The science of climate change is very complex and there are many different points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics.
1. Natural climate variability
The Earth’s climate has always changed in the past, often dramatically, even without human influence. The current warming is therefore likely just part of a natural cycle and one that is capable of reversing on its own. [emphasis, links added]
2. Climate models are still in their infancy
Climate models are complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the climate system. These models provide different results and are unable to accurately reproduce past climate changes. All are filled with assumptions and guesses.
The climate is a highly complex, chaotic system and so much of it is still poorly understood. Much remains a complete mystery, which means it is impossible to accurately model. Model outputs are thus unreliable.
Remember that with chaotic systems like weather and climate, even very small changes in the initial inputs, which are many, can be amplified over time, thus making long-term predictions impossible. That’s a hard fact of life that climate scientists have to accept.
3. The influence of the sun
The sun is the Earth’s main energy supplier and its activity certainly greatly influences the climate. Hundreds of publications show this. Many of these impacts are poorly understood, and so climate scientists like to pretend they don’t exist.
4. Limited effects of trace gas CO2
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace “greenhouse” gas that human activities release into the atmosphere. Many scientific publications show that CO2’s impact on global warming is overestimated.
5. Oceanic cycles hugely impact climate change
The ocean acts like the Earth’s giant heat re-distributor. Many cycles impact climate. Ocean currents move warm water from the equator towards the poles, and from higher depths to lower depths, thus redistributing energy.
Ocean cycles play a crucial role in regulating Earth’s temperature and weather patterns. Changes to these cycles can have significant consequences for global climate.
The heat content of the oceans is about 100 times that of the atmosphere, so even small heat redistribution changes can significantly impact the atmosphere above.
Predictions are difficult because there is little historical data available from the ocean depths and scientists can only speculate what the oceans will do next.
6. Economic consequences of climate change
Measures to combat climate change entail extremely high costs and are especially socially unbearable for the poor.
Study after study suggests these costs far outweigh the negative consequences of climate change, which we are unable to steer in the first place.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Nick Schroeder wrote:
“So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?”
That comes about due to the climastrologists misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
As you can see from the graphic above, by using the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation, they are forced to assume emission to 0 K. They often also assume emissivity of 1 just like an actual idealized blackbody… other times the slap ε onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation, which is still a misuse of the S-B equation.
The original Kiehl-Trenberth “Earth Energy Balance” graphic (said graphics represent the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models) pinned that number to 390 W m-2, which would correspond to an idealized blackbody object at 288 K emitting to 0 K and with emissivity of 1. Of course, that shows without a doubt that they’ve misused the S-B equation to bolster their narrative. Earth’s emissivity isn’t 1 (it’s 0.93643 per the NASA ISCCP program) and it’s not emitting to 0 K (the majority of wavelengths emit to the ~255 K upper troposphere, the Infrared Atmospheric Window is emitting to the ~65 K near-earth temperature of space).
Now, in order to keep the alarmism at a fever-pitch, they had to keep claiming more and more ludicrous numbers… hence today’s 398 W m-2 surface radiant exitance at their claimed 288 K (which isn’t even physically possible). You can do the calculation via the S-B equation to see this for yourself.
But that’s not the only problem brought about by their misuse of the S-B equation… it also proves that backradiation is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to that misuse of the S-B equation. It doesn’t exist. Some claim that it’s been empirically measured… except the pyrgeometers used to ‘measure’ it utilize the same misuse of the S-B equation as the climastrologists use.
This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that the climatologists carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end (to get their equations to balance) by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
And that’s the third problem with the climastrologists misusing the S-B equation… their doing so implies rampant violations of 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and Stefan’s Law.
As I show in the attached paper, the correct usage of the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense states that system energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (remember that while 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense only mentions temperature, temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law), that it requires “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time“… that “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon that system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient (which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators).
The “backradiation” claim by the climatologists implies that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just one of many blatant violations of the fundamental physical laws inherent in the CAGW narrative. As I show in the linked paper, this is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient).
Read the full explanation here:
https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Believe = religion
Think = opinion
Know = science
What I know follows.
What do you know that’s different?
Published (SubStack, X, MSN, PAPundits, et. al.)
Peer reviewed (the world)
And undisputed (so far)
ISR at ToA = 1,368 W/m^2.
From the Sun’s perspective Earth is a flat, discular, pin head.
To average that discular energy over a spherical surface divide by 4.
(disc = π r^2, sphere = 4 π r^2)
1,368/4=342.
(Not even close to how the Earth heats & cools + this is Fourier’s model which even Pierrehumbert says is no good.)
Deduct 30% albedo.
(Clouds, ice, snow created by GHE/water vapor.)
342*(1.0-0.3)=240.
Deduct 80 due to atmospheric absorption.
(If this were so ToA would be warmer than surface.)
Net/net of 160 arrives at surface.
Per LoT 1 160 is ALL!! that can leave.
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 (by remaining diff) LWIR = 160
Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”
So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
It is a theoretical calculation.
It is not real.
It is a duplicate “extra.”
It violates LoT 1.
396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.
Not that it matters.
Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.
IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.
There is no GHE.
There is no GHG warming.
There is no CAGW,
The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!
Disagree?
Bring science which is not appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gas lighting and insults.
the Big Problem is that the Skeptics are standing on their Bank Account/Paychecks