
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Al Jazeera has made an outrageous claim that climate “denial” is helping to kill 400,000 people every year.
According to Al Jazeera;
“Other conspiracy theorists make fools of themselves, but they don’t harm anyone else. That isn’t the case here. Because climate change costs lives. Climate change deniers are undermining the battle to save those lives. They may be nuts, but its still no laughing matter”.
See the video: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2015/10/reality-check-climate-change-conspiracy-151031081029315.html
How can climate change possibly be killing 400,000 people per year, when the green movement can’t even produce one legitimate climate refugee?
Blaming Climate Change is a terrific scapegoat for corruption and incompetence, of which there is no shortage in many parts of the Middle East. WUWT recently reported how the former governor of Alexandria tried to blame Climate Change for the lethal floods which swept his city, in an apparent effort to deflect accusations of poor civic infrastructure management.
The terrorist Osama Bin Laden once attempted to conflate climate change and hatred of the West, perhaps he was just a bit before his time. Now Al Jazeera, the news service backed by the hardline Qatari dictatorship, appears in my opinion to be trying to finish what Bin Laden started.
Let us hope Al Jazeera don’t succeed in their apparent efforts to fan the flames of mindless hatred.
Let me guess. We need a jihad against “deniers “.
No surprise, what else would Al Jihad…err Al Jazeera…claim? These are the same people that conflate negligent living, turning their homes into S-Holes, with climate change.
http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/africa/2015/08/senegal-imam-calls-green-jihad-150805051318929.html
Are “Climate “deniers”” now going to be the 21st century terrorists?
How twisted and typically third world irresponsible.
Man has not been able to change one weather event let alone global climate.
The climate change that we are experiencing is typical of the Holocene for the past 10,000 years. It is caused by the sun and the oceans. We are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than a thousand years ago. No one has come up with a means of controlling the sun and the oceans in such a way so as to stop the climate from changing. We do not even know what the best climate is. If we keep climate the way it is today, the polar ice caps will continue to melt and sea levels will continue to rise until the ice caps have all melted away. If we can force a cooling trend we may cause the premature start of the next ice age and its continental ice sheets which some might object to. To date Man has been unable to change individual weather events let alone alter global climate.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface. which is mostly H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.
This is all a matter of science.
Surely the loss of a few hundred thousand lives is just what the deep greens desire. As I recall. Comrade Holdren, recently retired Science Adviser to comrade Obama wrote in his book that 1 billion is the maximum allowable human population. As Obama is in thrall of Holdren……………..
Check me on this, but if we believe in CAGW and we take it seriously, then shouldn’t we be eliminating our use of fossil fuel in favor of ‘renewable’ or ‘green’ energy sources?
If we were to do this perfectly well then we would probably not actually need any more petroleum, right?
So . . . in conclusion, if this Al-Jazeera reporter knows whence his bread is actually buttered, should he not be ‘in the pocket of big oil’?
I mean, if anyone should be a “climate denier”, it should be the people of the Arabian peninsula and the Persian Gulf region.
Just curious how they’re on the ‘wrong’ side of the debate with regard to their own self-interest. If I were the guy running the country who’s wealth depends on producing oil, I wouldn’t support the news guy spouting this nonsense, never-mind how illogical/unsupportable to say that climate change kills 400,000 people per year.