“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know,
it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain
IF we lived in a sane world where logic, reason and cool heads prevailed over alarmism, sensationalism and hysteria, then basic CO2-science, as illustrated by ‘scientist’ Peter L. Ward, below, would steer us in a positive, less climate-divisive direction, preserving the integrity of science … and do a great deal to lower electricity bills along the way.
BUT, don’t hold your breath. ClimateChange™️ has morphed into a $1.5 TRILLION per year, or $4 BILLION per day business, according to a 2015 figure by Climate Change Business Journal. And, besides the lucrative and seemingly unlimited taxpayer funds available to feed-the-green-beast, far too many egos, jobs and reputations are now at stake for ClimateChange™️ to go anywhere soon.
Via The Hill :
Mark Twain, in his inimitable way, is reputed to have quipped “what gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Today, many climate scientists “know for sure” that observed global warming is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions. Many have worked tirelessly for decades, publishing thick summary reports, forging the appearance of a scientific consensus sufficient to convince political leaders to take action to prevent runaway global warming.
Such an agreement was reached in Paris on December 12, 2015. If greenhouse-gases are indeed the problem, their work will go down in history as heroic.
But science is not done by consensus, by popular vote, or by group think. As Michael Crichton put it: “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
The drive to demonstrate scientific consensus over greenhouse-warming theory has had the unintended consequence of inhibiting genuine scientific debate about the ultimate cause of global warming.
Believers of “the consensus” argue that anyone not agreeing with them is uninformed, an idiot or being paid by nefarious companies. The last thing most climate scientists want to consider at this point, when they think they are finally winning the climate wars, is the possibility of some problem with the science of greenhouse-warming theory. Believe me, I have tried for several years to communicate the problem to numerous leading climate scientists.
New data and improved understanding now show that there is a fatal flaw in greenhouse-warming theory. Simply put: greenhouse gases do not absorb enough of the heat radiated by Earth to cause global warming.
Understanding this very surprising and rather blunt statement is much easier than you might think. It gets down to understanding why a traditional light bulb gives off a great deal of heat whereas a new LED light bulb producing the same amount of light remains quite cool.
Heat is what makes us feel warm. More formally, heat is thermal energy flowing spontaneously from a warmer body to a cooler body. Thermal energy is well observed at the molecular level to be the oscillation of all the bonds that hold matter together. The hotter the body of matter, the higher the frequencies of oscillation and the higher the amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency of oscillation. In this way, heat and the temperature that results from absorbing heat both consist of a very broad spectrum of all of these frequencies of oscillation.
A traditional light bulb uses a large amount of electricity to heat the tungsten filament to temperatures around 5500 degrees, causing the filament to glow white hot. This high temperature is required to produce visible white light. The glowing filament gives off a very broad spectrum of frequencies of radiation, however, that we perceive as heat. Only a very small number of the highest of these frequencies are useful as visible light.
A new LED light bulb, on the other hand, uses a very small amount of electricity to cause a diode to emit a very narrow range of frequencies within the spectrum of visible light. The LED radiates only visible light — it does not radiate heat.
The primary purpose of a light bulb is to provide visible light. To repeat, a traditional light bulb radiates heat, a small portion of which is visible light. An LED on the other hand, only radiates visible light, requiring much less electricity. This is why you can substantially reduce your electric bills by replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with LED light bulbs.
How does this apply to greenhouse gases? Detailed laboratory studies of absorption of radiation show that carbon dioxide absorbs less than 16 percent of all the frequencies making up the heat radiated by Earth. Just like LEDs, this limited number of frequencies absorbed by carbon dioxide does not constitute heat. This limited number of frequencies cannot cause an absorbing body of matter to get much hotter because it contains only a very small part of the heat required to do so.
Current radiation theory and current climate models assume that all radiation is created equal—that all radiation is the same no matter the temperature of the radiating body. Current theory simply assumes that what changes is the amount of such generic radiation measured in watts per square meter.
Extensive observations of radiation emitted by matter at different temperatures, however, show us clearly that the physical properties of radiation, the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation making up radiation, increase in value rapidly with increasing temperature of the radiating body.
Climate scientists argue that the thermal energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated, causing warming of air, slowing cooling of Earth and even directly warming Earth. There simply is not enough heat involved in any of these proposed processes to have any significant effect on global warming. Greenhouse-warming theory “just ain’t so.”
Peter L. Ward worked 27 years with the United States Geological Survey. He was the chairman of the White House Working Group on Natural Disaster Information Systems during the Clinton administration. He’s published more than 50 scientific papers. He retired in 1998 but continues working to resolve several enigmatic observations related to climate change. His work is described in detail at WhyClimateChanges.com and in his book What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse gases or ozone depletion? Follow him on Twitter at @yclimatechanges.
CLIMATISM addendum :
IMPORTANT part of the climate debate ‘conveniently’ overlooked : The heat absorption ability of the CO2 molecule diminishes as concentration increases in the atmosphere. 90%+ of warming is achieved in the first 20ppm. Further rises make little difference.
THE same applies with Methane (CH4).
SEE also :
- INCONVENIENT : ‘The World Is Literally A Greener Place Than It Was Twenty Years Ago’ – NASA | Climatism
- THE Climate Control Knob | Climatism
- METHANE Mendacity : Cows, Farts And New Green Lies | Climatism
CO2 Related :
- SCIENTIST : Let’s Not Pollute Minds With Carbon Fears | Climatism
- THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Climatism
- CO2 In The Atmosphere Is Not Pollution | Climatism
- Bureaucratic Dioxide | Climatism
EXTREME WEATHER Related :
- COGNITIVE BIAS : Climate Change Alarmists Refuse To Accept ‘The Science’ That Proves Extreme Weather Events Are NOT Increasing | Climatism
STATE Of The Climate Report :
TEMPERATURE Related :
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- GLOBAL Temperature Drops By 0.4°C In Three Years | Climatism
- PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE : The Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global And Warmer Than Today | Climatism
ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :
- DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’ | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- BASIC Science For Climate Scientists | Climatism
- GENESIS Of The Great Global Warming Hoax In One Minute And Ten Seconds | Climatism
- DR TIM BALL MUST READ : Environmentalism – Evidence Suggests It Was Always And Only About Achieving World Government | Climatism
- THE Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam | Climatism
- CLIMATE CHANGE : The Unsettled Science Of “Settled” Science | Climatism
- FATHER Of The 2°C Climate Target Admits Number Is Fabricated : ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit; it’s clearly a political goal’ | Climatism
- TIM FLANNERY – Professor of Dud Predictions and Climate Falsehoods | Climatism
- THE Mind-blowing Costs Of Global Warming Hysteria | Climatism
- THE Orwellian Era Of @NASA Climate Pseudoscience | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
- TOMORROW’S Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship | Climatism
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- UN IPCC : Climate “Has Almost Nothing To Do With Environmental Policy.” | Climatism
- UN IPCC : “Long-Term Prediction of Future Climate States Is Not Possible.” | Climatism
- UN IPCC Rewrote Temperature History To Suit Their Political Agenda | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove That 97% Of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- YES! The Climate Changes | Climatism
- OUR Planet Has Enjoyed 10 Warm Periods During The Past 10,000 Years | Climatism
- THE ARCTIC : Ground Zero For Anthropogenic Hubris And Climate Change Hysteria | Climatism
(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.
Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!
Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!
Click link for more info…
Thank You! Jamie.
“WE need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
The Bolt Report with leading climate scientist Dr Judith Curry :
JUDITH CURRY is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. Unlike our politicians, she doesn’t think there’s much point to slashing emissions:
CLICK for interview link (0:49s) …
“I don’t think that even if we had the political will we could do very much to change the climate. Carbon dioxide is not a control knob for the climate. It has some effect on very long time scales but it is nothing you can really dial up or down on the time scale of a century and change the climate. There’s a lot of natural forces in play here that determine the climate and thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO2 emissions is really misguided hubris.” – Judith Curry PhD
WHY THEN IS “CARBON DIOXIDE” (or as climate zealots deceitfully label it – “Carbon Pollution”) THE KEY INGREDIENT OF THEORISED MAN-MADE “CLIMATE CHANGE”?
LIKE with all Socialistic edicts, the answer is absolute power and control over you and your lifestyle.
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, explains :
“FOR a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…” – Richard S. Lindzen
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen
IN a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, Lindzen examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.
Prager Uni forward :
Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
UNRELIABLE Energy’s Dirty Dozen: 12 Reasons Why Chaotically Intermittent & Heavily Subsidised Wind & Solar Power Make No SensePosted: August 28, 2018
BRILLIANT ‘peer-reviewed’ list of 12 unequivocal reasons why weather-dependent wind and solar ‘power’ is guaranteed to wreck your economy and your livelihood…
ALWAYS like to highlight point 4 in debate with proponents of unreliables…
4. Renewable Energy Becomes More Costly The More It Is Deployed … Renewable Energy Expansion Ensures More Fossil Fuel Installation Is Necessary As Backup
IN other words, the more windmills or solar panels, the more *emissions!
(*If harmless CO2 emissions have been brainwashed into you as being the enemy within, that is.)
It takes a special brand of delusion to believe that the world can run on sunshine and breezes. For wind and sun worshippers, disastrous examples like South Australia – where mass blackouts and load shedding have become the new normal – require not just practiced delusion but a form of self-flagellating stoicism, as well. Oh, almost forgot to mention, that RE superpower suffers the world’s highest power prices. And it reached that infamous status after it blew up its last coal-fired power plant.
The wind industry has had more than 30 years to get its act together. It was built on subsidies and wouldn’t last a minute without them. But, still, there are plenty happy to roll out the excuses and plead for more of the same.
When STT kicked off in December 2012, it was hard to find anyone with a harsh word to say about wind power. However…
View original post 5,039 more words
NASA’s MSU satellite measurement systems, generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere (0-10 kms), which happens to be the exact place where anthropogenic global warming is meant to occur, according to anthropogenic global warming theory.
AUS MAY TEMPS -0.4C BELOW AVERAGE
UAH temperature anomaly for May was almost half a degree centigrade (-0.4C) below the 4o year average!
SATELLITES have the obvious benefit of measuring only the atmosphere and the effect that carbon dioxide emissions may be having on the atmosphere. Satellite data is not polluted by UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) – artificial heat generated from city infrastructure; asphalt carparks, airpots, highways, AC vents etc.
TONY Heller did a survey of the ten oldest stations in New South Wales And Victoria, circled below. Three rural stations were not included because of obvious problems with the data, but none showed any warming:
The two urban stations at Melbourne and Sydney both showed strong warming, and both have disastrously poor siting of their thermometers in the middle of large cities.
By contrast, all of the rural stations show a long term cooling trend, with some recent warming. (Note that there is no data for the most recent years with some of the rural stations.)
THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.
THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.
LATEST findings are yet another blow to the “settled science” meme…
Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
January 18 2018
Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.
It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.
Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.
However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.
The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.
It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.
The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.
Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.
“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.
“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”
Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.
“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.
“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.
“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.
“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”
He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.
Climatism Related :
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism
- WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled | Climatism
ECS Related :
- Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’
- How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1,000,000,000,000-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures | The Sun UK
- Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects | Watts Up With That?
- New climate change calculations could buy the Earth some time — if they’re right – The Washington Post
A beginning to the end of politicized, monopolized and monetized, one-way, CO2-centric climate ‘science’. About time!
Interviewed by Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says the American people deserve ‘a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.’ Pruitt calls for the establishment of a ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ of scientist to examine ‘what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world’.
EPA ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true legitimate, peer reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. And, you know there was a great article that was in the Wall Street Journal, about a month or so ago, Joel, called ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ by Steve Koonin, a scientist I believe at NYU. And, he talked about the importance of having a red team of scientist and a blue team of scientists and those scientists get in a room and ask what do we know, what don’t…
View original post 61 more words