Roy Clark: A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors | Tom Nelson Pod

[@geoffdaniell814]

Another excellent presentation! The detailed effort in exposing the scams is really very refreshing,

[@paulokeeffe5920]

That was fantastic! Very detailed content with a simple conclusion. Make sure you watch the ending.

[@azlandpilotcar4450]

The best forensic look at, and only reasonable conclusion I've seen on the subject. Best ever!

[@grantlloyd23]

Nice work Roy & Tom. Thank you!

[@tintinmars4661]

Another excellent presentation Tom . Just what I was looking for 😊

[@petneb]

Great presentation. Thank you so much for doing all the hard work and thank you Tom.

[@damo780]

This was a fascinating history of the most significant folly in our modern era. And a trip down memory lane. Thankyou

[@TheDalaiLamaCon]

Excellent stuff. Tom, you could fill venues with a selection of your guests, anytime. The Tom Nelson Conference sounds good.

[@thesmallnotesduo]

Thank you Roy - you are a FREEDOM fighter and a voice of reason against 'the science'

[@bdnevins]

Amazing. In 1976 shneider (17 min) published "the genesis project" predicting a cooling crisis. You can still read the review in new york times archives.

[@whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

44:00 if this is actually true, than how do temperature inversions form at the surface when there is no turbulence? Furthermore, the drier the surface the more likely a temperature inversion is to form. Conductive heat transfer in the air must be underestimated. The null hypothesis of Nikolav et al is correct. At the moment I write this, at ~12 E 25 S in western Libya the nighttime surface temperature is 55F with a surface pressure of 1023 hPa, and at an altitude of 1000 hPa the temperature is 63F (even with a 6 mph north wind creating some turbulence). Despite having almost no water vapor, there is plenty of CO2 to absorb and emit LWIR back to the surface, yet the surface is radiating heat to space and conductively cooling the air above it faster than the air can absorb LWIR and reemit it to the surface. On average the entire Sahara, and much of the Earth's 33 degree horse latitudes, actually emit more radiant energy into space than their surfaces receive in radiant energy. The data and observations refute the entire Earth Energy budget diagrams and LWIR heating hypothesis.

[@MrBallynally2]

Dont forget convection

[@randytucker3083]

Thanks so much. As an engineer this seems logical. As a student I had a young fluid mechanics professor who discovered a mistake by reworking the calculations that his part of science was based on, taking all the earlier physics and found a early on math error and was rewarded with a PhD at an early age because he checked. He explained this as he went over the syllabus. Shouldn't we be growing and saving food for the next ice age?

[@davidwynne2005]

Very interesting.. thanks guys.

[@wheel-man5319]

Very interesting talk. I probably should take the time to read his paper.

[@rikardengblom6448]

Very interesting. Thanks!

[@europaeuropa3673]

How is the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere measured? I understand how CO2 concentration is measured using an infrared beam through an air sample, but how do they separate C14O2 concentration from C12O2 concentration?

[@nuthinasitseems5213]

@23:20 are you speaking of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the The Oxford Martin School, located in the University of Oxford. I'm just curious because I had just learned that the Marrin School had an ongoing Geoengineering Programme, which was established in 2010 and concluded in 2022. thx Mr Clark very informative, a whole host of the pieces to the puzzle I was unaware of.

[@stephenrichards5386]

Yong Tuition explained this well

[@glennmitchell9107]

What happens when the errors in the Wanabe model are corrected?

[@MrBallynally2]

A great presentation to put forward to those who criticize climate skeptics. Instead of trying to persuade others yourself a good presentation like this one makes a proper case. But i just wish he wouldve left out the word 'scam'. Even though i agree, it makes the case for the/ our defense weaker because you then introduce motivation (no doubt true) and open yourself to accusations of malintent and conspiracy theory ( also no doubt true). An edited version would be a good thing.

[@6Sparx9]

Unfortunately I think this lecture is too complicated for most climate catastrophe advocates to understand where and why they are wrong.

[@MrBallynally2]

Perhaps. It is not easy to find a balance. The climate system/ atmospheric dynamics is complex and one should not oversimplify. However, if people attack climate critics it is best to be thorough and present the opposition with something that takes energy to absorb so they cant then easily dismiss it. Most important elements are presented in Roy's video. It takes some effort to put forward counter arguments. And if they are bottom feeders you best step away anyway..

[@maxberan3897]

@@MrBallynally2 All systems are vastly more complicated than the mathematical formulations employed by physicists to make predictions, not just climate processes. The problem arises when the physicist falls in love with their formulations to come to believe that they now thereby "understand" the phenomenon - the narrative behind the equations is the narrative behind the process. That's the "scam" bit, but I would describe this with the slightly less pejorative term, "delusion". In this context "narrative" means those assumptions, approximations, shortcuts that Roy Clark lays out for us in his presentation.

[@zbigniewbecker5080]

Could you add the role of Maurice Strong on the energy scam?

[@tomnelson2080]

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you can suggest a podcast guest with deep knowledge in that area, please do!

[@rawbacon]

Pickin' & Grinnin' 🪕🎸

[@Reziac]

I note that the 1940 AMO nearly coincides with the 1936 heat spike. Gee, could it be that such things follow on one another?

[@markchampneys]

Wow.

[@tomwatson6284]

Like 125, great stuff.

[@mike1117777]

Great

[@ducthman4737]

👍

[@BertWald-wp9pz]

Extremely clear. So this means, for the lay person, the models are BS! Just a mouse fart!

[@eutectoid1]

Again way too much logic for the rest of the crazy world. They need their fairy tales to sustain them. What we need is for everyone to take a deep breath and remember the line "and everyone lived happily ever after" and forget all this BS.