Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints

[SYZ]

As for "pyramids".  I posted a new theory put forward by an Israeli scientist who said that, like the Romans, the Egyptians had technology to make cement, which is what the Romans used to construct their sewers.  It's well known.

I think you're confused.  Joseph Davidovits (not Davidowitz) was was not an Israeli. He was French. And his theory
is not "new"; this absurd pyramid theory was debunked 45 years ago.

"Since 1974 Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, has been proposing that the pyramids and temples of
Old Kingdom Egypt were built of geopolymer 'concrete' poured into moulds, rather than quarried blocks of limestone.
We use geological evidence and engineering principles to demonstrate the flaws in this daring hypothesis. Pyramid
and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale [scanning electron microscopy]
properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions
and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden moulds, and some blocks show quarrying marks.
It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist."

—Robert Louis Folk & Donald Harvey Campbell, Are the Pyramids of Egypt Built of Poured Concrete Blocks?, Journal of Geological Education, 1992.

[Deltabravo]

As for "pyramids".  I posted a new theory put forward by an Israeli scientist who said that, like the Romans, the Egyptians had technology to make cement, which is what the Romans used to construct their sewers.  It's well known.

I think you're confused.  Joseph Davidovits (not Davidowitz) was was not an Israeli. He was French. And his theory
is not "new"; this absurd pyramid theory was debunked 45 years ago.

"Since 1974 Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, has been proposing that the pyramids and temples of
Old Kingdom Egypt were built of geopolymer 'concrete' poured into moulds, rather than quarried blocks of limestone.
We use geological evidence and engineering principles to demonstrate the flaws in this daring hypothesis. Pyramid
and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale [scanning electron microscopy]
properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions
and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden moulds, and some blocks show quarrying marks.
It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist."

—Robert Louis Folk & Donald Harvey Campbell, Are the Pyramids of Egypt Built of Poured Concrete Blocks?, Journal of Geological Education, 1992.

Yeah, that's the guy!

I posted his theory.   I also never posted that I agreed with it.

It's plainly a crackpot theory and people who value their reputations would never, ever dream even of talking about it.

http://news.mit.edu/2008/gathering-concrete-evidence

[Deltabravo]

"It's not science unless we formulate hypotheses that can be proved or disproved"

Except climate change, which is unique because it can never be disproved.

[Deltabravo]

Yeah, I suppose I said, before I read this article from MIT, that the Romans used concrete and that maybe the Egyptians did.

Oh, shit!


Gathering 'concrete' evidence

MIT class explores controversial pyramid theory with scale model

David Chandler, MIT News Office
April 2, 2008

Even though they are among the best-known structures on Earth, the pyramids of Egypt may still hold surprises. This spring, an MIT class is testing a controversial theory that some of the giant blocks that make up the great pyramids of Giza may have been cast in place from concrete, rather than quarried and moved into position.

In order to help identify blocks that were cast rather than quarried, students in the class, Materials in Human Experience (class 3.094), are assembling a small pyramid using a combination of both kinds of material. They will then use techniques such as microscopic imagery and chemical analysis to look for signs that might provide ways of telling the difference on samples from the Great Pyramid itself.

While many people think of concrete as a recent material, in fact the Romans used a version made from volcanic ash and lime extensively for most of their famous buildings, including the Pantheon. But although the idea that the Egyptians may have used a kind of concrete in building the pyramids was first suggested in the 1930s, with a specific material that could have been used proposed in 1988, so far there has been no proof and the idea has remained mired in controversy.
Contentious subject

In fact, the very idea has been so controversial that "you can't get research funding, and it's difficult to get a paper through peer review," says Linn Hobbs, professor of materials science and engineering and professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT and coteacher of the pyramid-building class.

Hobbs says that actually building a small-scale model of the pyramid using the materials and methods the Egyptians may have used is far more than just an educational exercise for the students. "Like any other investigation of ancient technologies, you can only get so far by speculating, and even only so far by looking at evidence. To go the rest of the way, you have to do the thing yourself. You have to get acquainted with the materials."
Speculating on materials

The materials and know-how needed to cast the pyramids' giant 2-1/2 ton blocks in place, rather than quarrying and moving blocks of solid limestone, was definitely available to the Egyptians, Hobbs explains. At least 90 percent of the material would have consisted of powdered limestone, and Egyptian limestone is especially fragile and can easily be reduced to finely divided sludge simply by soaking it in water. The rest--the binder or cement--could have been made from materials they were known to have had and used for other purposes.

The binder, known as a geopolymer, could have been made from lime, kaolinite (a kind of clay), a fine silica (such as diatomaceous earth) and natron (sodium carbonate). The same ingredients were used by the Egyptians to make self-glazing pottery ornaments, a material called Egyptian faience, and well known to archeologists. When fired at high temperature, the material produces a rich blue glaze on the surface. But if left for days or weeks at room temperature, it self-cures into a rock-hard material that could have provided a binder for cementing the disaggregated limestone together into cast blocks.

Hobbs suggests that some ancient craftsman may have inadvertently left some faience material unfired, and discovered by accident the hard material that resulted. In building pyramids, especially the higher layers as the structure grew, casting blocks in place would have been a far easier task than carving them to precise sizes and shapes and then moving them up long earthen ramps into their final positions -- a process that has never been described or pictured in any of the vast number of Egyptian texts and murals that have been found.
Like Silly Putty and Jell-O

While wet, the consistency of the material is quite different from modern Portland cement, Hobbs says. "It's like something between mortar and Jell-O. When you try to pack it, it kind of ripples," he says. "It's rather like Silly Putty."

But the unusual material has a significant advantage: It doesn't shrink when it sets. "With most cements, you worry about shrinkage," Hobbs says, but not with this kind.

The class has been experimenting with different proportions and variations in ingredients for the geopolymer, to see which produces the strongest, most durable and limestone-like results. "This is not a cookbook class," Hobbs explains--he and the students are figuring things out as they go along.
An agnostic in search of answers

Hobbs is not pushing the cast-block theory, which was first advanced by French materials chemist Joseph Davidovits, who invented (or perhaps reinvented) the geopolymer formula. Hobbs calls himself an agnostic on the matter, but thinks that it is a theory that deserves serious study and investigation.

"My own take is, they probably did both--cut some and cast some," he says.

"It's not science unless we formulate hypotheses that can be proved or disproved," he says. He hopes the class will produce a scientific paper detailing how the question could be resolved more definitively through microscopic and microchemical analysis. "It's good that the students can see a real scientific controversy being addressed in productive ways."

[Deltabravo]

And they did use microscopic examinations to test the theory and the results have been published:

https://watershedmaterials.com/blog/2015...le-masonry

"Needless to say, Davidovits’s theory caused quite a stir among Egyptologists, historians, materials science researchers, and anyone who cared that a well-established explanation for the construction of something as iconic as an Egyptian pyramid was being turned on its head. Not only that, but if the Egyptians cast block in place from an early form of concrete, many established theories assigning the invention of mass produced concrete to the Romans would be off by a few thousand years.

One would imagine that modern scientists with electron microscopes could prove in short order whether Davidovits was correct or crazy. Enter Michel Barsoum, professor of materials science at Drexel University. Barsoum, a native of Egypt, never meant to get into the study of the pyramids but was amazed to hear Davidovits’s theory. Barsoum was more amazed to find that no one had proved - or disproved - the idea.

Barsoum, along with a graduate student named Adrish Ganguly, began studying samples from the inner and outer casings of the Pyramids. What they thought would be a months long study turned into a 5 year odyssey. In the end, they disproved some of Davidovits’s assumptions but proved his overall theory.

Barsoum believes that the Egyptians did cast a small but significant portion of the block in the pyramids. His electron microscope analysis indicates the Egyptians didn’t use clay in the geopolymer mixture, as Davidovits proposed, but rather Diatomaceous earth, a naturally occurring, commonly found soft sedimentary rock formed from the fossilized remains of algae. And Barsoum importantly disagrees with Davidovits by suggesting that not all the blocks were cast in place geopolymer. Rather, Barsoum suggests that the Egyptians used both man-made cast block along with limestone block quarried and hauled to the site in the way our traditional explanation proposes. Barsoum believes that only the exterior casing blocks and the blocks at the higher levels of the pyramids were cast geopolymer blocks. This makes sense - the casing block were visible, so cast-in-place block with extremely accurate “joints” would be appropriate to exterior application. And the block at higher levels of the pyramids were harder and harder to get to for quarried blocks hauled up ramps - replacing these with cast-in-place geopolymer blocks made life a lot easier."

[Inkubus]

Not only that, but if the Egyptians cast block in place from an early form of concrete, many established theories assigning the invention of mass produced concrete to the Romans would be off by a few thousand years.

If the Egyptians were smart enough to invent and cast concrete then why didn't they build the pyramids via Slipforming.

My wild arsed guess is it would have taken a quarter of the time and half the workforce.

[Minimalist]

Bad news from the Marshall Islands.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/marshal...president/

Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine stressed Friday the need for dramatic climate action and international support to ensure her people are not left as “sitting ducks” when sea levels inevitably rise.

In an interview with AFP in Geneva, Heine detailed a range of projects underway aimed at helping prepare and adapt her far-flung country, made up of 1,156 low-lying islands, scattered over 29 coral atolls, to rapidly shifting realities brought on by climate change.

Two things stand out in the article.

But this may not be enough. The Marshall Islands is also preparing for the possibility that the territory could eventually be swallowed by the sea.

“We want to stay where we are, where we belong, but if it comes to that then we need to consider… strategies,” Heine said.
She pointed out that Marshall Islanders are granted visa-free travel to the United States, and many have already gone there to start fresh.

Wait until the Orange Shitgibbon hears that!

And:

The US, which detonated 67 bombs at the Enewetak and Bikini atolls between 1947 and 1958 as part of its nuclear test programme, built a dome-shaped structure on Runit island to store the radioactive debris.

Rising seas are now threatening to undermine the structural integrity of the thick concrete dome, which has already developed cracks.

Oh yeah.... long-term storage of nuclear waste.

[Paleophyte]

The human race is currently releasing more CO2 annually than is estimated to be produced by the eruption of a supervolcano. I'd like to see how anybody thinks that we can continue releasing CO2 at that rate and not change the climate.

[Minimalist]

Meet the dumbest fuck on the planet.

[Aractus]

Someone do me a favour and show this to Greta:



If you want to read some sense about climate change, here's a peer review article by Judith Curry, an actual climate scientist, along with an interview with journalist Guy Sorman. Sorman's own experience is telling: "In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others."

[Alan V]

If you want to read some sense about climate change, here's a peer review article by Judith Curry, an actual climate scientist, along with an interview with journalist Guy Sorman. Sorman's own experience is telling: "In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others."

There are thousands of "actual climate scientists," the vast majority of whom disagree with Judith Curry.  They take into account uncertainties but they also depend on paleoclimatology for their future projections, and not just on speculations.

As for the IPCC, anyone who denies CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are pumping more and more of it into the atmosphere, and that the climate is warming because of it is simply denying science.  No scientists says warming is caused only by CO2.  There are other powerful greenhouse gases and feedback mechanisms involved.  But CO2 is the primary driver of current warming, since several other long term, natural climate change mechanisms have been eliminated from the short term picture.  And it is simply inaccurate to say that climatologists have no explanations for other historical changes to the climate.  You need to read more about the actual science.

Perhaps you think it's funny that we run a very big risk of flooding our coasts over a relatively short period of time, or killing off the coral reefs and the Amazon rainforest, and starving poor people in certain countries.  Yes, some people will benefit in the short run, as climatologists themselves do indeed acknowledge, but in the long run we all suffer in various ways -- especially once natural feedback mechanisms kick in and climate change becomes self-perpetuating.

So your post promotes a conspiracy theory.

[Aractus]

As for the IPCC, anyone who denies CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are pumping more and more of it into the atmosphere, and that the climate is warming because of it is simply denying science.

You obviously didn't read the links because she doesn't say that at all.

No scientists says warming is caused only by CO2.

She doesn't doubt that. what Curry points out is how much remains unknown in climate science.

“Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, 'almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.' Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.”

The problem is, like I've been saying for over 10 years, that the climate models are used as evidence for the theory of anthropogenic climate change. There are natural factors that are ignored, both factors inside the earth, and factors outside of it. One such factor is the Milankovitch cycles:



Now I was taught in primary school, alongside that global warming was a big problem, that it's summer when the earth is closest to the sun. And that much is true, but it's both a southern-hemispherical-biased view, and it's not causational - it's pure coincidence, that just happens to be where we are in the Milankovitch cycles. I think we were taught that it's summer because we're closest to the sun in summer (Jan 3 to be exact), and that is simply wrong. While it's summer for us, the northern hemisphere experiences winter. The situation reverses every 12,000 years. So 12,000 years ago it was winter for us in the southern hemisphere when we were closest to the sun, and that will also be the case 12,000 years from now. The point here is that in every year we are in a unique position within the Milankovitch cycles, January 1st is not in the same position relative to the sun year-after-year, and we know the Milankovitch cycles have an effect on climate.

Let me repeat in a way that will illustrate this. In 12,000 years from now, the earth will be where it is relative to the sun not on December 3, but on June 3. We'll be on the opposite side of the sun (approximately) to where we are today on December 3 14019 CE. The Milankovitch cycles are believed to be at least one direct cause of the Earth's ice ages.

Another known powerful driver of short-term climate change is the earth's ocean oscillations (cycles). They're so powerful in fact that they regularly cause the El Niño and La Niña events. Since these are caused by ocean oscillations they should be easy to forecast; however they remain in large part unpredictable - because we don't fully understand the ocean's oscillations and precisely how they interact with each other.

"The influence of the ocean circulation on the climate of Ireland is more subtle than it first appears. Temperatures in Ireland are warmer than similar Pacific maritime climates. It is heat ‐ carried primarily in the Atlantic overturning circulation ‐ released over the Atlantic that provides this additional warmth. We investigate variations in Irish climate using long‐term station‐based time series. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) explains over 90% of the pronounced decadal temperature and summer precipitation variation. Understanding the impact of these ocean variations when interpreting long climate records, particularly in the context of a changing climate, is crucial." (McCarthy & Walsh 2015, abstract, emphasis added).

The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation follows a ~60 year cycle. It swallows heat for ~30 years, and then it releases heat for ~30 years. This cycle repeats. For more on the effects of this with much more peer review evidence see this page. Here is where the cycle is presently on NOAA:



As you can see, it's at the peak of its cycle, but the peak could last another decade or so releasing heat before it starts swallowing heat. And it's only one ocean oscillation that affects climate.

There are other powerful greenhouse gases and feedback mechanisms involved.  But CO2 is the primary driver of current warming, since several other long term, natural climate change mechanisms have been eliminated from the short term picture.  And it is simply inaccurate to say that climatologists have no explanations for other historical changes to the climate.  You need to read more about the actual science.

What's inaccurate is to say that you can simply eliminate natural climate drivers. The global trend is largely an illusion from a number of climate drivers overlapping in their cycles. Some presently have a warming effect, like  the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, and others like the Pacific decadal oscillation are currently in their cooling phase (don't let the name fool you it's also multi-decadal). CO2 plays a role, but certainly not as the "primary driver". As you yourself have pointed out you have to invoke a positive feedback mechanism.

Perhaps you think it's funny that we run a very big risk of flooding our coasts over a relatively short period of time, or killing off the coral reefs and the Amazon rainforest, and starving poor people in certain countries.  Yes, some people will benefit in the short run, as climatologists themselves do indeed acknowledge, but in the long run we all suffer in various ways -- especially once natural feedback mechanisms kick in and climate change becomes self-perpetuating.

What you're talking about is regional climate change, and that always happens regardless of any global trend.

So your post promotes a conspiracy theory.

Utter rubbish. Climate alarmism has become a religion. We have to learn to adapt to climate change. You're not going to prevent the next ice age, and climate is always changing. CO2 is not a pollutant, and so-called "clean energy" is nothing of the sort, solar panel waste is more toxic than nuclear waste. Burning coal is a lot more environmentally friendly than creating toxic waste, wouldn't you say? And we presently have no plans on how to manage the toxic waste either. Most solar panels are not recycled either.

Unfortunately there's been a one-sided ideological narrative that's been spun and taken over Europe in particular. That's your conspiracy. Even if CO2 is driving climate, and was 100% responsible (which it's not it's only 47% responsible of anthropogenic GHGs in the climate models) it's not a pollutant. It'd be better to invest in capture and storage than to produce more and more toxic waste from solar panels, much of which leeches into soil and then waterways. Or we could move to nuclear, a power source still not in use in Australia, but which is 300x cleaner than solar.

[Alan V]

The problem is, like I've been saying for over 10 years, that the climate models are used as evidence for the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

And as I also already said, the strength of such models is that they are based on evidence from paleoclimatology. They are also tested for accuracy against historical climate variations.

The mistake you and others make is that you believe climate scientists haven't already considered and eliminated all of your possible objections, or that they haven't properly qualified the uncertainties in their projections. This is simply untrue. For instance, climate scientists take into account both chaotic variations in weather patterns and periodic regional climate variations to detect the signal of climate change in the noise of stray factors.

That's why you have to fall back on conspiracy theories to explain why 97 to 99% of climate scientists disagree with you.

[Aractus]

The problem is, like I've been saying for over 10 years, that the climate models are used as evidence for the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

And as I also already said, the strength of such models is that they are based on evidence from paleoclimatology.  They are also tested for accuracy against historical climate variations.

The mistake you and others make is that you believe climate scientists haven't already considered and eliminated all of your possible objections, or that they haven't properly qualified the uncertainties in their projections.  This is simply untrue.  For instance, climate scientists take into account both chaotic variations in weather patterns and periodic regional climate variations to detect the signal of climate change in the noise of stray factors.

That's why you have to fall back on conspiracy theories to explain why 97 to 99% of climate scientists disagree with you.

Firstly, there's no "97%" that's a made up number. And it includes all scientists, not just climate scientists. I'm sure if you did a survey amongst all scientists of "is Einstein's theory of general relativity right" most would say "yes". If you asked those actually qualified as physicists almost none of them would say that. It's at minimum incomplete.



Also I'm not claiming there's a "conspiracy" just that there's a con.

Secondly the mistake that you make is in not getting your information from the primary scientific/academic sources. You're relying on politicians, activists, and others who have no qualification in climate science. The main scientific body that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change is the IPCC, and they're tainted by (a.) being political, and (b.) by enforcing conclusions editorially where the science doesn't provide those conclusions. This is one thing Lindzen and some others who were actually involved in the IPCC complained about - he said their conclusions that they (the authors) signed off on and submitted were changed without their knowledge or consent to make the science sound more settled. Lindzen has repeatedly disputed that there is a climate problem. He was an IPCC scientist (and remains a respected climate scientist).

Thirdly, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of climate models that have been run. Some of them will predict the 21st century climate trend out of pure coincidence. This is the problem. If we were talking about only a small handful of auditable climate models then it might make sense to use them as evidence, but the fact there are so many is a huge problem when you want to use it as evidence. Even institutions like NASA, CSIRO, etc., have put out many different models.

There's a good article here by author/journalist David Siegel, who had a similar journey to mine, when going for a more sceptical approach. But let me start by quoting Lindzen:

"For over thirty years, I have given talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a nonexpert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, the fact that warming has decreased profoundly for the past eighteen years, etc., it is obvious that the audience's eyes are glazing over. Although I present evidence as to why this issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97 percent of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past eighteen years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, Arctic ice is melting, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, according to the alarmists. I tend to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry and even downright dishonest, but, unfortunately, many of my listeners believe it."

The first time I can remember firmly distancing myself from the claims of alarmists, was when they started invoking weather events as evidence for global warming. This must have been around 2004 or 2005. Weather is not climate. I hear exactly the same dishonest rhetoric today, and a lot of people have somehow been duped into believing it. The claims of the far-left that began this nonsensical rhetoric pushing this as an agenda have become mainstream. "More droughts and bushfires" because of climate change they proclaim. In Europe they claim "more floods, more rain". More extreme weather events ... even though that's not the real-world case at all!

The phrase "carbon pollution" is also dishonest. What about the toxic waste from the so-called "clean energy" of solar panels (they create 300x more toxic waste per kilowatt hour compared to nuclear power)? How can anyone honestly call solar "clean"?

The term "climate denier" is also a negative label for sceptics. It shows an intolerance for evidence that might challenge the "accepted science". That's not how science works, that's how religion works. Intolerance is a hallmark of religion. Science advances through falsification. I would further note religions have abused science in the same way, and misused the science for their own agendas.

If the climate alarmists had an honest message to sell they wouldn't need to perpetrate lies.

The third reason to be sceptical is that decarbonisation allows Europe to continue to prevent Africa from industrialising, something they've been actively doing for some centuries now. It will allow their exploitative and predatory "trade" practises with Africa to continue indefinitely. And who is most in favour of decarbonisation? Europe.

So that's where we are when we look at who stands to gain, who's been pushing this agenda, and what their message has been.

So if you want to show me Alan V  that there is a "climate emergency" then you need to do it with the scholarly scientific evidence, not with Europe-centric political rhetoric and fallacious appeals to the "97%". As I mentioned before, the 97% is a figure based on a single survey of scientists from all fields (not just those related to climate science) and the question was "is CO2 a GHG and a contributing factor of global warming", not "is CO2 driving global warming".

[Cavebear]

The problem is, like I've been saying for over 10 years, that the climate models are used as evidence for the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

And as I also already said, the strength of such models is that they are based on evidence from paleoclimatology.  They are also tested for accuracy against historical climate variations.

The mistake you and others make is that you believe climate scientists haven't already considered and eliminated all of your possible objections, or that they haven't properly qualified the uncertainties in their projections.  This is simply untrue.  For instance, climate scientists take into account both chaotic variations in weather patterns and periodic regional climate variations to detect the signal of climate change in the noise of stray factors.

That's why you have to fall back on conspiracy theories to explain why 97 to 99% of climate scientists disagree with you.

Firstly, there's no "97%" that's a made up number. And it includes all scientists, not just climate scientists. I'm sure if you did a survey amongst all scientists of "is Einstein's theory of general relativity right" most would say "yes". If you asked those actually qualified as physicists almost none of them would say that. It's at minimum incomplete.



Also I'm not claiming there's a "conspiracy" just that there's a con.

Secondly the mistake that you make is in not getting your information from the primary scientific/academic sources. You're relying on politicians, activists, and others who have no qualification in climate science. The main scientific body that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change is the IPCC, and they're tainted by (a.) being political, and (b.) by enforcing conclusions editorially where the science doesn't provide those conclusions. This is one thing Lindzen and some others who were actually involved in the IPCC complained about - he said their conclusions that they (the authors) signed off on and submitted were changed without their knowledge or consent to make the science sound more settled. Lindzen has repeatedly disputed that there is a climate problem. He was an IPCC scientist (and remains a respected climate scientist).

Thirdly, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of climate models that have been run. Some of them will predict the 21st century climate trend out of pure coincidence. This is the problem. If we were talking about only a small handful of auditable climate models then it might make sense to use them as evidence, but the fact there are so many is a huge problem when you want to use it as evidence. Even institutions like NASA, CSIRO, etc., have put out many different models.

There's a good article here by author/journalist David Siegel, who had a similar journey to mine, when going for a more sceptical approach. But let me start by quoting Lindzen:

"For over thirty years, I have given talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a nonexpert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, the fact that warming has decreased profoundly for the past eighteen years, etc., it is obvious that the audience's eyes are glazing over. Although I present evidence as to why this issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97 percent of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past eighteen years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, Arctic ice is melting, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, according to the alarmists. I tend to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry and even downright dishonest, but, unfortunately, many of my listeners believe it."

The first time I can remember firmly distancing myself from the claims of alarmists, was when they started invoking weather events as evidence for global warming. This must have been around 2004 or 2005. Weather is not climate. I hear exactly the same dishonest rhetoric today, and a lot of people have somehow been duped into believing it. The claims of the far-left that began this nonsensical rhetoric pushing this as an agenda have become mainstream. "More droughts and bushfires" because of climate change they proclaim. In Europe they claim "more floods, more rain". More extreme weather events ... even though that's not the real-world case at all!

The phrase "carbon pollution" is also dishonest. What about the toxic waste from the so-called "clean energy" of solar panels (they create 300x more toxic waste per kilowatt hour compared to nuclear power)? How can anyone honestly call solar "clean"?

The term "climate denier" is also a negative label for sceptics. It shows an intolerance for evidence that might challenge the "accepted science". That's not how science works, that's how religion works. Intolerance is a hallmark of religion. Science advances through falsification. I would further note religions have abused science in the same way, and misused the science for their own agendas.

If the climate alarmists had an honest message to sell they wouldn't need to perpetrate lies.

The third reason to be sceptical is that decarbonisation allows Europe to continue to prevent Africa from industrialising, something they've been actively doing for some centuries now. It will allow their exploitative and predatory "trade" practises with Africa to continue indefinitely. And who is most in favour of decarbonisation? Europe.

So that's where we are when we look at who stands to gain, who's been pushing this agenda, and what their message has been.

So if you want to show me Alan V  that there is a "climate emergency" then you need to do it with the scholarly scientific evidence, not with Europe-centric political rhetoric and fallacious appeals to the "97%". As I mentioned before, the 97% is a figure based on a single survey of scientists from all fields (not just those related to climate science) and the question was "is CO2 a GHG and a contributing factor of global warming", not "is CO2 driving global warming".

I was actually unsure of how to read your post until you said "If the climate alarmists had an honest message to sell they wouldn't need to perpetrate lies." That made it easy then. I have no use for climate-change-deniers... Deniers always give themselves away eventually.

[Alan V]

The consensus:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Feel free to explore the NASA site for a summary of the science.

[Cavebear]

The consensus:  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Feel free to explore the NASA site for a summary of the science.

Agree completely.

[Alan V]

I was actually unsure of how to read your post until you said "If the climate alarmists had an honest message to sell they wouldn't need to perpetrate lies."  That made it easy then.  I have no use for climate-change-deniers...  Deniers always give themselves away eventually.

It's all very well to have a different opinion, although it makes Aractus look foolish if he denies the scientific consensus.  But to then support conspiracy theories about "cons" of why he is right and the majority of scientists are dishonest is itself dishonest.

[Cavebear]

I was actually unsure of how to read your post until you said "If the climate alarmists had an honest message to sell they wouldn't need to perpetrate lies."  That made it easy then.  I have no use for climate-change-deniers...  Deniers always give themselves away eventually.

It's all very well to have a different opinion, although it makes Aractus look foolish if he denies the scientific consensus.  But to then support conspiracy theories about "cons" of why he is right and the majority of scientists are dishonest is itself dishonest.

I do not support climate deniers in any way. I respect research and scientific inquiry,

[Deesse23]

Now I was taught in primary school, alongside that global warming was a big problem, that it's summer when the earth is closest to the sun. And that much is true...

Not necessarily. I was taught that its winter when the earth is closest to the sun.

[Cavebear]

Now I was taught in primary school, alongside that global warming was a big problem, that it's summer when the earth is closest to the sun. And that much is true...

Not necessarily. I was taught that its winter when the earth is closest to the sun.

Sadly, no. It is all axial tilt. The Earth doesn't rotate around a straight up and down axis. It is tilted about 23.5 degrees (probably from a planetesmil hit that also formed the moon). So the Earth heats unevenly. In the north, it gets more direct sunlight in Summer, less in Winter. Reverse for the South.

The regular orbital changes do make some differences. But if you want to go into those weeds, it gets really complicated.

https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/i...in-winter/

[Alan V]

The regular orbital changes do make some differences.  But if you want to go into those weeds, it gets really complicated.  

https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/i...in-winter/

This is my post #84 from above:

Natural climate change

In the last 2.7 million years or so, there have been dozens of glacial-interglacial cycles. So the natural pattern of climate change over that period has been one of long ice ages separated by shorter warm periods. It takes tens of thousands of years for the earth to cool down, but only a few thousand to warm again. We are presently living in such a warm period called the Holocene, which started after the last ice age ended around 12,000 years ago.

Scientists are convinced that these natural climate changes can be explained by small shifts in the earth’s orbit, the Milankovitch cycles, which increase or decrease the solar energy it receives. The earth’s axis, the precession of the equinoxes, wobbles on a 23,000 year cycle. The earth’s tilt shifts on a 41,000 year cycle. And the earth’s eccentricity, how elliptical its orbit is, oscillates on a 100,000 year cycle. The 100,000 year cycle has the greatest impact on global average temperatures. Presently, the first two cycles are out-of-phase by about 10,000 years and the orbital eccentricity is small, so the length of our interglacial period would normally be extended beyond the typical. The last time the earth was in this configuration 400,000 years ago, the interglacial was 50,000 years long.

These variations are amplified by the increase or decrease of CO2 which follow them by several hundred years. Soils and oceans release or capture CO2 and methane depending on their temperatures, so both rise and fall in close correlation with the ice age cycles, amplifying their climate extremes. These greenhouse gases account for nearly half the glacial-interglacial global temperature changes. This correlation goes back 650,000 years, through seven glacial cycles.

This is the natural climate change we could expect if no other factors came into play. Nevertheless, present climate change will likely delay the onset of the next ice age for over 130,000 years. CO2 has varied between 180 and 290 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. It was 280 ppm as late as 1750, before the industrial revolution. But at over 405 ppm today, it is about 45% higher, and likely the highest it has been for millions of years.

Natural variability

Overlaying that general pattern of glacial and interglacial periods is a fair amount of natural variation.

Weather is chaotic, so it varies in ways which have nothing to do with the overall trends of climate. Different factors cause this natural variability, and those factors must be taken into account and averaged out, or even offset in some cases, to clearly see the overall trends in climate. Such factors include the El Niño Southern Oscillation for instance, or volcanic eruptions, increases in industrial aerosols like after the end of World War II, and temporary changes in solar output. Some variations are regional rather than global, which must also be taken into account.

The average temperature varies randomly above and below the trend line by about 0.2C, or about 0.4F. Volcanic particles lifted into the stratosphere can lead to a cooling effect which lasts for two or three years on average, followed by a slow recovery. Solar output varies by about 0.1% over the typical ten-to-twelve year solar cycle. Although no unexpected, large solar output variations have happened in the near past, further back in history they led to such events as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, according to solar proxies.

The warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere can be masked by such natural variability by as long as a decade or more, which is why long-term tracking of weather is so important in detecting climate change. For instance, a recent apparent pause in the upward trend of global warming temperatures was caused by a combination of volcanic activity, a short-term reduction in solar output due to the natural solar cycle, and a series of La Niña events. The background “noise” of natural variability must be taken into account to clearly see the steady “signal” of incrementally increasing temperatures. This is why natural variability was still considered a possible explanation for observed changes as late as the 1990s.

[Cavebear]

The regular orbital changes do make some differences.  But if you want to go into those weeds, it gets really complicated.  

https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/i...in-winter/

This is my post #84 from above:

Natural climate change

In the last 2.7 million years or so, there have been dozens of glacial-interglacial cycles. So the natural pattern of climate change over that period has been one of long ice ages separated by shorter warm periods. It takes tens of thousands of years for the earth to cool down, but only a few thousand to warm again. We are presently living in such a warm period called the Holocene, which started after the last ice age ended around 12,000 years ago.

Scientists are convinced that these natural climate changes can be explained by small shifts in the earth’s orbit, the Milankovitch cycles, which increase or decrease the solar energy it receives. The earth’s axis, the precession of the equinoxes, wobbles on a 23,000 year cycle. The earth’s tilt shifts on a 41,000 year cycle. And the earth’s eccentricity, how elliptical its orbit is, oscillates on a 100,000 year cycle. The 100,000 year cycle has the greatest impact on global average temperatures. Presently, the first two cycles are out-of-phase by about 10,000 years and the orbital eccentricity is small, so the length of our interglacial period would normally be extended beyond the typical. The last time the earth was in this configuration 400,000 years ago, the interglacial was 50,000 years long.

These variations are amplified by the increase or decrease of CO2 which follow them by several hundred years. Soils and oceans release or capture CO2 and methane depending on their temperatures, so both rise and fall in close correlation with the ice age cycles, amplifying their climate extremes. These greenhouse gases account for nearly half the glacial-interglacial global temperature changes. This correlation goes back 650,000 years, through seven glacial cycles.

This is the natural climate change we could expect if no other factors came into play. Nevertheless, present climate change will likely delay the onset of the next ice age for over 130,000 years. CO2 has varied between 180 and 290 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. It was 280 ppm as late as 1750, before the industrial revolution. But at over 405 ppm today, it is about 45% higher, and likely the highest it has been for millions of years.

Natural variability

Overlaying that general pattern of glacial and interglacial periods is a fair amount of natural variation.

Weather is chaotic, so it varies in ways which have nothing to do with the overall trends of climate. Different factors cause this natural variability, and those factors must be taken into account and averaged out, or even offset in some cases, to clearly see the overall trends in climate. Such factors include the El Niño Southern Oscillation for instance, or volcanic eruptions, increases in industrial aerosols like after the end of World War II, and temporary changes in solar output. Some variations are regional rather than global, which must also be taken into account.

The average temperature varies randomly above and below the trend line by about 0.2C, or about 0.4F. Volcanic particles lifted into the stratosphere can lead to a cooling effect which lasts for two or three years on average, followed by a slow recovery. Solar output varies by about 0.1% over the typical ten-to-twelve year solar cycle. Although no unexpected, large solar output variations have happened in the near past, further back in history they led to such events as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, according to solar proxies.

The warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere can be masked by such natural variability by as long as a decade or more, which is why long-term tracking of weather is so important in detecting climate change. For instance, a recent apparent pause in the upward trend of global warming temperatures was caused by a combination of volcanic activity, a short-term reduction in solar output due to the natural solar cycle, and a series of La Niña events. The background “noise” of natural variability must be taken into account to clearly see the steady “signal” of incrementally increasing temperatures. This is why natural variability was still considered a possible explanation for observed changes as late as the 1990s.

Very nice, do you consider that the current cause of global warming?

[Alan V]

Very nice, do you consider that the current cause of global warming?

I read and took notes from over 50 books on climate change, then summarized what I had learned in about 50 pages.

At the beginning of this year, I posted my paper in sections in this forum, starting at post #79 on page 4.

That summary ends at post #170 on page 7, although I added a few corrections and additions afterwards.

If you are interested in this kind of thing, you can look over what I wrote.

To answer your question, here is my post #95:

Other explanations?

There are only so many possible causes of climate change. The continental drift and massive volcanic eruptions of millions of years past are no longer possible explanations. Recent volcanic eruptions increase greenhouse gas emissions less than 1% of the total observed. Orbital variations work on much longer periods of time. Solar output has not increased significantly since 1979, when NASA began to monitor it using satellites. The usual small variations in solar output on an 11-year cycle is not a trend upwards. Only the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere can explain present climate change, and they are responsible for almost all of it. Other hypotheses, like the tenuous relationship between clouds and cosmic rays, must still explain why greenhouse gases do not produce the warming expected. Greenhouse gases alone are a sufficient explanation.

The consensus

The consensus of experts reviewing hundreds of studies of accumulating evidence is that there is a 95% chance that most of observed climate change over the past 60 years can be attributed to human activities and especially to the burning of fossil fuels. Without humans, there would be negligible warming or a slight cooling from other causes over the 20th century. This consensus includes such scientific institutions as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the scientific academies of all major industrial nations. Multiple surveys have found that between 97 and 99% of qualified scientists support the consensus. Among the 3% or less who do not, most exhibited methodological flaws or other mistakes in their work, and there was no consensus between them about other possible causes. They have virtually no significant peer-reviewed science to back them up. So there is no consistent alternative theory to human-caused climate change.

[grympy]

Very nice, do you consider that the current cause of global warming?

I read and took notes from over 50 books on climate change, then summarized what I had learned in about 50 pages.

At the beginning of this year, I posted my paper in sections in this forum, starting at post #79 on page 4.

That summary ends at post #170 on page 7, although I added a few corrections and additions afterwards.

If you are interested in this kind of thing, you can look over what I wrote.

To answer your question, here is my post #95:

Other explanations?

There are only so many possible causes of climate change. The continental drift and massive volcanic eruptions of millions of years past are no longer possible explanations. Recent volcanic eruptions increase greenhouse gas emissions less than 1% of the total observed. Orbital variations work on much longer periods of time. Solar output has not increased significantly since 1979, when NASA began to monitor it using satellites. The usual small variations in solar output on an 11-year cycle is not a trend upwards. Only the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere can explain present climate change, and they are responsible for almost all of it. Other hypotheses, like the tenuous relationship between clouds and cosmic rays, must still explain why greenhouse gases do not produce the warming expected. Greenhouse gases alone are a sufficient explanation.

The consensus

The consensus of experts reviewing hundreds of studies of accumulating evidence is that there is a 95% chance that most of observed climate change over the past 60 years can be attributed to human activities and especially to the burning of fossil fuels. Without humans, there would be negligible warming or a slight cooling from other causes over the 20th century. This consensus includes such scientific institutions as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the scientific academies of all major industrial nations. Multiple surveys have found that between 97 and 99% of qualified scientists support the consensus. Among the 3% or less who do not, most exhibited methodological flaws or other mistakes in their work, and there was no consensus between them about other possible causes. They have virtually no significant peer-reviewed science to back them up. So there is no consistent alternative theory to human-caused climate change.

Good stuff.

I became aware of global warning in the early 1980's.

 I honestly thought the concept of human  caused  climate change has become mainstream science . Just as say evolution has; there seems to be at least as much evidence for human cause climate change.  Not being a trained a scientist, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to accept mainstream Scientific consensus on a range of topics, unless I have very good evidence based conclusions to the contrary. So far a lot of claims to the contrary to mainstream science but I've seen none that survive scrutiny .

I'm able to accept that autodidacts often have valuable contributions to make in the liberal arts and the 'soft sciences' . I'm less convinced this happens often in the 'hard sciences'. (see link below ' The Scientific Method and Climate Change')

One of the big problems seems to have been idiot politicians trying to address an environmental catastrophe  with political and economic means.  Even today some of our politicians in charge ignore climate change ; our ruling party wants to develop  more coal mines and export a lot more. 

 Our Happy Clappy  Prime Minister , Scott Morrison, responded to the climate change protests by being patronising and dismissive.  A common reaction by world leaders. 

Clip below, physicist Brian Cox and climate change denier  Malcolm Roberts ,an elected senator, at least at the time. To give you an idea of this man's erudition ; Malcolm claims NASA has 'massaged' data-----



The second clip is of Australia's  Chief Scientist and Science Minister vs Malcom Roberts:



)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-s...ists-know/