The Destructive Behavior of Climate Alarmists

Refute what? That's just an old, tired website listing a couple hundred links to the same tired nonsense they've been collecting for years.

All that garbage has been refuted both here and elsewhere for decades.

You might want to try to elevate your arguments to something worth considering.

 

I assume you refer to your link in #114, a compendium of falsehoods already debunked many times.

 

What the GALL you have to complain when you by habit ignore bushels full of published papers in threads mostly by Jack which is hypocrisy galore.

You haven't addressed any of the content of this article I posted TWO years ago:

Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK

LOL

 

I'm sorry, but according to the standards of jack and tommy here, such ad hom deflections mean you all forfeit the discussion. Now, I don't hold those standards, but you do, so you're required to abide by your own standards.

You can't have it both ways, even though you keep trying. You claim that if you post a link and make a weirdass bad summary of it, it must be accepted as true, unless every bit of the link is addressed. No honest person plays that game, and we point out how dishonest and hypocritical you are for trying it. You have no defense against such charges, given how blatant your double standards are.

 

No, I don't particularly care about what you think is true. Makes zero difference to me.

 

Sorry, but no one does that to you. In fact, our efforts are constantly to encourage you to engage the science. Your claim quoted here is false.

 

Just for fun I took a look at #2 in your link: "It's the sun." Maybe I missed something but I didn't find a cited paper newer than 2011. And the failure to recognize increased solar activity in the 20th century is a clean miss.

 

Why would a paper newer than 2011 be needed when solar activity and temperature went in a different direction in the 1970s? That's how long the solar theory has been dead.

Trying to resurrect it with the "increased solar activity in the 20th century also fails. For that theory to be true, heat hidden in the oceans would have to be heating the atmosphere. That means ocean temperatures would have to be decreasing, or at least heating at a steadily decreasing rate. We don't see that. We see the oceans still heating at a rapid rate, so that theory is disproved.

YOu also need to explain why solar activity and temperature trended the same, both up and down, before the 1970s. That is, the "ocean stores heat" thing apparently never happened prior to the 1970s, and for your theory to be taken seriously, you'd have to explain why your theory didn't hold in the past.

 

Your claim was DOA.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?
• So why is this link important for global warming? As previously mentioned, solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. This can be seen in fig. 5. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940's and 1970's (as can be seen in the ion chamber data in fig. 6), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period.
  
  Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).
  
  Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
  
  Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming.
  

Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

The next point to note is that Shepherd claimed that because solar activity stopped increasing from the 1990’s it cannot explain any further warming. This is plain wrong. Consider this example in false logic. The sun cannot be warming us because between noon and 2pm (or so), solar flux decreases while the temperature increases. As a Professor of meteorology, Prof. Shepherd should know about the heat capacity of the oceans such that assuming that the global temperature is something times the CO2 forcing plus something else times the solar forcing is too much of a simplification.

Instead, one can and should simulate the 20th century, and beyond, and see that when taking the sun into account, it explains about 1/2 to 2/3s of the 20th century warming, and that the best climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling (compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC). Two points to note here. First, although the best estimate of the solar radiative forcing is a bit less than the combined anthropogenic forcing, because it is spread more evenly over the 20th century, its contribution is larger than the anthropogenic contribution the bulk of which took place more recently. That's why the best fit gives that the solar contribution is 1/2 to 2/3s of the warming. Second, the reason that the best fit requires a smaller climate sensitivity is because the total net radiative forcing is about twice larger. This implies that a smaller sensitivity is required to fit the same observed temperature increase.

 

As expected, you didn't address what I actually stated here it is again:

"What the GALL you have to complain when you by habit ignore bushels full of published papers in threads mostly by Jack which is hypocrisy galore.

You haven't addressed any of the content of this article I posted TWO years ago:

Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK

LOL"

=========

Only honest people would carry on a real conversation not the duck and weave game you play every time you are here.

Your evasive word salad is you got.

 

Julia Hartley Brewer’s Furious CLASH With Extinction Rebellion Activist
Guest Blogger
Watch JHB skewer the clown from XR. . . .

 

Leading German Politician Warns Proposed Climate Policies Could Lead To “Uprisings” And “Riots”
By P Gosselin on 26. April 2023

Share this...
A leading German politician views proposed climate policies as a danger to the country’s civil stability and democracy.


Germany ignores the lessons of history. Image: French Revolution

“Ecological madness”…”ruinous retrofittings”
The mood in Germany has become outright ugly as citizens reel from high inflation and fear government policy initiatives that would bankrupt many if enacted. Business sentiment among small to medium companies is souring rapidly.

Among these initiatives is the current green-socialist government’s plan to force citizens and businesses to wean themselves off oil and gas heating beginning already next year. All the despair now risks morphing into anger and civil unrest, warns one opposition leader.

Uprisings among the poplulation

According to the new, rapidly emerging Austrian alternative media news site AUF 1, Saxony’s Minister President Michael Kretschmer of the CDU Christian Democrats warns of potential unrest and vehemently criticized the government’s current climate policy.

Saxony’s Kretschmer even explicitly warned of “uprisings among the population” and that “the government’s new plans would lead to ‘deindustrialisation and riots’,” AUF 1 reports. “His criticism was aimed above all at the Building Energy Act pushed by the Green Minister of Economics, Robert Habeck.”

Currently Habeck is sharply under attack for cronyism as his ministry funnels funds and influential positions to friends and family, many of whom are professionally unqualified for the positions.

“Ecological madness”

AUF 1 reminds that the proposed government ‘s green policies “will force ruinous retrofitting on millions of homeowners.” and that many citizens would simply not be able to afford the required renovation of their house or apartments. Homeowners would face renovation costs of at least tens of thousands of euros.”

Kretschmer called the Greens’ policy “ecological madness”.

The Austrian AUF 1 calls the governments policies “completely misguided” and that they will lead to “massive relocations of companies away from Germany.”

 

Climate Activism Has A Cult Problem. Plus, why are people who are supposed to care about cleaning up the planet so personally filthy?



'As a member of Extinction Rebellion, writes Zion Lights, I watched people brainwashed into pulling outrageous stunts in the name of 'saving the planet.''

'I was instructed to cry on television. “People need to see crying mothers,” Jamie Kelsey-Fry, the trainer and longtime XR activist, told me. “They need to be woken up to what they should really care about.” They asked if I’d bring my children to climate marches for the same reason. The whole thing was a masterclass on how to manipulate emotions. We were instructed to bring everything back to the climate emergency and how politicians were failing us. Nothing about solutions or science.'

'sociologist Janja Lalich identifies the key elements of a cult: “A cult is a group or movement with a shared commitment to a usually extreme ideology that is usually embodied in a charismatic leader.” Roger preached martyrdom—he pushed everyone to sacrifice more in order to “fill the jails”—and used fear and control as tools for wielding power. I’d often be asked by reporters if XR was a cult, and I’d say no. But it was. '

It's a cult.

 

Killing the whales.
NOAA proposes hammering 208% of vanishing Right Whales
Guest Blogger
Assuming a population of 340 this proposed Take Authorization is a horrific 208% of the dwindling Right Whale population. . . .

 

George Monbiot on Eco-terrorism: “I back saboteurs … but I won’t blow up a pipeline”
Eric Worrall
The problem with trying to justify terrorism in support of a political position is that door swings both ways. . . .

 

Have you ever thought of posting something besides how much you hate me? Just a thought.

Anyways, post #77. No denier managed a coherent response, so the thread was over there, except for me carving another notch. Dang, I'm good.

Wait. You're still upset because your bad propaganda from 2 years ago was ignored? You are obsessed with me.

Try to debate like an honest person, a liberal, like me. Don't link to bad propaganda pieces and then scream "BUT MY LINK!" as a way to deflect from discussion. Make a clear and logical point, in your own words, then back it up.

 

Cosmic ray theory say an increasing cosmic rays cause more nucleation particles, which causes more clouds, which causes cooling.

Cosmic ray flux has been steadily increasing since 2001.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html



Since the opposite of what the cosmic ray theory predicted came to pass, the cosmic ray theory of climate is disproved.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
--- Richard P. Feynman

There, your source ignores the fact that the oceans have been heating rapidly, which conclusively disproves the "well, the current fast warming is caused by heat stored in the oceans coming out to warm the air" theory. The oceans aren't emitting heat, they're storing heat.

 

Hence, the turn toward cooling.

Our planet’s temperature peaked in 2016 and has been in a disciplined decline since. It is in a channel 0.5°C wide with a slope of -0.03°C per annum. The atmosphere had been warming at 0.013°C per annum according to Dr Roy Spencer’s work. If the established cooling trend continues it will only take another decade to get back to the temperatures of the early 1980s. With the cooling trend firmly established, the question is: Can the proximate cause be found in the solar record?

 

Mamooth:

How can I hate someone who constantly destroy their own credibility with dead on arrival claims with the usual name calling as you did with that empty post #77 you think is great which really means you like word salad posts with no content that connects to anything.

Then you get angry for once again being exposed as being TERRIFIED of an article that uses the following source for the charts in it:

NASA, NOAA, IMBIE, IPCC, EMDAT, NWS, ACE, Nature, JMA, CMA, AMS, BOM, KNMI, NCEI, FMI, IUCN, U.N. Berkely Earth, CNFDB, Time Magazine, NYT, EPA, and more.

Your fear of official sources from the article you keep running away from is obvious.

I posted thus part at least a dozen times in front of YOU and other warmist/alarmists who all do the same thing.... run away.

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.


The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise."


Dang you are bad!

 

It is a FACT that Jack posts many published science papers in the threads which YOU habitually scoff or ignore thus no counterpoint comes which means you are still at the starting line.....

I write this truth which you blew up over because it IS factually true,

You can scream all you want but the fact remains you will not debate honestly.

 

YOu mean like when the RWNJ anti abortion crowd chains themselves across streets leading to abortion clinics, throw blood on people, and waves grotesque signs to shock them?

Or were you referring more to the part where they kill the doctors and blow up the clinic?

Or was the whole OP just blatant hypocrisy on your part?

 

You really think Jack supports killing doctors, throw blood on people and blow-up clinics?



Otherwise, you are deflecting big time.

 

I'm drawing comparisons and wondering if he called those things out when they happened.

This isn't brain surgery mang.

 

But your deflection indicate that you can't address it in the first place.

 

I'm pro-choice.