Renowned climatologist Dr. Judith Curry debunks the myth of a climate consensus, revealing deep scientific disagreement on critical issues like the causes and impacts of warming.
It became pseudo science a quarter of a century ago.
I remember watching a video by a Nobel prize winner who had helped produce the first climate models upon which all the others today are still based and he said that he dumped the model as totally useless in the mid-90's because it simply could not do what any good model should be able to do and that is run backwards in time to accurately "predict" the climate for 100 years into the past which it completely failed to do.
If a model can't accurately "predict" 100 years into the past, as none of them can, how can it possibly accurately predict 100 years into the future as they all profess to do?
Prof. Murry Salby is very convincing over CO2 saturation, and the absorbtion spectra overlap with H2O, which suggests that the greenhouse effect cannot increase significantly with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Shame that this was not mentioned. (I think that more recent papers back up his thesis.)
Rather the opposite hypothesis is suggested - that more CO2 means more warming, though the alarmist view is negated.
This is a repeat and keep for posterity post:
Prof. David Bellamy’s speech to The Climate Change Conference, Cambridgeshire 19th March 2011.
David Bellamy: CO₂ Is The World’s Best Friend
https://nedpamphilon.substack.com/p/david-bellamy-co-is-the-worlds-best
It became pseudo science a quarter of a century ago.
I remember watching a video by a Nobel prize winner who had helped produce the first climate models upon which all the others today are still based and he said that he dumped the model as totally useless in the mid-90's because it simply could not do what any good model should be able to do and that is run backwards in time to accurately "predict" the climate for 100 years into the past which it completely failed to do.
If a model can't accurately "predict" 100 years into the past, as none of them can, how can it possibly accurately predict 100 years into the future as they all profess to do?
Prof. Murry Salby is very convincing over CO2 saturation, and the absorbtion spectra overlap with H2O, which suggests that the greenhouse effect cannot increase significantly with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Shame that this was not mentioned. (I think that more recent papers back up his thesis.)
Rather the opposite hypothesis is suggested - that more CO2 means more warming, though the alarmist view is negated.
Yep. It was Judith Curry who got the ball going for many of us, quite a few years back. I've had a go at the subject here...
https://mosomoso.substack.com/p/essay-that-long-sleepy-heavy-science
https://mosomoso.substack.com/p/essay-that-long-sleepy-heavy-science-5f2