Fatal Flaw In Climate Change Science

Reply
#2
I'm not watching a 40 minute video. Tell us what the flaw is in so many clear and concise sentences..
Reply
#3
From the video's description:

We must stop pollution for reasons of biosphere toxicity, NOT because of climate change. The TSI model of solar forcing ignores nearly all climate forcing aspects of space weather AND applies that forcing to the human total. This video shows that fact in a way that anyone can understand.

DEMAND THAT NOAA AND THE IPCC:
(1) USE 'PARTICLE FORCING' AND EXPAND SOLAR DATA TO INCLUDE X-RAYS, SOLAR WIND, AND HIGH-ENERGY PROTONS.
(2) CEASE OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES LIKE ONLY SHOWING SPRING SNOW COVER, AND NOT 'COUNTING' SOLAR PHYSICISTS AS 'CLIMATE SCIENTISTS' IN THEIR "97%" ANALYSIS.
(3) STOP PRETENDING CLIMATE CHANGE BEGAN IN 1850, THERE IS ROBUST DATA GOING WELL INTO THE PAST.

Pollution sucks. It's just that, presently, climate science does too.


From the poster's comment:

TSI - measures the total impact of irradiance on the upper atmosphere. Problem is that only UV affects that layer. Lower frequencies go right through, which is why there is a science called "radio astronomy". Higher frequencies are absorbed in the ionosphere. UV heating takes 1-20 years to descend from the stratosphere in what they call "top-down" solar forcing. The rest, the ionospheric-absorbed energy, is absent from the equation, but it has a nearly instantaneous effect on pressure, aerosols, clouds, and surface temperature in the atmospheric column. Not only does the deposition of this current affect the atmosphere, but the resistive atmosphere creates heat from the current, which is also a big "0" in 100% of climate models.


Basically, climate change is defined as natural variability + human changes. Since the current climate models only account for the radiance impact of the sun, all other solar forcing on the climate is, just by definition of not being included in this limited "natural variability", classified as "human changes". That's obviously bollocks. Not only that, but the total solar irradiance (TSI) used by those models only accounts for UV radiation, in which, aside from solar eclipses and the Venus transit, the only DROPS in radiance (solar forcing erroneously only measured as UV light) are major solar storms. IOW, when the sun is pumping much more energy into our climate (including the largest solar flare in 12 years), UV radiance is lower, because much of the energy normally output as UV light gets transformed to x-rays and there's UV dimming due to absorption by solar mass ejection.

So all space weather not accounted for (x-rays, solar wind, high-energy particle flux) by the artificially limited TSI is then attributed to humans (human-forcing). And since the TSI shows a naive decrease in solar forcing DURING powerful solar storms, they even assume that the decrease means there is MORE human contribution during solar flares. Of the six sources of space weather climate forcing, current models only account for ONE, and attribute the rest to human-forcing (600 peer-reviewed papers on solar forcing since 2010).

They have come up with a new climate model (CMIP 6), which does include cosmic rays and medium energy electrons (particle-forcing). Within three months of releasing the model data, they began offering it without the particle-forcing. Turns out that adding only the medium-energy electrons (MEE) shows that the potential effect of CO2 goes to zero. So climate scientists tried to use the newer, more accurate model, saw results they didn't like, and demanded a version that accounted for less natural variability...the remainder of which being erroneously attributed to humans. CMIP 6 was never intended to remove particle-forcing. IPCC is still not using particle-forcing.

There's also just cherry-picked data, like NOAA's https://www.climate.gov/
Their Global Climate Dashboard shows the the global average temperature and carbon dioxide (ppm) on the rise and spring snow cover on the decline.
Why SPRING snow cover? Because winter and fall snow cover have been on the rise.
Winter: https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ch...i_season=1
Fall: https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ch...i_season=4

They only define high volcanic-forcing on the climate based on records starting in 1850, even though we have plenty of much older evidence of much greater volcanic-forcing.



That's more of a summary than the intellectually lazy deserve, but it's solid info the intellectually honest will actually appreciate. If you want to see the charts, sources, and full explanation, watch the video.
Reply
#4
Sounds all so theoretical to me. Does he have any evidence to back up his claims?
Reply
#5
(Mar 8, 2019 12:19 AM)Syne Wrote: If you want to see the charts, sources, and full explanation, watch the video.

Or just continue being a lazy, ignorant sheep.
Reply
Reply
#7
(Mar 8, 2019 01:18 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new...ility.html

"The amount of energy that reaches Earth's outer atmosphere is called the total solar irradiance.
...
"This TSI measurement is very important to climate models that are trying to assess Earth-based forces on climate change," said Cahalan."


That's the same TSI that completely ignores all other space contributions to climate change aside from UV light.

So you're just helping make the point of the video. Thanks.
Reply
#8
Quote:That's the same TSI that completely ignores all other space contributions to climate change aside from UV light.




Right..like X rays and the solar wind and cosmic rays. lol!
Reply
#9
(Mar 8, 2019 01:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:That's the same TSI that completely ignores all other space contributions to climate change aside from UV light.

Right..like X rays and the solar wind and cosmic rays. lol!

So you don't believe in x-rays, cosmic rays, or solar wind?

How ignorant can you be?
Reply
#10
Science is about observation and numbers. Syne's video has a problem with both observation and numbers.

The video claims solar activity influences the weather - fine - solar activity varies on an 11 year cycle - the video doesn't show an 11 cycle in the weather - I have to assume this is because speaker has no evidence to support his claim. I'm seeing a guy using science words and waving his hands - nothing more.

During a solar storm X-rays, solar wind and energetic particles increase dramatically - from what to what? The claim that during a solar storm solar irradience fell by 0.044% is supported by data but no data about how much additional energy was received - just 'thousands' and hand waving. How much additional energy as a percentage of 1,360 W/m^2 ? Trying to convince an audience that 'the numbers' will turn out to be what others are missing isn't science - you need numbers. He has no numbers - he has nothing.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Press opinions rip Andrew Yang on climate change ("most dangerous candidate") C C 0 52 Aug 2, 2019 04:00 AM
Last Post: C C
  Climate Change will NOT end human civilization by 2050 C C 1 98 Jun 8, 2019 12:14 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate change responsible for uptick in kidney disease? C C 0 160 Feb 17, 2019 09:29 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why climate change skeptics are backing geoengineering C C 0 207 Jan 4, 2019 06:01 AM
Last Post: C C
  It’s time to look at the (political) science behind climate change C C 1 214 Dec 11, 2018 06:32 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Is Climate Change Draining Nutrients From Crops? C C 0 265 Aug 27, 2018 06:11 PM
Last Post: C C
  Climate change to overtake land use as major threat to global biodiversity C C 1 193 Jun 21, 2018 04:43 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate Change Can Be Stopped by Turning Air Into Gasoline C C 2 327 Jun 20, 2018 12:10 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Climate Change Is Weakening a Crucial Ocean Current C C 0 264 Apr 11, 2018 08:00 PM
Last Post: C C
  Can We “See” Climate Change? C C 9 1,347 Oct 25, 2017 07:42 PM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)