To be fair it was @NinjaFletch who figured it out.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/climate-change.446642/page-9#post-24215028
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
To be fair it was @NinjaFletch who figured it out.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/climate-change.446642/page-9#post-24215028
Here is my answer to Maagge.
1st. No one has a right of reply here. Not Maagge, not Brwned. None of you. Climate scientists typically never reply to a single awkward point made to them. Given that, there's no reason I should reply to any of you.
2nd. Despite the point above, I've decided I will reply because this missing reply seems to have everyone hot under the collar and steaming over. Also, because various posters are using the missing reply to misrepresent me.
4th. Maagge's explanation for the greenhouse gas effect is not what's modeled not is it used in models driving policy. One can write book after book, or papers galore about a greenhouse gas effect; it's of no consequence to climate policy. So yes I ignored Maagge. I will ignore everyone else who posts red herrings.
5th. The core mathematical model of the greenhouse gas effect used by modelers is of consequence. This is the mistake upon which trillions in taxes are now being wasted on. This is the only aspect of the so-called greenhouse gas effect I want to talk about. It's the only aspect which anyone sensible person should care about. The assumptions making up this mathematical model of the greenhouse gas effect are likely wrong. Some have been shown to be wrong by the Connollys, and others. For example: In Connolly's video, I posted a link to, and their papers. Neither the assumptions behind the models, nor the models have ever been properly tested, validated, nor verified. For example: the whole notion of radiative forcing is science fiction. Because it assumes all EMR has the same qualities as far as warming the surface goes. This is shown to be false too; which I either posted about or will in my next post.
These are the wrong assumptions upon which trillions are now being wasted.
Maggee may have a PhD is physics but I studied physics too and I have a degree in maths. I can see a fake model of the greenhouse gas effect a mile off. Especially when better physicists than Maagge describe the precise model used by the climate alarmists. It does not take genius, or a PhD, to see what's so bad about the core GHGE model used by the self-proclaimed climate consensus. Just an open mind.
1st. No one has a right of reply here. Not Maagge, not Brwned. None of you. Climate scientists typically never reply to a single awkward point made to them. Given that, there's no reason I should reply to any of you.
2nd. Despite the point above, I've decided I will reply because this missing reply seems to have everyone hot under the collar and steaming over. Also, because various posters are using the missing reply to misrepresent me.
3rd. This is not a trick. The accusations against climate scientists, made by other physicists and scientists, are misuse of physics and systematic corruption of the scientific process. The only motive behind this corruption, I can see, is careerism. Climate scientists are not saving the planet. They are shoring up their careers.
4th. Maagge's explanation for the greenhouse gas effect is not what's modeled not is it used in models driving policy. One can write book after book, or papers galore about a greenhouse gas effect; it's of no consequence to climate policy. So yes I ignored Maagge. I will ignore everyone else who posts red herrings.
5th. The core mathematical model of the greenhouse gas effect used by modelers is of consequence. This is the mistake upon which trillions in taxes are now being wasted on. This is the only aspect of the so-called greenhouse gas effect I want to talk about. It's the only aspect which anyone sensible person should care about. The assumptions making up this mathematical model of the greenhouse gas effect are likely wrong. Some have been shown to be wrong by the Connollys, and others. For example: In Connolly's video, I posted a link to, and their papers. Neither the assumptions behind the models, nor the models have ever been properly tested, validated, nor verified. For example: the whole notion of radiative forcing is science fiction. Because it assumes all EMR has the same qualities as far as warming the surface goes. This is shown to be false too; which I either posted about or will in my next post.
These are the wrong assumptions upon which trillions are now being wasted.
Maggee may have a PhD is physics but I studied physics too and I have a degree in maths. I can see a fake model of the greenhouse gas effect a mile off. Especially when better physicists than Maagge describe the precise model used by the climate alarmists. It does not take genius, or a PhD, to see what's so bad about the core GHGE model used by the self-proclaimed climate consensus. Just an open mind.
Last edited:
Alright, I've figured it out now.
You believe it's all one big conspiracy where climate scientists wants to like their pockets hence your focus on models.
Now, I haven't talked about models at all because they're just a way to try and predict the future or explain phenomena.
When I described how the greenhouse effect works I didn't care about models. Because whether or not someone can implement the greenhouse effect in a model has no actual bearing on the greenhouse effect taking place.
But being a conspiracy theorist who believes an electrician over 97 % of climate scientists kind of makes it pointless arguing with you.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change
Have a feeling this is a niave post, but if the plan would genuinely help then £400bn seems well worth it? I'm sure there'd be big arguments over who pays for it but if developed countries came together to pay for it then surely it wouldn't be that much in the grand scheme of things.
For anyone who doesn't want to click the article, the plan would be to pump sea water (wind powered) onto current ice caps in the Artic, which would then freeze and thicken the ice caps.
Have a feeling this is a niave post, but if the plan would genuinely help then £400bn seems well worth it? I'm sure there'd be big arguments over who pays for it but if developed countries came together to pay for it then surely it wouldn't be that much in the grand scheme of things.
For anyone who doesn't want to click the article, the plan would be to pump sea water (wind powered) onto current ice caps in the Artic, which would then freeze and thicken the ice caps.
Best books on climate change?
Probably a dim question. But wouldn't it depend on the sea temperature.
Followed by another dumb question by myself but surely the sea temperature in the Arctic is below freezing?
Some of it is, namely the parts that are ice instead of liquid water. To be fair the freezing temperature of sea water is lower than just water, but only by a little bit.
It’s awful simple. 7.4 billion humans organised as nation states is unsustainable on this particular planet. It’s a feck up for other life forms and for humans too. What, then, is sustainable as regards lifeways, societal structure, and population?
A billion, let’s say. With a very different structure. Will we ever get there, I wonder? We are clever fleas, so maybe. Maybe. But it will take at least 300 years of suffering and many bad turns. Maybe in 2150 the president of a city state will sail the seas and drop flowers on the grey waves where London used to be.
A billion, let’s say. With a very different structure. Will we ever get there, I wonder? We are clever fleas, so maybe. Maybe. But it will take at least 300 years of suffering and many bad turns. Maybe in 2150 the president of a city state will sail the seas and drop flowers on the grey waves where London used to be.
Insulting another member
Maagge says: "I haven't talked about models".
But this is all about and only about models. All climate policy depends on warming predicted by models. Nearly all climate science assumes warming predicted by models.
So Maagge says he can read my mind. He thinks I believe in a big conspiracy. I think Maagge is just lazy, stupid, conceited.
lazy: Connollys. He probably hasn't even bothered to read the Connolly work I cited. He hasn't presented any scientific objections to it.
GHGE: I'm not sure Maagge have even bothered to read the greenhouse gas effect model, he claims to believe in. He didn't write about it. This is actual model used to project warming. Descended from Manabe & Wetherald, 1975.
stupid: Who projects onto people he disagrees with by calling them conspiracy theorist? This is 6th-form stuff from Maagge. A conspiracy is a secret agreement made for corrupt or criminal purposes. I never mentioned any crimes nor anything particularly corrupt. I just said the climate scientists upholding the Manabe & Wetherald derived model are mere careerists. I said their basic model is wrong. They are second-rate scientists too incompetent to defend their ideas publicly.
Last edited:
Yeah I don't think he's a troll either. No legit troll would come out with that nuclear winter stuff... they'd have to be scared of showing their hand.
Reminder: to be a careerist climate scientist you have to be an actual climate scientist to begin with. Your main source is a careerist electrician and builder.
Reminder: While Maggee is an actual scientist, you are someone who spent several posts arguing with utter conviction about a graph which it turned out you were reading completely backwards, a graph which actually directly contradicted your entire point.
Reminder: earlier in the thread you said there was a high probability that people in this thread were being trained and paid to disagree with you.
Reminder: your chosen set of "scientists" literally created their own peer-review platform because they couldn't defend their ideas in actual peer-review by actual scientists. The only reason they can't be called the actual second-rate scientists here is that they aren't scientists to begin with.
Conclusion: you're a conspiracy theorist who is largely (if not completely) ignorant of science. You think your ability to write (Connolly 2014) gives the impression that you know what you're talking about, but you have fallen far enough down the conspiracy rabbit hole that you don't realize how utterly transparently absurd your posts are. You're being actively mistaken for a troll because you say things only a troll would say, which makes it quite sad that you're genuine.
Oh yes, and judging by your Twitter you're also racist and generally not a very good person.
Last edited:
On reflection it is probable that if sea water at close to zero C were to be sprayed through the air at the ice, then it would freeze easily and build up the ice thickness.
And that is the crux of the problem.
Far too much humans living in far too many self governing states and no real common purpose.
Climate change is global but there is no globally coordinated response.
Our only real hope is that human ingenuity coupled with self preservation instincts will somehow find a way to get on top of the problem and mitigate its worst effects.
OK then, the climate modelers are second-rate pseudoscientists too incompetent to defend their ideas publicly.
None of you have, so far, raised a scientific objection to the Connolly paper (2014); including Maagge - the self-styled PhD physicist - who can't find the time to discuss actual science.
Exactly why you don't want to talk about science I'll have to guess. Perhaps because:
- you know you cannot win by attacking Connolly's science because it is good work and climate model predictions for the mid-atmosphere are notoriously bad,
- you are too lazy to read Connolly's work,
- you're following the tried and tested formula of ignoring the science by attacking the person (namely me),
- you're activists following orders. This is what your commissars tell you to do.
Last edited:
I'm fecking sick of this shit Mark. This is an unjustifiable statement. It'd be easier to take you even slightly seriously of you didn't post (deliberately?) impenetrable drivel in which you have, in the last 5 months, kneecapped your own argument by posting data and graphs variously from papers that contradict your core points, are irrelevant, that you have misinterpreted, misunderstood or misread. You appear to misunderstand scientific terminology (including peer review which does not mean get your mates who agree to look in to it), have read graphs in reverse and claimed fish breathe water to name but a few of your greatest hits. Combined with your predilection for the sort of absolute shite post such as the effluent I've quoted and your entirely misplaced sense of intellectual superiority, I genuinely fear this reflects your character and worry about the terrifying and strange existence you must lead.
Seriously, please, seek the help you need. You're not an intellectual rebel fighting with your ragged band of heroes against the oppressive orthodoxy - you're a man who misunderstands the science and places too much faith in the fatuous opinions of idiots.
I was going to leave this thread but you dragged me back. Because I don't think you're an activist, I'll answer you. But I'll answer the objection I think you made: my accusation of pseudoscience.
I've got to assume that's your objection, because my statement about the activists in this forum makes sense. They ignore science. Although they dismiss Connolly's work they are unable to pose a single scientific objection to it.
Justifying my accusation of pseudoscience:
In theory anyone can write a mathematical model or pose a new scientific hypothesis. In general scientists establish rules to prevent themselves writing infinite numbers of mathematical models and hypothesis. The most important rule is:- it must be testable against the real world.
For example, it's been estimated there are 10e499 possible string theory variants. A very big number. In comparison the number of atoms in the universe is thought to be between 10e78 and 10e82. If scientists pontificated and hypothesised, as they wish (or their job paid), they'd be modeling till the end of time without necessarily making a single correct prediction.
The way out of this cul de sac is to test, verify and validate a model. It's important that the model test criteria is written by a scientist independent of the model author. Because an author can always find some criteria their model will pass. Authors just aren't able to objectively criticise their own work. We should always look for the most rigorous, and quantitatively precise tests. This kind of testing has never been done for climate models. Nothing even approaching proper model testing has been done. Wolfgang Pauli called ideas expressed in scientific terms but lacking testable criteria - not even false.
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
I prefer to call untestable ideas, dressed in scientific terminology, pseudoscience. Pseudoscience always lacks in good scientific method. People who make pseudoscience are pseudoscientists.
That reminds me, Soros still hasn't paid me for last week.
The problem with books on climate change is they often get bogged down in the controversy of man-made climate change but don't properly explain the climate system. One can't even begin to understand the controversy without understanding various ideas about how the climate works! At the end of his skeptic book, to introduce how the climate system worked, now dead climate scientist Robert Carter recommended:
- W Burroughs. 2003, Climate into the 21st Century. 240pp
- W. F. Ruddiman. 2001, Earth's climate past and future. 465pp
Mark - pseudoscience would be your hallmark if statements collapsing under the weight of their own hypocritical irony weren't your main strength.
The problems in your faux philosophical musings are so blindingly obvious and you're tantalisingly close to some level of self awareness. Of course one should review the evidence, the peer reviewed findings based on experimental outputs and the results of the testing of those hypotheses. When that extends to rejecting the entire field of climate change and slandering it with the term pseudoscience whilst happily accepting the positions of some serious quacks you have lost all credibility.
The definition of pseudoscience is not philosophical, faux or otherwise. It's scientific. Pseudoscience is stuff which imitates science by using the same language and form of presentation but which breaks the scientific method.
If it were so obvious you would be able to tell us precisely what it is, instead of overdosing on rhetoric.
Red herring. I was talking about models. I didn't say anything about reviewing evidence. Models are not evidence.
I was very careful in my last post to dis modelers - who are not scientists because they don't follow the scientific method. I never said anything about the entire field of climate change. You made that up. You put words in my mouth. Because you cannot criticise what I actually said, you criticise what you imagined I said.
My definition of pseudoscience is mainstream, not faux philosophical. Pseudoscience is idea(s) dressed like science, in the same language, which use a wrong scientific method. Modeling doesn't use any scientific method at all.
I'm out Mark. To be accused of overdosing on rhetoric in yet another ridiculously long exercise in obfuscation masquerading as a post is enough for me. I can't believe 5 months later I got dragged in again. Believe whatever shit you want to. Post your lurid and impenetrable nonsense.
I'm sure the Nobel prize that you will inevitably and deservedly receive for the incredible work that you will deliver as a consequence of your Renaissance man like mastery of dozens of scientific fields will be sweet vindication.
Normally scientists have to work all of their lives to specialise in particular areas and are incredibly cautious about having opinions out with those areas but clearly they lack your polymath genius. You have taken to science like a fish takes to breathing water.
You might want to hire an editor though.
Good luck in your campaign to enlighten the internet.
You have ignored empirical models, which are models that fit experimental data. Regression is a good example.
When you say models are not evidence, that is well, absolute nonsense. A lot of models can't be proved because the technology does not exist. But some are based on educated and reasonable assumptions. The only phenomenological model in turbulence, referred to as K41 theory, still can't be proved, despite the predictions made in 1941 and it is used ubiquitously in fluid dynamics and multiphase flow. We just can't run the experiments or simulations to a sufficient quality to prove it. You won't find a single academic paper in this field which doesn't use elements of this theory or model, yet it has no certifiable "proof". Does that make every paper is the field a pseudoscience? No...
I get the point you are making, "use care with models and ideally they should be validated as best as possible". But you should not dismiss a model unless you know the reasons why you are dismissing it. You seem to be dismissing all of them without really understanding why.
The below is a textbook example of conspiracy. You're accusing thousands and thousands of scientists of not being bothered with scientific truth but just looking out for their careers. It's an incredible claim. Scientists have absolutely no qualms about calling other scientists out if they're wrong. It happens all the time.
And for all the talk about climate models not implementing a real phenomenom correctly I just have to refer back to my earlier figure:
Figure 1. (Left) A sketch showing a simplified working principle of the greenhouse effect. (Right) Mark Pawelek avoiding discussing the credentials of the Connollys. Not to scale.
Ok, so your posts esp. the attitude you project in them have been slightly annoying for the last week. Finally, I had some time today to research the "research" Connolly's did that you keep referring to.
Disregarding all the problems that come from calling your publications peer-reviewed when it is only published in your own open peer-review journal with no editorial board (so effectively you are reviewing your own publication), there seems to be fundamental problems with their mathematical model, assumptions made and interpretation of the data they had and those they collected. Having only a grad level understanding of physics and chemistry and a passing interest in climate science, I do not think I am the right person to comb through their 8 publications all 20-30 pages long and explain all these esp. after seeing "pervection" in my first go and realizing it will be a waste of time. So I will first point to this discussion with experts in and around the field and Ronan Connolly is in the discussion as well https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-lapse-rate/ (not sure if anyone has posted this). Here, they have shown some of those problems mentioned and also given suggestions for simple experiments to test Connolly's assumptions (which I haven't seen Connollys follow through with). Hope, you have enough self-awareness to at least go through that.
And finally, I'll leave you with one of the questions that Ronan avoided to answer a number of times there, "how does our atmosphere ensure that it “is not freaking cold on Earth”?"
Cheers for that link. For anyone with some time to spare, Ronan Connolly is hopelessly out of his depth, as expected.
EDIT: I mean, they're trying to get a snapshot of the greenhouse effect from weather balloon measurements on the scale of hours. As if it's a quantity you can readily measure through a temperature reading. Amazing stuff.
EDIT: Apparently a "multimerization" of N2 is part of their explanation. Yeah the for all intents and purposes inert gas N2. Also they don't know that chemical symbols aren't written in italics.
Last edited:
These types of comments would make me chuckle if they weren't so depressing
As someone who studied economic incentives, it blows my mind people like you try to play people for fools by bringing up the alleged economic motivations of climate scientists but somehow ignore the hundreds of billions of subsidies to fossil fuel and the trillions sheared off by fossil fuel profiteers and polluters over the decades.
Interesting doc on climate change. Has it been discussed in this thread before?
Just found the thread on it. Seems im a bit late to the party.
Last edited:
No, these are brand new arguments, thanks for posting, I'm now reconsidering all my life choices.
Reading this thread with MP on ignore is quite the experience. I have to try and guess what random nonsense he's thrown up into the discourse.
Secretive energy startup achieves solar breakthrough
Pretty interesting development.
More sober analysis: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...the-sun-could-help-clean-up-cement-and-steel/
Pretty interesting development.
More sober analysis: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...the-sun-could-help-clean-up-cement-and-steel/
Last edited:
If this can achieve temperatures of 1000C then it could also be used as a primary energy production. Heating water to produce steam to drive turbines ?
I guess so, but I'm not sure whether it would be competitive for that purpose. In terms of raw heat the French have had a solar furnace that can reach 3500C since the 70's, the problem seems to have always been the cost of production and the difficulty distributing from the relatively few and isolated locations where such temperatures could be maintained. That latter makes it pretty inefficient for conversion into useable energy - everything needs to be produced on site.
I think the difference claimed by this new venture is that it come in at a price point which undercuts existing furnace tech. They also seem to be saying that their use of AI increases the efficiency of mirror alignment and so might increase the number of locations such furnaces could be built.
Understood. Thank you.
We were supposed to have reached peak emissions by 2020 to stand a solid chance of eventually limiting the impacts. 42 days to go! Merry Christmas!
You can generate localised heat by focusing a laser to a point, to create plasma. At least momentarily, the temperature is of the order of 1000K's. Therefore the focusing of sunlight to generate a high temperature, does not surprise me. At least with a laser you need high quality optical devices - these can be very expensive. You will also need to ensure the laser and optics sit on a flat surface. The optical breadboards (flat surface) are also very expensive. Whether the same is true for sunlight I am not sure but I would imagine if you want to try to generate a significantly high temperature, then it would probably be similar and very costly.
Aren't we crushing the CO2 emission goals set by the Paris agreement globally? Given that the overall goal was not to exceed the 2 degrees C average temperature increase that could start of some bad systems leading to a potential "hot earth" scenario... And by crushing the goals, I mean exceeding the emission limit in a spectacular way...