A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.
THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.
THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…
RUCKER’s forward received via email …
“Newspapers coast to coast”
Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.
Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.
I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.
First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.
Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!
Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming
Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.
But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:
As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?
Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”
The correct answer, however, is decrease.
How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”
People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.
This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.
It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”
One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.
The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.
As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.
CO2 Related :
- CO2 In The Atmosphere Is Not Pollution | Climatism
- THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Climatism
- WORDS Of Wisdom To A Disciple Of The Church Of Climatology | Climatism
- GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive | Climatism
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :
- CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research | Climatism
- The global dance of carbon dioxide and spreading green flora « JoNova
- Greening the Planet and how Fossil Fuels protect world’s Flora & Fauna | Dr. Matt Ridley | Climatism
- Good News! We Have Lots More Forest Than We Thought | Climatism
“Blasphemy is what an old dogma screams at a new truth.” — Robert G. Ingersoll
Characterizing a professional, respected scientist as an unqualified vengeful opinion writer is the same kind of power attack as rape. It’s meant to humiliate and intimidate.
I said this as part of a response to a comment at WUWT late yesterday (copied in full below). The picture above shows Steven Amstrup holding polar bear cubs against their will — not for any scientific purpose, just for a photo that shows he can.
Also yesterday, Tom Fuller at ClimateScepticism wrote a hard-hitting critique of the Bioscience article that similarly noted the sexist nature of this harassment and the fact that this is the way Michael Mann and his colleagues behave toward female scientists who cross them or their supporters. He concludes:
“The purpose of these papers is not to communicate.
It is to excommunicate.”
As I said when this paper first came out, this response is all about my reasoned and…
View original post 697 more words
UGLY news for climate crusaders!
Officially NO “global warming”, at all, for ~20 years despite record CO2 emissions over the same period!
Global effects of El Niño event seem to have passed, and we’ve cooled to a value just before the event, according to data from the UK Hadley Climate Centre
Earlier we reported on ocean temperatures dropping, now we have confirmation that global air temperature is dropping as well. The latest data is in, and now according to HadCRUT data, we are back to the same level as before the 2014/2016 super El Niño event heated up the planet.
Clive Best writes:
The HadCRUT4.5 temperature anomaly for September calculated by spherical triangulation is 0.54C, a fall of 0.17C since August. Temperatures have seemingly returned to a long trend after the 2016 El Niño.
Clive Best uses a custom triangulation method to calculate the global temperature anomaly from the raw…
View original post 389 more words
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.
MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …
PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER
The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.
In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.
ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:
This just flies in the face of contemporary science.
Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.
Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.
A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.
And global warming policies of the kind Bongiorno supports will make the dying worse by making electricity too expensive for the poor:
The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.
Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.
Australia’s winter grain harvest is now officially the largest for every single mainland state.
The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.
It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).
And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.
But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.
Astonishingly, the Fairfax reporter is also astonished by Abbott’s claim, finding it so remarkable that she leads her report with it:
Tony Abbott says voters should beware the science of climate change but argues that higher temperatures “might even be beneficial” because “far more people die in cold snaps”.
Lancet reports that more people die in the cold than the heat and Fairfax doesn’t blink. But when Abbott says it Fairfax faints.
Climatism Related Hot Links :
- CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- FAKE NEWS ALERT : ABC Beating Up Perth Sea-Level-Rise Fails To Mention The Land Is Sinking | Climatism
- THE Great Barrier Reef Lie – Climate Scientists’ Scaremongering Trashed By Mother Nature | Climatism
- UNMASKING The Great Arctic Sea-Ice “Death Spiral” Scam | Climatism
The brilliant Rowan Dean.
That’s the theme of an article by Rowan Dean in The Courier-Mail, Australia: Time for climate scientists to produce evidence that carbon dioxide emissions affect climate Full text below with my bolds and images.
IT’S time for so-called climate scientists to either cough up one single, solitary shred of genuine scientific evidence that proves that the climate is being changed by mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions, or ‘fess up and admit that the whole thing is a gigantic hoax.
That’s the bottom line.
Asked at the beginning of this year for one of those “predictions for 2017”, I claimed that this would be the year the Australian public wakes up and realises they are being hoodwinked by the whole climate change/renewables scam.
I told Paul Murray’s lively late night TV show on Sky News that 2017 would be the year the climate con comes to an end. So how is my prediction…
View original post 689 more words
“In such cases, attributing today’s extreme weather to “climate change” regardless of what happens (maybe droughts, maybe floods) is what the philosopher Karl Popper called “pseudoscience.” If some theory explains everything, it can’t be tested and it is therefore not science.”
EXPLAINS all of the alarmist, goal-post shifting ‘science’ that is pontificated by the climate change cult to prove their flimsy eco-religion.
EXCELLENT, fact-riddled read from Cato…
By Paul Homewood
A welcome dose of reality from Cato:
“Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like: It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.” That August 28 Politico article by Slate weatherman Eric Holthaus was one of many trying too hard to blame the hurricane and/or flood on climate change.
Such stories are typically infused with smug arrogance. Their authors claim to be wise and well-informed, and anyone who dares to question their “settled science” must need to have their eyes pried open and their mouths shut.
There will doubtless be similar “retroactive forecasting” tales about Irma, so recent story-telling about Harvey may provide a precautionary warning for the unwary.
I am an economist, not a climatologist.* But blaming Harvey on climate change apparently demands much lower standards of logic and evidence than economists would dare describe as serious arguments.
View original post 864 more words
Nearly everything about “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, “Climate Disruption” or whatever suits the narrative of the day is based on propaganda, fear and alarmism, having nothing to do with actual “science”, hard data or observed reality…