Dissent in Hungary

English translation of the article Mélyebben megismerni a természetet (published in the daily newspaper Magyar Hírlap on 9 September 2020 in the Hungarian language, https://www.magyarhirlap.hu/velemeny/20200909-melyebben-megismerni-a-termeszetet)

Getting to know nature more deeply

Some former media and climate gurus have already ecologically converted: Michael Moore (Producer of Fahrenheit 9/11), for example, has released his documentary exposing biomass and solar energy fraudsters.

László Csaba SZARKA

In the 4 August issue of Magyar Hírlap, economist Károly LÓRÁNT, an adviser to the National Forum, questioned some of the statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In this context, he described the European Union’s climate policy, namely the intention to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero, as “propaganda growing into an economic programme”, and predicted its certain failure. János ZLINSZKY, an associate professor at the Pázmány Péter Catholic University, in his counter-opinion of 4 September supporting the IPCC’s view, rejected Lóránt’s method and style. At the same time, he expressed his desire for a “calm, impersonal, knowledge-based and long-term political discourse for the common good […] both within the Christian Democratic political community and between political camps”.

Károly Lóránt was indeed inaccurate here and there, and some of the arguments were certainly emotional, but emotional tools were used by János Zlinszky, too. In my post, following the course, method and style of Zlinszky’s counter-opinion, I conclude that it is he who sees all the essential issues incorrectly.

The starting point for the debate is whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions can be reduced to zero by 2050. If we ask the question whether it is physically feasible to achieve one hundred per cent renewable energy, the answer based on real science is no. Not one single wind or solar power plant has been or will be produced by the energy of wind and solar power. This is because the construction (and partly the operation) of such installations requires efficient (i.e. high density) energy types. Today’s choice extends to coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy as well as to hydropower as the only renewable. Given the specific needs of renewable energy sources (unusual materials, vast areas and low energy density), most experts estimate that their share in the energy mix is somewhere around twenty per cent, which can be thought of as desirable, optimal or “still tolerable” depending on individual preference.

A hundred per cent renewable energy target would be tantamount to falling back to medieval levels. And the ambition of zero carbon emissions could only be achieved through the spread of carbon-free yet efficient (nuclear) energy. At this point, it is worth remembering what István Széchenyi (1790-1860, the statesman known as “the greatest Hungarian”) said, a statement quoted several times by the historian Ágnes R. Várkonyi. Grieving over the environmental conditions of pre-industrial Hungary, Széchenyi commented, “In order to let the trees live, let the coal come to the surface!”, highlighting the nature-conserving role of powerful energy sources.

It is obvious that we should exercise restraint when intervening in nature. Energy and nature policies need to be reconciled, which is not easy, but it is possible. However, the total subordination of energy policy to climate policy is irrational and wasteful. Scientifically, this is highly controversial, and, in my opinion, unfounded. The motivation for linking climate and energy policy was seen by a meteorologist academician (Rudolf Czelnai) in 2011 as follows: “We know from Machiavelli that the secret to successful policy is that the masses rarely fall for rational things; they also need some humbug. Well now, if the energy issue is the rational and it is hidden behind the climate issue, this makes the climate issue the humbug. This is like putting foxes in the henhouse… Thus, hiding behind policy, perhaps the biggest business of the millennium could start: the climate business.”

The prevailing view today, also represented by János Zlinszky, is that carbon emissions from human activity must be curbed in order to prevent global warming. This assumes that 1. anthropogenic CO2 emissions really increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration; 2. the primary cause of the increase in the global greenhouse effect is an increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration; 3. the primary cause of the perceived warming is an increase in the global greenhouse effect. All three assumptions are quite debatable:

1. It is by no means certain that the increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is due to man. In fact, only four to five per cent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin. The vast majority of CO2 emissions are of natural origin, coming from the oceans, land and biosphere. In the first half of this year, fossil energy use (i.e. anthropogenic CO2 emissions) declined globally by about ten per cent, yet the atmospheric CO2 concentration broke previous (daily, weekly and monthly) records. At the NOAA Observatory in Manua Loa, the daily record (418.32 ppm) was measured on 1 June 2020. The carbon dioxide concentration remains higher on the day of writing this article than it was a year ago: 411.36 ppm on 5 September 2020 as opposed to 408.54 ppm on 5 September 2019.

2. Arrhenius calculations showing that doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content would mean a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius are outdated. (Even Milankovitch, cited both by Lóránt and Zlinszky, did not agree with Arrhenius.) Researchers close to the IPCC (Sherwood et al) have recently suggested a rise in temperature (climate sensitivity) in the range of 2.3 to 4.5 degrees Celsius as the response to doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content. In the light of the latest discoveries in cloud dynamics, aerosol and oceanic absorption, the IPCC will probably be forced to reduce both the lower and the upper values. The true carbon-climate sensitivity, as deduced by William Happer in a recent article in Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, may be around 1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

3. It is a completely natural thing in science to set up competing hypotheses to explain complex phenomena. The IPCC interprets all climate change-related phenomena as a series of positive feedback caused by the anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse effect. A theoretical problem, however, is that the IPCC does not want to take note of the scientific approaches that deviate from its own approach. Yet the periodic dynamic changes of the largely unknown (or fragmentarily known and difficult-to-grasp) natural forces surpassing both human imagination and human ability to influence nature by a vast order of magnitude have always toyed with Earth’s climate as a plaything. If we take the trouble, we find a whole spectrum of competing hypotheses in climate literature. One such ˗overly fatalistic ˗ view is that the Sun’s super-eruptions (micronovae) about every twelve thousand years overwrite everything.

The cosmic environment, the Sun, space weather, the Earth’s gravitational, magnetic and electric fields, as well as the interaction of several aforementioned and further factors, are the most frequent players in most moderate hypotheses.

For example, a surprising scientific result related to the Milankovitch theory, which describes climate change as the effect of variations in the Earth’s orbit, is that the mechanism suggested by Georg Bacsák (1870–1970) eighty years ago (the so-called latitudinal insolation gradient) has been found not only in the period range of tens of thousands of years, but also in changes of a few years and even within a year. This effect is real, although it is not the only one and not the most important among the forces of perpetual climate change. A decade ago, French geophysicists found that solar activity even affects the Earth’s rotation. Who would have thought that the Length of Day (LOD) anomaly could be a robust climate indicator?

An extreme weather event may cause damage, but this does not imply any relationship with anthropogenic carbon emissions. A series of “extreme” weather events which have been declared a consequence of “climate change” have turned out to have geophysical and/or solar origins. Many weather anomalies in the polar regions are caused by volcanic activity. In a few months’ time, the American Geophysical Association (AGU) will put solar activity as the possible origin of the hurricanes in September 2017 on the agenda.

It must be recognized that climate science cannot be limited to the current IPCC science. In science, there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the truth.

Discussion among researchers is a necessary corollary of research, and the use of precise and clear definitions is an essential precondition for this. Well, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) distorted the concept of climate change in a way that is incompatible with science: natural causes were simply excluded from the concept of climate change. “Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” (Source: Article 1 of the UNFCCC; in Hungary, Act LXXXII of 1995 on promulgating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Since then (the period between 1992 and 1995), it has been ambiguous what is meant by climate change. The IPCC is also aware of the dual interpretation. Among researchers, the IPCC mostly uses the traditional definition, but in their official guideline drawn up in 1998 (“learning the scientific basis of the risks of man-made climate change”) they clearly follow the UNFCCC definition.

The artificial barrier to science can be overcome by considering the phenomena observed at the output of the complex climate system as the result of natural and anthropogenic effects. We cannot even estimate the extent of the anthropogenic impact until we know the various unique and repetitive changes in nature around us (the Earth in capital letters) in sufficient depth. Who are the Galileos today? Those who think the scientific background has been settled (as seen by Zlinszky) or those who think there is still a lot of research to do?

Finally, some thoughts on the non-scientific (personal, civil, spiritual, ecclesiastical) aspects mentioned by János Zlinszky. In addition to electromagnetic geophysics, I have been dealing with global environmental issues with varying intensity for two decades. I observed an unfounded overemphasis on the CO2 hypothesis right at the outset. Presenting Al Gore’s and the IPCC’s 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as a scientific prize to the world opened the eyes of many. My view on the interrelationship of basic global environmental issues, i.e. that climate is only one of the environmental problems and not even the most important, was formed 10 to 12 years ago. Later, it was a bitter discovery to realize that the whole of environmental science (the selection of the environmental elements and climate science most certainly, but I suspect ecology as well) had been governed by the same globalist circle for decades. Their spiritual leader was the Canadian Maurice Strong (1929–2015), the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). He built the global network of green organizations. It is natural that they tried to influence the churches as well. “Ecological conversion” is the brand product of this endeavour. A simple conversion without an adjective would be more appropriate. We must not strive for a new world order, but find our way back to common sense, created nature and each other.

The good news is that some former media and climate gurus have already converted in an ecological sense: Michael Moore (the producer of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11) has released his documentary on biomass and solar energy fraudsters (Planet of Humans); Time magazine’s former “Environmental Hero” (Michael Schnellenberger), on the occasion of the premiere of his book (Apocalypse Never), publicly repented the sins of environmentalism. Finally, in Alberta, Canada, the documentary “Global Warning” providing a startling account of a place (Calgary) where an energy policy totally subordinate to climate policy has already won, has been nominated for an award.

 (The author is a full member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

40 thoughts on “Dissent in Hungary

    • The noted 0.6 year lag of LOD derived angular acceleration of the Earth behind MEI suggests it is the result, and not a cause. The strong similarity with MEI , a commonly used climate metric, means LOD is also a proxy for whatever MEI is indicating.

      The comparison to SST shows that warmer Nino1.2 SST matches an angular deceleration.

    • There is also clear modulation of LOD by long term lunar cycles of 8.85 and 18.6 years. Due to the close link to MEI, maybe we should start accepting lunar drivers in decadal scale climate variability. We readily accept the massive effect on tides and millennial scale slowing of the Earth, but for some reason a lunar effect on climate is never even discussed.

      https://climategrog.wordpress.com/lod_6mo_hpcosine/

      • They are certainly discussed in the water supply projects. The Southern African drought cycle is obviously Metonic in origin with a sine wave effect on rainfall, visible if one creates a time series. The Cape Town region has a 10 year drought frequency and no one knows why. They have 400 years of data. Placed on a time series it is a clear sine wave.

        The moon rides high in the sky during summer every 18.6 years and low in between. Combining it with the Saros cycle there is a beat frequency of 361 years. Every four of those (approximately) there is significant cooling. Cooler = dryer. Nature loves cycles.

        • “Nature loves cycles”

          And when disparate cyclic rythems happen to harmonize…
          ( See the Galloping Gerti Bridge.) (-;

  1. Good article.

    That picture brings back memories that absinthe made fonder. I stayed at the Intercontinental down the street and had some great times at the Spoon and John Bull pub not far from there.

  2. Well. Mr. Szarka pretty much covers it all. Yet more proof that we’re not all crazy, because a man in Hungary has reproduced, clearly and concisely, all the points that have been made over and over on this site. Of course, what amazes and dismays, is that most people do not respond to this sort of reasonable analysis.

    Notice, too, how generous and temperate Mr. Szarka is in describing the motives of his opponents. This is truly a good and wise man.

  3. “1. It is by no means certain that the increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is due to man. In fact, only four to five per cent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin.”
    Until 1960 the rise in CO2 had to be mostly natural as it was faster and larger than anthropogenic emissions. After that, even though the rise was smaller than emissions, it had to be about in a ratio of the anthropogenic to natural emissions. This is explained by Harde, Berry and Salby and is the falsification of the hypothesis that we can control atmospheric CO2 by controlling our emissions.

    • The year to year variation in the Mauna Loa records is too large to see a half year reduction in human emission (concentration could be expected to be approx 0.3 ppm lower than usual), but there is no ‘usual’. In 1998 ppm was 3 ppm up. The year after it was 1 ppm up, also meaning that there is no correlation to human emission in the Mauna Loa’s records. Even the ten year average in the 1990s was lower than the average in the 1980s

  4. Can anybody provide more information about this… Finally, in Alberta, Canada, the documentary “Global Warning” providing a startling account of a place (Calgary) where an energy policy totally subordinate to climate policy has already won, has been nominated for an award.

    Thanks

  5. It’s good to see courageous Hungary repudiating the Khmer Vert nonsense on CO2.

    I expect that soon the BRICSA countries will start to do the same – China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, India, provoked into doing so by the endless irrational hostility toward them from the USA.

    “Take your climate religion and put it where the sun doesn’t shine!”

  6. “….Michael Moore (Producer of Fahrenheit 9/11), for example, has released his documentary exposing biomass and solar energy fraudsters”

    Bullshit- woody biomass from well managed forests is a RENEWABLE energy- and provides BASE LOAD power- while allowing foresters to remove the weed trees holding back “good growing stock”. It doesn’t/didn’t belong in a movie about fraudulent wind and solar. Anyone who thinks it does HAS NO CLUE about forestry- nor woody biomass- yet, hypocritically, they happen to love wood in their homes. It can never amount to a huge amount of the energy needs of the planet- of COURSE NOT- but it can provide truly “clean and green energy”. I’ve managed many timber harvests where a small percent goes into the biomass market. It’s all lies that loggers clear cut huge areas and send all that wood to a biomass burner. That’s insane- a claim by no nothing fools. I’ll compare by 47 years as a professional forester to fat boy Michael Moore’s lame movie.

    • … woody biomass from well managed forests is a RENEWABLE energy …

      True.

      The question is, how much of our total energy can come from the forests.

      • “The other question is, how much wood comes from from well managed forest.
        Lot of illegal deforestation in eastern Europe contradict the well managed forest as often shown here.

        • Lots of clear-felling going on the US to feed Drax power station in England.

          Be careful about that word ‘bullshit’, Joseph. There is nothing carbon-neutral about clear-felling US forests, chipping the product and shipping it across the Atlantic and round the UK (Drax is on the east side) in order to burn it in a power station that was built where it was because it is — literally — on top of a coalfield.

          Woody biomass from well managed woodland — is there any left in the world? — is a different matter but only if it’s used locally. Every gallon of diesel used to ship it to a power station makes it that much less “renewable”.

          • Thunder Bay, ON, imports wood pellets fro Europe for a converted coal power unit. I had 35 ha of aspen cut on my property and asked if the waste could be utilized for cogen in the mill. It could, but they were already maxed out so it made no economic sense, even though I’m only 15 km from the mill. So it was piled up into 27 huge brushpiles that took me 3 years to burn, given all the local regulations on burning I had to deal with. Biomass as any sort of energy solution is BS. It has a place, but that place is small.

          • Thunder Bay, ON, imports wood pellets fro Europe for a converted coal power unit.

            Folks around the world won’t understand how stupid that is. Thunder Bay is surrounded by forest. The major industries in the surrounding area are logging and mining. I don’t know about the dollar value but logging has to be the biggest employer.

            Coals to Newcastle.

        • Sure, much if not most forestry is not well done. The solution isn’t to stop forestry or stop biomass- it’s to do it right- which is what I’ve been fighting for, here in Massachusetts, for decades.

      • Not much, but so what? The main reason to cut biomass isn’t to generate energy- it’s to properly manage a harvest by removing undesirable trees- of which the forests are loaded.

      • Sure, some of the wood for biomass comes from clear cuts- but only an idiot thinks all that wood went to biomass. Most goes into sawlogs- only the dregs goes to biomass. And, though I don’t do clear cuts, clear cutting is a responsible form of forestry in some areas under some conditions. Believe it or not, forests will grow back if clear cut- even if not planted.

        • “Trees will grow back even if not planted “. Boy do I know that truth. I have many hours as a kid in the 1960s clearing out trees from fence rows. We didn’t even try to stop the trees that were spreading back into the once cleared fields on the edge of forests. We just ploughed a little further from the tree line every year.

  7. In the first half of this year, fossil energy use (i.e. anthropogenic CO2 emissions) declined globally by about ten per cent, yet the atmospheric CO2 concentration broke previous (daily, weekly and monthly) records.

    The only way the IPCC’s CO2 budget works is to postulate that any CO2 humans add to the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere for decades. Given the small human contribution, that’s the only way to make it look like humans are responsible for the increasing CO2 level. The problem for them is that the CO2 budget is, given the huge greening of the planet, clearly changing.

    As the above quote implies, the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is quite small and is, as demonstrated earlier this year, easily swamped by natural processes.

    • Unfortunately the names Varenholt and Lüning are all the true believers will need to dismiss it out of hand or even suggest it should be categorised as ‘Fiction’ (except they don’t have that well developed a sense of humour!

  8. “Who would have thought that the Length of Day (LOD) anomaly could be a robust climate indicator?”

    Well actually Length of Day has been discussed for a long time now. I remember that delta LOD was mentioned in my Environment Science course at Lancaster University in the 1970s..

    See for example this work published in 1989
    Chao, B.F., 1989. Length-of-day variations caused by El Nino-Southern Oscillation and quasi-biennial oscillation. Science, 243(4893), pp.923-925.
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/243/4893/923.abstract

    I used the delta LOD signal in 2005 as a trigger to start looking for examples of a shift from zonal to meridional weather patterns. This led to my short note in 2007 “West African Monsoon Crosses the Sahara Desert” published here https://www.eumetsat.int/website/home/Images/ImageLibrary/DAT_IL_07_08_08.html?lang=EN

  9. I’m fairly sure this is a stupid question, but is it possible that all the CO2 produced in the northern industrial belt takes a year or more to get to and register at Ana Manoa?
    The drop of production this year might show up next year, the year after or later.
    If the drop doesn’t show, there will be a lot of hard questions that the AGW agenda won’t allow to be asked.

  10. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I live in Hungary. The government is pretty right wing, which is weird, considering their origins, but there you go. They’ll inevitably be replaced sooner or later – just like everywhere else. The relevant thing is we have about the cheapest electricity in Europe – https://selectra.co.uk/sites/default/files/images/electricity-prices-europe.png

    Mostly because of the lack of renewables, and thanks to the PAKS nuclear plant which produces 50% of the electricity in Hungary. The plant is also being expanded, adding 2 1,114 MW reactors, due to come online ~2025.
    Policy is also to get diesel buses off the roads in Budapest and replace then with electric, which is a bloody good idea, mostly because of the appalling air quality in Budapest, especially in the heat of summer or the depths of winter. The government will do their own thing, so long as it’s good for the country, no matter what direction everyone else is going. They’ve got so big plans for transport and infrastructure, but I hope they don’t make it too attractive to foreigners, as one of the reasons we came here was to get away from all you nutters!

  11. This claim was in the blog story: “In fact, only four to five per cent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin.”

    This is a common claim among amateurs who think this way: The CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere is totally about 200 GtC per year and the CO2-emissions are about 10 GtC: this means that the anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 is 100*10/200 = 5 %.

    They do not consider that by 2017 the CO2-emissions had been totally 433 GtC. At the same time the CO2 amount of the atmosphere increased 270 GtC. The IPCC – and the major climate researchers – say that it is totally anthropogenic. That is wrong, too. There is a simple way to check this. The permille value of the atmosphere in 2017 was -8.55. The IPCC’s claim means that the permille value should have been about -13. The contrarian and skeptical researchers do not know this – that there are no contrarian researchers publishing research studies about the carbon recycling.

    Readers of this blog have probably never heard about permille measurement and its trend in the atmosphere and how to calculate it.

    You can start here: https://www.climatexam.com/post/anthropogenic-co2-in-the-atmosphere-per-the-ipcc-conflicts-with-the-observed-permille-values-laws

  12. Good article. Recognizing impractically is better than not seeing it.

    article: French geophysicists found that solar activity even affects the Earth’s rotation. Who would have thought that the Length of Day (LOD) anomaly could be a robust climate indicator?

    Take your pick the Sun or CO2 major driver of the earth’s weather.

Comments are closed.