Login

r/climateskeptics

▲ 47 r/climateskeptics

"China’s silent war: How Beijing armed, funded, and enabled Iran." For those who think China is an innocent bystander in selling the World solar & EVs, as they burn coal & import sanctioned oil from Iran.

nypost.com
u/Adventurous_Motor129 — 1 day ago
▲ 23 r/climateskeptics

The Father of Lies Hijacking Climate Science: Global Mean Surface Temperature Does Not Exist

Abstract: Trillions of dollars are being spent ostensibly to avert a threatened global climate disaster. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global mean surface temperature (GMST) must not increase more than a stated amount above the pre-industrial baseline (1850–1900) to prevent irreversible catastrophe.

However, the GMST does not have a precise regulatory definition, and is in fact physically meaningless based on fundamental principles of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, all IPCC climate models are tuned to reproduce historical GMST trends. This represents what Orwell presciently described: the systematic replacement of objective truth with politically convenient fiction.

papers.jcohler.com
u/LackmustestTester — 1 day ago
🔥 Hot ▲ 173 r/climateskeptics

thunberg in 2023: If we don't end fossil fuels, it will be a "death sentence." And in 2026: President Trump must allow oil imports to Cuba.

u/optionhome — 3 days ago
▲ 3 r/climateskeptics

How a 1955 Guess Became the FALSE Foundation of Human-Caused Climate Science — and How One Paper in 2020 Cemented It as Unquestionable ‘Truth’

Suess proposed two mechanisms — fossil fuel combustion and natural oceanic exchange — joined by “and,” with no claim about which one mattered more.

The subsequent literature took Suess’s sentence, deleted the second mechanism (oceanic exchange), promoted the first (fossil fuels) from “can be attributed to” to “is caused by,” and named the result “the Suess effect” — as though Suess himself had identified fossil fuels as the sole cause. He had not. He had offered a two-part conjecture with no quantitative commitment to either part. But the simplified version was easier to cite, easier to teach, easier to build models around, and easier to fund. So the simplified version won. By the 1970s, it was in the textbooks. By the 1990s, it was in the IPCC reports. By the 2000s, it was treated as so obvious that stating it without evidence was considered sufficient.

[...]

The remarkable thing about Graven et al. (2020) is that the authors are fully aware of the tool that would have tested their premise. They discuss Keeling plots — the very method Koutsoyiannis used — in Section 6 of their paper. They describe how the Keeling plot “quantifies the isotopic signature of a CO₂ source or sink by manipulating the CO₂ and ¹³CO₂ mass balance equations so that the isotopic signature is given by the intercept or slope of a regression fit.” They cite applications of this method at local and regional scales.

But they never apply it globally. They never ask what the Keeling plot intercept looks like for the entire atmosphere over the industrial period. They never check whether the net input signature has shifted. The one diagnostic that could confirm or refute their central claim — and it is a simple calculation, requiring only the data they already have — is absent from the paper. Instead, they proceed directly from assumption to model to projection, treating the assumption as established background knowledge too obvious to require verification.

x.com
u/LackmustestTester — 44 minutes ago
▲ 34 r/climateskeptics

Same Temperature ≠ Same Energy...what Climate Scientist get Wrong (part 2)

​

In continuation of this post, Temperature an "Intensive" parameter, cannot be averaged, I'll illustrate what Climate Scientists get wrong.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/s/99wI25727w

We all intrinsically understand that winds blowing off the Pacific in California are moderated by the ocean, where desert temperatures can see daily fluctuations of 100F (40C) or more. Why? Obvious to everyone: the ocean and deserts have very different heat capacities (water).

A thermometer over a desert and one over the Pacific Ocean are both measuring air temperature, but the amount of 'energy' behind those temperature measurements is very, very different.

This is where Climate Science goes off the rails. When averaging global temperatures, they do not weigh ocean air temperatures differently than land temperatures. They are treated as equals... incredibly.

>**Major datasets used by IPCC (Berkeley Earth, HadCRUT5, etc.) calculate GMST as the area-weighted average of gridded anomalies. No heat-content adjustment is applied.**

As an example, if the Pacific Ocean air temperature cooled (-)0.1C, but land increased 1.0C, they would average this as a 0.9C temperature increase. This is very wrong. The 0.1C Pacific air decrease represents a massive amount more "energy" change.

This post is not intended to argue for warming or cooling, but to illustrate why temperature cannot be averaged, only energy. The 1.5C 'threshold' is a meaningless number, junk.

As oceans make up ~90% of the global thermal mass, the "real" temperature change might only be 0.15C difference if calculated correctly. Instead, anomalies like the Urban Heat Island Effect are weighted the same as the oceans, can you imagine.

So the key point is: averaging land and ocean air temperatures is very wrong. Even different land types have different heat content (and cities with concrete and asphalt)...

....yet this is what they do. Everyone knows it's intuitively wrong, you don't need to be a Climate Scientist to understand it, apparently they don't either.

u/Illustrious_Pepper46 — 3 days ago
▲ 25 r/climateskeptics

Opposition to data centers turns violent as local concerns merge with hostility toward Big Tech

It doesn't sound like it will be a climate article but it is. Climate alarmists know data centers need continuous baseload power 24/7. As renewable advocates, alarmist groups are attacking AI because they know renewables can't support that future.

justthenews.com
u/Adventurous_Motor129 — 3 days ago
🔥 Hot ▲ 143 r/climateskeptics

Wisconsin’s Democrat Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski says hail is a sign of climate change

u/optionhome — 5 days ago
▲ 39 r/climateskeptics

Temperature is what is called an “intensive” parameter, not legitimately addable, and therefore not subject to averaging.

The Climate Science Fail....Temperature cannot be averaged, only energy balance. One cannot average the temperature of a room, and a baseball stadium, they have different energy balances (masses).

Temperature is an intensive property, meaning it does NOT depend on how much material you have. Unlike mass or energy (which are extensive and can be added directly), temperature represents the average microscopic kinetic energy of particles in a system, not a total quantity you can sum.

Because of this, you generally cannot treat temperature like a simple arithmetic quantity. For example, mixing equal amounts of 80°C and 20°C water might give 50°C, but that only works in that special case. If the amounts or heat capacities differ, the final temperature shifts toward the larger or more “thermally massive” system.

The correct way to determine final temperature is through energy conservation, not averaging temperatures. You balance the heat lost and gained (using mass and heat capacity), and the resulting equilibrium temperature emerges from that calculation. So temperature itself is not something you add or average directly—it’s the outcome of an energy balance.

This in follow-up to LackmustesTester's post...a very important principal not to be overlooked.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/s/bbdf8AuoFB

u/Illustrious_Pepper46 — 5 days ago