a media debate with no single side. It doesn't help when people troll these topics claiming that there is some sort of scientific conclusion that has been made when it's still very much being debated in science and both sides being presented.

 

[Gordon_R]

To all these posters who are poking holes in climate science: don't you think that the clever, learned climate scientists who study these things for a living, would also have thought of these things?

Precisely! That's how science works, and why there is peer review, to poke holes in woolly theories like the OP.

Sorry @Swa that's exactly backwards. Climate science has been widely scrutinised, and the only people questioning it are the denialists.

 

[MrGray]

You should drink some Glyphosate while watching that video. Just to prove how right Patrick Moore is.

Lol, that response video is very odd. He responds to Moore mostly by criticizing Dennis Prager? Otherwise it appears to be mostly a bunch of condescending ad hominems and snide remarks.

 

[lumeer]

That's exactly it, we don't have to poke holes in it. This is largely a media debate with no single side. It doesn't help when people troll these topics claiming that there is some sort of scientific conclusion that has been made when it's still very much being debated in science and both sides being presented.

Yes, but don't you think that all of these objections to the generally accepted scientific theories about global warming that are being raised by the posters here on MyBroadband, would already have been thought of and figured out by the pros who do this for a living?

 

[Swa]

Precisely! That's how science works, and why there is peer review, to poke holes in woolly theories like the OP.

Sorry @Swa that's exactly backwards. Climate science has been widely scrutinised, and the only people questioning it are the denialists.

BS

 

[Swa]

Yes, but don't you think that all of these objections to the generally accepted scientific theories about global warming that are being raised by the posters here on MyBroadband, would already have been thought of and figured out by the pros who do this for a living?

That's the point, they already have been and this is just beating a dead horse. It's only the politics and people like @Gordon_R that make it sound like there is some kind on consensus. There is no generally accepted scientific theory around this.

 

[lumeer]

That's the point, they already have been and this is just beating a dead horse. It's only the politics and people like @Gordon_R that make it sound like there is some kind on consensus. There is no generally accepted scientific theory around this.

But isn't it the case that there actually *is* a generally accepted scientific theory of global warming? Isn't it perhaps *you* who are in denial about this?

 

[Swa]

But isn't it the case that there actually *is* a generally accepted scientific theory of global warming? Isn't it perhaps *you* who are in denial about this?

Sure there is. The climate is changing. It's why it's changing and whether there is even a net warming that's up for debate as it only exists in models so far. Denial can also be the correct stance you know? I'm in denial about the existence of unicorns.

 

[lumeer]

Sure there is. The climate is changing. It's why it's changing and whether there is even a net warming that's up for debate as it only exists in models so far. Denial can also be the correct stance you know? I'm in denial about the existence of unicorns.

Yes, but scientists also don't believe in unicorns, so it's not really denial, you are merely agreeing with the prevailing thinking; it would be denial if you *did* believe in unicorns.

 

[Swa]

Yes, but scientists also don't believe in unicorns, so it's not really denial, you are merely agreeing with the prevailing thinking; it would be denial if you *did* believe in unicorns.

I think I've made my point. There is no conclusion either way.

 

[SaiyanZ]

To all these posters who are poking holes in climate science: don't you think that the clever, learned climate scientists who study these things for a living, would also have thought of these things?

Scientists can only study something and draw conclusions if there is a record of it and a way to measure/compare it. CO2 levels are focused on because it is measurable going back millions of years.

There is a lot that we can't measure and have no record of for even a 1000 years, let alone millions of years. eg, Sun activity, space weather.

 

[Geoff.D]

So, there is Scientific Consensus on everything already determined about CC?

Here is a quote out of an IPCC report addressing precisely the issue about water vapour, clouds AND the carbon cycle in the oceans and I quote:

The key areas of scientific uncertainty are:

1. Clouds: primarily cloud formation, dissipation, and radiative properties, which influence the response of the atmosphere to greenhouse forcing.
2. Oceans: the exchange of energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, between the upper layers of the ocean and the deep ocean, and transport within the ocean, all of which control the rate of global climate change and the patterns of regional change.

That sound as if the CC Scientists are certain of everything yet? NO! bothe aspects are still under continuous review, making the paper in the OP post still valid!

And here is another quote out of an IPCC report:

These continue to be rooted in our inadequate understanding of:

• sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and aerosols and their atmospheric concentrations (including their indirect effects on global warming)

clouds (particularly their feedback effect on greenhouse gas-induced global warming, also the effect of aerosols on clouds and their radiative properties) and other elements of the atmospheric water budget, including the processes controlling upper level water vapour.

oceans, which through their thermal inertia and possible changes in circulation, influence the timing and pattern of climate change.

polar ice sheets (whose response to climate change also affects predictions of sea level rise)

land surface processes and feedbacks, including hydrological and ecological processes which couple
better understanding of climate-related processes, particularly those associated with clouds, oceans and the carbon-cycle.

And another which is my personal favourite at the moment:

Given our incomplete knowledge of climate, we cannot rule out the possibility of surprises.

 

[lumeer]

Scientists can only study something and draw conclusions if there is a record of it and a way to measure/compare it. CO2 levels are focused on because it is measurable going back millions of years.

There is a lot that we can't measure and have no record of for even a 1000 years, let alone millions of years. eg, Sun activity, space weather.

But don't you think that the same scientists who figured out the age of the Earth, the chemical composition of the Sun, the existence of solar wind, the effect of solar storms on Earth's atmosphere, etc., have already considered what you just wrote, and incorporated it into their climate change theories?