Finnish study claims Climate Change is a myth

[Ziggurat]

If explaining the actual science is a flawed argument,

No. Claiming their argument is something other than it actually is is a flawed argument.

does that mean that explaining what the fossil record says about the Earth’s evolutionary history a flaws argument against creationism?

No, but arguing against the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle would be a flawed argument against biblical creationism.

 

[lomiller]

No. Claiming their argument is something other than it actually is is a flawed argument.

I wrote:
“paper” claims molding temperature change with humidity works better.”
Other than an autocorrect error on modeling how do you feel this misrepresents their claim?

No, but arguing against the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle would be a flawed argument against biblical creationism.

Indeed, but I suggest you need to reconsider who is on “the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle” side of things here. Hint. Nothing I said about clouds or humidity is even remotely controversial in the context of mainstream climate science.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wrote:
“paper” claims molding temperature change with humidity works better.”
Other than an autocorrect error on modeling how do you feel this misrepresents their claim?

Because everything you wrote after that was about absolute humidity, but the paper was specifically talking about relative humidity. You substituted one for the other.

Indeed, but I suggest you need to reconsider who is on “the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle” side of things here. Hint. Nothing I said about clouds or humidity is even remotely controversial in the context of mainstream climate science.

Wow, did you miss the point of that. In my example, you would be arguing against the world riding on the back of 4 elephants on a turtle, not for it. The point isn't whether what you said about humidity or clouds is correct, the point is whether or not it applies to what they claim. Proof that the world isn't on elephants on a turtle may be true, but it's not relevant to biblical creationism.

 

[jimbob]

No. Claiming their argument is something other than it actually is is a flawed argument.



No, but arguing against the Earth riding on 4 elephants on the back of a turtle would be a flawed argument against biblical creationism.

In the case of this paper, one doesn't need much beyond the penultilate sentence of their conclusion:

Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO₂ is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change . The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

If you know that the anthropogenic portion of the increased CO₂ is pretty close to 100% at the moment - from isotope analysis, and consistent with known emissions, then you can discard their conclusion as it seems to be based on that one factor.

Why spend any more time thinking about it?
-----
Actually the paper looks pretty shabby, I'd have hoped to have done a more professional job as an undergraduate, at least stating my source for the cloud cover data.

One big red flag to me as an engineer with a physics background is the fact that they seem to be presenting simple linear equationsa single equation for temperature effects, not even differential equations.

Still, if they managed to find a single equation with four variables to explain global warming, then maybe they need to publish this in Science and Nature, as this would be world-shaking if verified.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Only against one very specific criticism that I saw as flawed. I'm not defending it in general.

Of course not, because defending the obviously indefensible is a losing battle. But you can certainly nitpick one very specific point. Do that a few times and it might seem like you are winning!

The closest thing I can find regarding your "humans contribute only .1% of atmospheric CO2" is the statement from the conclusion that "the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%". Whether or not that claim is correct, that's still about a factor of 100 difference in what the paper claims and what you say it claims.

Between 1740 and 2018 atmospheric CO2 went up from 280ppm to 405ppm, an increase of 125ppm (45%!). If less than 10% of that increase is anthropogenic then less than 12.5ppm or 3.1% of current atmospheric CO2 was contributed by humans. Therefore it is at most a factor of 31 difference.

But what if 'humans contribute' (ie. present tense) means the amount of CO2 we are continuing to add to the atmosphere, rather than the total contributed over all time? The current average yearly CO2 growth rate is ~2ppm. 10% of that is 0.2ppm, or 0.049% of 405ppm. If that is what was meant then it is only a factor of 2 difference (on the high side!) - a far cry from your claim of 100.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course not, because defending the obviously indefensible is a losing battle. But you can certainly nitpick one very specific point. Do that a few times and it might seem like you are winning!

You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to defend the paper, despite me explicitly saying I'm not. The paper is indeed quite weak. As jimbob correctly pointed out, their temperature equation is basically unjustified curve fitting which, given the complexity of climate, almost certainly doesn't contain enough information.

If I point out the weakness in a particular argument for one side of a debate, that doesn't actually mean I've taken the opposite side in that debate. That isn't how logic works. But people aren't really logical. They think if I'm taking the other side, I'm against them personally. So they get upset when I point out a weakness, even though logically the sensible thing to do would be to either correct the flaws in that argument or shift to stronger arguments for that side. It's not exactly hard, certainly not in this case.

 

[Tero]

it is not a real journal
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

 

[lomiller]

“I’m not saying the earth is flat, I’m just saying…”
“I’m not saying the WTC was taken down by a bomb, I’m just saying…”
“I’m not saying the moon landing was a hoax, I’m just saying…”
Etc, etc etc.

Claiming to not be taking a position and therefor do not need evidence is standard practice for the pseudo-science brigade.

If I point out the weakness in a particular argument for one side of a debate, that doesn't actually mean I've taken the opposite side in that debate.

You give your game away when that supposed “weakness” is discussing something with actual science behind it instead of diving down the pseudo-science rabbit hole.

 

[Ziggurat]

Claiming to not be taking a position and therefor do not need evidence is standard practice for the pseudo-science brigade.

Oh please. This is one of the least credible accusations against me you could even try.

You give your game away when that supposed “weakness” is discussing something with actual science behind it instead of diving down the pseudo-science rabbit hole.

Given that I've explicitly endorsed other criticisms of the paper, I don't think you've got even the slightest idea what "game" I'm playing. You just get your panties in a twist any time someone doesn't take your side on something, no matter how minor.

 

[jimbob]

Oh please. This is one of the least credible accusations against me you could even try.



Given that I've explicitly endorsed other criticisms of the paper, I don't think you've got even the slightest idea what "game" I'm playing. You just get your panties in a twist any time someone doesn't take your side on something, no matter how minor.

I'll say it's a rubbish paper with nothing credible to it, but the typeface looks nice.

Any more substantive defence of the paper is pretty pointless.

Or do you think it has merit, and if so how?

 

[lomiller]

Oh please. This is one of the least credible accusations against me you could even try.

Refusing to provide evidence for the position you are backing describes nearly all your participation on these forums at this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Refusing to provide evidence for the position you are backing describes nearly all your participation on these forums at this point.

What position do you imagine that I'm backing? I say "imagine" because that's clearly all you're doing here.

 

[jimbob]

What position do you imagine that I'm backing? I say "imagine" because that's clearly all you're doing here.

That's really the point.

I have no idea what your position is, except for attacking lomiller.

 

[caveman1917]

The paper made claim P.
lomiller attacked claim Q.
Zig pointed out that Q is not P.

For crying out loud...

 

[Ziggurat]

That's really the point.

I have no idea what your position is, except for attacking lomiller.

If you want to find out, there's a really easy way to do that. lomiller never did.

I think the paper is not a good paper, and doesn't really support its central claim. If you want something more specific than that, you'll have to ask a more specific question.

 

[jimbob]

If you want to find out, there's a really easy way to do that. lomiller never did.

I think the paper is not a good paper, and doesn't really support its central claim. If you want something more specific than that, you'll have to ask a more specific question.

"Doesn't really support its central claim". That's a very mild criticism of what is presumably a deliberately provocative paper.

As far as I can see, the authors don't show where they obtained their values for cloud cover.

They present a stupidly simple equation that they suggest accounts for how cloud cover affects temperature - it has four terms and is a simple linear relationship.

Even if you accepted that, they don't explain what affects the cloud cover - this seems to be treated as an independent variable, rather than something that is affected by the very temperature that they are trying to model.

Their concluding paragraph has a logical statement that is based on a false assumption - namely that humans are only responsible for 10% of the increased CO₂.

Their paper has no merit that I can see.

Do you think their paper has any merit, and if so where?

 

[lomiller]

The paper made claim P.
lomiller attacked claim Q.

No. I gave some of the basic science relating to the claim, which is necessarily different than the pseudoscience in the paper. Zig proceeded to complain that I followed the science instead of going into the pseudo-scientific rabbit hole the paper was creating.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Doesn't really support its central claim". That's a very mild criticism of what is presumably a deliberately provocative paper.

I've only skimmed it. It doesn't seem worth any more of an investment of my time, so my criticism isn't going to be exhaustive.

Do you think their paper has any merit

Not really.

 

[jimbob]

Good, I'm now wondering why your criticism of lomiller for following the paper's assertions to their implications is not redundant.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. I gave some of the basic science relating to the claim

You spoke about absolute humidity. But their claim was about relative humidity. Do you not understand the difference? Given that you didn't even mention "absolute" or "relative" in that initial reply, let alone note which one they were using and which one you were using, I'm not sure you did.

The problem was never that what you said about absolute humidity was wrong.