Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. Thanks Sabine; compared to most people you're the 'real thing' - a genuine nice person; although somewhat mistaken re: the GHE
    1
  2. "The surface warms and emits infrared radiation" <- (1) Yes; but the amount of infrared emitted is a tiny fraction of what the IPCC & 'climate consensus' claim. You cannot show us empirical data to validate those IPCC and modeller numbers. Those numbers are armchair physics and ridiculous. Outgoing infrared radiation is exaggerated 200 times over. Over 2 orders of magnitude. "The radiation is trapped, by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" <- (2) This no longer matters; due to point (1) The most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. <- (3) This no longer matters; due to point (1) "The outgoing infrared radiation heats the atmosphere from below." <- (4) The amount is insignificant; due to point (1). The atmosphere is warmed by conduction and convection. In reality, proven by the behaviour of the Pirani gauge, the vast majority of surface cooling is done by conduction and convection; Not by radiation. Of course some radiation is present in thermal equilibrium with kinetic energy according to a complex 'thermalization' process. Watch Tom Shula's video to understant point (1). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
    1
  3.  @larrymorley2579  "Excess warming" does not happen in the first 20 m. The problem with the greenhouse effect is it was exaggerated 200 times over. Tom Shula shows, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk, that the surface is mainly cooled by conduction and convection - not by radiation. That conduction and convection do 250 times more surface cooling than radiation. That's just an inconvenient fact of physics for you. Cooling mostly by conduction and convection (at the surface) also explain why earth's surface doesn't get very cold at night; because infrared travels at the speed of light. Of course, regarding the final cooling to space - that's all radiation. But radiation doesn't dominate conduction and convection until the stratosphere; 40 miles above your head.
    1
  4. The issue with neutrinos is there aren't any. Why does physics need fake particles?
    1
  5.  @maxv9464  What experiment, or obsevation, in physics demonstrates the neutrino? As I see it the neutrino was introduced to balance a maths equation. Making it about as real as the crystal sphere view of the solar system.
    1
  6.  @maxv9464  One validations experiment. What falsification experiments and observations have been tried?
    1
  7.  @maxv9464  1. If the detectors all work on the same principle they are the same validation experiment; repeated many times. As I see it, you really several different experiments - detectors working on different principles. I assume these detectors are NOT detecting every neutrino. Suppose the detectors only detect one in a billion, then how can you say what they detect is a neutrino? If you had a detector able to detect all the neutrinos which impact on it - I'd concede your neutrino.
    1
  8.  @maxv9464  I think a falsification experiment should be designed as such; in such a way as to satify a particle physics skeptic - should any such people exist. If no such people exist, particle physics has some serious problems.
    1
  9.  @maxv9464  We do not deny gravity because gravity is a THING. So we plausibly have a graviton, or gravity wave to explain it. What THING does the neutrino explain?
    1
  10.  @maxv9464  No other particle explains what? You gave no description of any experiment nor observation. Do you really think the magic words "neutrino detector" suffice to convince me? I'm not the only skeptic of the orgy of speculation which the so-called "standard model of particle physics" seems to be. Nice to see you're now taking lessons from climate modellers by naming critics of speculation: "deniers".
    1
  11.  @maxv9464  "Climate chage denial" <- What do you know about how climates change? Do you know a fraction of what I know? Have you considered you may be the real "climate change denier" here? Don't wonder into a debate about evidence unless you have it (evidence). The problem with neutrinos is: no one can explain why we can't detect ALL the neutrinos (they expect to find), nor can they explain why ONLY A TINY FEW can be detected - why are they special?, nor why they're not detecting some other anomaly instead. In circumstances such as that asking for multiple experimental validations is conservative - not denial at all.
    1
  12. Dark matter is hypothetical stuff used to balance equations because physicists have bad math. Were I a physicist, I'd want to balance my equations without using dark matter. Maybe one should try that instead?
    1
  13. "They basically guess maths." "To the extent this maths makes falsifiable predictions, they've been falsified." But then, they invent new maths. "This method of theory development is not scientific." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQVF0Yu7X24
    1
  14. I'm 71 today. Back when I was 3, nuclear fusion was "20 years away". It's the perrenial miracle energy, always just a few more tens of billions of dollars and decades into the future. Having lived throught 68 years of this propaganda, I now have more confidence in flying cars than any practical nuclear fusion technology.
    1
  15. Climate tipping points are myths promoted by climate catatrophists and anti-human psychopaths. Designed to panic and scare us into supporting climate alarmism such as Net Zero - which is an energy policy made to impoverish and disempower us. There is no science of climate tipping points. It's myth, ideology and propaganda. Tired of listening to psychopaths scare little kids out of their minds with the anti-human climate scare. Such psychos are worse than Religious extremists. At least with religious extremists they have a clear dividing line between the real and spirit world. In contrast climate maniacs attempt to turn everything into politics. They destroyed climate science by - turing it away from empiricism towards modeling, conjecture, and apocalyptic scare stories - branding themselves are fake saviours of humanity, and holy eco-warriors - demonizing and monstering their critics - refusing rational climate debate. Climate alarm is a deranged death and insanity cult.
    1
  16.  @enderwiggin1113  That makes sense. But why does EVERY planet/moon with an atmosphere show a lapse rate (positive temperature increase) as the atmosphere increases in density? https://pasteboard.co/EBhZimHOZu6E.png
    1
  17. John Clauser - 1 Global Elites - 0
    1
  18.  @Binkyboy34  Any who takes the IPCC are serious, objective science - does not care about scientific integrity. Do you take teh IPCC seriously? The problem with the IPCC is they are subject to imense pressure from politicians. For example: before a WG1 report is published, the politicos first agree on, and publish their: "Summary for Policy Makers", SfPM. No scientists are involved in writing it. After teh SfPM is agreed, the scientific report: WG1 is edited - to make sure it agrees with the SfPM. The SfPM is a short report - suitable to other politicians and those without a scientific education. It is the only thing politicos ever read.
    1
  19.  @franckr6159  Should one trust a YouTuber on science ahead of a leading world scientist? Now - there's a dilemma, NOT. Sabine is ignorant of climate science. She's an armchair theorist who's never done any important experimental work. Who is SH to tell me what experimental values say - she does not care much for them. She mainly cares for her career as a YouTuber - and "consensus" which is established by theorists, political meddlers & media. There is no such thing as scientific consensus. SH undermined herself as soon as she began to give credence to climate papers she's not read & to quote a "consensus". Dr Clauser, in contrast, did immense experimental work. I trust an experimentalist to tell me about facts. There is no greenhouse effect. The whole idea is groupthink, modeling, hypothesis, politicking, or some combination of such. Do not take my word for it. Read James Hansen's papers. Read what he did - not what he claims he did. Study the science and you'll see for yourself. Two sides to this diagreement: alarmists - try to shoehorn facts to fit their theories skeptics - consider facts sacred
    1
  20. What Greenpeace has to say is "science news"? I consider what most of what Greenpeace has to say about anything to be lies, fraud and psychopathy.
    1
  21. There were also the so-called D-O events (Dansgaard–Oeschger events) - rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. In one case the warming (in Greenland) was +8C in 3 steps of of 5 years. So there are natural shifts in climate; but a rapid D-O warming is far harder to explain than a cooling. Since there are many cooling events and it's far easier to cool a climate than warm it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event But, ... surely such a rapid warming would've melted loadsa ice so causing the mythical doom of AMOC collapse! Are D-O events correlated with AMOC collapses? I don't think so!!
    1
  22. The fact he got published, shows he was right about there being a formula for getting published. Anyone who ever tried to converse with a Nature editor on the topic of climate will know that. Interesting that SB considers "climate change deniers" to be worse than her enemies. Sabine: who are these enemies you have who are worse than "climate change deniers"?
    1
  23. The Wikipedia explanation: "Noble gas is translated from the German noun Edelgas, first used in 1898 by Hugo Erdmann to indicate their extremely low level of reactivity. The name makes an analogy to the term "noble metals", which also have low reactivity." ... "The term noble metal can be traced back to at least the late 14th century and has slightly different meanings in different fields of study and application"
    1
  24. They're not (generally) doing fraud, nor even junk-science. So the traditional methods of correcting science do not work. You may say that data homogenization in climate science is "fraud" but they don't see it that way. Instead they think they're "improving" science. The same kind of data tampering happens in particle physics too: nearly all the data is filtered out - based on obscure criteria. From the remaining "signal" they make their particle physics.
    1
  25. One can't be "environmentally conscious" and hi tech at the same time. Hippy-dippy wind and solar power don't support 24/7/365 electricity.
    1
  26. Sabine is happy to monster scientists outside the 'consensus'. I've listened to her monster scientists - calling them 'climate deniers'. She even said 'denier' in her video above! So - a scientist who needs to stay within the 'consensus' in order to be published - avoids non-consensus terms - but he's monstered anyhow, for admitting it! Q: Why is he being picked on? A: The 'consensus' want you to believe that 'the science is settled'. Meaning that it's all been figured out; and 'they' - the consensus - have all the answers. But they also want you to think this consensus does not exist, so that all scientists - intuitively - agree on it. The Consensus denies its own existence (as a censoring institution). Patrick Brown just explained how this: climate consensus; works. It polices language in climate science by controlling publication. Scientists using the wrong language are monstered as 'climate deniers', and told that deniers will not be published. Big Brother publishes under as MiniTrue, but if anyone dares explain how MiniTrue works they're instantly labelled a terrorist and traitor!
    1
  27.  @MattNolanCustom  Back to those D-O events I mention below. According to your "logic", the AMOC should collapse with every one of those. Did it? No need to answer, I know it didn't.
    1
  28.  @MattNolanCustom  We all agree the AMOC has collapsed in the past. We disagree it can collapse in the near future.
    1
  29. Climate sensitivity, sometimes called ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is a non-empirically derived number, used in models to tell the model how quickly it's model climate will change. Model, model, model. I would have a tiny bit of faith in models were modellers to attempt some kind of empirical test for their models or their ECS. Why can't Sabine look into that - empirical validation of climate models - it'd be a fascinating topic: why is so much effort put into modelling when so little effort is put into their validation? I used to think this was a specific flaw of climate modelling, but now | see it as a disease of physics too.
    1
  30. "We changed the tilt of Earth's axis and didn't notice" <- Nonsense claim. We did not.
    1
  31. Yes
    1
  32. I wrote a blog article in reply to Sabine. With recommended readings on the topics of ideology, noble lies, and groupthink: https://greenfallacies.blogspot.com/2024/01/reply-to-sabine-on-climate-change.html
    1