It reminds me of the over-population warnings of the 1970s, where prominent scientists and politicians warned that mass starvation was right around the corner. This constant doom and gloom at an extreme level seems to cause fatigue and apathy.
That's exactly what it is. The "science" behind the climate change narrative is sponsored by groups that want to implement a global carbon tax, or any other justification they can think of to create a one-world government. It's exactly the same BS as the COVID manipulation we've endured since 2020.
Water vapor is a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than CO2 by three orders of magnitude. The current "models" do not accurately reflect the sun or water on earth.
The fatigue and apathy is because the predictions has been serially wrong. So much so they had to rebrand "global warming" to "climate change".
Normally intelligent people have let their hubris make them victims to globalist propaganda. It's disturbing to see how many people not only fall for it but parrot their programming ad nauseam and attack dissenters pointing out raw fact (like that unadulterated satellite temperate data shows the earth's temperature as relatively flat for the last 20 years, or that the 1930's were warmer than temperatures today).
The earth will be cooler in 10 years, not warmer. We're heading into a grand solar minimum. Wait and see.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and had a closer look at the first paper. I wasted about 15 minutes of my life.
> Actually, one of the aims of the paper is to show that polarization stems from political, rather than scientific, roots.
Yeah, though luck there. The paper concerns itself with more political propaganda than with climate science. Most of it is just fluff and filler, with quotes from Aristotle to Mark Twain, spends half of its actual content with the premise to discover the true definition of the word climate and then dismissing "climate change" (the scary quotes are form the "paper"). And then we come to this gem here:
> Hence, in scientific terms, the content of the term climate change is almost equivalent to that of weather change or even time change (climate is changing as is weather and time).
Yes. Really. This paper is pulling no punches. Climate is just weather. And weather changes. Thus there is no climate change. QED.
What a piece of wasted bits.
It then spends the next few paragraphs "analyzing" how climate change is actually political in nature, spending more pixels on graphs of the occurrence of the term "climate change" than on actual climate data.
No discussion of the vast body of evidence that we have gathered in the last 100 years. No examination of actual possible problems, like measurement issues, systemic issues or anything the like. Nothing.
This is not a scientific paper. This is propaganda.
You didn't read the article. You cherrypicked the parts of it that you could use to justify disregarding it. That's intellectually dishonest, lazy, and frankly typical for climate change cultists.
The bulk of the article discusses hydrology and how the sheer volume of water on the earth is more significant than C02 in terms of greenhouse effects. There's also a section about far higher historical C02 levels being present when temperatures were lower than today.
Respond to that part of the paper, not the tangent on the term "climate change" (which is also accurate, but not the meat of the argument).
> how the sheer volume of water on the earth is more significant than C02 in terms of greenhouse effects
Where do you see this? I see a long rant about the definition of climate, sprinkled in with some cultural reference and some meaningless discussions about continuous vs discrete sampling (meaningless beyond any first year university course on any scientific topic).
- It's in a journal called "Temperature" with the mandate: "Temperature publishes papers related to interactions between living matter and temperature, with focus on the medical physiology of body temperature regulation." All the other papers fit this mandate, i.e., they're on physiology.
- It's marked as an editorial, not a peer-reviewed article. There are no co-authors.
I have no idea why or how this got published! It's very weird, why would one even submit such an article to an irrelevant journal?
I'll use direct NASA/NOAA data so there's no attacking my sources this time.
Here is a report published in 1999 by NOAA and NASA showing temperatures much higher in the 1930's with cooling through the end of the century. Temperature data outside the US wasn't very reliable in the 20th century, so it's best to focus on the US. Skip to page 37 and look at figure 6. Make a mental note the high point of 1.5 degrees C in the 30's from 1999 data.
Compare this with the same data today and you'll miraculously see the 1930's as much cooler with a warming trend (again, NASA direct data - note the new high point from the 30's is 1.2 degrees C, not 1.5): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S....
My point is that the "climate science" we're bombarded with in the mainstream media isn't hard science. It's a political narrative fueled by financial conflicts of interest and grant money. That bothers me because 1) I like to understand reality, and 2) it is leading to massive misallocations of capital, just like with COVID over the last 1.5 years. I think we should be concerned with climate, but we need to focus more energy on our own sun. I think our sun is far more dangerous than all of the anthropogenic climate change theories combined.
Please see [1], which has before-and-after plots (page 18) that appear to match up with the differences you're seeing and describes why those adjustments were made (section 4, on page 3). For example, it fixes biases that resulted from different time-of-day for measurements, stations moving their thermometer locations over time, and a couple others.
One thing that doesn't perfectly match up is that the peak in the 1930s of the before-adjustment plot in [1] doesn't go quite as high as Fig 6 of the 1999 paper, but it does seem to match Plate A2, so I would assume it is a difference of using calendar years vs meteorological years (section A2 of the 1999 paper).
Regarding your broader point: I think skepticism is great; asking questions is how we learn new things, after all. But it's not so great to assume that climate science must be wrong (or a political narrative) just because you found something that doesn't immediately make sense. Often it simply means climate scientists know something we don't.
Also, since you mentioned concern about financial conflicts of interest, I'd encourage you to consider that the anti-climate-change narrative is just as (if not more) susceptible to those. Fossil fuels are big business.
The first article is also really weird. In the words of the second referee: this is an opinion piece!
I wholeheartedly agree. It's a tiny bit of light scientific "discussion" about vaguely related phenomena, wrapped in criticism of how culturally significant climage change has become. How the hell did this get past the very negative referee reports and get published??
I read the article. It's highly speculative, making extrapolations tens to hundreds of years with very little evidence or physics.
I have publications in this area. And given the above deficiencies, I started wondering about where it was published.
When what I noted above surfaced, I stopped, because life is too short to chase down BS.
You shouldn't be taking that article seriously! And I don't know how it was recommended to your attention, but I'd start wondering about that source as well.
From the first article (which is mostly asking “what is climate“ and “should we expect climate not to change?”) we get its only really solid prediction:
“it can be anticipated that many readers would find this paper useless, if not harmful.” Lol.
The second paper was discredited and withdrawn though that hasn’t stopped deniers citing it endlessly.
25 of the first paper's references are to other papers the author has written. No matter what field a paper is in, having 19% of the references point to yourself is suspicious. For the other references, the high amount of citations from folks as general as Aristotle and Kolmogorov make doubly sure that the paper really doesn't pass the BS test of any researcher.
Most of the reports are quite critical (although I can't tell if referee 4 is being sarcastic or not). I don't understand how this paper got published.
Wow, I don't know this journal at all, but something terribly odd is going on. Did anyone else read the referee reports [1]? I'd call that scathing. If I ever had those reports come back to me for one of my papers, I wouldn't even try to push the paper through. And I've never used that harsh language myself in my referee reports, even for absolute garbage papers. Look at this:
The article by D. Koutsoyiannis "Rethinking climate, climate change, and their relationship with water" is, quite simply, an opinion or editorial piece and most certainly not original experimental research. At that, it remains grossly incomplete given the current state of knowledge in hydrology, water resources, and their relationships with climate.
First, the author uses this article for an absurd quantity of self-citations.
At any rate: I smell a giant rat!
Edit: I started reading now. This isn't a scientific article. I totally agree with referee 2 above! This is an opinion piece! The author explicitly goes into things like google search results for the words "climate change". What the hell is that supposed to have to do with water's effect on climate change? What absolute garbage! I don't trust anything in this paper.
1) hydrology professor shows that water is the largest driver of earth's climate (besides the sun of course) and that CO2 has proven to be an insignificant factor, both based on physics and on history, where CO2 levels were far higher, but temperatures did not rise in tandem.
2) Professor Valentina Zharkova predicting that the coming grand solar minimum will lower earth's temperature by around 1 degree C, based on past minima.
Zharkova has a history of being right, by the way, which is more than I can say for the tabloid science currently being peddled in this thread.
How convenient it must be to always have a paper or two ready that show warming trends are wrong and that it will stop in the next few years. It does not matter that the previous papers in the same vein were proven wrong by facts, like the ones that attempted to draw horizontal lines over the temperature graphs. Just come up with a new theory, pick some data that fits (in paper #2, why solar cycles 21-23 and not the others? No proposed mechanism behind the theory? No problem.), and here's your new justification to do nothing.
So established science is corrupt because of grant money. Yet this Demetris Koutsoyiannis who wrote the first article, who is a professor at an established university in Greece and seemingly climbed the completely normal academic ladder, is somehow untainted by the grant money he presumably got along the way?
