Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

You are not wrong there I fear. I have debated many members here claiming to be engineers, l though again they do not show any degree of academic rigor in posts so I really really end up doubting claims of academic qualifications unless they show they can use citations appropriately

 

Hmmmm have you not heard of automation? A LOT of our rural stations are sited on private property. Mind you the farmers my have to remove the thermometer from the cow’s arse before recording and reporting the air temperature (joke)

If you had bothered to read the links I provided you will have seen that the UHI effect was debunked completely with the Berkeley Earth project some 10+ years ago

 

And I suppose you claim this proves something?

What exactly?

 

Why does academic rigor matter and what specifically makes you qualified to judge it? Or anything else for that matter?

 

<yawn>

No they do not. All claims that temperature statistics show they do are based on faulty and deliberately dishonest methodology.

<yawn>

 

Even automated stations, especially automated stations have to be calibrated and placed properly. You provided a list without a link identifying it. It could have been a list of outhouses for all we know.

 

Ahhhhh, yup, this'll be good.

I've had plenty of past correspondence with mamooth on this forum, and his sermon preaching is no different than the sermons that all the other physics deniers preach. The Church of Global Warming really only has three sermons, and they can all be summarized by "one great big lie of omission".

An internet forum friend of mine summed it up like this: "But let's examine more of your religion:

Your religious dogma teaches all to believe the following conclusions and to not ask any questions or apply any critical reasoning:

* that earth's ice is somehow disappearing ... by pointing to all the dying glaciers ... without ever making any mention of the equivalent number of glaciers that are growing or that are nascent.
* that the ocean is somehow becoming more acidic ... by pointing to atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the ocean ... without ever mentioning the ocean's massive, persistent evaporation that far exceeds the paltry rate of CO2 absorption, that releases all absorbed CO2 back into the atmosphere.
* that extreme weather is somehow increasing, by simply pointing to each individual disaster somewhere, without mentioning all the lacks of disasters when and where there aren't any, without keeping tabs on excellent weather or nice weather, without ever mentioning that all such activity is completely normal within the context of weather, and without mentioning that there is absolutely no basis for claiming that disasters are somehow increasing in either severity or frequency.
* that atmospheric CO2 is somehow increasing, by pointing to "human activity" without ever mentioning that humans are not capable of generating quantities of CO2 that will not be readily and greedily consumed by the earth's burgeoning plant life, both on land and over the ocean's carpet of algae, seaweed, phytoplankton and many others.

... i.e. it's all one big lie of omission, and stupid people fall for it. This is why the stupidest among us are the ones targeted for indoctrination and why when you encounter a warmizombie, he will be scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. I routinely encounter warmizombies who claim to hold PhDs in physics. I immediately know from their belief in the all of the above that their PhDs are honorary degrees bestowed by Climate clergy for demonstrating profound faith.

Religions offer hope and comfort in a chaotic world. One of the great puzzles of modern times is how Climate Change and Global Warming somehow offer any hope. Everything about the religion is catastrophic doom-n-gloom, and it might already be too late! The answer is that the Climate family of faiths offers hope on an individual level. The catastrophic doom-n-gloom panic is what generates the "chaotic world". The religion tells the stupid losers of the world that if only they will believe profoundly and unquestioningly that Climate Change is real, they will transform into science genius superheroes who will be initiated into the Climate Justice League, deputized to lay down the law with those evil, blood-sucking conservatives, and empowered to save the planet by whatever means they deem appropriate."

 

Once upon a time I launched a thread on that very topic.
Eschatology and Global Warming

I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.

The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press[/h]https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...

Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books[/h]https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...
Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...

 

The only citations that are necessary and relevant are citations to the mathematical formulas of the relevant laws of science themselves.

Anything else is simply a false authority "holy link" meant to preach a physics-denying religion.

 

Bowerbird probably has me on ignore by now for being too truthful.

 

Yup, the "blank space" is just too truthful.

Why would I have a theory for "climate change" when I outright reject "climate change" in favor of accepting logic, math, and physics?

YOU are the one claiming that it is happening, so it is on YOU to support your claim. If your support rejects logic, math, or physics, I will dismiss it accordingly.

 

Generally correct, but here are some slight modifications to be even more accurate:

1) Work on letting go of the habit of using "their" language. I even slip up on it from time to time, but "their" language is nonsensical on its face and needs to be called out for that. The words "the climate" (or "Earth's climate", or "global climate") make absolutely no sense. Earth has many many MANY different climates, not just one, as climate is simply a subjective characterization of local conditions. (e.g. Phoenix is "hot and dry", Congress is "combative and divided", etc). Climate cannot change because there is no measure for climate (it is just a subjective characterization). "hot and dry" is always "hot and dry", "combative and divided" is always "combative and divided". There is no change as there is no unit of measure associated with it TO measure any change.

2) "Isn't changing significantly" should be amended to 'isn't changing perceptibly' or 'isn't changing at all'... I usually ask the question: "Why should any rational adult believe that Earth's average global temperature is increasing?"

 

Excellent my friend. That's why I come here, to learn.

 

It's always good to see people here who are willing to learn. My own knowledge on the subject used to be very limited until I put in the years worth of effort to learn about it, and I kept making mistakes (small and large) all while doing so. That's how one learns, after all.

 

@Pieces of Malarkey

Since you are here to learn, I'll post here a summation of the "three sermons" that I made reference to earlier, that the Church of Global Warming regularly preaches and cycles between once someone calls them out for their physics denial. Once again, these are the words of an internet forum friend of mine (he's MUCH more eloquent with his wording than I am), and the "three sermons" are noted below as '2a', '2b', and '2c':

"The laws of thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzman and Planck's law represent the science that kill your Global Warming religion, principally by quashing your greenhouse effect doctrine. Warmizombies cannot make their dogma "work" without violating this science in some way.

1. Global Warming is the Marxist religion that asserts the inexplicable spontaneous increase in earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output, i.e. the equilibrium temperature simply increases without any additional energy. This is an egregious violation of Planck's law, the zeroth law of thermodynamics and of all black body science.

2. greenhouse effect is the doctrine that provides the holy mechanism for earth's Global Warming (see point 1) which began during the Industrial Revolution, specifically upon the writing of the sacred Communist Manifesto text. Global Warming, as taught by the Church, is caused by miraculous greenhouse gases which are attributed to human activity (that all points back to conservatives) that have magical superpowers to defy physics, as follows:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... when it is pointed out that point 2a is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, the preacher backpedals from 2a with the words "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2b, as such:

- 2b. greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a big, warm, cumfy wool blanket that cradles the earth in Global Warming. This cumfy blanket is totally transparent/non-existent to inbound solar energy, but then "traps" some of earth's "heat" by preventing earth's radiance (thermal radiation) from escaping into space. This causes a direct increase in the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

... when it is pointed out that point 2b is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, because radiance and temperature always move in the same direction, i.e. you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance, the preacher backpedals from 2b with the words "no one is claiming that radiance is being decreased ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2c, as such:

- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.

... when it is pointed out that point 2c is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the much warmer lithosphere cannot be heated by the much cooler atmosphere, the preacher backpedals from 2c with the words "no one is claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow warming the earth ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2a, as such:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... and the cycle continues forever.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff."

 

I was working in DC as a corporate lobbyist when Massachusetts v. EPA was decided and then spent a disastrous stint with NHTSA in 2009 trying to square EPA's new found CO2 regulatory rights with existing CAFE standards. The true center of a very malevolent storm. All the while trying to decipher what I knew to be false with a whole new global paradigm.

Fortunately for me and my family we're like Bumbles and we managed to bounce. But now it's just a hobby of peeling back the layers and anticipating the joy of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as it crushes this nonsense. Might even have the opportunity to go back to NHTSA to help unravel the damage.

Thanks again.

 

‘Like something out of a Hollywood movie’: Scientists say 2023 likely to be the hottest year on record

An extraordinary run of global temperature records means that 2023 is now “virtually certain” to be the warmest year ever logged, according to the EU’s climate change service.

The EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) on Wednesday said that this was the warmest October on record globally, noting an average surface temperature of 15.3 degrees Celsius (59.54 degrees Fahrenheit) over the period.

That was 0.85 degrees Celsius above the 1991-2020 average for October and 1.7 degrees Celsius warmer than the preindustrial period of 1850-1900.

The data, which is collated from the measurement of satellites, ships, aircraft and weather stations around the world, show the global mean temperature year-to-date is the highest on record. It leaves 2023 firmly on track to surpass the temperature average for 2016 — currently the warmest year ever recorded.

Extreme heat is fueled by the climate crisis, the chief driver of which is the burning of fossil fuels.

Climate scientists said the findings are “like something out of a Hollywood movie” and attributed the rise in global temperatures to ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions and a strengthening El Niño event.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/08/cli...-likely-to-be-the-hottest-year-on-record.html

"Global Warming is the Marxist religion that asserts the inexplicable spontaneous increase in earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output, i.e. the equilibrium temperature simply increases without any additional energy. This is an egregious violation of Planck's law, the zeroth law of thermodynamics and of all black body science."

Those darn Marxists aren't so much asserting the global average surface temperature is rising as they are demonstrating that it is. Planck's law notwithstanding.

 

Wow. A single one month was 1.7 degrees warmer than the average of 50 years over 120 years ago. Sometimes, you really need to read what you post.

 

People are choosing to live in warming.
‘Demographic Warming’: Humans Increasingly Choose to Live Where It’s Warmer
November 8th, 2023

The urban heat island (UHI) was first described by Luke Howard in 1833 for London, England. Urban area air temperatures are almost always warmer than their rural surroundings, especially at night. Thus, the average human experiences warmer temperatures than they would if they lived in wilderness conditions.

This has nothing to do with global warming, and would occur even if there was no long-term ‘global warming’. In fact, since over 50% of the Earth’s population now lives in urban areas (expected to increase to nearly 70% by 2045), the temperatures humans actually experience would continue to break high temperature records even without climate change. . . .

 

And that on a planet where the diurnal temperature range can exceed 200 degree F.

 

There are so many things wrong with Lee's statement that it is pathetic. Comparing an average to an extreme and comparing todays data with data over one hundred and twenty years ago using ship's data. Ships typically did not carry radios over 120 years ago and did not report air temperatures. Basically, it is comparing land based temperatures a hundred and twenty years ago with land and sea temperatures today with over 75% of the earth is covered with water.

 

Exactly so. Almost the entirety of the AGW argument is based on what normal people would call anomalous data sets. CO2 is increasing. How do we know? Well we measure it every year. And where are these measurement taken? well a few miles fro Maunaloa and Maunakea the two most active volcanoes in the US. Doesn't all that burning crap raise local CO2 levels? Climate change denier!

 

The only citations that are necessary and relevant are the conclusions of peer-reviewed studies. Which, BTW, for the last 20-25 years have ALL been consistent with the AGW consensus.

Math formulas and physical laws are wonderful if you're a climatologist working on a project. Not necessary if all you want to know is where the scientific consensus stands.

They are also great for those who think they can BECOME climatologists just by reading science denialist webpages. Normal folk who understand how science WORKS need only defer to the historical success of the Scientific Method.

 

Except for the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies Jack has posted links to....

 

Show me this consensus where they actually asked the scientists.