Reddit reviews kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition)
We found 4 Reddit comments about kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Quite an interesting read, his ebook is available on Amazon too (I'm making my way through it now). Dr Nakamura has excellent credentials and is highly qualified to speak on the subject. There are so many flawed assumptions that climate models make, it's nice to have someone speaking up about it to combat the hysteria. From the interactions I've had I can't believe the number of people who rabidly shriek about imminent apocalypse and death, I wonder how well they understand the science themselves? It's become a mainstream doomsday cult.
> Could you please provide sources for these statements?
Can you tell me specifically what you would like sourced? I'll try to provide some avenues for further reading in this post a bit.
> For anyone else reading, radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming and outgoing energy through the Earth's atmosphere. I have never seen a climate change model from a credible organization that did not have this as at least a central component.
Current climate models relegate the influence of the sun on the climate at a 0.1% TSI variability over the solar cycle as it relates to upper atmospheric heating. This of course is valid. Where the problem arises is when it comes to particle forcing mechanisms. These are not considered in any mainstream climate model and, as such with all unaccounted natural variables, their effects don't go away but get attributed to humanity instead.
> It's worth noting that CMIP is comprised of climate scientists... CMIP's official stance is that man-made climate change is real... So I'm not sure who we are criticizing here...
Again, CMIP6 released two data sets. One with particle forcing and one without particle forcing. I have yet to see a single model that used the data set that includes particle forcing that shows humans are the driving factor. Climate science is not the monolith they would have you believe. The idea that all climate scientists are idiots and liars is of course absurd. There is absolutely dissent that is working towards what I think is the right direction, but with funding and peer review in this field being the way that it currently is, one must be careful with the way they say things in order to keep their jobs.
Do a google scholarly article search on solar forcing of various aspects of the climate that you can think of, practically none of them are accounted for in models. These are the same models that we see all these predictions being based off. There are huge amounts of papers coming out that aren't getting the publicity that anthropogenic climate change gets. A kid even recently won the national science championship showing the correlation between coronal hole activity and cyclones (Faris Wald is his name if you wanted to look it up, it is super interesting stuff). Mainstream science didn't make this connection, an 8th grader did.
Just recently Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (MIT, NASA JPL&Goddard, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science, Duke, Hawaii, Georgia Institute of Tech, International Pacific Research Center) wrote a book called "Confessions of a climate scientist - the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis." I highly recommend the read, the gist of it is summed up by him saying "Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world." I name him primarily as a recent high profile example of a dissenter, of which there are many who are not as vocal.
I appreciate the non insulting tone by the way.
The issue is what's you mean as accurate non contaminated curated data, then how many degrees have it of reliable precision, and then given that precision how reliable is a mathematical model to deliver forecast on global scale assuming that by itself greenhouse gases can't hear the planet they need some questionable also domino effect on strong highly random, true mathematical models draw possible predictions based on the possible paths and actually the true chance for co2 to Cascade domino influence on water vapor in a 50yr period is like to win 3 times the lottery this period for a strong chance, and mostly likely to dilute to the space the extra trace heat.
I don't come here to show you what you previously didn't asked for, but generously I ask you to read Mototaka Nakamura work (also search about him)
https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/
Free Kindle ebook
https://www.amazon.in/kikoukagakushanokokuhaku-chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu-Japanese-Nakamura-Mototaka-ebook/dp/B07FKHF7T2
free kindle edition
Dr Nakamura Mototaka - is the author. This link is included to demonstrate his qualifications.
Here is something that summarizes some of his scalding criticisms of climate models.
>The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.
>Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.
> It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.