The Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

Warming was not denied. Attribution was (and is) disputed. Cooling since 2016 adds some spice.

 

How long has your blog been up? I am betting ALL of the fallacies Snopes found are still there and here is your opportunity

Look at those papers yourself. Try to see if they truly reflect what NTZ is claiming they do

 

Ahhhh! You never fail to entertain!!

 

I await your discussion of any substantive topic.

 

In other words you are NOT going to look at those claims yourself

 

Five years old. Unrelated to the thread topic.

 

I'm glad to see you back in action. I feared you were so mortified by your failure in the linked thread that you decided to withdraw.
Can I Call HCGW Deniers Idiots?

 

Nah! I just get sick and tired of people wanting me to do all the work

 

Sorry, but that's obviously false since I linked the research for you. I suspect the real problem was that you seemed to have no understanding of the Svensmark/Shaviv work.

 

No you cut and paste from a couple of sites and when I look at the research, often spending a considerable amount of time finding counter points I am dismissed out of hand

That is not productive debate it is someone simply refusing to look at counter arguments. Like you have here. i posted from Snopes - your response. - facile. I invited you to examine it further - your response, well let me say it reminded me of playing chess with pigeons.

If you want to debate this then DEBATE it. Actually go beyond cut and paste and blind defence and LOOK at the information you are trying, well I would say trying to defend but I doubt your responses rise to that level - especially not the responses to your latest cut and paste

This is an easy defence - you just have to look at a couple of papers and see if they match what this author is claiming

 

Here's an excerpt from a paper from the link in #38.
Koutsoyiannis, 2021

[T]he modern definitions of climate are seriously affected by the wrong perception of the previous two centuries that climate should regularly be constant, unless an external agent acts upon it. … [H]eat exchange by evaporation (and hence the latent heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere) is the Earth’s natural locomotive, with the total energy involved in the hydrological cycle being 1290 ZJ/year, corresponding to an energy flux density of 80 W/m2. Compared to human energy production (0.612 ZJ/year for 2014), the total energy of the natural locomotive is 2100 times higher than that of the human locomotive … Even though in the common perception it is carbon dioxide (CO2) that determines the greenhouse effect of the Earth, recent studies (Schmidt et al. [69]) attribute only 19% of the longwave radiation absorption to CO2 against 75% of water vapour and clouds, or a ratio of 1:4. … Another misconception, common in nonexperts, is that atmospheric CO2; is the product of human emissions, while in fact the latter contribute only 3.8% to the global carbon cycle. … sing reliable instrumental measurements of global T and CO2 concentration covering the time interval 1980–2019, a recent study found that in the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the dominant causality direction is T → CO2, rather than the other way round, despite the latter being the common perception.

 

And another:
Smirnov and Zhilyaev 2021

Because carbon dioxide molecules do not absorb in the additional spectrum range between 1200 cm−1 and 2600 cm−1, the radiative parameters due to CO2 molecules are close in these evaluations and in the previous one. In particular, the variation in radiative fluxes as a result of the change in the carbon dioxide amount in the atmosphere for these calculations are close. In this evaluation as well as previous evaluations, we have a contradiction with the results of climatological models in the analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, according to which the increase in the global temperature differs by five times. [T]he large difference results from ignoring, in climatological models, the Kirchhoff law [50], according to which radiators are simultaneously the absorbers. In this case, we take the change in the radiative flux created by CO2 molecules as the change of the total radiative flux.
Note the restrictions by the frequency range up to 1200 cm−1 in the previous calculations [1]; we thus assume that the atmosphere is transparent for larger frequencies, and the emission at larger frequencies is determined by clouds. However, according to the HITRAN data bank, water molecules absorb effectively in the enlarged frequency range. [A]tmospheric CO2 molecules are not the main radiator of the atmosphere. From these evaluations, it follows that water molecules in the atmosphere may be responsible for the observed heating of the Earth.

 

And another:
Coe et al., 2021

The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.

 

And just one more:
Stefani, 2021

The paper aims to quantify solar and anthropogenic influences on climate change, and to make some tentative predictions for the next hundred years. By means of double regression, we evaluate linear combinations of the logarithm of the carbon dioxide concentration and the geomagnetic aa index as a proxy for solar activity. Thereby, we reproduce the sea surface temperature (HadSST) since the middle of the 19th century with an adjusted R2 value of around 87 percent for a climate sensitivity (of TCR type) in the range of 0.6 K until 1.6 K per doubling of CO2. The solution of the double regression is quite sensitive: when including data from the last decade, the simultaneous occurrence of a strong El Niño and of low aa values leads to a preponderance of solutions with relatively high climate sensitivities around 1.6 K. If these later data are excluded, the regression delivers a significantly higher weight of the aa index and, correspondingly, a lower climate sensitivity going down to 0.6 K. The plausibility of such low values is discussed in view of recent experimental and satellite-borne measurements. We argue that a further decade of data collection will be needed to allow for a reliable distinction between low and high sensitivity values. In the second part, which builds on recent ideas about a quasi-deterministic planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo, we make a first attempt to predict the aa index and the resulting temperature anomaly for various typical CO2 scenarios. Even for the highest climate sensitivities, and an unabated linear CO2 increase, we predict only a mild additional temperature rise of around 1 K until the end of the century, while for the lower values an imminent temperature drop in the near future, followed by a rather flat temperature curve, is prognosticated.

 

I guess anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers make things up because the facts don't support their conclusions:

See? You simply made that up. No informed person denies that the earth has warmed since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, and NTZ has not tried to prove any such thing. You simply made it up.

That is another strawman fallacy. Of course climatologists don't deny the fact that the earth has experienced many similar century-scale warming episodes in the past. But hysterical anti-fossil fuel scaremongers -- who are of course not actually climatologists, or any other kind of scientists -- claim that the natural factors that caused all the similar previous warming episodes are somehow no longer operative, and only anthropogenic CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels could have caused the most recent warming episode.

The IPCC is denying that the natural factors that caused all previous similar warming episodes have also most likely caused the most recent one.

I don't hate any scientists. But the hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists whom I despise are claiming that the natural factors that caused all previous century-scale warming episodes are somehow no longer operative.

No, every informed person agrees that climate change is driven by external factors, though there is also internal variability due to the chaotic feedback effects within the climate system. The disagreement is that CO2 skeptics think it is most likely that the same natural external factors that caused all previous century-scale warming episodes, not CO2, are most likely also the cause of the most recent one, while hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists think it is most likely that those natural external factors are somehow no longer operative, so CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use must be causing it.

 

You are just falsely accusing me of the strawman fallacy I correctly identified. It is indisputable that claiming CO2 skeptics "deny global warming" is a strawman fallacy, and your accusation that my identification of that fallacy as such is itself a strawman fallacy merely compounds the original fallacy with a fallacious, absurd and disingenuous fabrication.

Disgraceful.

 

They didn't say anything substantive to disprove, merely sneered and smeared.

 

I suspect the most recent edition includes screen shot excerpts from the papers specifically to preclude snopes-style smears.

 

Bowerbird writes:

"If you want to debate this then DEBATE it. Actually go beyond cut and paste and blind defence and LOOK at the information you are trying, well I would say trying to defend but I doubt your responses rise to that level - especially not the responses to your latest cut and paste."

I think you are just making excuses to avoid dealing and debating with published papers Jack "cut and paste" from.

This is straight from Climate that Jack "cut and paste" from.

=====

Solar and Anthropogenic Influences on Climate: Regression Analysis and Tentative Predictions

Frank Stefani

Abstract
The paper aims to quantify solar and anthropogenic influences on climate change, and to make some tentative predictions for the next hundred years. By means of double regression, we evaluate linear combinations of the logarithm of the carbon dioxide concentration and the geomagnetic aa index as a proxy for solar activity. Thereby, we reproduce the sea surface temperature (HadSST) since the middle of the 19th century with an adjusted R2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">R2 value of around 87 percent for a climate sensitivity (of TCR type) in the range of 0.6 K until 1.6 K per doubling of CO2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">2. The solution of the double regression is quite sensitive: when including data from the last decade, the simultaneous occurrence of a strong El Niño and of low aa values leads to a preponderance of solutions with relatively high climate sensitivities around 1.6 K. If these later data are excluded, the regression delivers a significantly higher weight of the aa index and, correspondingly, a lower climate sensitivity going down to 0.6 K. The plausibility of such low values is discussed in view of recent experimental and satellite-borne measurements. We argue that a further decade of data collection will be needed to allow for a reliable distinction between low and high sensitivity values. In the second part, which builds on recent ideas about a quasi-deterministic planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo, we make a first attempt to predict the aa index and the resulting temperature anomaly for various typical CO2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">2 scenarios. Even for the highest climate sensitivities, and an unabated linear CO2" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">2 increase, we predict only a mild additional temperature rise of around 1 K until the end of the century, while for the lower values an imminent temperature drop in the near future, followed by a rather flat temperature curve, is prognosticated.

LINK

=====

Jack did the same thing with the other Published science papers; your excuses are invalid since you actually avoiding the published papers themselves and avoiding debate on a bogus "cut and paste" argument.

Suggest that you just drop the "cut and paste" argument let it go since you are clearly avoiding debate on them.

 

I doubt that will stop them.

 

There is no crisis.
GWPF’s ‘State of the Planet’ Climate Report Shows No Crisis in Sight
ECONOMICS AND POLICY APRIL 25, 2022

 

It's her usual appeal to authority figures..... As though no one else is qualified to speak on the subject.

 

No

Appeal to research over opinion and blogs

Facts over conspiracy

science over politics

 

And completely failed to show the impact of this paper and how it rebuts the IPCC

 

You can parrot left wing gibberbabble. Good job!

BTW, I have a whole page that I keep on my online friend's reference forum that lists out every single left wing buzzword that I have ever encountered over the past year or so (whenever I started compiling the list). I am over 200 unique entries now (and the entries are still steadily increasing). Leftists really do say a whole lot of things that mean absolutely nothing in the manner that they are saying them.