Reminds me of one of my favourite lines from The Thick of It: "You're so dense that light bends around you"
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
Reminds me of one of my favourite lines from The Thick of It: "You're so dense that light bends around you"
Just to recap: @Maagge and I both explained how the greenhouse effect can occur, despite @Mark Pawelek falsely implying that Einstein said it isn't possible; he has ironically previously complained about people not educating him but has not bothered to acknowledge let alone respond to either of our posts. And he has again, in repying to @lynchie , called the effect a thought experiment. This caught my eye, since many things that he has asserted so confidently have been wrong.
And once again this asertion of his seems to be untrue; here is a practical demonstration of the greenhouse effect using CO2, starting 30 seconds into this short video:
And once again this asertion of his seems to be untrue; here is a practical demonstration of the greenhouse effect using CO2, starting 30 seconds into this short video:
You make good points over Ludecke, Hempelmann, Weiss 2013. I'm too busy to defend it. But it's not my main argument. You have nothing against Connolly's work. Connolly's refute greenhouse gas theory. That blows man-made climate change out of the water. It sinks the rotten hulk.
PS: The actual chart posted (from Ludecke et al) had a key added to it, no found in the citation.
PhDs in physics on one side of the argument, Bill the electrician in his 1990 Ford Ranger on the other side.
That's just not how Mark operates. Anything he doesn't have an answer to (no matter how bad an answer), he just pretends doesn't exist.
Deary me, he really is oppressively stupid. Nuclear winter has to do with nuclear war. No nuclear war, no nuclear winter. He's apparently too stupid to realize the difference, but what he's really talking about is the reports that we were heading back into an ice age (technically a glacial period; we're already in an ice age). And we sort of were, though first of all it would take thousands of years to get there, and secondly we have at the very least postponed and possibly even skipped the next one entirely now, due to global warming.
Basically, if he was a smart idiot he would use the argument that global warming is good because we might avoid an ice age, but he's a stupid idiot so he can't accept global warming in the first place.
This thread reads like the Flat Earth thread.
So who do you believe?
American hate preacher with no concept of nuclear weapons. Yet they insist no one else should have them
Nuclear winter never happened because it was based on impossible models - much like man-made climate change.American hate preacher with no concept of nuclear weapons. Yet they insist no one else should have them
At the time, UK Home Office dismissed nuclear winter threat as scaremongering
Other scientists dismissed nuclear winter too. Nuclear Winter Reappraised, by Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider
This book, describing what it would actually be like after a nuclear war, dismisses nuclear winter too
Do you have any issues with Connolly's work? Their's is a key text which blows the greenhouse gas myth out of the water.
The other text you complained about identified periodicities in earth's recent climate record. The authors do not say those periods are associated with solar cycles. I did. One of the periods is 61 years. Exactly aligning with the Yoshimura (solar) cycle; which showed peak warming in 2002, 1941, 1880. If you can think of any other cause of regular climate cycles other than solar cycles I'd love to know what they are.
[URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/home-office-nuclear-winter-threat-scaremongering-war']Home Office dismissed nuclear winter threat as scaremongering[/URL] said:
Do you read the stuff you post?
Yes I read it. UK scientists dismissed nuclear winter fears and, in 1986, so did other scientists.
They said it wasn't gonna happen because there won't be a war to make it happen. Then it didn't happen because there was no war that made it happen.
In all likelihood there were people who exaggerated the effects it would have (there always are) but to say it didn't happen because the effect doesn't happen is bizarre.
I can see that berbatrick and Maagge don't like my take on the paper correlating natural cycles to the earth's average temperature. So here is another chart, from another paper, where they correlated CO2 to temperature, and solar cycles to temperature. Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century, by Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly. 2015
Last edited:
Did you ever read the nuclear winter models you think you believe in? I read some of them. Junk
Do you even realize that the guys you are now happily quoting as experts are both early and serious proponents of man-made climate change? Schneider founded a climatology journal and worked on the IPCC, for feck's sake. It's like you can't even go a single post without contradicting yourself.
I prefer this book.
Last edited:
I explained, as did maagge, in very plain language, how the greenhouse effect occurs, it doesnt matter if its Connolly or Pawelek. I'm fairly confident about my reply to your post - outward IR from the earth's surface gets re-transmitted back in random directions after interacting with a greenhouse gas, this means a net inward flux of IR compared to the no-greenhouse case since it would have otherwise all escaped.
I was a chemist and so I have not made any claims about solar cycles.
We managed to avoid a nuclear ww3 type scenario?
What's your point...Nukes should be ok because nuclear winter is a myth?
don't think he understands what nuclear winter means
Nuclear winter may be real or myth...but that has no relevance in us working to stop use of nukes.
Climate change may be real or not...but that has no relevance in us protecting the earth (less of pollution, deforestation, resource stripping etc).
Climate change may be real or not...but that has no relevance in us protecting the earth (less of pollution, deforestation, resource stripping etc).
1. It does not matter how you think the greenhouse effect works. It is not modeled that way. Nor can you give me any evidence to support either greenhouse gas models, nor how you think the greenhouse effect works. By that I mean evidence to directly support the assumptions and statements of GHGE thought experiments. Connollys' work is actual science, not modeling, nor "thinking". They plot data to discover equations of state for the atmosphere. If you want me to take the greenhouse effect seriously cite your evidence, not your thoughts.
The greenhouse gas climate models do not model it as you described. They assume what you wrote but that's not the model. The model is used to make warming projections. There's only one model. That's why they say they have a consensus over settled science. I know you cannot give me any good evidence to support assumptions of the model & thought experiment because I asked for it, from modelers and their apologists, time and again but got nothing.
2. Your own thoughts on this imply you equate all EMR as the same thing. As if it can all be equalized by calling it radiative forcing. LWIR emitted from CO2 cannot be equated to sunlight because these two radiations have radically different effects on water. As you know 71% of earth's surface is covered with water.
- Sunlight warms water. It can penetrate up to 100m, and it typically gets as far as 5m before it's absorbed.
- LWIR, emitted by CO2, does not penetrate water very far. It goes mere micrometres before it's absorbed. It makes a warm skin on the surface. Such heat is likely to be dissipated in 2 ways: re-emission, or conversion to latent heat of vapourisation, with subsequent evaporation of water.
Everytime I look at climate science it's always the same. Modelers making it up to promote their careers and further the cause of pseudoscience. Actual scientists smeared as "deniers" discovering what's really happening. The establishment promote pseudoscience, modeling, carbon taxes, austerity. It's almost as if they fixated on renewables before the ever dreamed up a climate crisis. Oh yeh, that's exactly what they did.
Why do you keep bringing up flat earthers, as if that's even remotely relevant? I guess I wouldn't be surprised if you're a flat earther as well, but I'm not sure they want you representing them.
This thread makes me realize how the world got into the situation it is right now. Imagine if Mark Pawelek was actually someone with any amount of authority. He could do real damage, and quite literally no amount of evidence would ever convince him otherwise.
@Mark Pawelek, are you going to address this?
This thread makes me realize how the world got into the situation it is right now. Imagine if Mark Pawelek was actually someone with any amount of authority. He could do real damage, and quite literally no amount of evidence would ever convince him otherwise.
@Mark Pawelek, are you going to address this?
Schneider was a climate modeling expert. He said this particular nuke winter model is wrong. That doesn't make him right.
Read the article Schneider wrote. Don't bring your worthless - truth of science depends on who wrote it - argument in here. It does not. It depends, in the first instance, on the evidence. There's no evidence for nuclear winter. Look at the evidence cited by either side in this discussion. Stop you fixation with personalities.
The answer may surprise you
Coming from you, that's not even insulting. It's just funny.
General reply to all my critics here. Try thinking for yourselves. Take a leaf of advice from Imanual Kant, who answers the question "What is Enlightenment?".
Thanks to @Mark Pawelek for his hilarious wumming really brightens up my day.
"DoN't brINg yOur FAncY scien-ma-tists wiTh TheIR REpuTaTiOns tO mY argument cos I only deal with evidence that backs my claim even if it was written by a hobo on the back of a fag packet
hilarious, but you might need to tone it down a little bit because the parody is starting to show quite a bit.
really brightens up my day."DoN't brINg yOur FAncY scien-ma-tists wiTh TheIR REpuTaTiOns tO mY argument cos I only deal with evidence that backs my claim even if it was written by a hobo on the back of a fag packet
hilarious, but you might need to tone it down a little bit because the parody is starting to show quite a bit.
Last edited:
Maagge did exactly that, right here. Your response was to ignore him, quote someone else's work that you liked with no explanation of the thinking behind it, and then make the the point that "his status is already miles above yours". At no point have you presented your own thinking, in the way Maagge or berbatrick have - and in fact when that's happened, you've dismissed those as just meaningless thoughts, what really matters is the evidence. Or at least your evidence. Sure, the evidence might be flawed or misunderstood, but we don't have time to actually understand why those flaws exist, or what they mean. It's better to just move onto the next article to quote thoughtlessly, from the people you like. And you can't possibly engage with new evidence that people present, it's better just to refute it by saying the equivalent of 'my evidence is better than your evidence'. No time for thinking, folks.
It underlines two quite obvious things.
- You don't really understand the science
- Status matters, or the people presenting the evidence matter to you, as long as they're saying things that make sense to you
It's an unfortunate reality that the world is exceptionally complex, and climate science engages directly with huge swathes of that complexity in a unified view. You need to have a deep understanding of the core sciences, and years of experience working on the specific problems, to really know what you're talking about. A minority of the population have that. You don't, nor do the the Connolly's, nor do the vast majority of people in here. Believing anything else is simply delusional, and if you were to read your own posts from a position of scepticism, you'd see lots of evidence of that.
What you're doing is what the vast majority of people are doing - in the absence of true understanding, you're relying on trust. Some people trust experts, some people trust consensuses, some people trust sceptics, and so on. The main difference is, the people who trust sceptics are the ones who feel good about being different and while largely doing the same thing they ridicule in others.
Thanks to @Mark Pawelek for his hilarious wumming
"DoN't brINg yOur FAncY scien-ma-tists wiTh TheIR REpuTaTiOns tO mY argument cos I only deal with evidence that backs my claim even if it was written by a hobo on the back of a day packet
Yeah, I've been enjoying it too
Thanks to @Mark Pawelek for his hilarious wumming
"DoN't brINg yOur FAncY scien-ma-tists wiTh TheIR REpuTaTiOns tO mY argument cos I only deal with evidence that backs my claim even if it was written by a hobo on the back of a fag packet
Yeah, I've been enjoying it too
I would like to believe this, but sad to say I do think he's being genuine. If he is trolling, he's also been doing it on twitter since 2009.
He has 1860 followers, which actually perfectly explains why he seems so utterly impervious to explanations and real science. @Mark Pawelek spends most of his time living in an online echo chamber, a safe space for anti-knowledge, where total obliviousness to science is actually the norm, and to be encouraged. And he also retweets shit like this, which should come as no surprise when you consider the lack of critical thinking on display already:
@nimic
Thanks for the interesting points, I truly mean that, but isn't that doxxing? I'm not sure.
Those tweets are absolutely horrid though
Thanks for the interesting points, I truly mean that, but isn't that doxxing? I'm not sure.
Those tweets are absolutely horrid though
If he posts something on Twitter, it's because he wants people to see it. He's not exactly shy about it, considering he uses the exact same points on Twitter as on here. It's not like I posted his address, or even his Facebook account. Twitter is by definition not private.
Fair dos, just amazed how to found out that was him.
That Twitter is vile though, I'm not even going to try and stay calm about it.