The Climate Is So Bad..........

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Thanks for responding. Oil companies have a big investment here. Based on ExxonMobil's historic and deliberate funding of anti-climate change propaganda, it's understandable that these companies want to continue their lucrative monetary source by any and all means.
DUH!!!! As any properly run business will always do to the best of their ability. Nobody ever said that "BIG OIL", or "Big Pharma", or Business in general cares about ANYTHING other than their "bottom line".

However, that has ZERO effect on the actual issue of climate change, which we humans have no control over. But the "BIG LIE" does make them planty of money - which is all it was ever about anyway. Just look at the utter BS connected with "Electric Cars", and "Wind Power".
 

inertia

Super Member
Scientists overstate their understanding about every other breath they take. You're a hack referencing information from hacks.

The fact you don't know what Einstein was wrong proves you're not informed on the subject. Learn a little more before you start making empty claims.

...

More ad hominem remarks I see.

___
 

inertia

Super Member
DUH!!!! As any properly run business will always do to the best of their ability. Nobody ever said that "BIG OIL", or "Big Pharma", or Business in general cares about ANYTHING other than their "bottom line".

of course...

...
However, that has ZERO effect on the actual issue of climate change, which we humans have no control over.

Incorrect -

They deliberately "..spread disinformation to mislead the public and prevent crucial action to address climate change..."

It's true. The fossil-fuel-industry propaganda had and still has an effect on the actual issue of climate change.

"ExxonMobil has misled the public about climate change by telling the public one thing and then saying and doing the opposite behind closed doors. Our latest work shows that while their tactics have evolved from outright, blatant climate denial to more subtle forms of lobbying and propaganda, their end goal remains the same. And that’s to stop action on climate change."

____
 
Last edited:

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
I didn't say he was anything. I simply want to see you deal with what he has said. You want to bash him when your experts are not experts themselves.
I have no doubt of his academic credentials but he is a contrarian. He derives his income from the fossil fuel industry.

His Linkedin page notes:

1989 onward, 32 years to date (January 2022) as an independent consultant for petroleum companies and research institutes worldwide, specialising in siliciclastic sedimentology (facies analysis, diagenesis) and sequence stratigraphy.

And from his own company's site on Climate Change: http://geoclastica.com/ClimateSeaLevelChange.htm

CLIMATE & SEA-LEVEL CHANGE:
NOT CAUSED BY CO2
From November 2016 until now (July 2019), I have spent most of my time conducting self-funded (thus UNBIASED) exhaustive literature research on ALL sciences relevant to climate- and sea-level change, e.g. geophysics, glaciology, oceanography, astrophysics, meteorology, archaeology and especially geology (the most relevant science of all, entirely neglected by the UNITED NATIONS Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC), as opposed to just 'climate science', a new generalist pseudo-science that: (A) benefits hugely from (and largely created) the man-made or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) scare (the CO2 Delusion); (B) is grossly over-reliant on computer climate models whose stack of assumptions (guesses) renders them useless; and (C) is blinkered by its very short-term view back in time (decades; cf. geologists' billions of years).

My three overriding conclusions will surprise you: (1) metre-scale sea-level rise is coming (3 to 5 m between now and 2100, perhaps even as soon as 2050); (2) the responsible global warming (melting Antarctic glaciers) was caused by the sun (not CO2); and (3) warming ended in 2016, but Antarctic melting will continue (‘ocean memory’; see below).

THE EVIDENCE? There is overwhelming global geological and archaeological evidence, ignored by the IPCC (no geologists or archaeologists), for a rapid (30-100 years?) sea-level rise of 3 to 5 metres between 350 and 450AD (early Dark Ages), after a Roman-age 'Grand Maximum' of the sun caused collapse of Antarctica's ice-sheet rim by impingement of over-warmed ocean water, delayed a few decades by ocean thermal inertia and 'conveyor-belt' circulation (both ignored in IPCC’s computer models). The sun's ONLY subsequent comparable Grand Maximum, 1500 years later, has just ended (1937-2004) and, predictably, Antarctic's edge is NOW disintegrating again (e.g. my photo below). The clock is ticking. The coming 3 to 5 metre sea-level rise is unstoppable; and it has already begun - see steepening (acceleration) of NASA’s two sea-level charts (based on satellite radar & tide gauges respectively) here … Weblink
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS SOLAR-DRIVEN, NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2. However, the IPCC, saying no sea-level oscillation between 0 AD and 1800 exceeded 25cm (sic), claims that the 30cm rise measured (by tide gauges) since 1800 is exceptional and therefore must be due to man (CO2)! Be astonished and very angry.

Email me to arrange a private presentation (at your premises and anywhere else you choose) if you worry that:

(1) your CO2 emissions are 'pollution' … they aren't;

(2) sea-level rise will flood your seaside home, nuclear power plant, harbour, airport, corporate HQ, hotel chain, missile test range, or atoll complete with towns and (Bikini) nuclear waste dump … it will.

That's the bad news. The good news?

(A) CO2 is innocent … Weblink

(B) Earth is now cooling. Global warming (by the same Grand Maximum, its effect delayed by ocean thermal inertia) ended in February 2019 - scroll down to NASA's global MONTHLY temperature chart, the third from bottom in the list here … Weblink
However, sea level will continue to rise, delayed by ocean circulation (see above).

For more of the science, see my numerous 2016-2019 ‘Technical Notes’, mostly single diagrams and half-page conference abstracts, aimed at scientists and non-scientists alike, here on ResearchGate … Weblink

Which contradicts accepted science regarding the heating up of the planet.

One must also assume that the "you" refers to his clients in the fossil fuel industries given that on another page we have this:

Vital economic importance
In petroleum exploration and development, incorrect interpretation of sequence stratigraphy (prediction of reservoir distribution) and depositional environment (reservoir geometry) risks huge economic losses in (A) misplaced wells, (B) missed oil and gas, and (C) phantom resources.​
Techniques
  • Facies- and sequence analysis of cores, outcrops, image logs
    & correlation panels
  • Thin-section analysis of sandstone composition & diagenesis
Objectives
  • Interpret environments, sequence stratigraphy & depo-tectonic setting
  • Predict sand distribution at the basin scale
  • Predict undiscovered stratigraphic plays, e.g. incised valleys, lowstand fans
  • Predict sand-body geometry, size & orientation, for better placement of exploration & development wells (especially horizontal ones)
  • Improve basin-history models by using thin-section analysis of sandstone diagenesis to interpret number/timing of uplift events & oil charges
  • Determine sandstone porosity type & evolution, for better subsurface porosity prediction
  • Assess reservoir damage risk (swelling clays, etc.)
  • Thin-section determination of porosity & bitumen volume (immobile oil), for improved reserves calculations
  • Obtain more realistic reservoir parameters for production simulation models (geometry, dimensions, facies, porosity)
Pitfalls
Facies- or sequence analysis is not a straightforward observation or calculation, like petrophysics for example. On the contrary, it is highly interpretive and depends utterly on the sedimentologist's experience -

"The best sedimentologist is he/she who has examined the most rocks and studied the most literature".

For example, turbidites can easily be misinterpreted as deep-sea fan instead of shelfal if the subtle differences between unidirectional- and combined-flow cross lamination are missed in core, with profound implications for the predicted geographic distribution and volume of oil or gas.

Similarly, misinterpretation of in situ seismites as far-travelled debrites or slumps can lead to highly erroneous interpretations of depositional environment and tectonic setting (hence incorrect predictions of sand distribution and sand-body geometry), with potentially drastic financial repercussions.

As a final caution, when sedimentary structures are not clearly exposed, as is often the case in cores, their "identification" is really an interpretation, upon which more interpretations (process/environment) are built, i.e. a hazardous double interpretation.

So, choose your sedimentologist carefully!

He is offering his expertise to the very industries that are the primary contributors to the issues of climate change. Rather as equally reputable scientists worked for the tobacco industry in previous decades.
 

Carol

Well-known member
Maybe you can help me out here. One would think that an expert in climate change, Dr. Roger Higgs, should regularly publish in the journal Nature climate change. I couldn't find one publication by him in that journal.

I also tried to find one paper where Roger Higgs was an author in a number of journals that specialize in climate change. Roger wasn't in any of them.

- Nature Sustainability
- Current Climate Change Reports
- npj Climate and Atmospheric Science
- PLOS Climate
- Nature Geoscience
- Geosciences, special issue, Global Climate Change and Geological Processes
- Springer, Climate Change
- The American Physical Society (APS)

From the APS:

"Much of the public debate over climate change has confused the issue of detection of climate change with the inevitability of climate change. The consensus of the scientific community is clear: increasing emissions of greenhouse gases will inevitably cause the levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere to rise, which will change the Earth's climate. While the inevitability of climate change is generally accepted, the magnitude and nature of these changes are still uncertain.

While anthropogenic climate change has not been unambiguously detected, the evidence for a human effect on climate is mounting. The surface temperature of the earth has risen by about half a degree centigrade over the last century. This rate of change is similar in magnitude to natural climate changes but also well within the range of the possible effects of the historical rise in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Unambiguously detecting climate change through the record of global mean temperature is not possible at this point since, while we may detect warming we cannot uniquely attribute a general warming to anthropogenic influence. Fingerprint detection is a more promising technique. This scheme involves using GCMs to identify distinctive spatial patterns caused by anthropogenic influence. A number of studies using this technique have recently found evidence of human influence on climate. These studies, plus other changes in weather and temperature patterns, lead working group I of the IPCC to conclude that, while there still many uncertainties, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."

___

The "consensus" is "clear"....but "the balance of evidence" isn't....it "suggests"....
 

Carol

Well-known member
I have no doubt of his academic credentials but he is a contrarian. He derives his income from the fossil fuel industry.

His Linkedin page notes:

1989 onward, 32 years to date (January 2022) as an independent consultant for petroleum companies and research institutes worldwide, specialising in siliciclastic sedimentology (facies analysis, diagenesis) and sequence stratigraphy.

And from his own company's site on Climate Change: http://geoclastica.com/ClimateSeaLevelChange.htm

CLIMATE & SEA-LEVEL CHANGE:
NOT CAUSED BY CO2

From November 2016 until now (July 2019), I have spent most of my time conducting self-funded (thus UNBIASED) exhaustive literature research on ALL sciences relevant to climate- and sea-level change, e.g. geophysics, glaciology, oceanography, astrophysics, meteorology, archaeology and especially geology (the most relevant science of all, entirely neglected by the UNITED NATIONS Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC), as opposed to just 'climate science', a new generalist pseudo-science that: (A) benefits hugely from (and largely created) the man-made or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) scare (the CO2 Delusion); (B) is grossly over-reliant on computer climate models whose stack of assumptions (guesses) renders them useless; and (C) is blinkered by its very short-term view back in time (decades; cf. geologists' billions of years).

My three overriding conclusions will surprise you: (1) metre-scale sea-level rise is coming (3 to 5 m between now and 2100, perhaps even as soon as 2050); (2) the responsible global warming (melting Antarctic glaciers) was caused by the sun (not CO2); and (3) warming ended in 2016, but Antarctic melting will continue (‘ocean memory’; see below).

THE EVIDENCE? There is overwhelming global geological and archaeological evidence, ignored by the IPCC (no geologists or archaeologists), for a rapid (30-100 years?) sea-level rise of 3 to 5 metres between 350 and 450AD (early Dark Ages), after a Roman-age 'Grand Maximum' of the sun caused collapse of Antarctica's ice-sheet rim by impingement of over-warmed ocean water, delayed a few decades by ocean thermal inertia and 'conveyor-belt' circulation (both ignored in IPCC’s computer models). The sun's ONLY subsequent comparable Grand Maximum, 1500 years later, has just ended (1937-2004) and, predictably, Antarctic's edge is NOW disintegrating again (e.g. my photo below). The clock is ticking. The coming 3 to 5 metre sea-level rise is unstoppable; and it has already begun - see steepening (acceleration) of NASA’s two sea-level charts (based on satellite radar & tide gauges respectively) here … Weblink
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS SOLAR-DRIVEN, NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2. However, the IPCC, saying no sea-level oscillation between 0 AD and 1800 exceeded 25cm (sic), claims that the 30cm rise measured (by tide gauges) since 1800 is exceptional and therefore must be due to man (CO2)! Be astonished and very angry.

Email me to arrange a private presentation (at your premises and anywhere else you choose) if you worry that:

(1) your CO2 emissions are 'pollution' … they aren't;

(2) sea-level rise will flood your seaside home, nuclear power plant, harbour, airport, corporate HQ, hotel chain, missile test range, or atoll complete with towns and (Bikini) nuclear waste dump … it will.

That's the bad news. The good news?

(A) CO2 is innocent … Weblink

(B) Earth is now cooling. Global warming (by the same Grand Maximum, its effect delayed by ocean thermal inertia) ended in February 2019 - scroll down to NASA's global MONTHLY temperature chart, the third from bottom in the list here … Weblink
However, sea level will continue to rise, delayed by ocean circulation (see above).

For more of the science, see my numerous 2016-2019 ‘Technical Notes’, mostly single diagrams and half-page conference abstracts, aimed at scientists and non-scientists alike, here on ResearchGate … Weblink


Which contradicts accepted science regarding the heating up of the planet.

One must also assume that the "you" refers to his clients in the fossil fuel industries given that on another page we have this:

Vital economic importance
In petroleum exploration and development, incorrect interpretation of sequence stratigraphy (prediction of reservoir distribution) and depositional environment (reservoir geometry) risks huge economic losses in (A) misplaced wells, (B) missed oil and gas, and (C) phantom resources.​
Techniques
  • Facies- and sequence analysis of cores, outcrops, image logs
    & correlation panels
  • Thin-section analysis of sandstone composition & diagenesis
Objectives
  • Interpret environments, sequence stratigraphy & depo-tectonic setting
  • Predict sand distribution at the basin scale
  • Predict undiscovered stratigraphic plays, e.g. incised valleys, lowstand fans
  • Predict sand-body geometry, size & orientation, for better placement of exploration & development wells (especially horizontal ones)
  • Improve basin-history models by using thin-section analysis of sandstone diagenesis to interpret number/timing of uplift events & oil charges
  • Determine sandstone porosity type & evolution, for better subsurface porosity prediction
  • Assess reservoir damage risk (swelling clays, etc.)
  • Thin-section determination of porosity & bitumen volume (immobile oil), for improved reserves calculations
  • Obtain more realistic reservoir parameters for production simulation models (geometry, dimensions, facies, porosity)
Pitfalls
Facies- or sequence analysis is not a straightforward observation or calculation, like petrophysics for example. On the contrary, it is highly interpretive and depends utterly on the sedimentologist's experience -

"The best sedimentologist is he/she who has examined the most rocks and studied the most literature".

For example, turbidites can easily be misinterpreted as deep-sea fan instead of shelfal if the subtle differences between unidirectional- and combined-flow cross lamination are missed in core, with profound implications for the predicted geographic distribution and volume of oil or gas.

Similarly, misinterpretation of in situ seismites as far-travelled debrites or slumps can lead to highly erroneous interpretations of depositional environment and tectonic setting (hence incorrect predictions of sand distribution and sand-body geometry), with potentially drastic financial repercussions.

As a final caution, when sedimentary structures are not clearly exposed, as is often the case in cores, their "identification" is really an interpretation, upon which more interpretations (process/environment) are built, i.e. a hazardous double interpretation.

So, choose your sedimentologist carefully!

He is offering his expertise to the very industries that are the primary contributors to the issues of climate change. Rather as equally reputable scientists worked for the tobacco industry in previous decades.

Evidence is being ignored. Ice core samples....people navigating the arctic centuries ago....Roman bridge and penguin graveyard that have been hidden under ice....

...but let's keep using that word "unprecedented"...


(Feel free to ignore this post)
 

inertia

Super Member
I have no doubt of his academic credentials but he is a contrarian. He derives his income from the fossil fuel industry.

His Linkedin page notes:

1989 onward, 32 years to date (January 2022) as an independent consultant for petroleum companies and research institutes worldwide, specialising in siliciclastic sedimentology (facies analysis, diagenesis) and sequence stratigraphy.

And from his own company's site on Climate Change: http://geoclastica.com/ClimateSeaLevelChange.htm

CLIMATE & SEA-LEVEL CHANGE:
NOT CAUSED BY CO2

From November 2016 until now (July 2019), I have spent most of my time conducting self-funded (thus UNBIASED) exhaustive literature research on ALL sciences relevant to climate- and sea-level change, e.g. geophysics, glaciology, oceanography, astrophysics, meteorology, archaeology and especially geology (the most relevant science of all, entirely neglected by the UNITED NATIONS Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC), as opposed to just 'climate science', a new generalist pseudo-science that: (A) benefits hugely from (and largely created) the man-made or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) scare (the CO2 Delusion); (B) is grossly over-reliant on computer climate models whose stack of assumptions (guesses) renders them useless; and (C) is blinkered by its very short-term view back in time (decades; cf. geologists' billions of years).

My three overriding conclusions will surprise you: (1) metre-scale sea-level rise is coming (3 to 5 m between now and 2100, perhaps even as soon as 2050); (2) the responsible global warming (melting Antarctic glaciers) was caused by the sun (not CO2); and (3) warming ended in 2016, but Antarctic melting will continue (‘ocean memory’; see below).

THE EVIDENCE? There is overwhelming global geological and archaeological evidence, ignored by the IPCC (no geologists or archaeologists), for a rapid (30-100 years?) sea-level rise of 3 to 5 metres between 350 and 450AD (early Dark Ages), after a Roman-age 'Grand Maximum' of the sun caused collapse of Antarctica's ice-sheet rim by impingement of over-warmed ocean water, delayed a few decades by ocean thermal inertia and 'conveyor-belt' circulation (both ignored in IPCC’s computer models). The sun's ONLY subsequent comparable Grand Maximum, 1500 years later, has just ended (1937-2004) and, predictably, Antarctic's edge is NOW disintegrating again (e.g. my photo below). The clock is ticking. The coming 3 to 5 metre sea-level rise is unstoppable; and it has already begun - see steepening (acceleration) of NASA’s two sea-level charts (based on satellite radar & tide gauges respectively) here … Weblink
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS SOLAR-DRIVEN, NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2. However, the IPCC, saying no sea-level oscillation between 0 AD and 1800 exceeded 25cm (sic), claims that the 30cm rise measured (by tide gauges) since 1800 is exceptional and therefore must be due to man (CO2)! Be astonished and very angry.

Email me to arrange a private presentation (at your premises and anywhere else you choose) if you worry that:

(1) your CO2 emissions are 'pollution' … they aren't;

(2) sea-level rise will flood your seaside home, nuclear power plant, harbour, airport, corporate HQ, hotel chain, missile test range, or atoll complete with towns and (Bikini) nuclear waste dump … it will.

That's the bad news. The good news?

(A) CO2 is innocent … Weblink

(B) Earth is now cooling. Global warming (by the same Grand Maximum, its effect delayed by ocean thermal inertia) ended in February 2019 - scroll down to NASA's global MONTHLY temperature chart, the third from bottom in the list here … Weblink
However, sea level will continue to rise, delayed by ocean circulation (see above).

For more of the science, see my numerous 2016-2019 ‘Technical Notes’, mostly single diagrams and half-page conference abstracts, aimed at scientists and non-scientists alike, here on ResearchGate … Weblink


Which contradicts accepted science regarding the heating up of the planet.

One must also assume that the "you" refers to his clients in the fossil fuel industries given that on another page we have this:

Vital economic importance
In petroleum exploration and development, incorrect interpretation of sequence stratigraphy (prediction of reservoir distribution) and depositional environment (reservoir geometry) risks huge economic losses in (A) misplaced wells, (B) missed oil and gas, and (C) phantom resources.​
Techniques
  • Facies- and sequence analysis of cores, outcrops, image logs
    & correlation panels
  • Thin-section analysis of sandstone composition & diagenesis
Objectives
  • Interpret environments, sequence stratigraphy & depo-tectonic setting
  • Predict sand distribution at the basin scale
  • Predict undiscovered stratigraphic plays, e.g. incised valleys, lowstand fans
  • Predict sand-body geometry, size & orientation, for better placement of exploration & development wells (especially horizontal ones)
  • Improve basin-history models by using thin-section analysis of sandstone diagenesis to interpret number/timing of uplift events & oil charges
  • Determine sandstone porosity type & evolution, for better subsurface porosity prediction
  • Assess reservoir damage risk (swelling clays, etc.)
  • Thin-section determination of porosity & bitumen volume (immobile oil), for improved reserves calculations
  • Obtain more realistic reservoir parameters for production simulation models (geometry, dimensions, facies, porosity)
Pitfalls
Facies- or sequence analysis is not a straightforward observation or calculation, like petrophysics for example. On the contrary, it is highly interpretive and depends utterly on the sedimentologist's experience -

"The best sedimentologist is he/she who has examined the most rocks and studied the most literature".

For example, turbidites can easily be misinterpreted as deep-sea fan instead of shelfal if the subtle differences between unidirectional- and combined-flow cross lamination are missed in core, with profound implications for the predicted geographic distribution and volume of oil or gas.

Similarly, misinterpretation of in situ seismites as far-travelled debrites or slumps can lead to highly erroneous interpretations of depositional environment and tectonic setting (hence incorrect predictions of sand distribution and sand-body geometry), with potentially drastic financial repercussions.

As a final caution, when sedimentary structures are not clearly exposed, as is often the case in cores, their "identification" is really an interpretation, upon which more interpretations (process/environment) are built, i.e. a hazardous double interpretation.

So, choose your sedimentologist carefully!

He is offering his expertise to the very industries that are the primary contributors to the issues of climate change. Rather as equally reputable scientists worked for the tobacco industry in previous decades.

Your homework is helpful. The assertion that "climate science, (is) a new generalist pseudo-science" is not only untrue, the assertion ignores the fundamental physics of infrared radiative transfer theory based on no less than two centuries of continuing research in the field. The entire database of HITRAN wouldn't exist without the physical insight provided using Planck's law, Kirchhoff's law, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, atmospheric spectroscopy, and the field of remote sensing.

__
 

inertia

Super Member
Evidence is being ignored. Ice core samples....people navigating the arctic centuries ago....Roman bridge and penguin graveyard that have been hidden under ice....

...but let's keep using that word "unprecedented"...


(Feel free to ignore this post)

Quick question: How is this information useful within the context of the conversation?

___
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Evidence is being ignored. Ice core samples....people navigating the arctic centuries ago....Roman bridge and penguin graveyard that have been hidden under ice....

...but let's keep using that word "unprecedented"...


(Feel free to ignore this post)
My goodness the cuckoos are calling late this year.

The "Roman bridge...hidden under ice" as you allege, is the bridge reportedly built by the Roman emperor Nero that is usually submerged under the waters of the Tiber River - in Rome!
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Your homework is helpful. The assertion that "climate science, (is) a new generalist pseudo-science" is not only untrue, the assertion ignores the fundamental physics of infrared radiative transfer theory based on no less than two centuries of continuing research in the field. The entire database of HITRAN wouldn't exist without the physical insight provided using Planck's law, Kirchhoff's law, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, atmospheric spectroscopy, and the field of remote sensing.

__
As I noted previously, he has to earn his daily crust and he has found a very lucrative way in which to do so.

Scientists are, after all only human, and we know that some are not always guided by integrity and rectitude.
 

inertia

Super Member
The Carbon hoax flourishes.


Dr Roy Spencer says questioning the global warming neurotics reduces the chance of funding.

Well, this makes a lot of sense when one recalls that Roy Spencer's leadership roll at the George C. Marshall institute are/were financed by Exxon. His model at that time argues that the Earth's warming is accredited primarily through natural variation in clouds and at the time of the video a number of scientists were on-board with the hypothesis. We now understand that his hypothesis doesn't account for a large number of observations that demonstrate the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

This 2007 video provided ^above^ requires an update because the ability to "fingerprint" anthropogenic sources and compare these sources with the contribution to natural greenhouse emissions provides extensive data to demonstrate the effects of the human contribution.

__
 
Last edited:
Top