1

The Environment / Re: Are we due for a grand solar minimum?

« on: 22/01/2021 09:40:43 »

The question of whether the sun is completely chaotic (as I'm told here) or has regular patterns in its magnetic behaviour will be resolved in the next 33 years as we experience either a GSM or something else. I have a hard time seeing how fluid mechanics relates to the sun's internal magnetic fields; as some people claim. If the solar minimum continues past this current cycle (which ends in 2031), then it's "grand"; and the self-styled climate consensus are unable to explain how the sun behaves. Let's wait and see.

Either way: I don't see how fluid mechanics / chaos fans / IPCC "climate consensus" can explain even the last 3 cycles. Peak magnetic activity going from strong, to medium, to weak (evidenced by sun spot number decline). If they cite research based on actual observation I can be convinced. Sitting on a high horse,like Platonists, declaring they know everything about nature convinces only their acolytes. Dictats aren't part of the scientific method; careful observation certainly is.

2

The Environment / Re: If the UK all switched to heat pumps, would it affect winter temperatures?

« on: 21/01/2021 19:55:36 »

I suppose it may reduce the urban heat effect marginally, but that's not really a climate effect it's an effect on thermometers. 95% of people live in 5% of the land mass. So 95% of land has only 5% of the world's population. Heat pumps will only be installed in the Northern Hemisphere. So the answer is not that anyone will notice.

A more sensible question is how much will they cost?, and how well will they work in coldest winter and what will happen if we have another (cold) winter like early 1963?

3

The Environment / Re: How could you stop the earth's poles from warming?

« on: 21/01/2021 19:40:55 »

The propaganda has been going on since the 1980s. The idea of catastrophic climate change derives from positive feedback term(s) in climate models. But there are no positive feedback terms in the real climate system. We should not take models seriously unless they've been tested and validated to the same, or similar, level as scientific ideas such as hypotheses and theories are.

4

The Environment / Re: Are we due for a grand solar minimum?

« on: 21/01/2021 19:32:03 »

This is a somewhat chaotic behavior, so patterns could come and go randomly

The solar research team I know of around Valentina Zharkova strongly dispute the "chaotic" idea. They think it is as regular as clockwork.

5

The Environment / Re: Are we due for a grand solar minimum?

« on: 21/01/2021 19:28:13 »

1. There's no way we can "prepare" for a Grand Solar Minimum, because, no one has been promoting the idea, so no one really cares about it.
2. Even people who believe it is happening, cannot agree what the worse effects will be, nor how much the planet will, cool, for how long, ...
3. The evidence for a GSM consists of projection from a model derived from statistics of just 3 solar cycles. Many people will not believe it is happening until they experience it. Why would you?

6

The Environment / Re: How much does human heat contribute to global warming?

« on: 04/12/2019 15:24:57 »

It depends on how it contributes, and on how we measure that contribution.

Consider this. We can split global land surface temperatures into 2 main groups. Ocean air sheltered, OAS, regions and Ocean air affected, OAA, regions (see ref 1). When we look at each separately we see there's been no global warming for OAS regions since 1950s.  Warming is all in OAA regions. That is, of course, totally incompatible with a greenhouse gas effect. Greenhouse gas warming should not discriminate between OAA and OAS regions. It begs the question: How can we explain the OAA warming, without OAS warming?  Easily. Consider than 95% of people live on just 5% of the land surface. It follows that only 5% of people live in the other 95% of land. People generally prefer to live closer to the coast; which means the vast majority of people live in OAA regions. We also measure temperatures close to where we live.  Many temperatures are biased by an urban heat island effect, UHI. This UHI is predominantly experienced as a warming at night; just like the greenhouse gas is supposed to act!

Because many surface climate stations are located close to populations and people build more building, parking lots, etc., overtime the great majority, 92.1%, of stations in, for example, the USA are subject to UHI corruption. These stations should not be used for monitoring land surface temperature. I see no reason to believe the situation elsewhere in the world is any better.



(1) "Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean air temperature", 2018, Frank Lansner, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen; https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X18756670"

7

The Environment / Re: How much heat is generated from methane from burning vs. the greenhouse effect?

« on: 04/12/2019 14:48:53 »

Over the course of 100 years, 1000 kg of methane "traps" about 30 times as much energy as 1000 kg of carbon dioxide.

Methane is a reducing chemical. The atmosphere is oxidising. No way is the atmospheric lifetime of methane 100, years, or even 10.

Reading these descriptions of climate doom, I can't help noticing how much of it is just made up. Like fairy stories.

8

Question of the Week / Re: QotW: 19.07.29 What causes monsoon rain and will global warming affect it?

« on: 14/11/2019 09:30:04 »

Why is exactly then GW seen in a negative limelight?

You are exactly right. See diagrams in my post. In figure 3, the period about 52 million years ago is called the Eocene Optimum.  It was a very warm, moist, period when life on earth flourished. Hence the term "optimum".  The worse recent period for life on earth was during the depth of the last glaciation just over 70,000 years ago. Volcanic eruptions combined with solar cycles to nearly wipe out the human race. Reducing the human population to about 20,000 brave souls. Tropical rainforests like the Amazon were about 10% of current size during this severe glaciation. Much of earth's area was essentially desertified because the combination of cold and low precipitation weren't good enough to keep plants alive.

Q: Why is warmth seen in a negative light?

A: Because careerist climate modelers have to sell their worthless product somehow. Their models cannot predict climate so they predict gloom. Modelers keep their jobs as doom-mongers because humanity are gluttons for punishment.  Our toff, public school, establishment sell this to the public as it both satisfies their better than thou self-image, their contempt for the fossil fuel guzzling lower orders. All the while keeping those most incompetent of scientists - climate modelers - on a secure career trajectory.

9

Question of the Week / Re: QotW: 19.07.29 What causes monsoon rain and will global warming affect it?

« on: 14/11/2019 09:05:41 »

Global warming will warm the oceans, which will put more moisture in the atmosphere.
No one knows for sure how bad this will be.

Yes we do. We have the palaeoclimatology record to guide us.  Paradoxically, earth has been getting colder for the last 52 million years (figure 3). All the while politicians, media, muppets and careerist scientists try to scare you to death so that they can both virtue signal and promote their careers.

It's fair to say they (modelers) generally don't have a clue but climate scientists (not modelers) who study climate do.  Here is earth's temperature record for the past 5.5 million years (Figure 1). We are now located on the extreme right-hand side at at 0°C (grey dashed line baseline).  The last 2.5 million years show the history of the current Ice Age. We are now at the top, close to the warmest. The general trend is getting colder from here.

The current climate is relatively warmer than the past 700 years. This is due to shorter term solar cycles associated with:

• the relationship between the sun and planets, and
• the net strength of the solar magnetic field

The short term trend will be cooling. Peak cold between 2030 and 2041. Getting back to the current 'warm' earth at about 2052. Then warming slightly more before cooling again. The warming cycles are called the Bray cycle and Eddy cycle. These are 2500 year and 1000 year respectively. The cooling cycle (for the next 33 years) is the de Vries cycle. See figure 2.

PS: An Ice Age, in climate science, is a period when both poles of earth are substantially glaciated - as they currently are. A glaciation during an Ice Age is what we colloquially call The Ice Age.

PS 2: There are many solar cycles which interfer (cancel) and reinforce each other. These range in periodicity from 11 to 100,000 years. In addition, there is a moon cycle, and very long-term cycles associated with the solar system motion around the Milky Way.

Figure 1.


Figure 2


Figure 3

10

General Science / Re: Is 'heat ' the absence of 'cold ' ?

« on: 14/11/2019 07:46:41 »

Cold is the absence of heat, and energy. Simplest way to explain it is: when something gets colder its because the energy moved away. Every warm thing radiates energy away all the time according to the Stefan–Boltzmann Law (AKA Stefan's Law). Electrons in higher energy orbitals literally move to lower energy orbitals and emit photons which radiate away.

Other examples of warm things (with more potential energy) getting colder are:
conduction, convection, loss of kinetic energy, transformation of state (e.g. a liquid takes warmth from its immediate environment and uses it to change state - to a gas) as latent energy, and nuclear radiation.

Radioactive decay is an interesting one. Here the thing with greatest potential energy has a less stable neutron to proton ratio in its atomic nucleus. It "decays" to a more stable ratio, and emits alpha, beta, and/or gamma radiation. It loses nuclear binding energy which is emitted as energy during its decay. Nuclear fission and fusion are 2 more examples of things with more potential energy transforming to things with less potential energy.

Notice the trend - loss of energy, or, better, sharing it out, is the natural state of things. It's a bit like utopian socialism : at the end of the day everything gets to be equal (in energy) with everything else. There should be a law for that, and there is.

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Scientists promote fake science

« on: 10/11/2019 14:57:33 »

Thanks for the list which vanished and has now returned.  Did you find a single climate scientist on the list?  I found some people who might qualify but where are your big names? - the Mann of the climate galaxy?

geologist (35),
meteorologist (20),
atmospheric physics (64),
paleoclimatology (3),
solar physics (2),
modeler (2),
oceanographer/oceanography (108).

Well done. You got one actual climate modeler, and 2 solar physicists to sign up.
~~
What of Antonia Mills? the "expert in reincarnation", who "teaches undergraduate and graduate courses ... on indigenous perspectives on reincarnation and rebirth".  Did she quit or was she axed?

12

That CAN'T be true! / Scientists promote fake science

« on: 10/11/2019 12:33:43 »

Last week BBC Science News, Guardian and many others published a news story about 11000 scientists supporting new science warning of an imminent climate emergency.

The journalist who published it was recently awarded €100k journalism prize. Once upon time journos awarded themselves tiny prizes for anti-establishment journalism. Today journos award themselves massive prizes for pro-establishment, fake science journalism.  All of it with a green light from UK science establishment such as: The Royal Society, Naked Scientists, Martin Rees, Alice Roberts, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins, every science journalist, Science Media Centre, ...

As for the news story:
* Few of the 11258 scientists on the list appear to be actual scientists. For example not one of the 300 Canadians of the list could be legitimately called a scientist.
* Yet the list included Mickey Mouse, Hogwarts headmaster Professor Dumbledore, and at least one scholar and teacher of rebirth and reincarnation.
* The science article these 11k supported is a ViewPoint in science journal BioScience.
* The actual list of the of the 'Alliance Of World Scientists' vanished for a time. It's back but many fictional characters and the reincarnation scholar/teacher see to have been purged.

As for award winning science journalist Matt McGrath, he's back publishing more fake science climate news.

13

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 05/11/2019 14:59:51 »

Einstein ... in 1919, showed that if a gas was in thermodynamic equilibrium the rate of adsorption by an infrared gas ... was equal to the rate of emission. In other words, if you increase the amount of infrared active gases in the atmosphere you will increase the rate of absorption but at the exact same time you will increase the rate of emission. So if the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium you won't get a greenhouse effect. It won't store the energy, and what we have shown, by our data, is yes ... the air is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Climate models have decided to ignore Einstein.

Einstein said ... the infrared active gases will aid the transfer of energy from a hot area to a cold area but it won't store the energy

-- Time: 48:38

14

The Environment / Re: What keeps our oceans cold?

« on: 05/11/2019 14:32:31 »

autonomous submersibles show that the water temperatures are warming

Due to the action of sunlight. The so-called greenhouse effect does not heat oceans.
1st. Because greenhouse gas climate warming is pseudoscience. As shown by Connolly's 5 years ago. (papers at "Open Peer Review Journal"). Summarized here.
2nd. Because even if the GHGE was not junk science, down-welling infrared from CO2 15µm band only penetrates mere micrometres into water. It can warm the surface skin. This surface skin readily cools by both of the atmospheric cooling mechanisms - evaporative cooling and black body emission.

So only sunlight warms the oceans. This is mostly absorbed in the top 5 metres. Sunlight penetrates no further than 100m. Ocean bottoms are warmed by nothing apart from tiny geological warming.

Add to that: the lightest water is pushed to the top by convection. The densest, coldest, saltiest sinks.

Nothing makes the oceans cold, apart from cooling. The explanation is: nothing is making oceans warm.

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 04/11/2019 12:34:40 »

And we can't do the experiment that would really answer the question because that would require us to get  two identical Earths and reduce CO2 emissions in just one of them and see what happens.

So, we are left with modeling the Earth.

Using scientists' preferred models which enable them to tweak for worst case scenarios, AKA climate crisis and catastrophe. Many scientists did just that - proposing models with climate sensitivities as high as 10C.

Meanwhile, away from their armchair modeling, ivory tower musings, and computers, the real behaviour of the mid-atmosphere is now known, and the greenhouse gas effect shown to have no influence or what's really going on.

XR, Al Gore, so-called environment journalists do the real job of scaring little children out of their minds, and sometimes out of their lives. But they are just repeating what climate scientists told them - based on the scientist's made up science and prejudice. We really need to praise climate scientists more for originating this anti-human junk which passes for settled science. They should be given their due for spate of suicides among adolescents.

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 04/11/2019 10:18:26 »

I proposed the acid test way back. Use the model to back-cast and match it to ice core data, and see if it explains the regular superimposed ripple on the recent Mauna Loa data. You have produced a good test of the validity of underlying assumptions by comparing their predicted tephigram with reality.

Not good enough. To really test a model one needs to try to falsify it, by looking at its all its predictions, under all circumstances. Then comparing model assumptions, projections to reality. Man-made global warming fans never did this. They call people who do it "science deniers".

British science establishment support this demonization of actual skeptical scientists by promoting notion that people interested in testing all aspects of a model are "science deniers".  Beyond mindless leftism, naked careerism, or obsequious conformism, I can't really fathom the motive behind this attitude.

Mauna Loa CO2 atmospheric data has nothing to do with this. If, as we claim, greenhouse gas effect is mere pseudoscience, then it will not matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is just more plant food.

17

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 04/11/2019 10:06:57 »

What do you consider the phrase "equation of state" means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state

Presumably you left that as a comment at their "Open Peer Review Journal" page.  More likely you never watched the video I linked to nor read their demolition of pseudoscience of the greenhouse gas effect.

You are probably still ignorant now regarding the how and why of greenhouse gas pseudoscience <- I guess you just don't care to learn how earth's climate really works?

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 30/10/2019 23:03:14 »

Immediately after 9/11 there  was an absence of vapor trails over the USA

None of the components I tested was likely to be plated with FeS2

Would you consider changing your name to Naked Science Forum TROLL!, or perhaps Naked Science Forum Red Herring merchant?

I posted this to discuss climate models. Every post you make is designed to derail the thread with pointless red herrings. Please stop acting like a child.

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 30/10/2019 21:57:20 »

You can find their equations here at the Open Peer Review Journal - where you can submit your peer review of their article.

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

« on: 30/10/2019 19:27:17 »

When radiosonde data (atmospheric balloons), is analysed from the point of view of density, the lower atmosphere can be explained by up to 3 equations of state (only 2 at night & early morning; 3rd one merges into 2nd) corresponding to 3 regions:

• Tropopause/Stratosphere
• Troposphere
• Boundary Layer (water dominated). Nearest surface.

When we compare this reality with the radiative model of Manabe and Strickler, we see one is real. The other is fantasy.


Balloons in the Air: Understanding weather and climate, Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly; CERES.

The moral of this tale is Do not confuse your model of the world with reality - if in doubt - look at the data.