4 ms·

He disagrees with both of them. Why resort to ad hominem attacks instead of attacking his argument?

defrost 3y ago
He argues just as they do, with a surfeit of "And so too .." juxtaposition arguments. North pole magnetic drift -> core is heating atmosphere (but why?) Internal rotation speed changes -> core is heating atmosphere (but why?) Selective time scales on graphs -> look at upticks! (but how are these connected?) I looked, but clearly missed, his references for (deep under) ground up heating data for land and water over decades from exploration logs and ocean research. But I did see an excess of the kind of persuasions used by both Nova and Watts.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  He explains both your questions in detail, with references. He explains where his time scales comes from. I’ll spoon feed you the abyssal heating data: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070413 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201... So what’s left of your criticism is you don’t like his ‘persuasions’ or ‘and so too.’ Please try to engage with his argument.
  - defrost 3y ago
    That's from 2016 and documents a continuum of warming transfering from the mantle upwards via the ocean. It does not demonstrate any increase in that continuum of long cooling of the core via conduction outwards .. which is what the blog post asserts:- namely that recent increases in the surface layer temp. must (via some unexplianed mechanism) be due to an increase in the conduction that has already occurred since the earth formed. He has no data that supports this, that paper you linked does not support this. As an example of what would be required as minimal support would be (say) long term mining logs; exploration logs showng a mean increase in temp. at fixed depths for various locations over decades, or operation logs from very deep underground mines showing an increase in the energy required to cool deep working levels to a human workable range. We should continue this when his blog post has been better written, better supported, and submitted to a peer review journal.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      I agree you can’t conclude much from this data, but that is his point: we have terrible abyssal data and so might be missing a large forcing effect from our models. No one has seriously considered this, so we don’t have any of the data you suggest to disprove his theory. The latest temperature records suggest the IPCC models are underestimating cooling. Alternative hypothesis are not explicitly considered. I doubt he could get anything published alone, thus why he goes the blog post route. I guess I don’t have much faith in peer review because it usually ignores any heterodox hypothesis and hides bias. Look at the % of fraudulent medical and psychology papers that pass peer review with flying colours. Climate science should be treated with skepticism because the models contain so many unknowns and the consequences of mistakes are so high.

He argues just as they do, with a surfeit of "And so too .." juxtaposition arguments. North pole magnetic drift -> core is heating atmosphere (but why?) Internal rotation speed changes -> core is heating atmosphere (but why?) Selective time scales on graphs -> look at upticks! (but how are these connected?) I looked, but clearly missed, his references for (deep under) ground up heating data for land and water over decades from exploration logs and ocean research. But I did see an excess of the kind of persuasions used by both Nova and Watts.

brutusborn 3y ago
He explains both your questions in detail, with references. He explains where his time scales comes from. I’ll spoon feed you the abyssal heating data: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070413 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201... So what’s left of your criticism is you don’t like his ‘persuasions’ or ‘and so too.’ Please try to engage with his argument.
- defrost 3y ago
  That's from 2016 and documents a continuum of warming transfering from the mantle upwards via the ocean. It does not demonstrate any increase in that continuum of long cooling of the core via conduction outwards .. which is what the blog post asserts:- namely that recent increases in the surface layer temp. must (via some unexplianed mechanism) be due to an increase in the conduction that has already occurred since the earth formed. He has no data that supports this, that paper you linked does not support this. As an example of what would be required as minimal support would be (say) long term mining logs; exploration logs showng a mean increase in temp. at fixed depths for various locations over decades, or operation logs from very deep underground mines showing an increase in the energy required to cool deep working levels to a human workable range. We should continue this when his blog post has been better written, better supported, and submitted to a peer review journal.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I agree you can’t conclude much from this data, but that is his point: we have terrible abyssal data and so might be missing a large forcing effect from our models. No one has seriously considered this, so we don’t have any of the data you suggest to disprove his theory. The latest temperature records suggest the IPCC models are underestimating cooling. Alternative hypothesis are not explicitly considered. I doubt he could get anything published alone, thus why he goes the blog post route. I guess I don’t have much faith in peer review because it usually ignores any heterodox hypothesis and hides bias. Look at the % of fraudulent medical and psychology papers that pass peer review with flying colours. Climate science should be treated with skepticism because the models contain so many unknowns and the consequences of mistakes are so high.