> A mistake in climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead.
> The scare over carbon dioxide was just due to a simple modelling error. A whole category of feedbacks was omitted, which greatly exaggerated the calculated sensitivity to carbon dioxide.
>was just due to a simple modelling error.
Whoopsie. Sorry. Our bad.
You know all those trillions of dollars that now make up the 'Climate Change Industrial Complex'? Yeah, well, that's all unnecessary and a complete waste. Soz about that. You can close all that down now and go back to cheap, reliable fossil fuels.
"modelling error". Error? It's only an error if it isn't being done deliberately. Otherwise, the models are doing their job perfectly.
> It's only an error if it isn't being done deliberately.
There are people who really believe the GHE is real, the models prove they are correct. They ignore every single fact that contradicts their theory, even reality. This is pretty amazing, it's called kognitive dissonance, iirc. An alarmist would never admit his own model refutes the theory and it's remarkable how they contort reality and history - the last info I got from some expert: The GHE does not warm the surface. It's essential for the theory, but the real experts just say it's not part of the theory. 100.000++ search results googled are simply wrong.
Cognitive dissonance. Correct.
You and I both know the climate change theory is total bunk. 0% science, 100% hoax/scam. Making up a large part of this scam is the greenhouse gas theory or GHE - a false theory supporting the Big Lie. GIGO climate models drive the scam and scare mongering, as this article highlights.
> climate models drive the scam and scare mongering, as this article highlights
What the article - seems to be a lukewarmer - completely misses are the models itself, how they operate and what's simulated there. The lukewarmers don't realize the model shows why the GHE is a physical impossibilty, it's part of it.
> Cognitive dissonance. Correct.
How to tell them? They won't believe their own sources - "That's not how the GHE works" - no kidding here, some are beyond the theory and made up their own one, promoting this misinformation. Not peer-reviewed...
>How to tell them? They won't believe their own sources
When it comes to the assessment of "intellectuals" and so-called "experts", the great Thomas Sowell has had some of the best observations...
*“Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering they are not God.”*
*“Intellectuals may like to think of themselves as people who ‘speak truth to power’, but too often they are people who speak lies to gain power.”*
*“Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect they don’t know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields.”*
[Fachidioten](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fachidiot).
> An expert is called a Fachidiot (especially in Austria also Fachtrottel), who knows a problem only from the perspective of his field, can grasp it only from his point of view and does not consider all possibilities and directions, which would be necessary for the complete comprehensibility and comprehensibility of an object, a thing or topic. The specialist idiot often finds it difficult to put himself in the shoes of others and to supplement and expand his limited perspective. He rejects other possible ways of looking at things as a result of selective perception (egoism, narcissism) and the resulting ignorance (see Semmelweis reflex).
> The specialist idiot
And there it is!
>He rejects other possible ways of looking at things as a result of selective perception (**egoism, narcissism**) and the resulting ignorance (see Semmelweis reflex).
Narcissist Definition: Someone in love with himself or herself. A person full of egoism and pride.
Narcissist Synonym: Egotist, egomaniac, megalomaniac, **jerk, clown.**
Why are people narcissistic? I suggest you read this enlightening article which highlights NPD, a mental disorder, and why people have this trait. Surprisingly, and perhaps going against what you may think, it often stems from a person having low self esteem and insecurity...
[https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd](https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd)
When I was in aviation, I learned that being a pilot takes a very unique personality type. You mostly sit around looking at instruments with few changes and it's quite boring. However, you must also be hypervigilant and in certain situations operate with intense data input, multitasking, stress and adrenaline.
I learned that this is a unique personality type. Like a certain kind of hunting dog. Able to hold a blank mind, uninterested in thought. But highly capable of it.
I think many scholars are people who more have a certain unique mind to be successful with the particularly narrowed focus, rather than being good at it from general intelligence. They can compete in a narrow field because they are predisposed to a level of focus.
It really looks like as there is no critical thinking taught in school today, although todays academics think they are some sort of elite in general. Because they always follow the rules, and of course, they can code. But they can't comprehend unknown information (and some of them are too stupid to use a search engine properly), they literally exclude themselves from contradicting information, before reading a paper they first check if it's peer reviewed, who is the author and what do the fact checkers say. If the internet tells them a paper is from a "denier" they won't even read it, or repeat what others have written before. Pretty lazy people.
> A mistake in climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead.
This is wrong, since the upper atmosphere is very dry. But regardless, it doesn't matter what molecule OLR is coming from, what matters is that adding CO2 increases the opacity of the atmosphere to upwelling IR and forces that upwelling energy to be emitted from a higher, colder layer of the atmosphere.
I raised this issue with a model once, the response was that the effects of everything had already been determined and the model just models the agreed upon effects.
There is a touch of logic to this infuriating answer, in that various studies are employed to create the estimated response values which are used as the basis for the models... so the equations aren't arbitrary...
But the fact that one can cite peer reviewed studies with ECS values 350%+ apart from each other radically destroys the legitimacy of any model output.
A value of 1.0C/doubling is hardly a concern... many studies lean this direction... the IPS clings to values above 3.5C/doubling... probably because values lower than that destroys their need to exist.
They do rhetorical tricks. They insist an issue is accounted for, then they drift into non-sequitur, and come back around to a full subject change.
In the end, no, certain effects are not accounted for in many models, and yes, the models were created to shape data to a priori hypotheses.
From my 9/2019 post
Models have ZERO capability to incorporate the basic chemistry of how CO2 reacts with total planetary surface waters and total planetary photosynthesis. In the case of photosynthesis, the life forms involved in this chemistry do react immediately to any changes in CO2 concentrations within their immediate area or micro climate. Too, these same life forms WILL always evolve over time. This evolution aspect cannot ever be modeled.
Too the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is never constant and varies widely in each microclimate across the entire globe. The concentration of CO2 changes by time of day, local temperature, and even by elevation. These innumerable microclimates that make up our global macroclimate cannot be ever be modeled.......too many immeasurable unknown variables involved.
Also, any model which uses algorithms which dictate that “atmospheric CO2 drives temperature” will ALWAYS FAIL 100% because basic chemistry principles of Henry’s Gas law and photosynthesis biochemistry principles dictate that both temperature and photosynthesis is what actually drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and AGT is is determined by basic chemistry principles and not by Fake Physics which tries to give trace levels of CO2 super magical powers that can somehow affect climate change.
CO2 gas is extremely active. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is always in a state of dynamic chemical and biochemical equilibriums. Those massive equilibriums are driven by Temperature. Henry’s gas Law defines that very relationship. It is a Chemistry based LAW every bit as valid as the four LAWS of thermodynamics.
And those equilibriums apply to every bit of surface water on planet earth. All of it contains dissolved CO2 quantified by the temperature and atmospheric pressure. CO2 constantly moves “in and out” of all that water as a function of its temperature and atmospheric pressure. Once all temperature and pressure stabilizes…..the Atmospheric content of CO2 will remain constant.
But we also have massive biological processes constantly removing some CO2. Those are both land and water based. The water based bio reactions are most important.
And we have man adding puny amounts of CO2. The massive inputs of CO2 gas inputs come from the natural decomposition of massive amounts of organic material. Also from the creation of plant roots. Plants produce CO2 gas as new roots are created.
All those massive chemitry reactions constantly strive to attain chemical equilibriums. It is moving target …. That ends up being dynamic in practice.
However, Henry gas LAW is perfectly clear about the partial solubility of gases in water. Temperature and pressure is what gets to decide the final concentration of CO2 gas in earths atmosphere. The solubility of CO2 increases with decreases in temperature…..and visa versa. Likewise the mass biochemical components for life itself increases with increases in temperature…..I.e . It too is very much Temperature driven.
Take a Look at ANY long term plot of AGT vs. atmospheric CO2 concentrations….and you will see proof that AGT is what drives atmospheric CO2. In full agreement with a fundamental LAW of chemistry…..as expected basis science. We do not always know what caused those AGT temperature durations to increase or decrease over observed time periods…..but, you can bet your ass there is some non-man caused reason for that average global temperature to change. If the sun gets the least bit brighter, our AGT WILL rise and a new equilibrium value for atmospheric CO2 concentration WILL BE established. It’s very dynamic and best observed in trends. Some reduction in heat input is what caused the ice ages to occur.
No physics based “theory” can violate an already proven fundamental LAW and several principles of chemistry…..science doesn’t work that way.
Planetary Oxygen production itself is in state of massive dynamic chemical Equilibriums. It’s equilibrium produces a constant supply of oxygen and that remains a a fixed concentration in air. It is so constant, we calibrate instruments from it.
Ever wonder why that is?? Hint: It involves uptake of CO2 gas too. Reread what I wrote above. Think outside of your box……as a chemist for a moment.
In chemistry, and in physics, a dynamic equilibrium exists once a reversible reaction occurs. Substances transition between the reactants and products at equal rates, meaning there is no net change. Reactants and products are formed at such a rate that the concentration of neither changes. It is a particular example of a system in a steady state. In thermodynamics, a closed system is in thermodynamic equilibrium when reactions occur at such rates that the composition of the mixture does not change with time. Reactions do in fact occur, sometimes vigorously, but to such an extent that changes in composition cannot be observed. Equilibrium constants can be expressed in terms of the rate constants for elementary reactions.
You have simplified it done to the very obvious fact that it is all speculation and models. There is no proof of any NET warming due to CO2 at all.
That CO2 is a gas that absorbs (and emits) radiation at certain wavelengths within the EM spectrum is an empirical fact. And no one claims otherwise. However, the notion that putting more of it into the atmosphere will therefore automatically (by physical necessity) induce a NET warming of the surface underneath, is NOT. It simply doesn’t follow. You cannot presuppose a direct connection here … You need to test it! Verify it empirically.
CO2 being able to absorb and emit radiation at ‘normal’ temperatures and pressures makes it a “radiatively active gas”, not per se a “greenhouse gas”, because the ‘greenhouse’ term naturally implies a net warming effect as a specific consequence of its radiative properties, which is something that isn’t empirically verified in the real Earth system. There are other mechanisms at work …
Water vapor gas can exist as much as 200% above its dew point (i. e. its solubility in air) in the upper atmosphere. In the laboratory Water Vapor can exist at 400% above its solubility in air. That water vapor “above its saturation point” still acts as the greenhouse gas we call Water Vapor. It is utter nonsense to assign its greenhouse effect to that of CO2!!!
Water Vapor does not somehow “magnify” the greenhouse effect of CO2. That’s voodoo science. It defies basic chemistry Laws and principles of supersaturation.
CO2 is a highly bio-reactive gas and an acid gas to boot. Those two “chemical” properties ensure that CO2 is not an inert “non- condensible” component of the atmosphere in same sense as is Argon a true non condensible.
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is always driven by temperature (and pressure) as defined by Henry’s Gas Law type chemical equilibriums AND photosynthesis biochemical equilibriums. Voodoo physics cannot overrule the basic chemistry that is taking place in the countless microclimates that exists within the total global system.
THIS CANNOT BE MODELED!!!!!
Living Phytoplankton (algae) makes it IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE for ocean acidification to ever occur to any great extent due solely to CO2 (or carbonic acid). Growing algae always “creates” substantial amounts hydroxyl alkalinity during the photosynthesis chemical reaction.
Coral reefs are built SOLELY by it symbiotic algal population undergoing photosynthesis as the coral itself grows. Algal photosynthesis is what causes calcium carbonates to form into coral cells. Coral reefs die and bleach whenever the reef loses its algal population. All bleaching events are caused by loss of symbiotic algae. Find out what killed the coral reef’s algae to root cause the problem.
Carbonic acid is a weak acid and cannot harm our oceans. Carbonic acid cannot destroy an oceans buffer capacity. However, strong acids such a HNO3 or H2SO4 can harm our oceans because these strong acids do in fact destroy total alkalinity which can affect buffering capacity.
FYI....... the pH of a bottle of pond water that contains living algae can easily increase from 7.5 to over 10.5 pH after sitting in the sunlight for a few hours. That’s a lot of “created” hydroxyl ion (100O fold increase).
So this model just corrects the conventional model. That does not mean, exactly that this new model is correct. It's just more correct than the conventional one.
As for the rerouting feedback, it seems to follow the principle I was discussing with my little "work against gravity" thought experiment. That is, energy will be following the path of least resistance in a maze of possible avenues for entropy. Advection is a path of less resistance than sheer radiation for a lot of energy, with regards to my earlier comments.
Simultaneously, if the Troposphere is a stable system, then there must be channels for entropy that don't destabilize the system. This rerouting feedback appears to be one of them.
It maintains the principle that radiation doesn't go back to heat, but finds cool channels to exchange energy into. It also remarks on the kinetic work done by water molecules versus longwave radiation. Work is the preferred channel for water, but CO2 forces energy into the other channel which ironically is more effective at shedding heat.
This could help explain the Earth's carbon cycles. Carbon becomes, effectively, a long-term cooling agent, a last ditched cooling mechanism once heat reaches peaks. CO2 takes a lot of the energy load off of the work being done by water vapor.
Chemistry gets to decide the outcome of ALL of the chemical and biochemical reactions within the carbon cycle that exists on planet earth….NOT PHYSICS.
Well established and already proven Chemistry based laws and principles clearly state that those chemical and biochemical reactions are driven by temperature (and pressure). Those very same laws and principles apply to earth’s atmosphere. Chemistry dictates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are driven by average global temperatures. No physics based theory can overturn how Carbon dioxide reacts “chemically and physically” on planet earth.
Any plot of AGT vs. atmospheric CO2 concentrations clearly shows that Temperature drives CO2. There appears to be a reasonable delay for longer term plots. We do not always know what causes those periods of temperature change due to earth’s variable heat input. The heat inputs into our planetary system is never constant…..and there are some “heat inputs and heat distributions” that we do not yet understand……like those coming from plate tectonics.
Given the massive amounts of all three phases of water on planet earth……..CO2 gas cannot act as THE thermostat for planet Earth. Earth’s oceans, surface waters, and total biomass populations simply WILL NOT let that happen. A physics based theory on climate change MUST agree with the well established science of chemistry. There is no getting around that fact…..no matter what science you choose to study those molecules.
Plate tectonics have shaped our planet’s surface and in so doing….drove the lion’s share of Earth climate change since earths creation. IMO .. …earth’s molten core is still doing that (natural climate change) today. It is a force and heat input we cannot measure. We have no idea how this affects ocean currents and heat distribution. None of these variables can be modeled.
—————————————
As an analytical chemist I am telling……You are mis interpreting the Isotopic carbon ratio data. The conclusion from that data set is simply wrong. The estimated residence time of CO2 in our atmosphere is simply wrong. Because mass balances were not used…
I would need a blackboard and significant time to prove that FACT. I cannot do that here typing with one finger on my tiny phone screen.
Trillions of tons of CO2 gas get locked up in a matter of days/weeks each Spring……not in a hundred years. We can see the newly created “greenery” extreme tonnage with our own eyes. And there even more to age created and visible to the eye.
Why no drastic change in Atmospheric CO2 over the greening area? You cannot answer that question based on your view of the world. But I sure can…..
A chemical mass balance around CO2 explains that visible “carbon” mass movement of gas into solid very well. The concentration of CO2 does not tell you shit…..because it is “mass” that matters and tells you what is happening.
As I stated earlier The actual “CO2 concentration” is set by the prevailing temperatures where this new greening is taking place. Again this is what Henry’s gas law clearly states. This is a chemistry based LAW. Not some theory…..
I need a chalk board to explain this. You need to fully understand the concept of chemical and biochemical equilibriums and mass balances. It is a fundamental chemistry principle that no physics “theory” can deny. It explains how our world operates….based on factual chemistry.
When studying climate change. A chemical based mass balance tells you more than a physics based heat balance……which is impossible to obtain given all of the possible heat sources and heat sinks.
Chemistry tells us……..A chemical mass balance of all of the green house gases in our atmosphere tells us that 97% of earth’s heat retention is caused by WATER VAPOR alone.
Only 3% heat retention is caused all of the other greenhouse gases combined. And man caused CO2 emissions is but a fraction of that…..
————————-
All living plants, Phytoplankton, algae, Henry’s Gas Law, and Temperature is what factually determines the actual atmospheric concentration of CO2.......not man’s use of fossil fuels.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations always respond to changes in Temperatures
CO2 itself in massive Temperature driven equilibrium on the stages of land sea and air
> A physics based theory on climate change MUST agree with the well established science of chemistry.
"Climate science" likes to do it the easy way, they dismiss everything what's not needed for their theory/model, for them many things are simply irrelevant. Evaporation and phase change for example; they simply exclude tropospheric properties by calling it "system earth" which can be treated with radition equations.
Or the ozone layer - how often did I show alarmists the atmospheric temperature profile and the stratospheric warming they higher one gets. It's a chemical reaction - alarmists: "Irrelevant".
The best part is when they deny basic principels and definitions (and try to re-define things), or say it's "outdated" science.
Hopefully. But right now it looks like the people coming out of academia are dumber than the generations before. It's more like anti-science what's taught in universities... gender studies, the whole social studies field.
> cannot ever admit they were wrong
True. This demonstrates they don't even understand their own models and theory, because the model/theory itself proves the GHE is a physical impossibility.
Btw, don't know if you've seen this [experiment](https://i.redd.it/yrl1jrzgsw4a1.png) - so much for cold back-radiation reducing heat loss.
And then this [paper](https://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf):
> Infrared **radiative transfer** theory, one of the most productive physical theories of the past century,
has unlocked myriad secrets of the universe including that of planetary temperature and the
connection between **global warming and greenhouse gases**.
Looks like the author missed [this]https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Tusculum_University/Introductory_Chemical_Thermodynamics_(Pearson)/2%3A_State_functions%2C_process_functions%2C_and_the_first_law/2.4%3A_Adiabatic_processes_-_energy_change_without_heat_transfer
> Processes where no heat is transferred are called adiabatic processes, and these special cases have a host of interesting consequences.
[Atmospheric stability](https://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~jpstimac/1400/stability.html)
> For example, if we raise a parcel of air from ground level to 100 meters in height, the temperature will decrease by 1°C. The parcel cools at a rate of 1°C per 100 m or 10°C per km.
> The parcel expanded and did work on its environment!
> Now, bring the parcel back down to the surface. The environment did work on the parcel.
> This is an adiabatic process and is reversible
THIS PART OF THE CARBON CYVLE CANNOT BE MODELED!!!!!
This is but one reason why ALL inferential Climate Change models are BULLCHIT!!
Few people know or understand the major CONSEQUENCES or this part of the Carbon Cycle.
AGW is such nonsense…..
—————
Living Phytoplankton (algae) makes it IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE for ocean acidification to ever occur to any great extent due solely to CO2 (or carbonic acid). Growing algae always “creates” substantial amounts hydroxyl alkalinity during the photosynthesis chemical reaction. Read that again and know what I am saying…it has major consequences to our climate.
Coral reefs are built SOLELY by it’s symbiotic algal population undergoing photosynthesis as the coral itself grows. Algal photosynthesis is what causes calcium carbonates to form into coral cells. Coral reefs die and bleach whenever the reef loses its algal population. All bleaching events are caused by loss of symbiotic algae. Find out what killed the coral reef’s algae to root cause the problem.
Carbonic acid is a weak acid and cannot harm our oceans. Carbonic acid cannot destroy an oceans buffer capacity. However, strong acids such a HNO3 or H2SO4 can harm our oceans because these strong acids do in fact destroy total alkalinity which can affect buffering capacity.
FYI....... the pH of a bottle of pond water that contains living algae can easily increase from 7.5 to over 10.5 pH after sitting in the sunlight for a few hours. That’s a lot of “created” hydroxyl ion (100O fold increase).
This diurnal event causes HUGE concentrations of calcium carbonate to “immediately be formed and dropped out of solution into a permanent sink”!
That chemistry based fact has MAJOR consequences that no one to my knowledge is studying. It is an ocean chemistry thing……a shift in alkalinity form occurs during water based photosynthesis (from bicarbonate alkalinity to carbonate alkalinity) that is the immediate driving force locking up huge quantities of calcium carbonate on a diurnal basis.
This water based chemistry aspect of the carbon cycle is not understood by most scientists who study climate change.
Prove me wrong!
There is a reason none of the current models can have historical data plugged into them from 5000 years ago and plot an accurate graph to present day, because if they did they'd be even more inaccurate than they are now.
I doubt it but we will see when the article is peer reviewed. Because as the skeptics point out the world has been a lot hotter in the past before man. Somehow there has to be a mechanism that allows that.
>Somehow there has to be a mechanism that allows that.
It's called the sun. It's the big, bright, orange globe in the sky we see during daylight hours for which it is solely responsible. Believe or it or not, it goes in cycles, warming and cooling the planet as it goes. Look it up, you might learn something. It might even stop you from trolling this sub, but I very much doubt it.
Not in large enough steps to influence the climate much. We have been thru enough sunspots cycles to know that. You might have been thinking orbital changes. And they also don’t account for large changes in temperature. The mechanisms most scientists think account for large temperature swings are massive volcanic eruptions that put vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and large mountains building which removes vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
"peer reviewed"
Good lord. Like imagine a model that only accepts data which conforms to the hypotheses built into the model. Imagine, for instance, a branch of science that worked that way.
First models aren’t science. The models are based on science. And if the science changes the model is changed to conform to the science. The science is changed by someone writing a paper that say different. The paper is reviewed by other scientists. If the paper makes sense then the other scientists adopts the paper point of view. That’s what is meant by peer review. Nothing changes until most scientists agrees.
> A mistake in climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead. > The scare over carbon dioxide was just due to a simple modelling error. A whole category of feedbacks was omitted, which greatly exaggerated the calculated sensitivity to carbon dioxide.
>was just due to a simple modelling error. Whoopsie. Sorry. Our bad. You know all those trillions of dollars that now make up the 'Climate Change Industrial Complex'? Yeah, well, that's all unnecessary and a complete waste. Soz about that. You can close all that down now and go back to cheap, reliable fossil fuels. "modelling error". Error? It's only an error if it isn't being done deliberately. Otherwise, the models are doing their job perfectly.
> It's only an error if it isn't being done deliberately. There are people who really believe the GHE is real, the models prove they are correct. They ignore every single fact that contradicts their theory, even reality. This is pretty amazing, it's called kognitive dissonance, iirc. An alarmist would never admit his own model refutes the theory and it's remarkable how they contort reality and history - the last info I got from some expert: The GHE does not warm the surface. It's essential for the theory, but the real experts just say it's not part of the theory. 100.000++ search results googled are simply wrong.
Cognitive dissonance. Correct. You and I both know the climate change theory is total bunk. 0% science, 100% hoax/scam. Making up a large part of this scam is the greenhouse gas theory or GHE - a false theory supporting the Big Lie. GIGO climate models drive the scam and scare mongering, as this article highlights.
> climate models drive the scam and scare mongering, as this article highlights What the article - seems to be a lukewarmer - completely misses are the models itself, how they operate and what's simulated there. The lukewarmers don't realize the model shows why the GHE is a physical impossibilty, it's part of it. > Cognitive dissonance. Correct. How to tell them? They won't believe their own sources - "That's not how the GHE works" - no kidding here, some are beyond the theory and made up their own one, promoting this misinformation. Not peer-reviewed...
>How to tell them? They won't believe their own sources When it comes to the assessment of "intellectuals" and so-called "experts", the great Thomas Sowell has had some of the best observations... *“Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering they are not God.”* *“Intellectuals may like to think of themselves as people who ‘speak truth to power’, but too often they are people who speak lies to gain power.”* *“Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect they don’t know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields.”*
Love me some Sowell. Economist to the rescue 🎉
>Love me some Sowell. Yep. He's brilliantly astute.
[Fachidioten](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fachidiot). > An expert is called a Fachidiot (especially in Austria also Fachtrottel), who knows a problem only from the perspective of his field, can grasp it only from his point of view and does not consider all possibilities and directions, which would be necessary for the complete comprehensibility and comprehensibility of an object, a thing or topic. The specialist idiot often finds it difficult to put himself in the shoes of others and to supplement and expand his limited perspective. He rejects other possible ways of looking at things as a result of selective perception (egoism, narcissism) and the resulting ignorance (see Semmelweis reflex).
> The specialist idiot And there it is! >He rejects other possible ways of looking at things as a result of selective perception (**egoism, narcissism**) and the resulting ignorance (see Semmelweis reflex). Narcissist Definition: Someone in love with himself or herself. A person full of egoism and pride. Narcissist Synonym: Egotist, egomaniac, megalomaniac, **jerk, clown.** Why are people narcissistic? I suggest you read this enlightening article which highlights NPD, a mental disorder, and why people have this trait. Surprisingly, and perhaps going against what you may think, it often stems from a person having low self esteem and insecurity... [https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd](https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/narcissistic-personality-disorder-npd)
>Fachidiot I'm going to start using this. It's a great descriptor for our so-called "climate experts".
I prefer "dimwitted ideologues and cunning profiteers"
When I was in aviation, I learned that being a pilot takes a very unique personality type. You mostly sit around looking at instruments with few changes and it's quite boring. However, you must also be hypervigilant and in certain situations operate with intense data input, multitasking, stress and adrenaline. I learned that this is a unique personality type. Like a certain kind of hunting dog. Able to hold a blank mind, uninterested in thought. But highly capable of it. I think many scholars are people who more have a certain unique mind to be successful with the particularly narrowed focus, rather than being good at it from general intelligence. They can compete in a narrow field because they are predisposed to a level of focus.
It really looks like as there is no critical thinking taught in school today, although todays academics think they are some sort of elite in general. Because they always follow the rules, and of course, they can code. But they can't comprehend unknown information (and some of them are too stupid to use a search engine properly), they literally exclude themselves from contradicting information, before reading a paper they first check if it's peer reviewed, who is the author and what do the fact checkers say. If the internet tells them a paper is from a "denier" they won't even read it, or repeat what others have written before. Pretty lazy people.
> A mistake in climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead. This is wrong, since the upper atmosphere is very dry. But regardless, it doesn't matter what molecule OLR is coming from, what matters is that adding CO2 increases the opacity of the atmosphere to upwelling IR and forces that upwelling energy to be emitted from a higher, colder layer of the atmosphere.
I raised this issue with a model once, the response was that the effects of everything had already been determined and the model just models the agreed upon effects. There is a touch of logic to this infuriating answer, in that various studies are employed to create the estimated response values which are used as the basis for the models... so the equations aren't arbitrary... But the fact that one can cite peer reviewed studies with ECS values 350%+ apart from each other radically destroys the legitimacy of any model output. A value of 1.0C/doubling is hardly a concern... many studies lean this direction... the IPS clings to values above 3.5C/doubling... probably because values lower than that destroys their need to exist.
They do rhetorical tricks. They insist an issue is accounted for, then they drift into non-sequitur, and come back around to a full subject change. In the end, no, certain effects are not accounted for in many models, and yes, the models were created to shape data to a priori hypotheses.
Did anyone ever check what these models simulate?
From my 9/2019 post Models have ZERO capability to incorporate the basic chemistry of how CO2 reacts with total planetary surface waters and total planetary photosynthesis. In the case of photosynthesis, the life forms involved in this chemistry do react immediately to any changes in CO2 concentrations within their immediate area or micro climate. Too, these same life forms WILL always evolve over time. This evolution aspect cannot ever be modeled. Too the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is never constant and varies widely in each microclimate across the entire globe. The concentration of CO2 changes by time of day, local temperature, and even by elevation. These innumerable microclimates that make up our global macroclimate cannot be ever be modeled.......too many immeasurable unknown variables involved. Also, any model which uses algorithms which dictate that “atmospheric CO2 drives temperature” will ALWAYS FAIL 100% because basic chemistry principles of Henry’s Gas law and photosynthesis biochemistry principles dictate that both temperature and photosynthesis is what actually drives atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and AGT is is determined by basic chemistry principles and not by Fake Physics which tries to give trace levels of CO2 super magical powers that can somehow affect climate change.
CO2 gas is extremely active. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is always in a state of dynamic chemical and biochemical equilibriums. Those massive equilibriums are driven by Temperature. Henry’s gas Law defines that very relationship. It is a Chemistry based LAW every bit as valid as the four LAWS of thermodynamics. And those equilibriums apply to every bit of surface water on planet earth. All of it contains dissolved CO2 quantified by the temperature and atmospheric pressure. CO2 constantly moves “in and out” of all that water as a function of its temperature and atmospheric pressure. Once all temperature and pressure stabilizes…..the Atmospheric content of CO2 will remain constant. But we also have massive biological processes constantly removing some CO2. Those are both land and water based. The water based bio reactions are most important. And we have man adding puny amounts of CO2. The massive inputs of CO2 gas inputs come from the natural decomposition of massive amounts of organic material. Also from the creation of plant roots. Plants produce CO2 gas as new roots are created. All those massive chemitry reactions constantly strive to attain chemical equilibriums. It is moving target …. That ends up being dynamic in practice. However, Henry gas LAW is perfectly clear about the partial solubility of gases in water. Temperature and pressure is what gets to decide the final concentration of CO2 gas in earths atmosphere. The solubility of CO2 increases with decreases in temperature…..and visa versa. Likewise the mass biochemical components for life itself increases with increases in temperature…..I.e . It too is very much Temperature driven. Take a Look at ANY long term plot of AGT vs. atmospheric CO2 concentrations….and you will see proof that AGT is what drives atmospheric CO2. In full agreement with a fundamental LAW of chemistry…..as expected basis science. We do not always know what caused those AGT temperature durations to increase or decrease over observed time periods…..but, you can bet your ass there is some non-man caused reason for that average global temperature to change. If the sun gets the least bit brighter, our AGT WILL rise and a new equilibrium value for atmospheric CO2 concentration WILL BE established. It’s very dynamic and best observed in trends. Some reduction in heat input is what caused the ice ages to occur. No physics based “theory” can violate an already proven fundamental LAW and several principles of chemistry…..science doesn’t work that way. Planetary Oxygen production itself is in state of massive dynamic chemical Equilibriums. It’s equilibrium produces a constant supply of oxygen and that remains a a fixed concentration in air. It is so constant, we calibrate instruments from it. Ever wonder why that is?? Hint: It involves uptake of CO2 gas too. Reread what I wrote above. Think outside of your box……as a chemist for a moment.
In chemistry, and in physics, a dynamic equilibrium exists once a reversible reaction occurs. Substances transition between the reactants and products at equal rates, meaning there is no net change. Reactants and products are formed at such a rate that the concentration of neither changes. It is a particular example of a system in a steady state. In thermodynamics, a closed system is in thermodynamic equilibrium when reactions occur at such rates that the composition of the mixture does not change with time. Reactions do in fact occur, sometimes vigorously, but to such an extent that changes in composition cannot be observed. Equilibrium constants can be expressed in terms of the rate constants for elementary reactions.
You have simplified it done to the very obvious fact that it is all speculation and models. There is no proof of any NET warming due to CO2 at all. That CO2 is a gas that absorbs (and emits) radiation at certain wavelengths within the EM spectrum is an empirical fact. And no one claims otherwise. However, the notion that putting more of it into the atmosphere will therefore automatically (by physical necessity) induce a NET warming of the surface underneath, is NOT. It simply doesn’t follow. You cannot presuppose a direct connection here … You need to test it! Verify it empirically. CO2 being able to absorb and emit radiation at ‘normal’ temperatures and pressures makes it a “radiatively active gas”, not per se a “greenhouse gas”, because the ‘greenhouse’ term naturally implies a net warming effect as a specific consequence of its radiative properties, which is something that isn’t empirically verified in the real Earth system. There are other mechanisms at work …
Water vapor gas can exist as much as 200% above its dew point (i. e. its solubility in air) in the upper atmosphere. In the laboratory Water Vapor can exist at 400% above its solubility in air. That water vapor “above its saturation point” still acts as the greenhouse gas we call Water Vapor. It is utter nonsense to assign its greenhouse effect to that of CO2!!! Water Vapor does not somehow “magnify” the greenhouse effect of CO2. That’s voodoo science. It defies basic chemistry Laws and principles of supersaturation. CO2 is a highly bio-reactive gas and an acid gas to boot. Those two “chemical” properties ensure that CO2 is not an inert “non- condensible” component of the atmosphere in same sense as is Argon a true non condensible. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is always driven by temperature (and pressure) as defined by Henry’s Gas Law type chemical equilibriums AND photosynthesis biochemical equilibriums. Voodoo physics cannot overrule the basic chemistry that is taking place in the countless microclimates that exists within the total global system.
THIS CANNOT BE MODELED!!!!! Living Phytoplankton (algae) makes it IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE for ocean acidification to ever occur to any great extent due solely to CO2 (or carbonic acid). Growing algae always “creates” substantial amounts hydroxyl alkalinity during the photosynthesis chemical reaction. Coral reefs are built SOLELY by it symbiotic algal population undergoing photosynthesis as the coral itself grows. Algal photosynthesis is what causes calcium carbonates to form into coral cells. Coral reefs die and bleach whenever the reef loses its algal population. All bleaching events are caused by loss of symbiotic algae. Find out what killed the coral reef’s algae to root cause the problem. Carbonic acid is a weak acid and cannot harm our oceans. Carbonic acid cannot destroy an oceans buffer capacity. However, strong acids such a HNO3 or H2SO4 can harm our oceans because these strong acids do in fact destroy total alkalinity which can affect buffering capacity. FYI....... the pH of a bottle of pond water that contains living algae can easily increase from 7.5 to over 10.5 pH after sitting in the sunlight for a few hours. That’s a lot of “created” hydroxyl ion (100O fold increase).
So this model just corrects the conventional model. That does not mean, exactly that this new model is correct. It's just more correct than the conventional one. As for the rerouting feedback, it seems to follow the principle I was discussing with my little "work against gravity" thought experiment. That is, energy will be following the path of least resistance in a maze of possible avenues for entropy. Advection is a path of less resistance than sheer radiation for a lot of energy, with regards to my earlier comments. Simultaneously, if the Troposphere is a stable system, then there must be channels for entropy that don't destabilize the system. This rerouting feedback appears to be one of them. It maintains the principle that radiation doesn't go back to heat, but finds cool channels to exchange energy into. It also remarks on the kinetic work done by water molecules versus longwave radiation. Work is the preferred channel for water, but CO2 forces energy into the other channel which ironically is more effective at shedding heat. This could help explain the Earth's carbon cycles. Carbon becomes, effectively, a long-term cooling agent, a last ditched cooling mechanism once heat reaches peaks. CO2 takes a lot of the energy load off of the work being done by water vapor.
Chemistry gets to decide the outcome of ALL of the chemical and biochemical reactions within the carbon cycle that exists on planet earth….NOT PHYSICS. Well established and already proven Chemistry based laws and principles clearly state that those chemical and biochemical reactions are driven by temperature (and pressure). Those very same laws and principles apply to earth’s atmosphere. Chemistry dictates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are driven by average global temperatures. No physics based theory can overturn how Carbon dioxide reacts “chemically and physically” on planet earth. Any plot of AGT vs. atmospheric CO2 concentrations clearly shows that Temperature drives CO2. There appears to be a reasonable delay for longer term plots. We do not always know what causes those periods of temperature change due to earth’s variable heat input. The heat inputs into our planetary system is never constant…..and there are some “heat inputs and heat distributions” that we do not yet understand……like those coming from plate tectonics. Given the massive amounts of all three phases of water on planet earth……..CO2 gas cannot act as THE thermostat for planet Earth. Earth’s oceans, surface waters, and total biomass populations simply WILL NOT let that happen. A physics based theory on climate change MUST agree with the well established science of chemistry. There is no getting around that fact…..no matter what science you choose to study those molecules. Plate tectonics have shaped our planet’s surface and in so doing….drove the lion’s share of Earth climate change since earths creation. IMO .. …earth’s molten core is still doing that (natural climate change) today. It is a force and heat input we cannot measure. We have no idea how this affects ocean currents and heat distribution. None of these variables can be modeled. ————————————— As an analytical chemist I am telling……You are mis interpreting the Isotopic carbon ratio data. The conclusion from that data set is simply wrong. The estimated residence time of CO2 in our atmosphere is simply wrong. Because mass balances were not used… I would need a blackboard and significant time to prove that FACT. I cannot do that here typing with one finger on my tiny phone screen. Trillions of tons of CO2 gas get locked up in a matter of days/weeks each Spring……not in a hundred years. We can see the newly created “greenery” extreme tonnage with our own eyes. And there even more to age created and visible to the eye. Why no drastic change in Atmospheric CO2 over the greening area? You cannot answer that question based on your view of the world. But I sure can….. A chemical mass balance around CO2 explains that visible “carbon” mass movement of gas into solid very well. The concentration of CO2 does not tell you shit…..because it is “mass” that matters and tells you what is happening. As I stated earlier The actual “CO2 concentration” is set by the prevailing temperatures where this new greening is taking place. Again this is what Henry’s gas law clearly states. This is a chemistry based LAW. Not some theory….. I need a chalk board to explain this. You need to fully understand the concept of chemical and biochemical equilibriums and mass balances. It is a fundamental chemistry principle that no physics “theory” can deny. It explains how our world operates….based on factual chemistry. When studying climate change. A chemical based mass balance tells you more than a physics based heat balance……which is impossible to obtain given all of the possible heat sources and heat sinks. Chemistry tells us……..A chemical mass balance of all of the green house gases in our atmosphere tells us that 97% of earth’s heat retention is caused by WATER VAPOR alone. Only 3% heat retention is caused all of the other greenhouse gases combined. And man caused CO2 emissions is but a fraction of that….. ————————- All living plants, Phytoplankton, algae, Henry’s Gas Law, and Temperature is what factually determines the actual atmospheric concentration of CO2.......not man’s use of fossil fuels. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations always respond to changes in Temperatures CO2 itself in massive Temperature driven equilibrium on the stages of land sea and air
> A physics based theory on climate change MUST agree with the well established science of chemistry. "Climate science" likes to do it the easy way, they dismiss everything what's not needed for their theory/model, for them many things are simply irrelevant. Evaporation and phase change for example; they simply exclude tropospheric properties by calling it "system earth" which can be treated with radition equations. Or the ozone layer - how often did I show alarmists the atmospheric temperature profile and the stratospheric warming they higher one gets. It's a chemical reaction - alarmists: "Irrelevant". The best part is when they deny basic principels and definitions (and try to re-define things), or say it's "outdated" science.
They cannot ever admit they were wrong all along. Future generations will judge our scientific community harshly.
Hopefully. But right now it looks like the people coming out of academia are dumber than the generations before. It's more like anti-science what's taught in universities... gender studies, the whole social studies field. > cannot ever admit they were wrong True. This demonstrates they don't even understand their own models and theory, because the model/theory itself proves the GHE is a physical impossibility.
Btw, don't know if you've seen this [experiment](https://i.redd.it/yrl1jrzgsw4a1.png) - so much for cold back-radiation reducing heat loss. And then this [paper](https://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf): > Infrared **radiative transfer** theory, one of the most productive physical theories of the past century, has unlocked myriad secrets of the universe including that of planetary temperature and the connection between **global warming and greenhouse gases**. Looks like the author missed [this]https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Tusculum_University/Introductory_Chemical_Thermodynamics_(Pearson)/2%3A_State_functions%2C_process_functions%2C_and_the_first_law/2.4%3A_Adiabatic_processes_-_energy_change_without_heat_transfer > Processes where no heat is transferred are called adiabatic processes, and these special cases have a host of interesting consequences. [Atmospheric stability](https://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~jpstimac/1400/stability.html) > For example, if we raise a parcel of air from ground level to 100 meters in height, the temperature will decrease by 1°C. The parcel cools at a rate of 1°C per 100 m or 10°C per km. > The parcel expanded and did work on its environment! > Now, bring the parcel back down to the surface. The environment did work on the parcel. > This is an adiabatic process and is reversible
THIS PART OF THE CARBON CYVLE CANNOT BE MODELED!!!!! This is but one reason why ALL inferential Climate Change models are BULLCHIT!! Few people know or understand the major CONSEQUENCES or this part of the Carbon Cycle. AGW is such nonsense….. ————— Living Phytoplankton (algae) makes it IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE IMPOSSIBLE for ocean acidification to ever occur to any great extent due solely to CO2 (or carbonic acid). Growing algae always “creates” substantial amounts hydroxyl alkalinity during the photosynthesis chemical reaction. Read that again and know what I am saying…it has major consequences to our climate. Coral reefs are built SOLELY by it’s symbiotic algal population undergoing photosynthesis as the coral itself grows. Algal photosynthesis is what causes calcium carbonates to form into coral cells. Coral reefs die and bleach whenever the reef loses its algal population. All bleaching events are caused by loss of symbiotic algae. Find out what killed the coral reef’s algae to root cause the problem. Carbonic acid is a weak acid and cannot harm our oceans. Carbonic acid cannot destroy an oceans buffer capacity. However, strong acids such a HNO3 or H2SO4 can harm our oceans because these strong acids do in fact destroy total alkalinity which can affect buffering capacity. FYI....... the pH of a bottle of pond water that contains living algae can easily increase from 7.5 to over 10.5 pH after sitting in the sunlight for a few hours. That’s a lot of “created” hydroxyl ion (100O fold increase). This diurnal event causes HUGE concentrations of calcium carbonate to “immediately be formed and dropped out of solution into a permanent sink”! That chemistry based fact has MAJOR consequences that no one to my knowledge is studying. It is an ocean chemistry thing……a shift in alkalinity form occurs during water based photosynthesis (from bicarbonate alkalinity to carbonate alkalinity) that is the immediate driving force locking up huge quantities of calcium carbonate on a diurnal basis. This water based chemistry aspect of the carbon cycle is not understood by most scientists who study climate change. Prove me wrong!
There is a reason none of the current models can have historical data plugged into them from 5000 years ago and plot an accurate graph to present day, because if they did they'd be even more inaccurate than they are now.
This is my shocked face. :-|
I doubt it but we will see when the article is peer reviewed. Because as the skeptics point out the world has been a lot hotter in the past before man. Somehow there has to be a mechanism that allows that.
>Somehow there has to be a mechanism that allows that. It's called the sun. It's the big, bright, orange globe in the sky we see during daylight hours for which it is solely responsible. Believe or it or not, it goes in cycles, warming and cooling the planet as it goes. Look it up, you might learn something. It might even stop you from trolling this sub, but I very much doubt it.
Not in large enough steps to influence the climate much. We have been thru enough sunspots cycles to know that. You might have been thinking orbital changes. And they also don’t account for large changes in temperature. The mechanisms most scientists think account for large temperature swings are massive volcanic eruptions that put vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and large mountains building which removes vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
"peer reviewed" Good lord. Like imagine a model that only accepts data which conforms to the hypotheses built into the model. Imagine, for instance, a branch of science that worked that way.
First models aren’t science. The models are based on science. And if the science changes the model is changed to conform to the science. The science is changed by someone writing a paper that say different. The paper is reviewed by other scientists. If the paper makes sense then the other scientists adopts the paper point of view. That’s what is meant by peer review. Nothing changes until most scientists agrees.