Skip Navigation

Russian Academy of Sciences says climate change is caused regional variations in the ozone layer as the Southern and Eastern Pacific oceans have cooled.

Personally I think if China and other AES states agree with this, we should join in as well. Right now I read these articles with healthy scepticism and I am curious on your views. These are the ones that I found interesting. Russia may present an alternate take this December, an interesting time to be alive.

https://techstartups.com/2023/08/31/over-1600-international-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-declaration-dismissed-the-existence-of-a-climate-crisis/

Edit: I shouldn't have started with such a hollow article. The dismissal of increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts due to warming is not something I support. Here's something better that shows that the current model fails to explain the strong cooling trend in the Southern Ocean and East Pacific.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.

She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article219438.html

^ Explains that the Russian Academy of Sciences has a different account on climate change that will be presented this year. The IPCC has a monopoly on climate science, the IPCC was founded by Thatcher as a reaction to striking coal workers and is a political organization.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article163379.html Ecology of war

https://www.voltairenet.org/article164791.html Market ecology

https://www.voltairenet.org/article164792.html Financial ecology

15

You're viewing a single thread.

15 comments
  • There are no alternate explanations because the explanations that we have make sense. Unless you have reasons to be skeptical I don't see the point of exercising skepticism for the sake of it. You can wait for the grand reveal of this alternate theory at the COP if you want but you are likely going to be disappointed.

    Edit: my bad. Looks like the theory has already been publicised according to the linked telegram post. I can't assess the merits of it though.

    • The current theory does make sense but there are parts of the world that are cooling despite that being contrary to modeling.

      Even the mainstream majority believe that the climate models are wrong as cooling has been measured in the Pacific.

      The Russian theory attempts to account for this, although like you mentioned, I am not sure how good it is.

      This is an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

      https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

      Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that**** end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. ****These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.

      **>She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted. **

      • I will just add that the no climate emergency declaration is most likely a nothingburger. From its signatories almost none of them are climate scientists. The two Nobel laureates that have signed it are washed up physicists.

        As you said the Russian theory does not invalidate current models. If it is correct it will augment existing models so that predictions conform to real world observations.

        If you agree with the the first paragraph then you will agree that there is no reason to be sceptical of climate change.

        • Not sceptical of warming but the anthropogenic and global nature.

          The theory is that CO2 is not the main factor contributing to climate change (outside the Eastern Pacific and Southern ocean) and forest fires. This is radically different. The question ultimately arises: If CO2 is not the main driving factor of climate change, then to what extent does human activity relevant? If we do not have control then we should focus on the mitigation disaster than CO2 emission.

          As you said the Russian theory does not invalidate current models.

          The article by the bulletin of atomic scientists says that their models are not necessarily invalidated by the cooling trend but it still needs to be explained. The Russians explained this by saying that CO2 is not a major factor. This is radically different from the models which assume that CO2 is the main factor. Thus the Russian theory would invalidate the significance of CO2 in warming and instead of global warming, we have several examples of regional warming. This is much more than a footnote.

          "The main cause of local climatic catastrophes is the increasing emission of natural hydrogen due to the alternating gravitational forces of the moon and sun, which cause holes in the ozone layer. The resulting rise in temperature and the mixing of ozone and hydrogen are the main causes of forest and steppe fires"

          The wording of this is much different from what we've heard. I understand the greenhouse effect theory better, this one seems weird but it's definately a big if true.

          • I am not convinced at all by the voltairenet article. The whole basis of it is a translated telegram post of a study that has not been scrutinized. Either way it is very simple to find out whether the author is in over his head or not. When the next COO happens, we can see for ourselves whether Russian delegates put this theory forward and whether it causes a political split as the author puts its.

            Regardless the wording of the translation is very vague. "Main cause of local climate catastrophes". It is not clear at all to what extent the author is trying to discredit anthropogenic greenhouse gas emmission.

            If you care for my opinion then I think you are mindbending incomplete information to conform to a bias that you have about the causes of climate change or maybe its existence. I am not an expert on this topic and I have my own biases but neither are voltairenet and especially CLINT. I'll stick to the currently understood model of climate change until the consensus changes.

15 comments