“Breaking Boundaries”David Attenborough Distorts the Science and Shills for “The Globalist Agenda”


Jim Steele

The video reviews David Attenboroughs’ 2021 documentary “Breaking Boundaries: The science of our planet” and highlights the disturbing number of distortions and misleading information he presents that is contradicted by a wealth of peer-reviewed science. This video reveals that despite lower CO2 concentrations and lower temperatures, the Holocene’s climate has always been unstable, plagued by a multitude of natural mega-droughts that reduced biodiversity, collapsed civilizations, and resulted in millions and millions of deaths.

The video provides the easily understood science of the causes of the earth’s mega-droughts that contradict Attenborough narrative so he completely ignores that science, preferring to demonize CO2. The purpose of Attenborough and Rockstrum’s fearful and distorted science appears to be, based on their own words in the documentary, motivated by their desire for a world government run by the United Nations Security Council which would control our economies and energy policies and thus enforce what they believe to be the earth’s “breaking boundaries”.

Transcript is available at:

https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2022/07/attenboroughs-breaking-boundaries.html

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

5 37 votes
Article Rating
170 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
July 13, 2022 10:34 pm

I would put my money on Jim Steele any day over the corrupt blowhard David Attenborough.

Reply to  Bob
July 14, 2022 12:56 am

I don’t agree with corrupt, he merely reads scripts on these documentaries, he like countless others has been captured by the eco priesthood, if it wasn’t him it would be someone else.

Joao Martins
Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2022 3:25 am

Intellectual corruption is also a form of corruption. It may not deal with money or other economic or social benefits, but enhancing the abandon of a scientific point of view to adopt a superstition amounts to corrupting knowledge. An intellectual can be aware, and resist, forms of economic or social corruption (and often will be praised by so doing); but most often we the people are not aware that an intellectual has increased responsibility to resist corruption of knowledge; or, even more: to explain and debunk the (usually subtle and difficult to grasp) PR activities which are attacks to the integrity of science and scientific thought, i.e., an intellectual has an increased responsibility to unmask and activelly fight actions and activities leading to corruption of knowledge.

MarkW
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 14, 2022 8:20 am

He would lose his sinecure and his paid vacations to exotic places if he were to stop supporting the lie. So there is money involved.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 14, 2022 11:07 pm

What? The subject of a studied intellectual inquiry was once the truth itself? That sort of active diligence to confirm that apprehensions and assertions are verities must always have seemed rather burdensome. And with virtual reality proving to be so engaging, the truth may not tickle our senses or stir our emotions sufficiently to captivate us quite like an imaginatively portrayed tale.

So the truth, who cares? And the dawning of the age of artificial intelligence with silicon chips just doing their scheduled thing in taking our place doesn’t call for any exercise of judgement imposed by us.

Now where did I leave my VR headset?

Redge
Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2022 5:19 am

 he merely reads scripts on these documentaries

Attenborough is a patron of The Optimum Trust whose main aim is to reduce the world population by culling all the funny little brown and yellow people

Don’t believe me?

I’ve posted a link to the spreadsheet showing where the cull happens many times on this forum.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Redge
July 14, 2022 7:56 am

Yep he has been a Patron of the Optimum Population Trust since April 2009 and is also a spokesperson for the Population Matters group where he is quoted as saying

“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people”

https://populationmatters.org

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Andrews
July 14, 2022 9:27 am

Amazing how the “depopulation” types are never volunteering to be the ones to “depopulate.” Would be nice if they put their money where their mouth is, then the rest of us could get on with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as they say.

H.R.
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 14, 2022 5:02 pm

I’ve always thought I’d consider what they advocated if they were to lead by example and go first.

Then I think… naahhhh, they are idiots. No way for me.

Chaswarnert
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 15, 2022 10:05 pm

Yep. Without the Atenbollocks and Greta.

john harmsworth
Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2022 7:37 am

I vaz only following orders?

MarkW
Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2022 8:19 am

If he knows the truth, but tries to sell something else. That’s corruption.
If he doesn’t know the truth, but refuses to look for it because he wants to protect his current lifestyle. That is corruption.
If he believes he knows the truth, but refuses to consider any evidence that he might be wrong. That also is corruption.

I honestly don’t know which category Mr. Attenborough falls under, (though I have strong suspicions) they are all forms of corruption.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2022 9:56 am

I’ve met him, he is full of his own self supporting propaganda. He is or at least was a member of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation run by & bordering on a neo-Nazi group-think body, as I have said here before, they are simply blinded by the rhetoric of population control, Malthus & International Socialism, they just cannot work out whether they use natural/fracked gas (first exploited in Texas in 1945 – It is NOT knew technology- the UK has been fracking in the North-Sea for 40/50 years, but don’t tell the Eco-Bunnies) or manufactured gas to mass murder millions/billions of Human beings, especially from the Third-World, they don’t want (please forgive the expression, “Mr & Mrs Little-Black Sambo to have decent lives & lifestyles, such things are reserved for the wealthy, ruling (White) elites, after all, those quaint little nations where they just lurve going to for holidays, where the natives wait upon them hand & foot, & largely live in relative poverty, & those ghastly “ordinary” people want to visit & holiday in those same exclusive locations, that is an absolute NO-NO!!!!!!!!! The Peasants MUST know their place!!! AND I have met Attenborough!!!!!!!!! Wealthy, privately educated, privileged, they know how we ordinary peeps must be treated!!!! As a retired Structural Engineer I know that technology will solve most if not ALL the World’s issues but only if one can get the politicians (liars, cheats, criminals, fraudsters, etc) out of the way, because they will never see sense, until they have filled their bank accounts with Squillions of Taxpayers dosh, after all, there is no such thing as an “honest politician”, despite what they may claim, it’s a contradiction in terms!!!! It’s a well known fact that no politician has ever been corrupt, regardless of nation!!! Ha!!!

H.R.
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 14, 2022 7:19 pm

Don’t worry a whit how your comment will be perceived, Alan. You are just putting out plain talk. Commies will have ‘splodey heads over your comment. It’s how they roll. Thinking, caring people will understand exactly what you mean.

There are those of us who recognize when to give a man a fish and when to teach him to fish and never look down on him in either case.

Then there are the Attenboroughs who just say, “Let them eat cake. Where’s my drink?”

Dennis
July 13, 2022 10:38 pm

What’s that strange flying creature said the Walrus.

Philip CM
July 13, 2022 11:08 pm

[IF] the United Nations Security Council had proven itself capable of efficiently and cost effectively managing its brief from its onset. I could maybe understand this minority desire for one world government. I mean [IF] the UNSC proved to be the high mark of governance in action, but then I wonder why such a remarkable example couldn’t be translated, downsized to the national level where more people would have a voice. And then the scam reveals itself. The minority desire for one world government is the desire of the minority to govern the world by fiat of that minority.
The epitome of benevolence, I’m sure. “My Dear, do not concern yourself as to their welfare. All the wild animals in our cages are well fed and get the very best of medical care. We wouldn’t have it otherwise.”

MarkH
Reply to  Philip CM
July 13, 2022 11:18 pm

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

  • C.S.Lewis
Michael in Dublin
Reply to  MarkH
July 14, 2022 4:51 am

If CS Lewis were around today he would be one of the most cancelled people on earth. I am surprised that we have not yet seen book burnings of his writings and others of similar intellegence and insight and a censorship by companies like Amazon. It is striking how confident climate alarmists are in own their views that they fear engaging in open and civil discussions with those who hold dissenting views.

Philip CM
Reply to  MarkH
July 14, 2022 9:13 am

I would add the tyranny of conformity. The greens, the woke, the trans, they share a hostile demand for conformity that is far more oppressive than the society they complain about.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Philip CM
July 14, 2022 7:39 am

I ask the same question endlessly. Can you tell me one thing that government does well? Never gotten an answer.

Mr.
Reply to  john harmsworth
July 14, 2022 8:26 am

Waste taxpayers’ money.

MarkW
Reply to  john harmsworth
July 14, 2022 8:34 am

It’s pretty good at killing people.

Philip CM
Reply to  john harmsworth
July 14, 2022 9:15 am

Taxation and regulation 😁

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 14, 2022 4:45 pm

John,
Your question always make me think of the this clip from “Life of Brian”:
https://youtu.be/uvPbj9NX0zc
Admittedly, “does well” is the sticking point.
My 2 cents: The gov consistently behaves in a way so as not to be trusted.
But that is a negative attribute and doesn’t really answer your question.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  john harmsworth
July 15, 2022 12:15 am

Screw the electorate?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Philip CM
July 14, 2022 10:03 am

They arbitrarily banned DDT based on no real science, causing the deaths of millions, mostly in the Third World, they officially determined that AIDS was not a communicative disease banning as much research as they could get away with, killing millions globally, mostly in the Third World! I would be interested to see how they regarded Covid19, on a global scale & how dirty their hands are!!! The UN is no longer & hasn’t been for many years the shining light of reason, decency, & moral rectitude, that it tries to portray itself as today!!! It is woefully overdue for reform!!!

Macha
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 14, 2022 5:21 pm

3rd world used ivermectin for covid, unlike silly us in Australia which banned it. Now 300/ week are reportedly dying with/from it.

Steve Case
July 13, 2022 11:27 pm

Time mark 18:20 Greta Thunberg:

   Adults keep saying “We owe it to the 
   young people to give them hope.”
   I don’t want you to be hopeful
   I want you to panic
   I want you to feel the fear
   I feel everyday day.
   And then I want you to act…
   I want you to act
   as if your house is on fire
   Because it is.  

And then this quote:

   “Democrats can win if they
   embrace the politics of fear”
   New York Times July 8th 2022
__________________________________________

If anyone questions whether or not we are being subjected to an organized propaganda campaign those two quotes should remove all doubt.

To be fair, a Google search on “politics of fear New York times
turns up an opinion piece by Ana Marie Cox that is all about
abortion and not a word about Climate. LINK

Last edited 26 days ago by Steve Case
Dennis
Reply to  Steve Case
July 13, 2022 11:47 pm

And when Greta was not long ago challenged over her comments and asked to explain she backed away and refused to answer.

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  Dennis
July 14, 2022 1:51 am

That’s because she didn’t have her script to hand.

Scissor
Reply to  Steve Case
July 14, 2022 5:12 am

She might even be on the U.S. payroll.

“The Smith-Mundt Act was passed to prohibit that propaganda from being perpetrated on American citizens.

On July 2, 2013 all that changed. The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act through an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) let loose a cascade of thousands of hours per week of government produced propaganda on the American public by legalizing the use of propaganda on the American public.”

https://artvoice.com/2018/07/11/is-the-government-conducting-psychological-operations-on-united-states-citizens/

Sommer
Reply to  Scissor
July 17, 2022 10:37 am

Not many people realize the impact this has had. This information needs to be repeated again and again and again. Thank you, Scissor.

joe x
Reply to  Steve Case
July 14, 2022 6:04 am

Adults keep saying “We owe it to the 
   young people to give them hope.”
   I don’t want you to be hopeful
   I want you to panic
   I want you to feel the fear
   I feel everyday day.
   And then I want you to act…
   I want you to act
   as if your house is on fire
   Because it is. 

you know, i could make a case that making statements and threats like the ones above, are made by the same psychotics just before the shoot up an elementary school.

Rod Evans
July 13, 2022 11:37 pm

As the Climate Alarmists become ever more aware their message of doom and despair is not being picked up by the masses. Their Global Government advocates, have become more desperate to use their mass media presenting heroes like Attenborough, to post more contrived stories of doom and despair.
Our good fortune in recent times, demonstrated by record harvests across the world, has been a huge barrier to the needs of the One World governance fear mongers.
Their decision to now target farming and farmers, in order to block the record harvests being produced is seen everywhere, and clear to all what their objectives are..
Sri Lanka is just the latest victim of these mad policies of banning food production. It won’t be the last. The need for a Pan World event than can be used to progress Global Government is constantly upper most in the minds of the Globalist Cabal.
The Covid Pandemic provided the example of what happens when Governments are forced to act uniformly giving power to a central authority. We are still negatively impacted by the policies enacted.
The WHO wanted overarching control and authority written into UN rules. Thankfully that has been blocked for now, but the demand will grow and will be presented again.
The UN are constantly pushing for legal supremacy over any national authority. That demand will not go away either.
We live in challenging times, we must not give in to these zealots.
“Freedom requires eternal vigilance” …Thomas Jefferson

Last edited 26 days ago by Rod Evans
pigs_in_space
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 14, 2022 12:12 am

Covid hyped by the mass media resulted in a 2nd enactment of the Stamford prison experiment on a mass psychosis scale.
Australia was the perfect example.

The majority willingness of those to follow those orders no matter how bizarre or illogical were well described by Stanley Milgram.

If it results in people freezing to death instead of being electrocuted it still fits with the correct picture that 60-70%+ of the population are happy to inflict that on the other 30-40% who don’t fit in or follow orders.

Derg
Reply to  pigs_in_space
July 14, 2022 1:32 am

This ^

Scissor
Reply to  pigs_in_space
July 14, 2022 5:15 am
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Scissor
July 14, 2022 6:56 am

In the US, the COVID vaccines for the masses were only “authorized”, but never officially approved, by the FDA.

Hmmm . . .

Mr.
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 14, 2022 8:39 am

Because the MRNA based products (Moderna, Pfizer, Astra Zenica) did not stop people from contracting or transmitting COVID.

The pharma companies never claimed these products would.

So, not “vaccines” providing “immunization” at all.
Just treatments of symptoms.
Those false claims were being made by Fauci, Biden, Trudeau and their ilk.

While all the time knowing or keeping deliberately uninformed.

Graham
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 14, 2022 4:42 am

Rod,
The UN has many problems and the UNIPCC is the biggest problem as the unproven threat of rising CO2 levels has now been blamed for our weather .
It does not matter if it is a drought or a flood or heat wave or a polar vortex it is al caused by CO2 .
Well thats the story that David Attenborough keeps telling millions around the world .
He never tells about the droughts and floods ,hurricanes and storms that the world has endured in former times .

The UN made it very clear that governments should not undertake measures to reduce green house gas emissions that could affect food production .

Unfortunately many governments are ignoring this advice and if politicians do not wake up very soon many people around the world will be very short of food .
Of course politicians will blame the war in Ukraine but they ignore what is happening right around the world .
Food to feed 8 billion people needs energy and fertilizer and a lot of machinery .The food once grown and processed has to be shipped around the world.
Ocean freight rates had increased by 600% .Urea and other nitrogen fertilizers have increased by 300% .Fuel for tractors and trucks has nearly doubled in price.
Some of these price increases have been caused by Covid but the war on fossil fuels is starting to bite . So many products are made from oil so the shortage and expense feeds into nearly every item that is manufactured .
I have been an optimist all of my life but I cannot see how the world will feed its 8 billion people unless some major changes are made .
Farmers cannot produce food unless they can cover their costs .
If the prices offered do not cover expenses it is a futile exercise .They reduce spending and produce less to lose less cash and wait for a year to see if prices offered cover production costs with a little left over to live on .

rxc
Reply to  Graham
July 14, 2022 6:56 am

When the farmers stop producing at the specified levels, the word will be sent out:

To Penza

To Comrades Kuraev, Bosh, Minkin and other Penza communists.

 Comrades! The uprising by the five kulak volosts must be mercilessly suppressed. The interest of the entire revolution demands this, for we are now facing everywhere the “final decisive battle” with the kulaks. We need to set an example.

1.  You need to hang (hang without fail, so that the people see) no fewer than 100 of the
   notorious kulaks, the rich and the bloodsuckers.
2.  Publish their names.
3.  Take all their grain from them.
4.  Appoint the hostages — in accordance with yesterday’s telegram.

This needs to be done in such a way that the people for hundreds of versts around will see, tremble, know and shout: they are throttling and will throttle the bloodsucking kulaks.

Telegraph us concerning receipt and implementation.
Yours, Lenin.
PS. Find tougher people

MarkH
July 13, 2022 11:48 pm

It is always important to remember, anyone trying to put you in a state of fear is trying to control you. It doesn’t matter what the source of the fear is, whether it is the “Climate Emergency” or COVID or the war in Ukraine, etc, you are being controlled. That does not necessarily mean that the message is incorrect, but if there is a theme of fear involved, it is well advised to stop, look at the evidence and search for any contrary or falsifying evidence, use your own judgement, intelligence and intuition to determine what is actually happening, or to at least determine that whether the message of fear is something to take note of, or whether it is someone or some group attempting to control the behavior of large numbers of people.

Why intuition?
Rational analyses are primarily processed in the left side of the brain, this is the predator brain, which is optimised to focus intently on specific objects but is not well suited to analysing complex systems. Whereas the right side of the brain is better at taking in a broad view of the environment and understanding the flows and movements in it, this is the prey brain. But, the right side of the brain does not often penetrate into our conscious mind. The modern world is hugely left brain oriented, which may be why things are going so pear shaped throughout the world.

John Garrett
Reply to  MarkH
July 14, 2022 4:00 am

Michael R. Bloomberg’s contribution to the increase and diffusion of knowledge ( /sarc ):

(Bloomberg) Europe Is Frying in Devastating Heat, Yet Is Burning More Coal
(Bloomberg) Saudi Arabia Proves Too Big to Snub for a Desperate Biden
Biden wants to ostracize Saudi Arabia over human rights. That was before the price of oil hit the US economy…

Last edited 26 days ago by John Garrett
Scissor
Reply to  MarkH
July 14, 2022 5:18 am

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Scissor
July 15, 2022 7:51 am

NYC Emergency Management forgot Step #4, the most critical one:

Bend over and kiss your a$$ goodbye.

No charge for this correction.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkH
July 14, 2022 7:00 am

In other words, as summed up nicely long ago:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
—H.L. Mencken

Peta of Newark
July 14, 2022 12:42 am

To: JIm Steele, Greta Thunberg, David Attenborough

Here attached is a picture of Hope. It is in fact, humanity’s only hope.
No, it is not = coal – strangely enough though it does seriously resemble

It is ‘fertiliser’
No, scrub that, it’s not fertiliser

It is Plant Food
The sooner a lot of folks realise that, that ‘Plants Eat Rocks‘ the better.
Start by educating the current ‘crop’ of farmers instead of demonising everything they do

Everything in this world is wrong, big thanks to the above mentioned for propagating junk, misinformation and Cause/Effect errors.
The Very First Thing to put right is just that, that all the plants on this planet are starving and so are we. Physically but especially mentally.
Simply feed the plants and everything, I really do mean that, everything will fall into place

and its not as if there’s any shortage of that stuff

edit to PS
Check out the analysis of that stuff and everywhere will tell you that is contains a lot of Magnesium.
Three points arising:

  1. Magnesium is an absolute requirement for the synthesis of Chlorophyll
  2. Magnesium, 2nd only to Sodium, is THE most important neurotransmitter within us and probably all critters that have nervous systems.(Nerve cells and brain cells are identical. (Our own heart contains 40,000 neurons. (What are they doing there, trying to prevent heart attacks by any remote chance?)
  3. Anything between 25% and 75% of the US population are clinically deficient in Magnesium. Some more so than others, Andrew Dessler are you listening?

Now go figure

Fertiliser.PNG
Last edited 26 days ago by Peta of Newark
griff
July 14, 2022 12:49 am

That’s Sir David to you Jim….

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 1:25 am

Is that the same Sir David Attenborough who tried to convince a gullible public, that tumbling walrus falling of cliffs was due to Climate Change rather than the group of Polar Bears herding them?

GICASI
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 1:26 am

Only if you believe in the now discredited British ‘honours’ system. A bit like calling a professor by his title when outside the faculty – I know I don’t. Oh, while on this rant the only doctors I address as ‘Doctor’ are medical ones. The rest, as per professor.

MarkW
Reply to  GICASI
July 14, 2022 8:39 am

Then there’s Dr. Jill.

Derg
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 1:34 am

Why?

LdB
Reply to  Derg
July 14, 2022 2:58 am

To Brits it has some status … not so much elsewhere.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 2:46 am

“Prince” Andrew?

Prince of what? Pedo?

Disputin
Reply to  HotScot
July 14, 2022 5:11 am

Got any proof? And I don’t mean some little attention-seekers lawyer-prompted allegations.

Last edited 26 days ago by Disputin
mkelly
Reply to  Disputin
July 14, 2022 6:07 am

Isn’t there a picture of the prince embracing the under age girl?

Leo Smith
Reply to  mkelly
July 14, 2022 8:21 am

No. Just a probably photoshopped image of her in the same frame as him looking pleased with herself

Richard Page
Reply to  mkelly
July 14, 2022 9:19 am

No. At the location in the picture (London) she was over the age of consent, as she was when she claimed it happened in Australia as well. In fact the only place she could have been underaged was the extremely dubious testimony of it happening somewhere in the USA. Which is the one and only reason that dubious testimony was included and the case heard in the USA – it would have been laughed out of court anywhere else.

HotScot
Reply to  Richard Page
July 15, 2022 5:43 pm

Why did Andrew scrounge up £12m allegedly to pay off a woman he couldn’t have raped because she wasn’t underage.

FFS Grow up.

HotScot
Reply to  Disputin
July 15, 2022 5:41 pm

£12m quid to pay off a woman who claimed he raped her is evidence enough for me.

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
July 15, 2022 5:45 pm

12m is cheap compared to lawyer’s fees, plus the likelihood of a jury deciding to screw the rich guy and give the sympathetic lady lots of money.

LdB
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 2:54 am

For many in Australia it would be “sir” while flipping them the bird because they support a republic.

Robert Hardy
Reply to  LdB
July 14, 2022 3:29 am

So do some Brits (support a republic). It’s likely to be many more when the present monarch dies and Nutty Charlie takes over.

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 3:30 am

Not in my book

Redge
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 5:23 am

Yep, Sir David is right up there in the illustrious ranks of Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile

And whilst Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile was a kiddie fiddler, Sir David wants to cull the population leaving just enough commoners to pander to the elites every whim

Last edited 26 days ago by Redge
rhs
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 5:37 am

That’s Mr. Steele to you, griff…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 5:42 am

Does the “Sir” make him untouchable? I think not.

mkelly
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 6:08 am

We whooped your a$$ in a war so we don’t have to say SIR if we don’t want to.

MarkW
Reply to  mkelly
July 14, 2022 8:42 am

Two wars actually. Then saved their asses in two more.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 9:24 am

Really? The revolution was won by the French fighting on behalf of the Americans (who had been losing up to that point) and the War of 1812, although started by the USA, basically ended in a draw. Apart from those 2 I have no idea what you could be talking about?

mkelly
Reply to  Richard Page
July 14, 2022 2:52 pm

I am saddened to learn that George Washington was a failure. That Andrew Jackson did not in fact beat the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

Woe is me.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Page
July 14, 2022 3:44 pm

Setting the merits of your arguments aside, wouldn’t Generals Gage and Cornwallis, et al. and General Washington and John Adams, et al. chuckle if they could hear their countrypersons, over 200 years later, still at it, hammer and tongs… .

I believe they are all together, now. And, given that I am right, I am sure that they are friends.

Last edited 26 days ago by Janice Moore
Leo Smith
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 8:20 am

Sir Jimmy Saville.
Sir Clive Sinclair
Sir Tony Blair
Sir James Crosby
Sir Fred Goodwin…
…all of them thieves con men, child molesters or war criminals

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 8:38 am

That’s Lord Monckton to you griff.

Mr.
Reply to  griff
July 14, 2022 8:46 am

Exercising your enthrallment with “Authority” again Griff?

Vuk
July 14, 2022 4:10 am

Aided by HRH in their quest to change the planet.
Explosive new book claims HRH has pushed ‘outright quackery’ over the past few decades https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10990553/Prince-Charles-Explosive-new-book

Last edited 26 days ago by Vuk
Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
July 14, 2022 9:26 am

That would not surprise me in the slightest – he has that slightly glazed look of the new age hippy crystal believer (or equivalent).

MarkW2
July 14, 2022 4:16 am

Talking of the BBC, they did make a programme exposing corruption and harassment at the United Nations very recently, which for those able to access it can be seen here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018ljw

This is the BBC doing what it should, which is to expose the truth about what is happening. Such a pity it can’t bring itself to do the same with other issues, such as climate change where it’s become little more than a propaganda machine.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW2
July 14, 2022 9:30 am

It’s a bit too ‘hit or miss’ on the investigative journalism front – the “SAS Death Squad” piece turned out to be a distortion of earlier investigations that failed to find any evidence but they tried to force a different outcome anyway. There is no real credibility to the beeb at all now.

RevJay4
July 14, 2022 5:47 am

Hmmm. Did “Sir” David step out of line with the current elite propaganda and have to be slapped back into place somehow? He is obviously no better than Greta or anyone else who has been shilling for the left for fame and fortune, on the climate issue or anything else which promotes fear as a reason to believe.
Accepting the job as a commentator for a promotion for any reason, is becoming a spokesperson for that cause or product. Whether operating with a script or not, he is branded as supporting that endeavor to influence the feeble minds of the sheeple.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 14, 2022 7:11 am

Over time, David Attenborough simply became too enamored with his sense of his world-importance . . . eventually reaching the point of engaging mouth before engaging brain.

Kinda like what happened to Greta Thunberg, although she started at a significantly lower IQ level.

Pity.

ResourceGuy
July 14, 2022 7:34 am

The narrator has run amuck.

Euro Slips Below Dollar as Europe’s Economic Fortunes SlumpThe euro selloff has intensified as investors gird for a Russian gas cutoff that many fear will drive the region into a recession. But unlike the last time the common currency was this weak 20 years ago, nobody is coming to its rescue.

MGC
July 14, 2022 8:14 am

Another sadly typical “bu bu bu bu climate has changed by natural influences before” excuse, used by Steele in order to disingenuously ignore the significant and likely costly current human influences on climate. This line of “reasoning” is kinda like claiming that humans having died of natural causes in the past is somehow “evidence” that no one is ever murdered now.

At around 5:17 in his video, Steele also shows the oft parroted by “skeptics” but incomplete and thus totally misleading Easterbrook graph of the Greenland Ice Core Temperature Reconstruction. It is incomplete because this ice core record actually ends at around 1850, not 2000. The graph contains essentially none of the anthropogenic warming trend since then, but tries to mislead viewers into imagining that it does. The warming trend in that region since 1850 is, on millennial timescales, both rapid and large (on the order of 2 degrees C thus far) and will continue apace for many decades more.

Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 10:30 am

I am so sorry that I didn’t communicate well enough to prevent your gross mis-understandings MGC. So let me clarify the video’s arguments.

  1. Rockstrum and Attenborough claim the Holocene was a stable Garden of Eden until humans started adding CO2. However all the scientifically documented Holocene natural disasters prove that was never the case and Rockstrum and Attenborough were selling a huge crock of alarmists’ shite.

It was never argued that because there were natural disasters before that rising CO2 cant have an effect. Such a false attribution by you suggests your beliefs are so fragile they cant stand the cognitive dissonance. So you you needed to fabricate a soothing narrative.

2.Attenborough claimed the Holocene has ended. The scientists have not made that determination, so again Attenborough lied.

3.Attenborough and Rockstrum argue modern civilization is being disrupted by exceeding a temperature boundary of +/-1C because that temperature boundary allowed civilizations to flourish during thee Holocene’s Garden of Eden. But they never mention that a multitude of Holocene civilization collapses were due to mega-droughts despite being with the the boundary. I believe the reason for their egregious omissions, and never mentioning droughts and that awesome destructive force of nature, is because without a trend in extreme dry and wet years, as shown in California data (attached) and elsewhere, droughts appear to be all natural. Thus mega-droughts don’t lend themselves to a climate crisis narrative that supports their desire for a world government and turn all power over to the UN Security Council.

4.The Easterbrook graph was presented for the sole purpose of showing how unstable the Meghalayan period has been, with large warm spikes superimposed on a cooling trend as mentioned in the video. It was never stated in anyway that it represented today’s temperature. It appears you are on such a hateful mission to smear skeptics, you reveal that you can’t even read a graph. Notice the X-axis says “Years before 2000 AD”, and the final number is 95. Any normal viewer could figure that mens the graph ends at about 1900. Thus your accusation that the graph is meant to “mislead viewers” is not only a dishonest attack but reflects your inability to read graphs.

5.I am so baffled by your gross misunderstanding that I must ask, do you also crave a global government MGC? Is that your purpose here?

blue oak drought reeconstruct.jpg
Last edited 26 days ago by Jim Steele
MarkW
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 14, 2022 1:17 pm

You didn’t miscommunicate, MGC as he usually does never bothered to actually read what you wrote. He came in with the goal of finding something, anything, to complain about.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 14, 2022 1:27 pm

re: “Notice the X-axis says “Years before 2000 AD” blah blah blah”

I’ve, of course, been fully aware of this all along. The way the Easterbrook x-axis is labelled, many folks, not looking carefully enough, could easily be misled into believing that the data does go all the way up to the year 2000, when in reality, it goes only to 1850. It doesn’t include the large and rapid temperature increase since 1850, nor does it include where temperatures are almost certainly going to be a few more decades from now (i.e. way beyond the top of that graph). It is still my view that the graph was purposely designed to mislead.

But more importantly, it also needs to be pointed out that the large temperature swings seen in that graph are for just one location in Greenland only. Proxy datasets from other locations worldwide demonstrate that historic temperatures on a global scale did not swing back and forth anywhere near as much as this graph suggests. More misrepresentation.

Thus I still see your handwaving as little more than attempts at generating excuses for why we should just pretend away significant and likely costly current human influences on climate.

Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:40 pm

Hmmm, So your non-answer to my question suggests you are indeed someone who pushes false climate crises to promote the need for a One World Government.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 14, 2022 6:27 pm

Your “question” was irrelevant to a discussion of scientific information, and was therefore ignored.

Meanwhile, you’ve ignored the fact that proxy datasets from other locations worldwide demonstrate that historic temperatures on a global scale did not swing back and forth anywhere near as much as that graph suggests. More misrepresentation.

Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 8:09 pm

ROTFLMAO

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 16, 2022 5:23 am

“proxy datasets from other locations worldwide demonstrate that historic temperatures on a global scale did not swing back and forth anywhere near as much as that graph suggests” remains true no matter how much Steele childishly wants to try to pretend otherwise.

Reply to  MGC
July 16, 2022 2:20 pm

This why MGC, you are known by everyone here to be a stupid dishonest slime ball. troll First, I never ever stated that dramatic changes in temperatures in the Arctic represent the same variability all over the glob. That is just another straw dog argument that you created because it gets you all turgid when you think you defeated your own straw man. So delusional!

Second, the dramatic Arctic temperature swings during Dangsaard-Oeschger events that ventilated subsurface heat and raised temperatures by 10C in a decade, was first presented by Rockstrum and Attenborough, not me.

Third despite the much greater variations in the Arctic, there still have been significant global temperature effects, recorded around the world, then and now due to Arcrtic heat ventilation. Thus making your comment more irrelevant stupidity.

Finally, the current Arctic warming that greatly biases the global average upwards, has been due to the ventilation of Arctic heat after changes in sub-freezing Siberian winds changed direction and pushed insulating sea ice out into the Atlantic. Arctic warming has not been due to CO2.

You really should learn some science. Perhaps go back to school and get your GED high school equivalency diploma. It might help you look less stupid.

Last edited 24 days ago by Jim Steele
MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 17, 2022 8:08 am

Typical handwaving Steelian excuses. And yet another round of the same tired old juvenile ad hominem attacks. It’s genuinely disgraceful.

re: “I never ever stated that dramatic changes in temperatures in the Arctic represent the same variability all over the glob [sic]”

With labels like “Roman Warming”, Minoan Warming”, etc, the graph infers that these dramatic changes were not isolated to the Arctic, as does your own commentary in the video.

re: “the current Arctic warming … has been due to the ventilation of Arctic heat after changes in sub-freezing Siberian winds changed direction and pushed insulating sea ice out into the Atlantic. Arctic warming has not been due to CO2.”

Got anything other than “because I say so” to back that up? No, I didn’t think so.

Steele blindly ignores the fact that CO2 creating greater warming influence in the Arctic than in other parts of the globe was predicted by Arrhenius over 125 years ago.

Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 9:32 am

ROTFLMAO You lie and fabricate straw men for the sole purpose of denigrating skeptics, then you cry when you are called out for what you are a stupid dishonest troll. We all see it.

It is everyone’s duty to call out such dishonesty that prevents good science debates. If you don’t want me to call you out for your dishonesty and stupidity, then try being honest and avoid handwaving about things you clearly don’t know..

But being the stupid dishonest troll that you are MGC, you think it is just my word on Arctic heating, but there are many peer-reviewed scientific papers demonstrating that Arctic ice loss was due shifting sub-freezig winds and that increased heat venting from open waters has been measured. Start with Rigor 2002 or Rigor 2004. And you would also know about the hundreds of papers discussing warm Atlantic water that intrudes into the Arctic and creates a layer of warm water capable of melting all the ice many times over. All that is due to dynamical heating via advection, NOT CO2.

But being a stupid troll slimeball that you are , instead you incessantly spastically hand-wave, “that CO2 has created greater warming influence in the Arctic” , but you trolls need to show those measurements , AFTER accounting for ventilating heat.

And if you were not so stupid and understood the first thing about radiative heat transfer, you would also know that very cold places like the Arctic emit the lowest amount of IR and therefore the least amount of back radiations. I suggest you look at the last excellent video “Media claims CO2 “traps heat”! A big lie or a big stupid ???”. It refers to studies that show CO2 ENHANCES cooling over Antarctica.

And if you were not such a dishonest slimeball troll you would also know the Roman Warm Period has been labeled as such by several scientists because the warming in the Arctic coincides with findings such as Roman coins from the one ice free region during the Roman Warm period that were then buried by thee Swiss Alps Schnidejoch glacier during the Little Ice Age.

God you are so stupid!

Last edited 23 days ago by Jim Steele
MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 17, 2022 12:16 pm

Yet another tragic episode of disgraceful ad hominem attacks from Steele. Doesn’t he realize how shamefully infantile they make him look?

re: “papers discussing warm Atlantic water that intrudes into the Arctic and creates a layer of warm water capable of melting all the ice many times over. All that is due to dynamical heating via advection, NOT CO2.”

Steele neglects that the Atlantic ocean water is getting warmer because of absorption of CO2 greenhouse effect heat.

And he just pretends away the fact that all the climate models, which of course include CO2 warming effect, predicted all this Arctic ice loss decades ago.

Pretend. Pretend. Pretend. That’s the “skeptical” way.

Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 1:46 pm

My God, does MGC’s stupidity know no bounds? Apparently not!

Yes, models predicted CO2 warming would melt Arctic ice, but in reality observations clearly show that it was sub-freezing winds that removed Arctic ice. But stupid trolls never let reality get in the way of their dishonest attacks! LOL

MGC regresses to more handwaving, never ever citing actual scientific research, but always whining, “Steele neglects that the Atlantic ocean water is getting warmer because of absorption of CO2 greenhouse effect heat”

But I never neglected that possibility, simply because it doesnt exist! This stupid dishonest slime ball troll ignores the undisputed consensus fact that greenhouse IR totally FAILS to penetrate more than a mere hundreth of a millimeter into the oceans, and that heat is quickly lost due to evaporation. In contrast, sunlight penetrates 100+ meters, not only warming the ocean but promoting the photosynthesis that enables the bountiful ocean biosphere.

Please MGC at least learn some basic science! You look so utterly stupid, but keep biting off your nose to save your face. I hope your mother doesn’t observe your disgraceful stupidity. I am sure she would be totally embarrassed.

I suggest you view “The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change pt 3 How La Nina Warms the World” video, or read its transcript. It discusses the inability of greenhouse IR to warm the oceans and links to scientific papers that demonstrate that truth.

MGC, perhaps tell your troll factory to at least send someone that is not so blatantly stupid, because you are making even the troll factory look bad.

Last edited 23 days ago by Jim Steele
MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 18, 2022 7:13 am

This would be funny were it not so tragic. Steele provided exactly the truly disgraceful “response” that was to be expected: another blind parroting of that tired old, laughably lame, utterly false “skeptical” excuse

“bu bu bu bu IR ocean warming ‘doesn’t exist’; greenhouse IR totally fails to penetrate more than a mere hundreth of a millimeter into the oceans”

Instead of blindly parroting this ludicrous pseudo-scientific handwaving fairy tale excuse that increasing IR “can’t” warm ocean waters, Steele should try doing the experiment himself … like fellow “skeptic” Roy Spencer did, in order to put this pseudo-scientific clap trap to bed:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

Not to mention that this experiment is also done routinely in many eating establishments that use IR heat lamps to keep food warm. These trivially simple “experiments” so clearly demonstrate the utter folly of this truly laughable “skeptical” excuse.

Steele should also review the published scientific literature on this topic, which explains the actual mechanism of ocean warming (despite the, yes, known fact that IR is absorbed only within the top few microns of the ocean’s surface):

The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

And lastly, we should also not forget that because increased greenhouse IR is also warming the air, simple thermal conduction and convection processes must also contribute to ocean warming.

Pretending that increasing greenhouse IR “can’t” warm the ocean waters, despite such obvious everyday evidence to the contrary, as well as published scientific research explanation, has to be the very epitome of willful self deception.

Easily refuted crackpot “arguments” like this one are the reason why the worldwide scientific community cannot take so-called “skeptics” like Jim Steele seriously.

Reply to  MGC
July 18, 2022 10:34 am

MGC’s dishonesty knows no bounds, nor does this trolls stupidity. Why does this stupid dishonest troll persists in his lies and distortions?

There is a total scientific consensus that IR does not penetrate any deeper than a micron, compared to sunlight’s penetration that penetrates 100+ meters. La Ninas are observed to store heat over 200 meters deep and expamd thee warm pool that then feeds and warms the world’s oceans with that heat. But stupid trolls think that warming oceans must be due to IR micron penetration, not sunlight. God how stupid can he be. LOL

In addition to wavelength depths being measured, biologist note the change in wavelengths used by seaweeds. As depths increase wavelengths in the red end of the spectrum are first to disappear.

As much as I respect Roy Spencer, his overly simple experiment that he blogged about had many uncontrolled variables that to his credit he admits could cause his observed warming. But stupid slime ball trolls ignore that honesty. For example, the coolers were covered in Saran wrap, thus preventing normal evaporation and convection, which also explained observed warming.

But MGC highlights just how extraordinary his stupidity is by comparing the warming of food via IR heat lamps as proof IR penetrates deeper than a micron. LOL

And I have previously discussed the paper The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation. They offered a desperate hypothesis to give credence to the bogus trope that IR is causing observed ocean warming, that truly does verge on crackpot, stating, the micron thick skin layer can warm the ocean by causing th skin layer to “adjust in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss.” Their hypothesis cant be measured because as they state “Such small changes in the average atmospheric infrared (IR) emission incident at the sea surface occurring over decades are not feasible to measure with currently available instruments.”

But stupid dishonest slime ball trolls are desperate to obfuscate

Last edited 22 days ago by Jim Steele
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 18, 2022 2:14 pm

It just occurred to me why MGC would make such an incredibly stupid claim that because infrared heat lamps warm food then CO2’s back radiation must heat the ocean. MGC is absolutely clueless about wavelengths and the science of radiative heating.

The sun emits IR at short wavelengths as do heat lamps. Very different than CO2! If MGC had a lick of scientific sense, the fact that heat lamps give off visible light should have been a tip off. The infrared wavelengths of CO2 are much longer and invisible. Even heaters that use long infrared wavelengths to heat saunas, with wavelengths that weakly approach CO2’s, they usually only emit 10 to 12 micron waveleengths, compared to CO2 15 microns. And that infrared heats the solid walls of the sauna, not a pool of water.

To put the energy differences between wavelengths into perspective, UV light that burns your skin and causes cancer encompasses wavelengths at about 0.4 microns or less. The wavelengths used by plants to photosynthesize range from blue at 0.42 to red at about 0.7 microns. Small wavelength difference has huge effecgts.

Infrared heat lamps for cooking and warming food, their wavelengths range around 1.4 and 5 microns. Thus the energy output of CO2 IR ranges from >10 to 3 times LESS than a food heat lamp. Additionally, as the energy weakens, its ability to penetrate the ocean rapidly decreases. 0.4 microns penetrate a 100+meters deeper than 15 microns.

A word of advice MGC. Just accept the fact you are incredibly stupid and do not know your science. When you keep talking about things you are absolutely clueless about, you only let people know just how dumb you are. Your idiocy attracts attention like a circus freak show! The only people more stupid than you would then be people who believe a single word you say.

TonyG
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 18, 2022 4:19 pm

It’s always slightly entertaining and somewhat educational following these exchanges. The contrast in demeanor and rhetorical styles is telling.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 19, 2022 8:18 am

Gee, which source of information would a rational person take as more credible? Carefully researched analysis published in the scientific literature, or the handwaving off-the-cuff say-so of a pseudo-scientific internet blogger?

Tough choice. Not.

I’ve looked to see if anyone has published anything in the scientific literature regarding an actual controlled experiment involving the warming of ocean water via IR absorption. Haven’t found anything yet. Roy Spencer’s crude backyard experiment, though likely correct in demonstrating that yes, of course IR warms water, is not definitive.

It seems that no one has bothered to do this experiment and publish the results. Apparently no one could ever have imagined that anyone would be foolish enough to pretend that IR “doesn’t” warm ocean water. They never counted on folks like Jim Steele!

I may do the experiment myself.

Reply to  MGC
July 19, 2022 10:14 am

ROTFLMAO MGC gets fully exposed as knowing nothing about wavelengths and IR heating when he argued heat lamps for food was evidence that IR heats the ocean.

To cover his enormous stupidity, this slime ball troll presents a bogus narrative that he’s reporting results from science “published in the scientific literature” vs ” handwaving off-the-cuff say-so of a pseudo-scientific internet blogger”

A far more knowledgeable blogger who easily exposes all of MGC’s lies and stupidity.

The reason there is NO published studies on IR heating the ocean is simple. IR only penetrates a micron or two, the depth of the skin surface layer. But there are many studies looking at solar heating and depth profiles. All those published have shown that heat flux out of the the boundary layer (that includes the minuscule skin surface layer IR cant penetrate beyond) is not only far greater than any IR warming, but also solar warming. The heat absorbed at the skin layer is quickly lost. It is only the deeper penetration of solar heating that warms the ocean.

For example, Ward (2006) Near-surface ocean temperature reported “the amount of shortwave radiation absorbed within the conductive boundary layer is insufficient to overcome the cooling from the sensible, latent, and longwave heat fluxes, which act immediately at the ocean-atmosphere interface. “

MGC doing a publishable experiment on IR heating of the ocean is hilarious, and just more hand-waving by stupid dishonest slimeball troll!

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 19, 2022 12:03 pm

Oh look. Yet another shameful display of egregious ad hominem attacks. So tragically juvenile, and so typical of Steele’s routinely disgraceful behavior.

re: “insufficient to overcome the cooling from the sensible, latent, and longwave heat fluxes”

The cooling flux need not be “overcome” in order for there to be a net warming effect. The cooling flux need only be reduced, which is exactly what Wong & Minnett (2018) state. Steele even alludes to a somewhat similar mechanism in his video describing how La Nina events act to create heat accumulation in the oceans.

A reduction in the cooling flux from the thermal skin layer due to increased IR is also what even simple common sense would dictate … common sense for anyone that is, who is not influenced, as is Steele, by pseudo-scientific ideological bias.

For Steele’s “no warming from IR” to be “correct”, one needs to assume that all of the IR energy impinging on the ocean’s surface is immediately released to the atmosphere. All of it. Anyone who knows anything at all about molecular kinetics knows that this assumption makes zero sense.

Reply to  MGC
July 19, 2022 12:15 pm

ROTFLMAO

To repeat MGC has been fully exposed as knowing absolutely nothing about wavelengths and IR heating of the ocean when he argued heat lamps for food was evidence that IR heats the ocean. Then hilariously calls all the scientific facts pseudoscience.

Sadly there is no cure for stupid, So MGC the troll tries to cover his ignorance with more worthless narratives, but who can believe such stupidity. He insults everyone who exposes his dishonest trolling then cries about be called exactly what he is, a stupid dishonest slime ball troll.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 19, 2022 5:09 pm

Notice that Steele made no attempt to counter the information just presented. And of course anyone, including Steele himself, knows exactly why: because he can’t. Especially when some of that information includes concepts that Steele has put forward himself. “Hoist by your own petard” is the phrase that comes to mind.

Instead of any rational response, all we see is just another example of Steele’s tragically typical “go-to” response when his pseudo-science is refuted: juvenile ad hominem attacks.

Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 2:40 pm

MGC, You are so Friggin brilliant! Clearly, labelling the axis “Years before 2000 AD” was clearly a devious maneuver by a skeptic to mislead every one, knowing so many would not be “looking carefully enough and easily be misled” and make them think that “Years before 2000 AD” meant data goes to 2022.

Clearly the troll factory has sent their best and brightest when they sent you here. You certainly are giving Griff heavy competition for stupidest troll!

Janice Moore
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 10:39 am

the significant and likely costly current human influences on climate

Prove it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 15, 2022 7:19 am

“Prove it” shuts the alarmists up every time. You never hear back from them after you say that. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 15, 2022 12:19 pm

Hi, Tom. Good to see you.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 16, 2022 11:07 am

[Over quota -mod]

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:16 pm

If climate has changed before, it is up to you to prove that the current changes are caused by CO2 and not whatever caused the previous claims.
Pointing to models that can’t even predict the past, is not proof.

There is no evidence to support your belief that CO2 is causing the weather to get worse. In fact despite your whines to the contrary, there is no evidence that weather is getting worse.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 6:20 pm

Same tired old willful, intentional ignorance of the evidence, over and over and over again. So tragically disgraceful.

DaveS
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 1:04 am

Nice piece of self-projection there.

MarkW
Reply to  DaveS
July 15, 2022 2:51 pm

It’s not like he’s got anything better.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 2:50 pm

Ah yes, the standard alarmist trope that the science agrees with them, and any data that doesn’t is by definition not science.

I’ve presented you with data over and over again, you just reject it because it doesn’t match what you want to believe.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 16, 2022 11:03 am

Ah yes, the standard “skeptical” trope, pretending that wildly obvious misrepresentations and deliberate distortions of the data are “science”.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 1:03 pm

And as usual, MGC can’t be actually bothered to refute anything.
Like most alarmists he actually believes that throwing insults is the approved way to win a debate.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 18, 2022 7:43 am

You’ve posted nothing to refute. Just handwaving gibberish.

Reply to  MGC
July 18, 2022 11:02 am

LOL MGC never refute and only bores us with his stupid handwaving gibberish. It just goes to prove what’s common knowledge, “Stupid liars always accuse others of what they themselves are doing.”

July 14, 2022 8:42 am

A new paper published online on July 11 provides for the first time a numerical proof using prior peer-reviewed research that global temperature records have been manipulated to erase a major cooling episode between 1962 and 1983. A new global dataset of measured Surface Solar Radiation (SSR) shows that 1960s were globally significantly warmer than the present. This fact invalidates the entire AGW narrative. For details, please see:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/07/11/ned-nikolov-does-a-surface-solar-radiation-dataset-expose-a-major-manipulation-of-global-temperature-records/

MGC
Reply to  Ned Nikolov, PhD
July 14, 2022 10:09 am

re: “1960s were globally significantly warmer than the present”

Such utterly ridiculous pseudo-scientific drivel. Rather than accept actual temperature measurements at thousands of locations worldwide, let’s instead just make up some handwaving gibberish and pretend that it is “science”.

Ned neglects the fact that the dataset of measured Surface Solar Radiation he speaks of records short wave solar surface radiation. It does not include long wave surface radiation due to the presence of greenhouse gases in the air. Ned’s “analysis”, which leaves out long wave radiation completely, is thus totally wrong and laughably ridiculous.

But what else is new. Just another typical episode of Ned Nikolov nonsense.

Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 12:55 pm

This is a delusional response, MGC! Read our paper before spewing nonsense here… It sounds like you are clueless about what drives the climate system. Did you graduate from High School yet?

Trick
Reply to  Ned Nikolov, PhD
July 14, 2022 1:24 pm

Dr. Ned, a link directly to your original published paper would enable interested readers to do so. 

MGC
Reply to  Ned Nikolov, PhD
July 14, 2022 6:18 pm

I read your “paper” at the link you posted. As stated before, you totally ignored long wave radiation. Your “results” are therefore completely worthless.

Ned Nikolov
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 10:13 pm

Like I said, go get your High School diploma before engaging in science discussions. Apparently, you don’t know that the LW radiation is driven (caused) by the absorbed solar radiation. There will be no LW radiation in the atmosphere without the Sun’s input. The so-called “greenhouse gases” are NOT an energy source! You seem to thinks that they are, which is why you need to go back to school, MGC. 🙂

MGC
Reply to  Ned Nikolov
July 15, 2022 8:06 pm

Greenhouse gases are not, of course, an actual energy “source”. And no one is claiming any such thing, as Nikolov so falsely pretends.

This utterly ridiculous Nikolov misrepresentation only further demonstrates the complete intellectual bankruptcy of his claims.

Reply to  MGC
July 16, 2022 3:08 am

Nikolov, Ignore MGC! To be kind, (He, she or) It is a dishonest, stupid slime ball troll. Clearly, its statement that you ignored long wave radiation reveals just how stupid or dishonest or both it is to have any credibility. Any honest person reading your paper knows you totally accounted for long wave radiation as you compared the 3.4 W/m2 of greenhouse forcing to the changes in solar surface radiation being absorbed by the earth to analyze net effects for changes in the earth energy source. MGC is too stupid and dishonest to understand any science whatsoever and is simply on a mission from the troll factory to mislead who ever is as stupid as it is with his word salads

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 16, 2022 5:19 am

Another round of sadly obtuse gibberish from Steele, along with the obligatory and immature ad hominem attacks that are a Steelian trademark.

In the “paper” under discussion here, Nikolov made no such comparison of greenhouse forcing to solar radiation changes, as Steele falsely claims. Clearly Steele has not even read the “paper” being discussed, yet he pompously pontificates about its contents anyway.

I’m not the one demonstrating stupidity here.

Reply to  MGC
July 16, 2022 10:18 am

ROTFLMAO. Will you lies ever stop MGC!

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 16, 2022 11:01 am

Nikolov’s fairy tales incorrectly “compare” short wave radiation at the surface with long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere. And he does all kinds of handwaving about short wave changes due to albedo, yet makes no account of long wave changes due to those same albedo changes. His “analysis” is a total joke.

And seriously, one has to be completely delusional to pretend that it was “much warmer” in the 1960s than now. Even simple proxy markers such as first and last frost dates, and plant hardiness zone changes, demonstrate unequivocally that there’s been a warming trend over the past six decades.

Yep, even plants and the soil they live in know that Nikolov’s claims are pure folly. Anyone believing or blindly supporting Nikolov’s nonsense (like Steele is doing) must therefore be, literally, “dumber than dirt”.

Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 6:07 pm

Here is onee more example if why MGC is a dishonest slime ball troll. 

MGC says, “Nikolov made no such comparison of greenhouse forcing to solar radiation changes, as Steele falsely claims. Clearly Steele has not even read the “paper” being discussed”

But for all honest skeptics the paper clearly stated a few times, for example “In terms of absolute values, this measured solar forcing is more than 2 times greater than the modeled (but never observed) radiative forcing of 3.74 W m-2 attributed to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration”

MGC is so disgusting and soooo stupid. He lies thinking no one ever checks up on him, to reveal just what a dishonest trolling slime ball he is!

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 18, 2022 7:28 am

Steele ignores (deliberately?) the fact that it was realized that the earlier statement was not completely correct and was thus modified in the post directly above. Typical.

It should not have been said that Nikolov “never” made this comparison. It should have been said that he never made a valid comparison.

Nikolov incorrectly “compared” short wave radiation at the surface with long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Anyone who knows anything about atmospheric physics knows this comparison is invalid and totally faulty.

Not to mention that one need not actually examine any of the details of Nikolov’s handwaving nonsense, but can simply dismiss it all right out-of-hand, because concrete evidence, such as simple proxy markers like first and last frost dates, first spring bloom dates, and plant hardiness zone changes, demonstrate unequivocally that there’s been a warming trend over the past six decades, completely refuting Nikolov’s pseudo-science fairy tales.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 1:24 pm

Since the energy that comes from the sun is in short wave radiation, it seems that your whines about not measuring long wave radiation is just another deperate attempt on your part to find something to complain about.

The only thing funnier than that, is your totally unscientific belief that a few thousand locations are sufficient to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. Especially since the vast, vast majority of those stations are located on the east and west coasts of the US and in central Europe.
The third world and the oceans are close enough to being unmeasured that the difference only matters to those who are attempting to mislead.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2022 5:54 pm

It is so tragicomical to watch so-called “skeptics” like MarkW talk out both sides of their mouths. They claim that temperature measurements at thousands of locations “aren’t sufficient” , yet they also make the (false) claim that they “know” the MWP was “warmer than today” on the basis of an order of magnitude or two less data points.

Zero consistency. Zero integrity. That’s the “skeptical” way.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 3:04 pm

It really is sad to watch MGC pretend that he has any idea what he is talking about.

First off there are hundreds of papers, from all over the world that show that the MWP as well as the other warm periods were all warmer than today.
Secondly the biggest problem with the temperature record are the problem with their distribution.

I haven’t even touched the well documented problems with site quality.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 7:59 pm

There are lots of papers that show certain local parts of the world sometimes being warmer than today at certain times. But the evidence does not show that the earth was globally warmer than now at all once.

Pretending otherwise only demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 1:00 pm

HUndreds of papers from all over the world showing that much of the world was warmer, to much warmer than today for most of the last 20,000 years.

One of these days you will learn how to think for yourself. It’s difficult, but even you should have the ability to do so.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 18, 2022 7:40 am

Yet another totally false “skeptical” talking point that has been spoon fed by pseudo-science propagandists to MarkW and then thoughtlessly parroted.

“One of these days you will learn how to think for yourself. It’s difficult, but even you should have the ability to do so.”

Marcott Temp Reconstruction.JPG
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 3:40 pm

“Rather than accept actual temperature measurements at thousands of locations worldwide, let’s instead just make up some handwaving gibberish and pretend that it is ‘science’.”

The facts are:

a) the majority of those “thousands of locations worldwide” are in urban areas and at the sites of airports, and

b) it is well documented that as city areas and airports have increased in geographical size and in motorized vehicle accommodation and in HVAC use over, say, the last fifty years, the extent and magnitude of the urban heat island (UHI) effect on temperature measurements has made the preponderance of the temperature-reporting stations read artificially high.

To the best of my knowledge, no person or organization has accurately calculated how much of claimed global warming over, say, the last 50 years is actually just a pure artifact of not correcting readings for UHI.

Accounting for UHI effects should be a major undertaking for the IPCC if they were the least bit interested in truth . . . that it is not speaks volumes as to the IPCC reliance on true “science”.

To his credit, Anthony Watts is at least investigating how problematic UHI may have become as regards US temperature-reporting stations across the US (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/24/participate-in-the-surfacestations-project-version-2/ ) . . . and he didn’t even request Federal funding under the guise of “climate change™” to undertake this noble effort.

MGC
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 14, 2022 6:12 pm

Really? The tired old UHI excuse? Again?

The part of the world that is warming the fastest is the Arctic. Yeah, it must be all those urban heat islands up in the middle of the Arctic Ocean making the results appear “artificially high”.

Not.

re: “To the best of my knowledge, no person or organization has accurately calculated how much of claimed global warming over, say, the last 50 years is actually just a pure artifact of not correcting readings for UHI.”

There’s little surprise that you’re not aware of the work done in this area, given that your go-to sources of “information” will not deliver anything counter to the “skeptical” political ideology. You give away your lack of knowledge with that “not correcting readings for UHI” false claim.

Such terribly flimsy “skeptical” excuses.

Graham
Reply to  MGC
July 14, 2022 10:54 pm

You really have swallowed the warmade MGC.
The Arctic has had very little ice many times in the worlds history.
Warm water from the tropics has melted the floating ice many times
Just look at the Antarctic ,record cold temperatures have been recorded recently and some scientists have got in a tangle over some volcanic heat around the sea board melting glaciers .
Volcanoes are not caused by rising CO2 but they can emit quite a lot of CO2
The world was warmer three times since the last ice age and the MWP was the last .
Some scientists deny this as it does not fit with their scary story .
They tried to say that the MWP only effected the Northern Hemisphere but they have had to back away from that as it has been well proven that it was world wide .
Just remember this .
There is no proof that rising CO2 levels will overheat the world .
It has been known for over 100 years that the effect of rising CO2 is logarithmic .That is a fact the first 100 pp million has so much effect and it takes 200 pp million more to warm by that much again and at 400 pp million at present the bandwidths are saturated as they are overlapped by water vapour which is far the main green house gas by many times .
The theory of global warming depends on the tropical hot spot .
How do you explain that the tropical hot spot has never been located .
If the tropical hotspot existed the satellites would soon identify it .
There is no climate crisis .
There will never be a climate crisis .
BUT the way some governments are acting to suppress the use of fossil fuel there will be a FOOD CRISIS if they carry on unchecked .

MGC
Reply to  Graham
July 15, 2022 6:43 am

Graham sadly parrots so many totally false talking points that routinely bounce around the so-called “skeptical” anti-science echo chamber:

“The Arctic has had very little ice many times in the worlds history.”

So what. Irrelevant to what is happening today.

“just look at the Antarctic ,record cold temperatures have been recorded recently and some scientists have got in a tangle over some volcanic heat around the sea board melting glaciers”

Your “skeptical” information sources never bothered to inform you that this “volcanic heat” influence is a hundred times smaller than the CO2 warming influence, now, did they? No, of course they didn’t.

“Volcanoes are not caused by rising CO2 but they can emit quite a lot of CO2”

Human emissions are a hundred times larger than the emissions of all the world’s volcanoes combined. Of course, your “skeptical” sources of information never told you this either.

“The world was warmer three times since the last ice age and the MWP was the last”

Patently false. Even the North Report, an inquiry conducted at the behest of congressional “skeptics”, rejected such a claim.

“It has been known for over 100 years that the effect of rising CO2 is logarithmic”

And of course this effect is taken into full account in all climate projections. But “skeptics” somehow want to pretend otherwise.

“The theory of global warming depends on the tropical hot spot”

Another falsehood. Warming from any effect, not just CO2, should in theory produce a tropical hot spot. The hot spot issues are a result of models not allocating well where the greenhouse warming goes, not an issue with greenhouse warming itself. There are other locations warming much more than models would project.

It’s just one false claim after another after another after another after another, over and over and over again.

Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 9:37 am

MGC must be suffering from severe depression as his canned replies here and elsewhere typically begin with “sadly”

He never ever proves CO2 has caused the recent warming because he cant, so he appeals to groupthink and misdirection.

What is guaranteed, every time MGC cant scientifically refute an argument he will call it “irrelevant”.

For example in the exchange:

“The Arctic has had very little ice many times in the worlds history.”

MGC gives his canned troll reply, “So what. Irrelevant to what is happening today.”

Clearly MGC has no scientific background whatsoever . Good science demands a controlled experiment that can be compared to an experiment testing a variable.

Since that cant be done in climate science we must instead analyze past natural climate changes in order to evaluate if CO2 is making a difference. So when natural climate change suggests a very small role for CO2 in our current climate changes, trolls will always rant “IRRELEVANT”. But these trolls are NEVER about finding the truth or engaging in a scientific discussion.

Why the troll factory keeps sending such transparently stupid unscientific fools like MGC and Griff to troll this site is one of life’s great mysteries.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 15, 2022 2:59 pm

You have to be self-aware before you can get depressed.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Steele
July 15, 2022 7:43 pm

Steele says: “natural climate change suggests a very small role for CO2 in our current climate changes”

Laughably ridiculous anti-science nonsense.

Atmospheric CO2 over the Past 66 Million Years from Marine Archives

“Through its effect on Earth’s radiation budget, atmospheric CO2 is a major contributor to climate change, both past and present (Arrhenius 1896, Lacis et al. 2010, Rohling et al. 2012).”

“Rapid carbon injection from volcanoes and/or organic carbon reservoirs has repeatedly driven episodes of ocean acidification and global warming (Gutjahr et al. 2017, Müller et al. 2020, Penman et al. 2014), often associated with mass extinctions ( Jurikova et al.
2020).”

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-earth-082420-063026

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 16, 2022 9:15 am

Quoting other people quoting junk science, even as far back as to Arrhenius in 1896, is no substitute to objectively considering facts and drawing logical conclusions therefrom.

Period.

MGC
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 16, 2022 10:45 am

One has to be truly delusional to pretend that Arrhenius 1896, etc. is “junk science”.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 16, 2022 2:37 pm

Oh, sorry. Didn’t I make it perfectly clear? I am not at all pretending that Arrhenius [1896] created junk science in his calculations of CO2 creating “global warming”, I am stating it as a CERTAIN FACT!

In his 1896 publication expanding on the work of John Tyndall who identified the three major greenhouses gases, Svante Arrhenius warned that if the then current atmospheric CO2 level increased by 50%, the planet would experience a warming of between 5 and 6 °C. (ref: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/leading-figures/svante-arrhenius-the-man-who-foresaw-climate-change/ )

As brilliant a scientist as he was, Arrhenius ran off the rails scientifically with his calculations, although this was not totally his fault . . . he was using the limited scientific knowledge available in his day.

FACT: atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 1895 was about 295 ppm (ref: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5 ). Today, the CO2 level is about 420 ppm. That represents a concentration increase of 42%, not that far from Arrhenius’ postulated 50%.

FACT: with respect to the 20th century average, the average global temperature anomaly for 1891 thru 1900 was about -0.21 °C, whereas for 2012 thru 2021 the average global temperature anomaly was about the +0.84 °C (ref: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/ ). That is an average total global temperature change of 1.05 °C, greatly below Arrhenius’s predicted 5-6 °C swing, even considering the 42% actual-vs-50% postulated difference in atmospheric CO2 change.

While Arrhenius could do the hand-calculation-intensive math to arrive at CO2’s LWIR absorption as an isolated gas, he had no way of knowing about the overlapping LWIR absorption bands of the predominate greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere, water vapor.

Ground-based spectroscopy of Earth’s atmospheric gases, to the extent needed to characterize and compare absorption bands over the IR to LWIR portion of the EM spectrum simply did not exist in Arrhenius’ day, being subsequently developed by scientists in the early 1900’s.

Moreover, it was not until the discovery and use of quantum mechanics that physicists were able to accurately calculate any gas’ radiation absorption lines as functions of their temperatures and pressures in a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of mixed gases.

Now, you were saying something about being “truly delusional” . . .

Last edited 24 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
MGC
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 17, 2022 7:40 am

Gordon, thanks for such a classic demonstration of why you so-called “skeptics” are not taken seriously.

Your comparison “average total global temperature change of 1.05 °C, greatly below Arrhenius’s predicted 5-6 °C swing” is tragically flawed, for two glaring reasons:

1- your reference which claims that Arrhenius had estimated 5-6 degrees warming for a 50% CO2 increase is wrong. That 5-6 degrees warming is for a doubling of CO2, not a 50% increase (see Table VII, p.266 of the original Arrhenius 1896 publication).

2- The warming from the 42% CO2 increase from 1896 to now is not yet complete. Even if somehow we immediately stopped all CO2 emissions this very moment, more warming is still going to occur in coming decades from the CO2 already emitted.

Here’s a summary of a rational look at the Arrhenius research:

1- He was the first to correctly deduce the very idea that human CO2 emissions would alter the planet’s temperature. That all by itself is a major achievement.

2- He correctly deduced that there will be an amplifying warming feedback, beyond just the CO2 influence, from water vapor changes.

3- Despite having no access to modern spectroscopy, he correctly calculated a reasonable first pass order of magnitude estimate for the overall warming influence. 5-6 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 is not too far from current estimates of 2-4 degrees C.

4- He also correctly calculated that the warming influence would be at its minimum at the equator and would increase as one moves toward higher latitudes, and that the warming effect would be larger in the winter than in the summer. Observations have confirmed both of those projections.

To get all of these things right, on the basis of only laborious hand calculations, and without the benefit of modern spectroscopy, is in reality a truly astounding scientific achievement. Yet here you are, pretending, yes pretending, on the basis of laughably incompetent blunders no less, that this was “junk science”. Unbelievable.

In reality, the only “junk science” here is your own juvenile ankle biting nay-saying. So shamefully disgraceful.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 9:40 am

Your fundamental mistake is continuing to assume that CO2 creates global warming. There is simply no scientific proof of this. None.

As has been said many times: correlation does not equal causation.

Oh, BTW, your ad hominem attacks allow all WUWT readers to see the insightful wisdom of Socrates, who said:
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

Last edited 23 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
MGC
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 17, 2022 10:15 am

Yet another infantile “Nuh Uh because I say so” type of response.

“There is simply no scientific proof of this. None” is nothing but pure head-in-the-sand nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence. You even quoted some of it yourself.

Pretending otherwise is nothing but willful self deception.

Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 10:22 am

People on both sides constantly misuse and conflate the terms proof and evidence.

There is tons of evidence on both sides of this debate. There is no proof on either side.

I’m not sure proof even exists outside of pure mathematics, or symbolic logic.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Charles Rotter
July 17, 2022 11:51 am

Charles,

Your comments are spot on, and I agree with them in general. As is a court of law, evidence supports “proof” but is not a substitute for it.

However, I would also add—as many others have already pointed out—that it is impossible to prove a negative.

For clarification, I used the term “proof” in the context of:
A scientific “proof” is a conclusive deduction that is generally accepted beyond reasonable doubt by most professionals practicing in the relevant field of science, based on both a solid mathematical basis and experimental data that is uniformly consistent with, but not contrary to, that deduction.”

Against this, here are just a few examples I would offer for physical relationships that have been “proven” per my above definition:

— Netwon’s theory of gravitational attraction for masses traveling at non-relativist velocities with respect to the speed of light (F = G*M*m/r^2)

— Einstein’s theory that mass can distort geodesics in spacetime

— Einstein’s theory that mass and energy are interchangeable by the equation E=m*c^2

— Einstein’s theory that at velocities approaching the speed of light relative to an observer, the moving object’s experiences actual mass increase and time dilation effects exactly as mathematically predicted.

Of course, the above are all in the context of the “world” as experienced at human-scale; not at the level where quantum theory/quantum dynamics dominates.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 5:35 pm

.

Last edited 23 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 5:45 pm

I don’t know why I bother feeding the troll that he is, but here is the most glaring revelation of MGC’s totally false statements . . . to wit his response given above to me stating:
“1- your reference which claims that Arrhenius had estimated 5-6 degrees warming for a 50% CO2 increase is wrong. That 5-6 degrees warming is for a doubling of CO2, not a 50% increase (see Table VII, p.266 of the original Arrhenius 1896 publication).”

Sounds like it might be credible, right? WRONG!

In fact Arrhenius’ complete April 1896 paper “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” can be read and downloaded here:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

I’ve taken the opportunity to copy and attach Table VII, p.266 from that paper that MGC said established an Arrhenius claim of “5-6 degrees warming is for a doubling of CO2”.

As anyone can clearly see, that Table VII refers to carbonic acid, not CO2. There is a distinct difference between these two chemical compounds . . . a high school chemistry student would recognize the difference. Carbonic acid has NEVER been mentioned as being a greenhouse gas.

I can only guess that MGC was so sophomoric in his post as to assume that nobody would do a “fact check” on him. He was wrong . . . again.

Therefore, I once again find no need whatsoever to respond to the rest of his unscientific, irrational rant.

Arrhenius_1896_TableVII.jpg
Last edited 23 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 17, 2022 11:34 pm

Also, I observe that both the title of Arrhenius’ 1896 publication “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” and the title of its Table VII “Variation of Temperature Caused by a Given Variation of Carbonic Acid” (copy of said table provided in my post above) are ample evidence of my assertion, upthread, that Arrhenius was actually promoting the equivalent of “junk science” regarding earth warming due to the concentration of certain atmospheric gases.

Here is the verbatim text from Arrhenius referencing his Table VII:
“By means of these value, I have calculated the mean alteration of temperature that would follow if the quantity of carbonic acid varied from its present mean value (K=1) to another, viz. to K=0.67, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 respectively. This calculation is made for every tenth parallel, and, separately for the four seasons of the year. The variation is given in Table VII.”

The Arrhenius publication in question discusses only effects of “water-vapour” (“aqueous vapour”) and carbonic acid (H2CO3) in Earth’s atmosphere; there is not a single mention of carbon dioxide (CO2)!

It is amazing that so many people, such as MGC, assert that this specific publication by Arrhenius shows his calculation for how atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing by 50%, or even doubling, creates “x” °C of warming of the surface of the Earth . . . it does no such thing. Clearly, so many people have not even bothered to read Arrhenius’ article!

Last edited 22 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
MGC
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 18, 2022 6:56 am

It’s so comical seeing Gordon insert both feet firmly in his mouth.

What we now call carbon dioxide or CO2 was called carbonic acid by Arrhenius back in the 19th century. If Gordon had bothered to actually read the rest of the paper, he would see how obvious it is that Arrhenius was in fact talking about what we now call CO2. Moreover, what we now call carbonic acid is merely the product of CO2 dissolved in water.

Why do so called “skeptics” like Gordon imagine that they should be taken seriously, when they so routinely demonstrate that they have no idea what they are talking about?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 18, 2022 9:27 am

I am not at all surprised to see that MGC has bought into sophomoric, revisionist history hook, line and sinker.

Many people have attempted to explain away Arrhenius’ term of “carbonic acid” in his 1986 publication as actually meaning CO2 gas because “that was the convention of the day.” There is almost no direct support for this.

It is true that around the beginning of the 20th century, chemists were using the term “carbonic acid gas” as being equivalent to carbon dioxide, because the decomposition of carbonic acid did indeed produce this gas.

But CO2 was known to exist independently as a gas since its discovery by Joseph Black, in the 1750s.

However, Arrhenius does not use the term “carbonic acid gas” or “carbon dioxide” . . . he specifically uses the term “carbonic acid”.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction#Arrhenius_theory ,
here is Arrhenius’ own contribution to the definition of “acid” in chemical terms and his specific definition of such:
“The first modern definition of acids and bases in molecular terms was devised by Svante Arrhenius. A hydrogen theory of acids, it followed from his 1884 work with Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald in establishing the presence of ions in aqueous solution and led to Arrhenius receiving the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1903.
As defined by Arrhenius:
‘an Arrhenius acid is a substance that dissociates in water to form hydrogen ions (H+); that is, an acid increases the concentration of H+ ions in an aqueous solution’.
This causes the protonation of water, or the creation of the hydronium (H3O+) ion.”

So, in his 1896 publication about the effect of atmospheric carbonic acid, Arrhenius was well aware of the distinction between carbonic acid (which by his own definition would require the presence of hydrogen in the substance in question) and carbon dioxide (which has no hydrogen in its molecular structure).

It certainly appears that Arrhenius made the incorrect assumption that all CO2 in the atmosphere would react, in very short time periods, with plentifully-available water vapor to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), which is consistent with his definition that an “acid” contains hydrogen. There is no reason to believe that Arrhenius was not aware of difference between carbonic acid and carbon dioxide.

P.S. I grow tired of having to post these seemingly never-ending corrections to MGC’s lack of knowledge of pertinent subject matter. Therefore, there is no need of further discourse between us.

MGC
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 19, 2022 5:09 am

Gordon’s comedy routine continues, still grasping at the laughably flimsiest of straws in order to somehow try to “make” his already catastrophically failed “case”.

On p. 269, Arrhenius mentions a scenario where “carbonic acid in the air reaches .03 volume percent, this number represents .045 weight percent.” This is the correct volume-to-weight ratio for CO2. If he were meaning H2CO3 carbonic acid, the volume-to-weight ratio would be .03 to .064.

And on p. 261, in speaking about the “absorptive power of carbonic acid”, Arrhenius specifically refers to “the absorption-bands of CO2”.

Direct evidence, straight from the source, clearly identifying CO2 as the subject of the paper, not H2CO3. Check and mate, son.

The kind of “argument” seen here from Gordon is yet another typical textbook example of why so-called “skeptics” are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community.

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 2:58 pm

So what. Irrelevant to what is happening today.

Prove that whatever caused the previous warmings is not causing the current warming. That’s how science works.
BTW, the current warming started 100 years prior to the big increase is CO2.

Your “skeptical” information sources never bothered to inform you that this “volcanic heat” influence is a hundred times smaller than the CO2 warming influence, now, did they? No, of course they didn’t.

So, at the place where the glaciers are being melted by volcanoes, the affect of CO2 is hundred times greater than the volcanoes? I’d love to see you explain how CO2 manages to concentrate all it’s impact on that one point of the planet.

Patently false.

100% true, as demonstrated by hundreds of papers.

And of course this effect is taken into full account in all climate projections. 

That’s the claim, however the fact still remains that the models are incapable of providing hind casts and their “projections” have proven to be 2 to 3 times greater than what actually happened.

The hot spot issues are a result of models not allocating well where the greenhouse warming goes, not an issue with greenhouse warming itself. 

The models are wrong, but they are still right And to think you actually claim to know science.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2022 7:52 pm

Yet another woefully blind parroting of so many known-to-be-false talking points that bounce routinely around the so-called “skeptical” echo chamber. Some examples:

MarkW still continues to pretend that the hockey stick historic climate reconstruction is “wrong” despite the fact that even an inquiry conducted at the behest of congressional skeptics found no such thing.

re: “projections have proven to be 2 to 3 times greater than what actually happened.”

It’s hard to believe how many times this totally false claim keeps being blindly parroted. Here’s reality:

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Climate models reliably project future conditions
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model ProjectionsGeophysical Research Letters Oct 2019

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”

MarkW
Reply to  MGC
July 17, 2022 1:01 pm

It really does amaze me how hard people work to excuse the many and well documented flaws in the climate models.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graham
July 15, 2022 7:26 am

“Just remember this .
There is no proof that rising CO2 levels will overheat the world .”

There it is: The Bottom Line.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 16, 2022 5:08 am

There is clear evidence that rising CO2 levels are warming the world in ways that present significant and costly risks to human societies worldwide. So-called “skeptics” pretend otherwise.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MGC
July 15, 2022 7:10 am

Got any facts to go with that rant?

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 15, 2022 3:00 pm

THere’s a first time for everything.

JamesD
July 14, 2022 9:08 am

The drought is also caused by La Nina and mainly impacts California, Texas, and Oklahoma. Expect cotton prices to rise. During the next El Nino, the california reservoirs will return to 100% level. Remember the Orville Dam?

H.R.
July 14, 2022 4:56 pm

“David Attenborough Distorts the Science and Shills for “The Globalist Agenda””

And that’s a surprise from our more-than-comfortably-well-off David Attenborough exactly how?

I’m sorry, but the old geezer is a Climate Porn Whore. No other way to say it.

There is a big pile of $$$$ to be made if you possess a mellifluous voice hinting of posh-toff gravitas.

You can’t take it with you, David, and your heirs will spend it all on trying to stay fed and warm, and armed guards.

Anthony
July 15, 2022 5:10 am

David Attenborough is just an actor who does voice overs

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony
July 15, 2022 5:49 pm

Since all he does is voice overs, there really is no need for him to accompany the camera men to these exotic places. It’s a complete waste of money and fuel to fly him to all these exotic places. If he really cared about the planet, he would do his voice overs in a sound studio back in London.

Athelstan.
July 17, 2022 1:02 am

The born again green eco mentalist and attenboro is about as believable, as his films are truthful.

%d bloggers like this: