[oldandtired]

Where do I start with this?

I have no issue with climate change being real. Anyone with a modicum of sense can make those observations? However, your second point requires you to believe in the "dogma" of only anthropogenic causes for this climate change. At this point in time, we have no clue (and I mean no clue, irrespective of what any "real" climate scientist might pontificate) about the extent of actual causes of this climate change.

There may be (and I'm willing to give a small level anthropogenic causal effect) some changes that mankind can do to mitigate possible effects of climate change. They are limited and more in the line of defensive than anything else.

And before you ask, No I am not a climate scientist. But my experience with them is that when presented with specific questions related to the energy requirements of their predictions, they refuse to not only answer the raised questions, they will not dispute the energy calculations provided as a basis to the questions.

I have done a series of calculations, in which you can do the same, based on simple mandatory energy requirements that make the predictions of their models simply laughable.

My basic view today is that if a "real" climate scientist says anything, I will take that it that you had better check the silver draw to make sure the cutlery is still there. At this point in time, I consider it to be more pseudo-scientific than phrenology and I don't give that any regard at all.

And that is a pity, because we need some verifiable climate model will give level of predictability. We have none at this time.

[Vanit]

Check out oldandtireds infallible series of calculations at realclimatechange.geocities.com

[oldandtired]

Funny, ha ha.

If you actually took the time, about 2 to 3 hours of work and research, you would quickly see that the various scenarios proposed by these "real" climate scientists are a load of codswallop. As they say here at times, "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" Well a fifth grader can do the calculations with but a little bit of help. If climate scientists were willing to call out their colleagues over the various "unreasonable" scenario results then as a group, I might be more inclined to give them a pass. But they don't, so no.

But so far, I have only had one person on the "anthropogenic" climate change bandwagon who was willing to give it a go. To his merit and credit, he even tried to provide a number of research studies to back his claim (he was not a climate scientist and the papers he referenced are well worth reading). In the end we agreed to disagree on our interpretations of the data presented. He was much more clear and critical thinking than the various "real" climate scientists that I have communicated with over the last two decades.

I have, over the course of nearly forty years, dealt with quite different computer simulations and models and it is so easy to get them wrong, to the extent that for some models, no matter what you put in, you appear to get a reasonable answer out. They're the scary ones, people assume they are right when in fact they are a load of rubbish.

If you were to actually try to do the energy equations, you would see this for yourself. But obviously, you more interested in believing the anthropogenic climate change dogma without at least some level of fact checking to test the veracity of the claims. But that is up to you. We can compare notes after you do your own calculations. Let me know when you have done them.

I am willing to give them a pass (or least a provisional move ahead) if they can clearly show that the basic energy calculations I have made that are required for their scenario outcomes are wrong in any significant way. That is, the calculations are wrong by say 15 orders of magnitude or more.

Average worldwide temperature rises of a couple of degrees (Celsius or Fahrenheit) do not appear to be able to supply enough energy to drive the energy requirements. If they were, then these "real" climate scientists would have been able to demonstrate this long before now. There would be an energy process and pathway available to demonstrate this to all who wanted to see it.

As a number of people here have already shown, the amounts of energy required for some of the existing events are just extraordinary. However, the energy required to drive them is many orders of magnitude short of the energy required to drive the scenario outcomes from the climate change models. This is a problem.

Climate is a multivariate function of a very large number of interacting processes. From the variations of solar output, the orbital position of the planet around the sun, the axial tilt of the planet, position of the moon, cloud cover, global land mass and water distributions, wind processes, storms (from little rainbursts up to the likes of Irma), volcanoes (land based, ocean based, ice based), forest fires (which you are getting right now), ground cover or lack of it, flooding, oceanic algae distribution to a myriad of other interacting effects and variables. To attribute climate change to anthropogenic effects as the main driver is, well, unreasonable without extraordinary evidence. Computer models that don't give reasonable, verifiable predictions are not evidence, no matter how distinguished the climate scientist may be.

[cholantesh]

Quite a lot of anecdota and question begging. Ho-hum.

[oldandtired]

I suppose there is a bit of anecdote, but then I generally find that anthropogenic climate change believers won't take up the energy equation challenge and so show that they are not willing to actually put any effort into the discussion.

Climate change deniers and anthropogenic climate change believers don't appear to have any inclination to do any sort of serious thinking about the subject. Both appear to take a very simplistic political view about the matter and just react along party lines.

Just as your comment shows little effort to even engage in dialogue.

[cholantesh]

Your original comment has nothing meaningful to discuss. You don't present your data or analysis thereof, so we cannot discuss that. Here you call for 'serious thinking about the subject', but you engage in aggressive strawmanning (believe in the "dogma" of only anthropogenic causes for this climate change) and repeat the party line that climate models are all unreliable (this is a long-debunked falsehood). These are non-starters for meaningful dialogue.