OK. Do you think the professor is not a serious person? Remember, you said: "You haven't provided serious indication . . . ."
One individual stating an opinion is not a requirement for action. Science has been politicized in the press and in partisan political screeds. But, the opinion of one individual is not sufficient for a conclusion so huge as scientific progress being twisted.
There are a lot of checks and balances in science. For example, in the case of climatology, there are numerous branches of science that have a bearing on the topic. The field is complex enough that no conspiracy could guess what results are necessary to fulfill somebodies political dream and hold all the sciences throughout the world accountable to that.
How did you get from "we've located undersea volcanoes -- almost all of them extinct or dormant -- that we didn't know about before" to "undersea volcanoes must be the cause of the current fast global warming"? I ask because your conclusion there in no way follows from your premise. Have you done the math? It would take tens of thousands of undersea volcanoes suddenly springing to life to explain the current fast warming. That's why that theory isn't taken seriously.
Actual science doesn't start off with political rants. Propaganda does. So they looked at past precipitation data from Greece ... and concluded from it that global warming doesn't exist. That makes no sense at all. If you want to know if global warming exists, then good data -- thermometers around the world -- is available. Instead, these authors ignored the good data, and instead used data unrelated to the issue, data that they were able to manipulate into a predetermined conclusion. That's a hallmark of pseudoscience. So, you've shown that bad papers exist, because that's certainly one of them.
What a bizarre way to do things. Your source tries to compares a rate of change (0.038 W/m²/year) to an amount (80 W/m^2), and then declares that because they're so very different, the former doesn't matter. That's a blatant apples vs. oranges fallacy, and the person using it can't be taken seriously. I should emphasize it's not the authors of the paper using the fallacy. That's the pattern here. You mix up actual papers with comments from others on those papers. Your sources twist around what the papers actually say, and then they pretend that the author supports their pet theory. Total GHG forcing is around 2.3 W/m^2 now, and that's before adding water vapor feedback. That's easily detectable when compared to the 80 W/m^2 transport from evaporation.
Since the manufactured panic is based on a rate of change (1.5 degC by next week or whatever the current wild arsed guess is), isn't comparing the supposedly underlying rate of change entirely appropriate? If it's truly actually happening as they say it is, wouldn't the rate of change be the same?
Sionce there ius no manufactured panic, your comparison first faceplants on that point. And then it faceplants again, because a bad apples-vs-oranges comparison is still bad, no matter what politics you use to excuse it.
Then why did you post a piece making the claim that undersea volcanoes are causing global warming? You can't just say "I'm merely passing along the info". By posting these pieces without comment, as examples of what you consider to be good science, you put your stamp of approval on them. I did refute it directly, by pointing out how senseless it was. I don't need to refute the Unibomber Manifesto line-by-line to show that it's nonsense. Don't just copy opinion pieces. Support your point yourself. Explain how looking at past precipitation in Greece refutes all of AGW theory. And do it in your own words, to demonstrate that you actually read and understood what you copied. My statement was true. Your pieces mix up comments from laypeople with the work of scientists. Let's look at post #386 The writer of the whole piece is Kenneth Richard of the NoTricksZone website. He's best known for making fake lists of papers that he says refute global warming, even though when you actually look at the papers, you find they do no such thing. He seems to have no science experience at all. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/ The person who wrote the first paper is Demetris Koutsoyiannis. No "Dr." there, he's a civil engineer. And he gives us a paper full of political statements, always a bad sign. He concludes that since climate is always changing, the speed of the change is irrelevant, and that we can't know anything about the actual cause of the change. And that's nonsense. The journal seems to be about Civil Engineering, and nobody involved in it has any experience in climate science. The second paper by Feistel and Hellmuth is more serious work. It says it that there are uncertainties in the evaporation heat transfer amount. And that's all. It does not do an apples-vs-oranges comparison of a rate to an amount, nor does it say that uncertainties makes climate models wrong. Kenneth Richard is the one who says that stuff, not the paper author. You keep giving us the distortions of Kenneth Richard, not the work of scientists.
The Great Snow Cover Debate: Are We Seeing More Snow or Less? Charles Rotter We find the models got it wrong for all four seasons. . . . .
What's your point? Snow isn't trivial to predict. There can be more snow when temps are warmer where moisture is available. The lake effect of the great lakes is an example.
"According to current computer models, snow cover should have been decreasing year-on-year since the mid-20th century. The models make this claim because of global warming. They also predict that this trend will continue and even accelerate. They suggest that soon many countries will no longer experience snow. But, what has actually happened to snow cover? In this video, we compare the claims of the computer models to the observed historical records. We find the models got it wrong for all four seasons."
Then you have not kept up with the material. For the relevant discussion on snow cover in the IPCC’s latest (2021) assessment report, see Section 2.3.2.2 “Terrestrial Snow Cover” in Chapter 2 of Working Group 1’s 6th Assessment Report (AR6): https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ch…
Climate fearmongering reaches stratospheric heights June 5th, 2023 A new paper by Santer et al. provocatively entitled “Exceptional stratospheric contribution to human fingerprints on atmospheric temperature” goes where no serious climate scientist should go: it has conflated stratospheric cooling with global warming. The paper starts out summarizing the supposed importance of their work, which is worth quoting in its entirety (bold emphasis added): “Differences between tropospheric and lower stratospheric temperature trends have long been recognized as a “fingerprint” of human effects on climate. This fingerprint, however, neglected information from the mid to upper stratosphere, 25 to 50 km above the Earth’s surface. Including this information improves the detectability of a human fingerprint by a factor of five. Enhanced detectability occurs because the mid to upper stratosphere has a large cooling signal from human-caused CO2 increases, small noise levels of natural internal variability, and differing signal and noise patterns. Extending fingerprinting to the upper stratosphere with long temperature records and improved climate models means that it is now virtually impossible for natural causes to explain satellite-measured trends in the thermal structure of the Earth’s atmosphere.“ The authors are taking advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge concerning the temperature effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, making it sound like stratospheric cooling is part of the fingerprint of global warming. It isn’t. Cooling is not warming. The researchers’ first mistake is to claim they are reporting something new. They aren’t. Observed stratospheric cooling, even in the middle and upper stratosphere, has been reported on for many years (e.g. here). Lower stratospheric cooling has been evident in our Lower Stratosphere (LS) temperature product for over 30 years (first published here). Why haven’t we heard about this before in the news? Because it has virtually nothing to do with the subject of global warming and associated climate change. . . .
