Climate Alarm = Flat Earther?

[Joshpantera]

@LogicalFallacy

 

There's been a lot of comparisons between climate skeptics and the dreaded, "flat eathers." But this video alleges something absolutely hilarious, if true. 

 

That the scientific data, the formula's at the very base foundation of climate alarm, are allegedly based on a flat earth conception of the planet, rather than taking into account the fact that the earth is spherical on the surface (image B in the video): 

 

 

FYI, this is not open to politicizing here in the science section. The scientific aspects of the discussion are what concern me here. The formula's

themselves, which, I wonder if anyone here can look at and explain their take on it. At 6:56 he brings up the image of a flat earth, the flat round disc of bronze age cosmology, basically.

 

Is this really what the whole foundation rests upon, or is this astrophysicist incorrect on the assertion? 

 

Has Potholer had a chance to respond? 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Will have a look at this when I'm home.

 

The  premise of the argument as you outline immediately has me head scratching. Essentially the claim is that scientists are such buffoons, so incompetent, so brainless, that they are using flat earth models for climate calculations.

 

I'm like, what's more probable - that that claim is true, or the astrophysicist has missed something? Well I'll find out tonight when I watch it. 

 

 

PS - been watching a few 'debunking' videos lately, but very poor quality arguments, like Trump piss poor it's snowing therefore cooling argument.... well ok not THAT bad, but enough that I can't take them seriously.

 

There are two scientists who dissent that I take seriously - Dr Judith Curry and another person... forgot his name.

[Joshpantera]

At 7:40 he goes into the problems with the IPCC interpretation of the Greenhouse Effect based on the allegedly errant formula's illustrated in image B. 

[pantheory]

Interesting video but the title is off IMO. They discuss why mainstream science global warming theory has a lot of propaganda to it, and that it is less certain than what the "propaganda" alleges it to be. There are many issues involved. First of all is global warming real, is the Earth slowly getting warmer? Yes, the majority of climate scientists think that it presently is. They have a very great deal of evidence to back this up. Next, is man contributing to global warming? Even with the global-cooling effect caused by pollution, the vast majority of scientists still think that global warming is the net effect and that man is contributing to global warming.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/

 

Next, is mankind the main cause of global warming? Again most climatologists believe mankind is the primary cause of global warming but there is still much debate as to what extent we contribute to it.

 

As to the physics presented, they assert unrealistic over simplification in a particular model. The model seems to have been dumbed-down in an attempt to provide numerical data for global warming, this however is not an important part of the argument. The main issue is whether anybody has debunked the assertion of mankind causing global warming, and the simple answer is no.

[LogicalFallacy]

Ok I've watched the video. Fairly disappointing.

 

I don't know enough about the mathematics of CC, only that there are multiple models, with multiple formulas, and super computers run millions of lines of code using trillions of calculations. Like Pantheory said - the video seems to over simplify this.

 

As to their 'flat earth' model diagram they seem to have taken that from the balance model which is one of the simpler models. In digramatic form they use a flat earth depiction, but I've seen nothing suggesting the calculations are actually based off a flat earth. To suppose scientists from around the world are using a flat earth calculation seems far fetched.

 

Slightly off topic, the host was asked if he thought the earth was flat and he responded by saying "in my opinion the earth is a sphere" Not sure if that's a bad choice of words but it's not an opinion. It's a fact. Sometimes bullshit like flat earth must be called bullshit. I've digressed.

 

Back to the formula - it's an energy in energy out formula. The presenter in this video explains it very well, and the subject of the video is apt considering we are talking mathematics. At 44:51 you can see the diagrammatic representation again - it's slightly curved but still fairly flat for demonstration purposes. One cannot conclude from this that the calculations are therefore based on a flat earth.

 

 

 

Dr Roy Spencer in the link below states he has issues with CC models, but that they are not based on a flat earth.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/

 

So to answer your question: "is this astrophysicist incorrect on the assertion? " 

 

I would say yes, grossly incorrect.

 

I haven't seen a video from Potholer on this. He doesn't tackle every video out there simply because there is not enough time. He tends to tackle those who have wide reaching influence's and audiences. I could ask Sci Man Dan to have a look at it - he debunks conspiracy stuff, and while not entirely conspiratory, it might be enough up his alley to look at.

 

Edit: The consensus bit I meant to tackle too - that's a bit easier. I understand there are multiple studies, and at least one of them wasn't a hand count as suggested, it was a study of all climate change papers and seeing what percentage of those agreed that human activity was driving the warming via CO2 emissions. I seem to recall that they have been tracking the % for some time and its been going up. It's around 98% now I believe.  I'll try and find some sources for this... *goes away*

 

*Comes back*

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.XFFn2lwzaUk 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 

 

And you thought I was pulling shit out my arse  I knew I'd read that info somewhere. 

[Joshpantera]

Snipped from link:

 

Quote

I really don’t know where this idea ever came from. It might be because of the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram which illustrates the global-average and time-averaged major energy flows in the climate system, which is often presented over a flat cartoon representation of the Earth’s surface

 

Spencer sounds like Ehrman when first facing the Jesus myth theory. Surprised, and not entirely sure what it's about. Maybe if he could interact or debate with the other guy the issue could come into more clarity. Because either it's that simplistic (as Spencer's initial guess) or there's much more to it. But you would think that the formula's used take into account the curvature of the earths surface. The other issue was the two different green house models and how that relates to what the IPCC is using. 

 

[Joshpantera]

I knew this would be coming, but here's a TED talk on trying to climate engineer. Removing CO2 forcibly with technological mechanisms: 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

First step in terra forming?