5 Filters

Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly (logarithmically) as its concentration increases

Environment
#21

So you are saying that we should completely ignore the January 2025 fall in temperature to levels in January 2024 and January2016 and February 1998 at at a time when hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 were added to the atmosphere!

No-one of course has established any provable direct link between CO2 in the atmosphere and surface temperatures as there are far too many other factors affecting earth temperatures - including ocean currents and cloud cover - the point that William Happer et al are making ( this is not my saturation point ) is that they have shown that there are falls in the impact from CO2 on the atmosphere due to an ever increasing rise in the concentration of CO2.
It is interesting that none of your links tell us by how many degrees centrigrade the surface temperature will increase by and when - it’s guesswork.

It is also interesting that your Royal Society link said this :
“Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further.”

  • so the CO2 impact is continued because there is no decrease in the absorption of energy in the wings - which are a few micrometres or a few millionths of an inch wide over the whole of our atmosphere! Is it any wonder that Kees de Lange, professor emeritus of molecular physics and Guus Berkhout, professor emeritus of geophysics state :

"Note from the above frequency spectrum that broadening of the CO2-absorption area if the CO2-concentration is increased from 400 ppm to 800 ppm is negligible. Unrealistic CO2-scenarios are needed to realize a broadening as shown in the cartoon in the video.

Finally a word of caution. The correlation between the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the warming of Earth’s surface is scanty at best. Even in the recent past (Roman Warm Period, Middle Age Warm Period, Little Ice Age), when CO2 was never an issue, temperature variations were at least as strong as what is observed today since humans started burning fossil fuels. This is not surprising. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is small compared to that of the oceans that make up 70% of Earth’s surface. The real heat engines that dominate heat transfer on the planet are not radiative transfer, but ocean currents, and the gigantic atmospheric heat engine represented by the well-known Hadley cells. The complexity of the climate system is not to be underestimated.

In conclusion, we are pleased that Dr. Hossenfelder’s excellent video confirms that the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are very small and highly saturated. This does not support the message that the world is in a climate crisis."
[Some comments on the Sabine Hossenfelder video - Clintel]

cheers

#22

Where do the authors mention the IPCC and their models?

Fossil fuel shills! - we are talking here about renowned scientists that have never been shown to be shills for anyone. Having principles on climate science that coincide with some principles of corporations does not make them shills for the corporations. We have to be very careful here in avoiding libel!

cheers

#23

Enter player three…

1 Like
#24

Ah yes. The Grand Solar Minimum. Has anyone wondered why “Global Warming”, has morphed into “Climate Change”? Well, if we are getting cooler, it’s not exactly reasonable to call it warming! :joy: :joy: :joy:

1 Like
#25

It’s also not a great idea to take climate advice from someone who was a chairman of the board of directors of an institute partly funded by Exxon.

I find this ironic given that all of CJs sources are tobacco or fossil fuel companies. I’m sticking with the Royal Society, and people who are dedicating their lives to try to understand what’s going on in a transparent way.

What it suggests to me is that these authors are trying hard to obscure the coming problem rather than shed light. Expected behaviour for fossil fuel shills

And, most recently; (sarcasm alert)

I’m aware that the study I’m looking at deals with only one aspect of the issue but its worth keeping in mind that people in glass houses are best off refraining from throwing stones. Maybe the hurricane experts referred to also have our best interests at heart.
I can only suppose the Davids at MediaLens and Dan in the Lifeboat also had our best interests at heart. . .

#26

Hi CJ

Before I address your points above I want everyone on this thread to mull something over.

I see you’re doubling down on clearly wrong arguments. I suggest you take a moment and reflect why.

Why are you not interested in actually learning something and thereby getting closer to the truth? Why would someone consistently ignore literally all the evidence in favour of promoting a notion already proven to be wrong. Are you not interested in expanding your knowledge about a subject?

Does learning something new not seem important to you?

Do you do this in other areas of your life? Just decide your opinion and not let any other new data change your mind on the subject? I would suggest you won’t get to the truth of any subject by closing your eyes to the side with all the data, and relying on - yes - shills supported by big tobacco, republican think tanks and big oil.

It’s worth taking a moment and considering what’s motivating you on this, I think.

I won’t dwell too long on your points, as you don’t bother to answer any of mine and you don’t listen anyway when I do answer, and you simply ignore or dismiss any evidence you don’t like, so really this is for others who might be interested in actually learning about what’s going on in our climate.

You can continue down your merry path of sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring any data you don’t like whilst consuming any old nonsense that tobacco companies would have you believe.

Good luck with that.

No. I would put it into its place alongside the overall trend in temps over the last century (ot 10 centuries or thousand centuries) of data and see if you can spot a logarithmic tail off in temps as you seem to be so sure exists.

I’ll save you the bother. There is no such logarithmic tail off in temps. Because it doesn’t happen and won’t happen.

Holy shit. The ignorance! … It burns!!!

Read your own paper, where “all scientists agree” that there is a connection. It’s how the planet stays warm enough for life to evolve.

Unbelievable…

Perhaps stop trying to guess about things you have zero training in or understanding of. Your intuition is badly letting you down. You have no measurements of what the extra side band frequencies means for extra heat absorption. Flaunting guesswork as an argument is not helpful here.

Maybe you could simply read the conclusions from the papers that I posted above that discusses what the actual implications of those side bands are and see what experts in the subject think about it. The papers are all in my previous post

Or, instead you can try to find data that shows that temperatures follow the logarithmic decline suggested by Happer.

Your caution about correlation is not worth answering so I won’t bother. But I will say that it’s demonstrative of bad faith on your part that you’re happy to use the temperature record to try and discuss the medieval warm period, but you reject the exact same data record as fake for any other measurement or period of time. Again, I’d suggest you mull over your hypocrisy here and think hard about why you have such a propagandist bent. It’s not to find the truth, that’s for sure.

I have already watched the video by Sabine (I’m a subscriber of her channel). She confirms the logarithmic drop off as described in the paper (as does every climate scientist) but she categorically denies that this will mean temperature will stop rising, because Happer is simply wrong about that. As he well knows but refuses to admit. One reason I call him a shill.

They don’t, but their estimate of climate sensitivity agrees with that of the IPCC (which, more accurately define it as a likely range based on much more data than anything Happer is looking at).

Ok. I think that’s everything you brought up. Nothing that you’re raising gives any more credence to the belief that temperature will stop rising.

I know I’m being somewhat blunt in my replies here, but to me you’re acting as a what I’d call a “climate Zionist”. You’re ignoring evidence, quoting ideologically driven, bad-faith actors (ironically exactly the same people who support actual Zionism) and ignoring the likely upcoming deaths of hundreds of millions of people with a wave of your hand.

You’re on the wrong side mate. Wake up.

#27

Ahh

Good old Zharkova back again. Another demonstration of the old repost some nonsense that has already been debunked without addressing a single argument that shows it to be wrong technique.

Why we are listening to an ex professor of solar physics who didn’t understand basic planetary orbital dynamics and can’t decide if her studies show whether we are about to get extra warming or an ice age (she’s argued for both IIRK) is beyond me.

Oh wait. It’s because we don’t actually want to know what’s going on with the climate and prefer fairy stories instead.

Fair enough

#28

Not sure what you’re implying here, Alan, but to my mind, both the Davids at MediaLens and Dan absolutely did have the best interests of our society at heart.

ML was one of the most important pieces in my educational awakening. I think they opened many thousands of people’s eyes to the propaganda model and how our media manipulates the truth. And having met Dan a few times and listened to his stories of treating patients (sometimes outside of his already heinous schedule of normal duties, for free as a favour to a medialenser) I have nothing bad to say about him.

You should check your prejudices.

And carry on eating the bullshit being spoon fed by big tobacco and big oil. Clearly they have no conflicts of interest in this subject

#29

Sadly I can’t post video here. I have a news piece from Germany where a Lufthansa pilot is in court for unfair dismissal

His crime? Refusing to turn on the cloud seeding systems. Says it’s not part of his contract.

At least we’re talking about this:)

Edit:I can admit now to being confused by the Ukrainian. I could swear we’re currently in a solar maximum.

#30

1.Not sure what you’re implying here, Alan
2.You should check your prejudices
3. And carry on eating the bullshit. . .

Ta for the choices A, I’ll take no.1. Surely you can stand firm in your position without resorting to sneering. That was the implicit point of my post that you seem to have missed. Not to worry, life goes on (thinks, thanks to CO2!).

#31

Hi @admin . I backed out of this debate but perhaps I can now back in, with a different way of looking at the whole debate? My suggestion goes like this.

I assume that all posters on this site know that the Covid pandemic was in fact a Convid plandemic. If you don’t know that, stop reading now and go back to the Daily Mail!

Assuming you are still with me, perhaps recall all the “leaders” who told us we have to stay at home to save the NHS even though the hospitals were empty. They told us Convid kills (even when there were clear statistics to the contrary, first from Italy, followed soon after by many other countries. They said not taking the jab would put ones granny at risk (instead you can watch her die through the glass, killed by overdoses of Remdesivir often called Run Death Is Near, and Midazolam), that Ivermectin was a horse medicine (despite winning a Nobel prize for the co-inventors), and a 60 year old malaria drug (used regularly all over Africa and available over the counter without a prescription in many countries) was removed from pharmacies world wide and US doctors were struck off for prescribing it.

Perhaps recall now, 5 years after the start of the scamdemic, the NHS continues to recommend the jab, despite every independent (I mean really independent) statistician, virologist, epidemiologists, an ex Pfizer vice-president, and the inventor of mRNA himself, pointing out the enormous number of deaths, serious side effects, and lack of prevention of infectivity.

Perhaps recall many of us know of the well hidden facts that there has never been a vaccine trial against a true placebo (saline and no adjuvants), that the Convid ‘vaccine’ trials were falsified, that the data was fiddled with to get the answer that the GIC’s wanted. Finally, most of those red pilled, know that the PCR test itself was, and continues to be a massive scam.

On that basis, how can anyone give any credence to the ‘science’ from all those compromised experts on the alleged novel Corona virus? Most of us don’t have the time and or technical expertise to evaluate all the so called ‘science’ on climate but know that we will never ever, ever, believe anything the mainstream media and the compromised ‘experts’ tell us.

So you may well get angry, but you will not change the minds of the many climate ‘deniers’ and that includes me proudly. The Convid ‘deniers’ were proved right. I have no doubt the climate ‘deniers’ will in time, be proved right too.

1 Like
#32

The web is tangled indeed. I salute your proud ‘climate denial(ism)’. I share it and have no doubt that the global climate warming change scam, like the Covid scam, originated with some very powerful players, was constructed by their senior management teams, implemented by their junior management and disseminated through their trusty media friends. The same media outlets (all the mainstream ones) and the celebs. - oh yes, and the ‘experts’ (very important, the qualified gatekeepers) have done jobs for them on every war you can think of, every popular movement, every good cause, every historical event (enough everies) . . . just look at ‘Israel’ as well ffs. So, yes, why not this one? Nothing wrong with your analogy in my book!

Raising the matter as you’ve done is cause for further thought, examination, reflection and, I believe, serious consultation with your instincts, your water if you like or your bones, (however you express your relationship to truth) on the part of anyone suffering from their cognitive dissonance. (Newtonian science is so last era innit?)

We all know (well, most of us,) that the road to hell is paved with good intentions so I forgive your promotion of the infectivity/infection myth and the big pharma anti-parasitic drugs (big of me eh?). I suppose Aly has our best interests at heart also but I have little time for his sledging.

2 Likes
#33

For the record, I am in the “There never was a novel virus or some mythical pandemic” camp, but thanks for the forgiveness! :wink:

#34

Perhaps poor form to respond to ones own post, but thanks to @LocalYokel there is an interesting addition in the thread he posted here. Notwithstanding what I said about never believing anything the experts say, this is just one extract from it.

" Last Saturday, the Daily Sceptic published the sensational findings of a group of scientists working for the USDA Forestry Service that found the United States and Canada were currently running a massive ‘fire deficit’ compared to the recent past. Examining tree fire scar data going back to 1600 they found that recent fires were running at a rate of only 23% compared to the historical record."

#35

A new law in Canada, C-372, makes it illegal to talk about the benefits of gasoline for cars …

It is now punishable by either 2 years in prison or a $500,000 fine. Putting an “I LOVE OIL” sticker on your car could be considered a sign of “terrorism” or “extremism,” which could have serious consequences

#36

This bill never made it onto the statute book before prorogation when Trudeau left :

"The bill prohibits advertisements which claim “the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy.” Which leaves the door open to preventing Indigenous communities from promoting resource development projects.

It was introduced last February and received its first reading. The bill was placed on an Order of Precedence on June 17, 2024 but had yet to receive its second reading before prorogation."

I couldn’t see whether it had been reintroduced.

cheers

#37

Hi all

Sorry I’ve been off the board for a while. Picking up comments again.

@AlanG - sorry if I misunderstood what you were implying. Perhaps you really were sincere in saying that ML and Dan both had society’s best interests at heart. In which case I apologise for my angry retort

@PatB
The COVID thing was a giant debacle from start to finish. I’m not exactly sure what a "plandemic"is but I’m sympathetic to your views and how science was politicised to force an agenda. I’m open to a lot of evidence that is coming out that vaccine side effects can be serious in some cases, and that the whole thing might have been triggered by a lab leak or whatever. I know there is a temptation to conflate “The Science” between these two subjects, but that’s not a helpful thing to do. You have to judge the different topics on the evidence and relative merit.

For example, where did Pfizer release all the vaccine data they used to study their vaccines, so that 100s of other scientists around the globe could pick through it, study it and repeat the experiments? Nowhere, obviously, because it was a private corporation scamming the public on healthcare as usual. This is not the same sitch for climate studies where data is published and reviewed and criticised and picked over and the same experiments are re-run by other teams in different countries and the results compared etc.

It’s a case of real scientific investigation Vs pharma criminals. Not the same.

@everyone else. You may find my frustrated tone annoying. Frankly I find people who are unwilling to look at evidence and take pride in their ignorance while refusing to learn annoying. That might be just me though.

I note that in this whole thread, no one has looked at the data or considered any of the arguments I wrote about above.

How long before this whole fake saturation argument gets reposted here as new evidence that climate change is not real, I wonder? Let’s see.

Cheers

#38

Aye, its a bugger when you know for an absolute certainty that your argument is unassailable. My Christian Zionist brother frequently suffers the same frustrations . . .:slight_smile:

1 Like
#39

Everyone has a blind spot, sometimes more than one. We’re all guilty of it.

Trouble is, as usual we have conflicting action.

Where is the noise about the climate change rearming Europe will cause? And the climate change caused by war itself? Where’s Greta? Where’s the Greens? Where is Just Stop Oil?

Yeah…

3 Likes
#40

I obviously didn’t make my point clear so I’ll try again.

When trying to formulate an opinion, one looks at “evidence” and a range of sources until one reaches ones own conclusion. However, when looking at “evidence” (or any other sources) one needs to asses the validity of the “evidence”. My point in referring to Convid, what you called a ‘giant debacle …’, (I would have said massive criminal conspiracy) is that mainstream sources are so corrupted, that their “evidence” cannot be considered as at the very best, anecdotal. Even the British Medical Journal said (my paraphrase) that most peer reviewed studies are false. During the alleged pandemic, any alternative sources were cancelled, unjustly discredited, sacked from universities and yet they were the only ones telling the truth. At the same time, the government used their ‘nudge’ unit and 77 brigade to manipulate public opinion.

In that atmosphere, for me at least, it is pointless referring to “evidence”, unless I know the source and believe it to be trustworthy.

A late edit: UK Column News covered 10 minutes of the “Day of Reflection” with many of the lies exposed (of course it was called evidence).

2 Likes