Hacker News Reader

I will. But can you make your point, so I can make note of it when I see it argued in the paper?

Did you read the two papers?

1) hydrology professor shows that water is the largest driver of earth's climate (besides the sun of course) and that CO2 has proven to be an insignificant factor, both based on physics and on history, where CO2 levels were far higher, but temperatures did not rise in tandem.

2) Professor Valentina Zharkova predicting that the coming grand solar minimum will lower earth's temperature by around 1 degree C, based on past minima.

Zharkova has a history of being right, by the way, which is more than I can say for the tabloid science currently being peddled in this thread.

How convenient it must be to always have a paper or two ready that show warming trends are wrong and that it will stop in the next few years. It does not matter that the previous papers in the same vein were proven wrong by facts, like the ones that attempted to draw horizontal lines over the temperature graphs. Just come up with a new theory, pick some data that fits (in paper #2, why solar cycles 21-23 and not the others? No proposed mechanism behind the theory? No problem.), and here's your new justification to do nothing.

Yes, pesky facts and science that aren't sponsored by grant money handed out by globalist controlled entities.

Oh dear. You're deep in the hole, aren't you?

So established science is corrupt because of grant money. Yet this Demetris Koutsoyiannis who wrote the first article, who is a professor at an established university in Greece and seemingly climbed the completely normal academic ladder, is somehow untainted by the grant money he presumably got along the way?

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and had a closer look at the first paper. I wasted about 15 minutes of my life.

> Actually, one of the aims of the paper is to show that polarization stems from political, rather than scientific, roots.

Yeah, though luck there. The paper concerns itself with more political propaganda than with climate science. Most of it is just fluff and filler, with quotes from Aristotle to Mark Twain, spends half of its actual content with the premise to discover the true definition of the word climate and then dismissing "climate change" (the scary quotes are form the "paper"). And then we come to this gem here:

> Hence, in scientific terms, the content of the term climate change is almost equivalent to that of weather change or even time change (climate is changing as is weather and time).

Yes. Really. This paper is pulling no punches. Climate is just weather. And weather changes. Thus there is no climate change. QED.

What a piece of wasted bits.

It then spends the next few paragraphs "analyzing" how climate change is actually political in nature, spending more pixels on graphs of the occurrence of the term "climate change" than on actual climate data.

No discussion of the vast body of evidence that we have gathered in the last 100 years. No examination of actual possible problems, like measurement issues, systemic issues or anything the like. Nothing.

This is not a scientific paper. This is propaganda.

You didn't read the article. You cherrypicked the parts of it that you could use to justify disregarding it. That's intellectually dishonest, lazy, and frankly typical for climate change cultists.

The bulk of the article discusses hydrology and how the sheer volume of water on the earth is more significant than C02 in terms of greenhouse effects. There's also a section about far higher historical C02 levels being present when temperatures were lower than today.

Respond to that part of the paper, not the tangent on the term "climate change" (which is also accurate, but not the meat of the argument).

> how the sheer volume of water on the earth is more significant than C02 in terms of greenhouse effects

Where do you see this? I see a long rant about the definition of climate, sprinkled in with some cultural reference and some meaningless discussions about continuous vs discrete sampling (meaningless beyond any first year university course on any scientific topic).

Section 5. You have to actually read the article.

I've read it. There's no modelling or anything beyond speculation in secton 5.

You're a better, more patient human than I.

OK, so that second citation is very odd:

- It's in a journal called "Temperature" with the mandate: "Temperature publishes papers related to interactions between living matter and temperature, with focus on the medical physiology of body temperature regulation." All the other papers fit this mandate, i.e., they're on physiology.

- It's marked as an editorial, not a peer-reviewed article. There are no co-authors.

I have no idea why or how this got published! It's very weird, why would one even submit such an article to an irrelevant journal?

> I have no idea why or how this got published! It's very weird, why would one even submit such an article to an irrelevant journal?

So that climate deniers have something (anything!) to point to?

How about I point to the unadjusted temperature data over the last 20 years showing no warming? Can I point to that, or is that Qanon propaganda?

Go ahead. Point to it, and we'll take a look.

I'll use direct NASA/NOAA data so there's no attacking my sources this time.

Here is a report published in 1999 by NOAA and NASA showing temperatures much higher in the 1930's with cooling through the end of the century. Temperature data outside the US wasn't very reliable in the 20th century, so it's best to focus on the US. Skip to page 37 and look at figure 6. Make a mental note the high point of 1.5 degrees C in the 30's from 1999 data.

Warning, PDF file: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pd...

Compare this with the same data today and you'll miraculously see the 1930's as much cooler with a warming trend (again, NASA direct data - note the new high point from the 30's is 1.2 degrees C, not 1.5): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S....

Here is an article summarizing the alterations in case you do not want to read the NASA/NOAA report, but I published the direct data from NASA so there would be no attacking the source: https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/alterations-to-the-us...

My point is that the "climate science" we're bombarded with in the mainstream media isn't hard science. It's a political narrative fueled by financial conflicts of interest and grant money. That bothers me because 1) I like to understand reality, and 2) it is leading to massive misallocations of capital, just like with COVID over the last 1.5 years. I think we should be concerned with climate, but we need to focus more energy on our own sun. I think our sun is far more dangerous than all of the anthropogenic climate change theories combined.

Please see [1], which has before-and-after plots (page 18) that appear to match up with the differences you're seeing and describes why those adjustments were made (section 4, on page 3). For example, it fixes biases that resulted from different time-of-day for measurements, stations moving their thermometer locations over time, and a couple others.

One thing that doesn't perfectly match up is that the peak in the 1930s of the before-adjustment plot in [1] doesn't go quite as high as Fig 6 of the 1999 paper, but it does seem to match Plate A2, so I would assume it is a difference of using calendar years vs meteorological years (section A2 of the 1999 paper).

Regarding your broader point: I think skepticism is great; asking questions is how we learn new things, after all. But it's not so great to assume that climate science must be wrong (or a political narrative) just because you found something that doesn't immediately make sense. Often it simply means climate scientists know something we don't.

Also, since you mentioned concern about financial conflicts of interest, I'd encourage you to consider that the anti-climate-change narrative is just as (if not more) susceptible to those. Fossil fuels are big business.

[1] https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_ha02300a.pd...

You have not addressed the content of the article. You are making appeals to authority. Do you see the issue here?

I read the article. It's highly speculative, making extrapolations tens to hundreds of years with very little evidence or physics.

I have publications in this area. And given the above deficiencies, I started wondering about where it was published.

When what I noted above surfaced, I stopped, because life is too short to chase down BS.

You shouldn't be taking that article seriously! And I don't know how it was recommended to your attention, but I'd start wondering about that source as well.

The first article is also really weird. In the words of the second referee: this is an opinion piece!

I wholeheartedly agree. It's a tiny bit of light scientific "discussion" about vaguely related phenomena, wrapped in criticism of how culturally significant climage change has become. How the hell did this get past the very negative referee reports and get published??

25 of the first paper's references are to other papers the author has written. No matter what field a paper is in, having 19% of the references point to yourself is suspicious. For the other references, the high amount of citations from folks as general as Aristotle and Kolmogorov make doubly sure that the paper really doesn't pass the BS test of any researcher.

The second referee also noticed that. It's a fun read: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/review_report (report number 2)

Most of the reports are quite critical (although I can't tell if referee 4 is being sarcastic or not). I don't understand how this paper got published.

> https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/htm

Wow, I don't know this journal at all, but something terribly odd is going on. Did anyone else read the referee reports [1]? I'd call that scathing. If I ever had those reports come back to me for one of my papers, I wouldn't even try to push the paper through. And I've never used that harsh language myself in my referee reports, even for absolute garbage papers. Look at this:

The article by D. Koutsoyiannis "Rethinking climate, climate change, and their relationship with water" is, quite simply, an opinion or editorial piece and most certainly not original experimental research. At that, it remains grossly incomplete given the current state of knowledge in hydrology, water resources, and their relationships with climate.

First, the author uses this article for an absurd quantity of self-citations.

At any rate: I smell a giant rat!

Edit: I started reading now. This isn't a scientific article. I totally agree with referee 2 above! This is an opinion piece! The author explicitly goes into things like google search results for the words "climate change". What the hell is that supposed to have to do with water's effect on climate change? What absolute garbage! I don't trust anything in this paper.

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/review_report

Hardly.

From the first article (which is mostly asking “what is climate“ and “should we expect climate not to change?”) we get its only really solid prediction:

“it can be anticipated that many readers would find this paper useless, if not harmful.” Lol.

The second paper was discredited and withdrawn though that hasn’t stopped deniers citing it endlessly.