There are particular fields in which those that stray from the official narrative are instantly shunned as dissidents. Climate change is one of these. Dr Judith Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has become known as one of the outspoken scientists who doubt the “scientific consensus” on climate change. As a result, she was “academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable”. However, this didn’t slow down the bold climatologist.
BizNews spoke to Curry about her views on climate change and the impact that human beings have had on the planet. A delightfully fascinating discussion ensued in which Curry explained her objection to the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers” and how far reality really is from the grim picture painted by environmental activists. Curry made sense of recent extreme weather events and indicated that “Earth has survived far bigger insults than what human beings are doing”. An eye-opening interview.
“Earth has survived far bigger insults than what human beings are doing”.
Faint human being praise indeed….
Our existential habitat deserves a presence no different to any other. But not controlled by alarmists.
What the heck does “deserves a presence no different to any other” mean?
Making other “habitats” is a challenge humans have sucessfully been doing for at least thousands of years. They may have somewhat damaged places they have lived but the knowledge to avoid that damage has also been growing. The biggest difficulty there is identifying real requirements from ideological and religious fantasy. Moving into still more extreme “habitats”, such as those under water and off the planet, to great general advantage, are most likely doable if not quashed by the greedy and stupid.
More like 4 or 5 thousand years.
There is evidence of cities going back at least 3X that far
Every human development has returned to nature very quickly after humans abandon the development.
No permanent harm by humans ever, period.
No permanent harm by humans ever, period.
Watch a few episodes of “Life After People” and you’ll get a really good idea how little “permanent damage” humans do to the environment.
All living creatures create their own habitat.
Humans have released some accidentally sequestered CO2, and that has brought the Carbon Cycle back to life.
Vostok cores show how tenuous plant existant has been for a long time… starvation rations.
Now they can breathe.. Now they can grow. 🙂
What’s not to like.
Well done humans !!
The climatistas imply that a trivial increase in temperature will pretty much destroy the planet so Dr. Curry is right on.
No one suggests there is no room for improvement.
For those advocating collective suicide in response to manufactured alarm, I again request they show us the way.
Net zero means at least a 50% reduction in humans, we need to begin with volunteers
I asked Judith Curry what her prediction was regarding Earth’s temperature earlier and this is what she said:
Judith and I are close on this prediction. I predicted moderate cooling starting circa 2020 but I have no opinion on a Grand Solar Minimum.
I published on September 1, 2002 in the Calgary Herald, based on a conversation with Dr Tim Patterson:
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
In 2013, I published that this cooling would probably start by 2020. Some say cooling started in Feb2016 but I think moderate cooling (like ~1940-1977) started in Feb2020.
“I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
This cooling will cause localized extreme cold events (like Texas Feb2021) which should not be a problem, except that electrical grids have been compromised by intermittent, diffuse green energy schemes that we knew would not work adequately, as is now obvious in Britain and Germany.
See CorrectPredictions.ca and my papers listed therein for proofs. Here is my current climate-and-energy concern.
THE BIG CULL OF THE ELDERLY OF EUROPE WILL HAPPEN THIS WINTER
By Allan MacRae, 28July2022
The counter-arguments are:
· The Global Warming-and-Green-Energy narrative is a fifty-year-old fraud, which we published was false nonsense in 2002. Others including the eminent Richard Lindzen at MIT were publicly doubting the global warming falsehoods in the 1990’s. The warmist arguments were never credible, not even remotely so – they were always scary fictions with no basis in science.
· Uncommon sense says that no rational individual or group could be this wrong, this incredibly obtuse, for this long – the warmists knew they were lying from the start. They promoted their scary CAGW narrative for financial and political gain – “wolves stampeding the sheep”.
The big cull of the elderly of Europe will happen this winter – we predicted it in 2002 and 2013 – it was all terribly costly – in dollars and lives – and all entirely avoidable – a willful squandering of the lives of innocents. Crimes against humanity.
Glad I no longer live in Europe. Germany and the UK are likely to be hit especially hard! But will the lying MSM report the facts?
Europe? The cull is happening here in the US if one heats with oil. 6 bucks a gallon and I have no idea how I’m going to pay for it this winter.
The same applies to electrical heating, even here without a big “green” presence; we can’t be isolated from the madness. Electric blankets and heating pads can help considerably but having the house actually comfortable seems beyond possible.
The NE USA heats with oil because of nonsensical green opposition to natural gas pipelines. The greens have one objective and it’s not green – it’s to hurt you and your family.
The greens cite “the science” but their science is wrong.
The greens cite “the environment” but their actions are anti-environmental.
The greens are expert at using Lenin’s propaganda tactics to sabotage our economies.
If it was up to me, I would try them for treason and build them a special prison on Baffin Island – heated with wind and solar power.
They won’t be able to completely ignore a large number of deaths.
However they will blame the code weather on climate change and the high energy costs on greedy power companies, with the only solution being the turning over of the entire industry to government management.
Governments generally ride their surfboard on a sea of other market economies, and claim credit for the waves they are riding and are planning to ride.
The MSM will say the problem isn’t fast enough switch to sun/wind.
Alan.
A bad winter usually cures the silly agw’s But it is not the sun. This time. Last year EU and USA were saved from a bad winter due to Tonga. I hear rumblings again coming from somewhere east of Hawaii.
Bad winter will come only when Eddy comes to an end.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/08/02/global-warming-how-and-where/
I read your paper – interesting – thank you.
Low solar activity allows strong deviations in the Polar Vortex that create localized cold crises like Texas Feb2021.
Allan, according to my various calculations, with the relevant solar cycle, from 2013/2014 to 2037, we are more or less where we were from 1927 to 1950. It means we are now right in the middle of the dust bowl drought. Although it definitely is drier now, at the higher latitudes, it is apparently not as bad as we had it during the dust bowl drought.
It means that Happer and them are right, when they say that more CO2 also has the effect of making plants and crops more drought resistant.
What a blessing more CO2 is. But ja. The devil is with them who say that CO2 is a demon.
As far as bad winters is concerned, it is impossible to say what is going to happen because of more volcanic activity.
Thank you Henry for your comments. My past work indicates that only major volcanoes that reach the stratosphere have a significant impact on climate – Pinatubo minus ~0.5C for ~5 years. Have not assessed your recent volcanoes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/25/there-is-no-climate-emergency-1107-signatories-and-counting/#comment-3587019
[excerpt]
Major volcanoes (some VEI5 eruptions like El Chichon 1982 and most VEI6 events like Pinatubo 1991+) cause significant (~0.5C) global cooling in the atmosphere and some in the oceans as well – but industrial emissions and smaller volcanoes don’t have much impact. Even Mt. St. Helens (VEI5, 1980) did not have much cooling impact because it blew mostly sideways, not up into the stratosphere.
Allan
with all respect, and I am sure you could be right as far as volcanoes on land are concerned. But people seem to forget that 75% of earth is covered with water and therefore 75% of all volcanoes could be under water. Tonga was an underwater volcano and the explosion put an enormous amount of water up in the air. Scientists admitted later that this had an effect on temperatures in the middle of winter on the NH. (see my report)
I asked you in my report: where else could the heat from the NH come from, and why the shift in the magnetic north pole?
On another note, on a previous post, where you maintained that most of the +0,01% CO2 that was added to the atmosphere since 1850 came from human sources. I disagreed with that because you cannot ‘calculate’ these things. You cannot calculate that which you have not measured properly. People who claim to know do not understand nature.
Are we agreed that 100 billion tons CO2 goes up in the air each year around the equator due to heat:
HCO3- + UV/heat = CO2 (g) + OH- (1)
Otherwise, you and I would not exist.
Same amount must dissolve again there where it is cold enough:
CO2 + 2H2O + cold = HCO3- + H3O+ (2)
just to keep the balance.
Now, fortunately or unfortunately, – you tell me – there were a lot of explosions of volcanoes in and around the Arctic. That
1) raised the T of the water
2) raised the salinity of the water (mainly HCO3-)
3) raised the pH of the water.
all of which I can prove from exact measurements.
2) and 3) is of course also re-inforced by the waste water being drained by human efforts in the NH oceans.
Now, I am not sure if you know anything about analytical chemistry. But the equilibrium of the reaction (2) is pushed to the left (leaving more CO2 in the air) in all cases 1) , 2) and 3).
It is simple really. This is really where the zig-zag comes from, measured in Hawaii. This will carry on until the warming in the Arctic stops. I am still trying to figure out when that will happen. Obviously volcanic activity has to become less…. Next, we must concentrate on the direction of the relevant water streams. I think a change in direction can occur within decades, rather than centuries.
Either way, when you see the ice sheets coming, there is only one remedy: cover the ice with carbon soot. That will absorb more heat from the sun.
Ja. Ja. More Carbon is OK!!
Yes my comments were wrt land-based volcanoes.
No argument here re subsea – and very interesting – but I have not studied this specific subject so no further comment.
I shall keep your thoughts in mind.
I don’t recall saying most of the increase in atm CO2 is from humanity – it may be, but it is a mix of human and natural sources. My friend Ed Berry says it’s mostly natural – I don’t know.
Dr. Ed is right.
Henry Pool:
The Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set (1659-Present) shows a temperature decrease for every known VEI4, or larger, volcanic eruption, apart from 3 or 4 that are unknown, possibly sea-bed eruptions.
Your speculation that 75% of the volcanic eruptions could be underwater is not supported by any data.
Henry Pool:
How were EU and the USA saved from a bad winter due to Tonga? EVERY VEI4 or larger eruption initially causes cooling because of its injection of reflective (dimming) SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere.
Curious as to how you concluded the eruption prevented a bad winter
Burl Henry
Just read the reports.
“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. He led a new study examining the amount of water vapor that the Tonga volcano injected into the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere between about 8 and 33 miles (12 and 53 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.
The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature
*Another* Historic Arctic Outbreak For Canada And The U.S.; Fierce Freeze Forecast For Europe, Including UK; + Two Russian Volcanoes Stir – Electroverse
I like Electroverse – Cap Allon does a good job of highlighting extreme cold events around the globe. Some are forecasts and they don’t all happen, but it’s helpful.
Months ago, Joe Bastardi noted his concern for a very cold Europe this winter.
I wrote
“I wanted this Summary published because, IF I am correct and there is a huge cull of the elderly and poor this winter, I want these pseudo-green killers in Britain and Germany to be prosecuted.
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this utterly obtuse, this wrong, for this long – they knew what they were doing.”
See my 28July2022 comment above:
The big cull of the elderly of Europe will happen this winter – we predicted it in 2002 and 2013 – it was all terribly costly – in dollars and lives – and all entirely avoidable – a willful squandering of the lives of innocents. Crimes against humanity.
The big cull will be the side effects of the JABS. I’m glad I’m a pureblood. The lack of heating will be a double-whammy.
Agreed – the toxic Covid-19 injections and the lack of cheap, adequate energy and a (probable) very cold Winter will all contribute to the carnage.
Regrets.
EV Charging Stations By 2035 Will Need More Power Than A Small Town
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-charging-stations-by-2035-will-need-more-power-than-a-small
Open article URL to see charts and tables
A new report from the electricity and gas utility National Grid (which serves parts of New York and New England) found, a rapid increase in EVs on city streets and highways would require upgraded power grids to handle all the new demand.
By 2035, a charging station could demand as much power as a sports arena or small town.
By 2035, National Grid expects, large charging stations serving EVs (SUVs, pickup trucks, delivery vans and semi-trucks) would have a peak demand of 19 MW; about what a small town uses.
By 2045, those large charging stations could have a peak demand of 30 MW; about the demand of a very large manufacturing plant.
?itok=JGUv70Fk
National Grid said, current charging stations couldn’t serve the EV demand of the future, indicating significant power-grid improvements would be needed.
It said expanding the charging infrastructure would take time:
Today, the impact of EV charging on the grid is small.
There is enough excess capacity to handle the current fleet of EVs (cars, SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks).
As EV adoption expands due to Biden’s wind/solar/battery nightmare/dreams, so will the peak electricity demand and electricity consumption.
As we’ve noted, nuclear power generation will be the best form of on-demand clean energy.
Heavily subsidized, variable, intermittent, un reliable wind and solar are total losers regarding being “On Demand”, because at any time the wind could blow very little, and solar is just a midday affair, if the suns shines and the panels are not covered with snow.
The heavily subsidized, unreliable wind/solar/battery scenario, espoused by resource-starved Europe, has proven to be a total disaster.
The same would happen in the resource-rich US, but not in Russia, China, India, etc.
Sorry I can’t read the blurred text in the snapshot. Correction: only when you click on it it gets readable.
Click on it and view it as a larger image.
It is true.
It was warmer in Jesus’ days as well.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/11/20/the-lord-of-the-weather/
CO2 is a Life Gas; No CO2 = No Life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
UN IPCC Climate Gate
The graph shows no decrease in CO2 during the 400-y Little Ice Age, LIA, from 1450 to 1850; the low temperature point was about 1700!!
Open article URL to see tables and graphs.
Some years ago, the UN IPCC claimed, the LIA was merely a European climate event, because the more than 100 computer programs could not explain why CO2 in the atmosphere did not decrease with temperature during the LIA.
The UN IPCC would never admit the more than 100 computerized temperature predictions were “running hot”
However, scientists from various parts of the world claimed their countries had an LIA as well.
A red-faced IPCC had to stop making its spurious claim. See image
The LIA event is just one more proof, CO2 had nothing to do with the world’s temperature for at least 400 years.
Those laws of physics have not changed!!
APPENDIX 4
Whereas, the CO2 ppm increased from about 280 ppm in 1825 to 412 ppm in 2020, the increase in temperature due to that ppm increase was less than 0.1 C, as shown by the graph in Appendix 4.
The Appendix 4 graph shows, each 20-ppm increase of CO2 beyond 412 ppm, causes less and less of an increase in temperature!!
Any additional temperature increase, during that period, likely was due to other factors, such as reduced cloud cover
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/23/co2-is-innocent-but-clouds-are-guilty-new-science-has-created-a-black-swan-event/
The UN IPCC found it so convenient to blame evil, poisonous CO2, but, finally, that game is over.
APPENDIX 5
The same holds true for methane, CH4, aka natural gas, and N20, nitrous oxide
Both are used for producing fertilizers.
The world’s population could not be fed without them
For example: Some scare-mongered politicians in Sri Lanka banned fertilizers to create the appearance of being “green”, but nationwide crop failures were the result!!
It takes the planet about 900 years for the oceans to respond to changes in air temperature. The Little Ice Age was too short of an event to significantly affect CO2 levels.
Curiosity Stream has a documentary titled “How Climate Made History” and they document how climate during the Holocene has had huge civilization-destroying swings and changes, none of which were due to man-made CO2. Just look at where Troy, Thermopylae, and the Harbor of Justinian are. They are all Ancient coastal sites that are well inland.
Those are do to the land uplifting after the weight of the glaciers was removed.
They have nothing to do with any form of climate change.
Glaciers never covered Greece or the Black Sea, and even if they did, those sites are 2km inland. Keep trying.
Our land masses are more along the lines of mats of silicate sludge floating on a ball of molten iron than we care to think….
You can be pretty sure that political desire and armies destroyed these ancient cities, and nobody really noticed the climate change.
Dr. Curry makes really good sense. “Nobody is moving north.” ( at 25:00.) I thought that was a gem, from the U.S. northern hemisphere perspective.
Roughly a quarter million people move to the South every year in the U.S. Several reasons contribute to this, but the high cost to stay warm in winter in the NE is high on the list.
Rampant centralized command/control by Dem/Prog socialists, and their big-government, woke, CRT, ANTIFA, rules, regulations and taxation are the main reasons
There are quite a few Mexicans and S. Americans who have moved north to the US.
Though that migration has nothing to do with air temperature.
This is NOT about a Climate Emergency.
It’s about using any emergency, or the imagined threat of one, to gain power. Ambitious hopeful bureaucratic dictators have tried climate change, overpopulation, pollution, the drugs trade, road congestion… The list is endless, but there is one common feature in all of them – there is no interest in really solving the imagined problems, because:
1 – they rarely exist
2 – solving them defeats the purpose of using them to obtain absolute power…
DG, you’ve nailed it concisely .
“Rem acu tetigisti” as Lord Monckton would say. I would say “Rem acu tango”, of course…
But the point is that there is that there is NO POINT wasting time on providing technical arguments about why any of these imagined catastrophies are not an issue. They were presented by people who thought that they were a CONVENIENT issue, not a true one.
If you want to oppose them, you need to address some other consideration. They are completely impervious to scientific debate….
Maybe our side of this discussion needs to recruit lying politicians – if we can find any who have not already succumbed to the Green Lies!
That might work if there is a path to power and riches in it.
Our side don’t have the funds the “greens” have to recruit lying politicians
There are those who seek to help others overcome their problems, then there are those who simply seek to make others more comfortable in their problems. In America we call the latter group ‘democrats.’
There is no climate emergency, never was. CO2 is a beneficial gas that all aerobic lifeforms need to survive.
What we have is multiple imaginary threats thoughtfully diseminated through multiple media outlets to contact the most people. All determined to guide the herd to produce as much death and misery as possible to reduce the population and achieve ultimate control of a dumbed down human society dependant on a select few oligarchs for subsistence.
Our biggest threat to humankind, the real emergency, is big government.
Global government.
which is just bigger and further removed from adverse influence.
Here’s a recently written article by Matthew Ehret that explains historically who were the key players and how we’ve arrived at this point.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/11/investigative-reports/the-club-of-rome-and-the-rise-of-the-predictive-modelling-mafia/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
― H.L. Mencken
How many pharmaceutical companies are interested in “solving” any health issue? It is all about mitigation through creating life long customers because that is where the money is.
Also sometimes it is about avoiding responsibility for inadequate emergency planning. CC is a handy scapegoat.
are limate changes in other planets caused by humans on earth? Climate change is a periodical feature of all planets , not just the earth alone. And since sun is the source of all energy in the solar system sun is the cause of climate chnages too. similarly periodical climate changes occur all over our milkyway and in planets in other sun systems
A delightfully fascinating discussion ensued in which Curry explained her objection to the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers”
***********
…..at the request of policy makers?
Is there any doubt then that the governments of the world are behind this climate scare? Why are they doing this if they are acting way too slowly to suit the climate activists and the U.N.?
Inquiring mind want to know.
Because the top ten countries with world debt have spent 100 trillion dollars that doesn’t exist. They’ve borrowed it from the future and can never repay it. Plus, half of them hold nuclear weapons pointed at each other. So you need to sit in the dark and freeze so you won’t notice.
Did the policy makers request the “Climate Scientists” to come up with the settled science, or did the “Climate Scientists” have a great idea and the policy makers, seeing an opportunity, jump on the bandwagon? I understand that it can all be traced back to Maurice Strong, but which is the horse, and which is the cart?
And if you want to start worrying about the next thing to be scared about, worry about digital currency run by the Government.
“And if you want to start worrying about the next thing to be scared about, worry about digital currency run by the Government.”
CBDC is off-topic but you are right. We should be scared about it. Once the state imposes digital currency it has perfect oversight and total control of everything you do. CBDC is the most dystopian thing I can imagine.
At least if it digital currency by government fiat we can quit wasting electricity “mining” it…..and it would likely be stable except for the 2% per year inflation that governments actually sponsor so that they collect, over 35 years, another 50% of the value of citizen’s accumulated wealth as capital gains tax or inheritance tax…..check 1.02^35…
I will share this with my brainwashed relatives but how unfortunate that she did not have a handkerchief.
Just to say
¡¡¡ BRAVO !!!
I like Judith Curry – a great interview. She speaks very well – clear, concise and sensible.
Do I remember correctly that Judith used to be a global warming enthusiast? Seems to me she had a reversal of opinion years ago. That is the act of an honest, rational scientist.
I knew the CAGW narrative was false alarmist nonsense in 1985 because of my earth sciences education. I studied the subject for 17 years and published my first papers in 2002.
In 2002, we published everything that really needed to be said about Climate and Energy:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– by Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian), Tim Patterson (Carleton U), Allan MacRae (Queen’s U, U of Alberta)
The green strategy is to repeatedly saturate the media with alarmist falsehoods to scare the uneducated and the obtuse.
The alarmist scientists know they are lying and the imbeciles believe them.
My son in law is a civil engineer. Numerate, literate and professionally competent; yet he has swallowed the AGW narrative and the renewable agenda completely. Totally impervious to my appeals to use his scientific education to see the physical impossibility of the renewable solution. Totally deaf to to my appeals to just look at the data and draw his own conclusions. he says “Exerts research these things and publish. Why should I not trust their judgement” I guess he is setting himself up for some of his bridges to fall down unless he wakes up
I’m in the same boat with you. Smart guy, my in-law, but he swallows what the evening news says without question. Start any kind of a discussion, and hr runs away. I tell him he doesn’t want to know.
And it’s more than just climate change.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/11/24/open-thread-42/#comment-3642159
Alastairgray:
This is just a suggestion.
Your son-in-law is making an assumption that science is infallible, unquestionable and incorruptible. When govt is paying for most (if not all) science grants, it is foolish to think that science won’t tell the politicians what they want to hear. Money talks.
Doesn’t science have a history of getting things wrong, at least initially? The status of the planet Pluto? The cause of ulcers in medical science? Didn’t science reject the idea that the Earth’s tectonic plates moved slowly back in the early 20th century? The 1970’s ice age scare? I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I learned quit a few years ago to go through the rest of my days as a cynic. An alarm bell goes off in my head whenever I sense I’m being sold a false bill of goods, and it goes off often enough. One of the biggest mistakes we humans keep making is believing in people that we should not. It is sad and tragic that we only realize it after the damage has been done.
Just something to think about the next time you talk to your son-in-law.
I had a delightful lunch with Judith and her husband Dr Peter Webster ( a guru in tropical climates). I asked them for an estimate of the percentage of scientists who believe in catastrophic human-caused climate change. From their experience and wde spread interactions with the scientific community, Peter estimated just 25-35%, while Judith estimated 35-45%. Hugely different than the fear mongering narratives of the media, Union of Concerned Scientists or Al Gore who claim there’s a 99% consensus of a coming crisis.
“Hugely different than the fear mongering narratives of the media, Union of Concerned Scientists or Al Gore who claim there’s a 99% consensus of a coming crisis.”
********
Jim, I have always said that war and activism have one thing in common. The first casualty of both of them is the truth.
El Ninos and La Ninas guarantee we will never have catastrophic warming. Simply look at the geological record showing CO2 getting to 7,000 ppm and temperatures never climbing above 22C. W/M^2 also shows a log decay with an increase in CO2, in other words CO2 has a natural off switch. Lastly, 15 micron LWIR won’t warm anything, especially H2O. 15 micron is associated with -80C. Any scientist that believes CO2 can cause catastrophic warming needs to go back to science 101 and also take a quantum mechanics class. It is all nonsense.
It’s 2022.
If it weren’t for the worst politicians and the many lunatic activists the whole world would have abundant, low cost, affordable energy and fuel for every need.
In the US the impediment is the Democrat Party. And they do not face enough blame, criticism and condemnation for doing so.
It is really the uni-party which pretends to be two separate parts with different viewpoints and agendas. No doubt, just as in other western countries, there are some individuals not on board with the total program but they are not able to have any great influence over what is done.
Just to support that comment, let me mention RINOs Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and there are quite a few others of a similar bent. They are not in favor of limited government, they are in the category of “10% less” but otherwise no objection to big government Uniparty members. In order to get elected in the first place, they have no choice but to suck up to the powerbrokers behind the scenes. They might choose to be in thrall to different vested interests which allows them to brand one way or another, but in reality none of them are free agents and none of them truly represent We the People. It’s not clear how any of that can change. I don’t have hope.
“There are particular fields in which those that stray from the official narrative are instantly shunned as dissidents. Climate change is one of these.”
Dissident is really too gentle a word for what people like Mann and Gore do to “deniers”.
We should all wear yellow armbands labeled “DENIER” just liek Jewsd in Hitlers Gemany.
Wear it as a badge of pride and open mindedness.
Dr. Curry’s concern about our children (in my case grandchildren) is spot on (at 34:27 . . .). Here she talks about all the alarmism nonsense kids are being fed in school, on social media, etc., causing them to be depressed, suicidal, don’t care. As Judith says, “. . . it’s really bad because it’s hard to counter.”
We all need to do more to help focus on this serious problem.
In Pittsburgh, the school district has voted to defy a new law that bans teaching that any race is superior to any other.
The last time that happened, it was Democrats standing in the school doorways. Funny enough, it is still Democrats who want to teach a philosophy of racial superiority.
Division and victmology is all the Dems have to offer. It has worked for years to keep them in power. It appears to be cracking however as minorities are finally figuring out that they are actually getting nothing but bad results from the Dems. You always get more of what you subsidize – homelessness, unemployment, crime, racial hate, intolerance, etc. That’s all the Dems know how to subsidize.
The basics of so-called global warming are wrong. If you are not disputing nonsense like CO2 somehow increasing thermal imbalance then you do not understand the basic physics of climate.
To think that a minute addition of a non-condensing radiative gas can make a difference to Earth’s energy balance is just silly science. Its make-believe.
The solar intensity over the northern hemisphere has been increasing since 1400. That is 600 years of accumulated thermal imbalance on the NH oceans. The surface and near surface has been warming up for the last 6 centuries.
Most warming on earth is occurring on the land north of 40N and in January; increasing at 3.7C per century – per attached. What the chart shows is not what climate models produce. The measured warming has been progressive for the entire record since 1950. Climate models all show no warming till 1980 then rapid change in warming rate.
The single insight that climate models offer is that it has NOTHING to do with CO2.
And those hoping to see northern oceans cooling will have to wait a long time. Solar intensity will increase for the next 9000 years before peaking. The only region of any northern ocean currently cooling is south of Greenland due to accelerated calving as the warming water laps the shore while both permanent snow cover and elevation increase.
The current interglacial reached its turning point around 1400. Snow records across the NH will be a feature of weather reporting for the next 9000 years. The NH winter water cycle is ramping up.
Read it and weep Gretaheads-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australian-floods-of-1950s-were-driven-by-same-weather-forces-behind-this-years-record-rains/ar-AA14Afpx
You had to go the movies in those days to get the picture-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByP6pk0mC1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOHbCj38eWo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3bP9gRt7sY
But now with every adverse weather event from around the world on their touchscreens the spoon fed drongos have become a mob of hysterical schoolkids.
1) CO2 is 410 ppm, or 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere. Does it seem plausible that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499?
2) CO2’s only mechanism by which to affect climate change is by thermalizing 15-Micron LWIR. Wavelengths are associated with temperatures, and 15-micron is associated with -80C.
3) If you control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor you can find many weather stations that show no warming at all. You just did a video on Antarctica that highlights that fact, but there are many more. Just look for cold and dry deserts on the NASA GISS Site. Use ver3 and look up Alice Springs.
4) There is no way for CO2 to cause catastrophic warming, El Ninos act as pressure valves of the climate system, and release any extra energy preventing the system from overheating.
5) CO2 and 15-micron LWIR won’t penetrate or warm water, if you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can blame CO2.
6) Short-wave visible radiation warms the oceans, and a changing jet stream has caused fewer clouds over the oceans, allowing more warming visible radiation to reach the oceans. The ocean warming has nothing to do with CO2, and that is what is causing the warming of the globe
7) CO2 doesn’t cause warming, it puts a temperature floor in the system, once again, 15-microns is associated with -80C, and that is basically the low of the Stratosphere. Adding more ice to a drink won’t make it colder than the ice.
8) Review the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule and 15-micron LWIR. They don’t support CO2 causing the warming.
“look up Alice Springs.”
Make sure you look at the measured temperature.
Not the after-market propaganda …
1) The CO2 molecule picks up energy from an IR photon, then transfers that energy to another molecule in the air. It then picks up energy from another IR photon, and passes that energy on. It’s not a case of one and done as you assume.
2) CO2 picks up a number of wavelengths, not just one. Also warm objects emit at many frequencies, not just one.
5) You are correct that CO2 does not directly warm the oceans, you are incorrect in your belief that CO2 has no impact on ocean temperatures. The sun warms the oceans, then the temperature of the air regulates how quickly that heat gets out of the oceans.
“you are incorrect in your belief that CO2 has no impact on ocean temperatures.”
And you are totally wrong in your brain-washed belief that it does. !
Show me any experiments that demonstrate 15-micron LWIR penetrating water and warming it. Just show me 1 single experiment. Short-wave visible radiation warms the oceans, and fewer clouds over the oceans have resulted in them warming. That is a fact and easily demonstrated in a lab. Show me where 15-micron can warm water. BTW, if CO2 could warm water, back radiation would melt snow. It doesn’t.
1) The CO2 molecule picks up energy from an IR photon, then transfers that energy to another molecule in the air. It then picks up energy from another IR photon, and passes that energy on. It’s not a case of one and done as you assume.
Newsflash: Transfering 1 photon from one molecule to another isn’t the GHG Effect. 15-Micron LWIR is absorbed by the CO2 molecule causing it to slightly bend, ie vibrate causing heat. You might want to learn the basics:
https://youtu.be/7NYD50u7Hpo
Transferring 1 photon to another molecule is how CO2 transfers energy from the system resulting in cooling. The vibrations is what causes the heat, not the releasing of the photon.
The CO2 molecule cools as it loses energy to another molecule. The other molecule warms due to the transfer, however. What MarkW said is correct. The CO2 molecule doesn’t stay “warm” from absorbing one unit of energy.
The CO2 molecule cools as it loses energy to another molecule. The other molecule warms due to the transfer, however. What MarkW said is correct. The CO2 molecule doesn’t stay “warm” from absorbing one unit of energy.
I posted a video on that topic. There are two issues here. The 15 micron LWIR Photon being absorbed by the linear CO2 non-dipole molecule. The photon is absorbed and sends the electrons into a higher orbit and the molecule bends causing a dipole to form. The bending is the thermal radiation. Eventually, that electron drops back down to the ground state, releasing the Photon and the vibration stops and the dipole disappears. If the CO2 molecule releases that photon upward, and it doesn’t collide with another CO2 molecule, that energy is removed from the climate system to outer space. That is the cooling effect of radiation and the GHG effect. What is relevant to our discussions is CO2 absorbing 15 micron LWIR, bending, causing a diple, and generating thermal energy, not CO2 reverting to its ground state and releasing its energy.
2) CO2 picks up a number of wavelengths, not just one. Also warm objects emit at many frequencies, not just one.
Wrong again, the earth emits around 10-micron LWIR, and the only wavelengths the earth emits that CO2 absorbs is 15 micron. Yes, it absorbs 2.7 and 4.3 micron, but the earth doesn’t emit those wavelengths unless you are over a volcano. Keep trying.
Note how on this graphic 15 microns lines up with the peak 210k blackbody curve. 201k is -63C, in reality, 15-micron aligns with the peak of a -80C black body.
?resize=640%2C388
5) You are correct that CO2 does not directly warm the oceans, you are incorrect in your belief that CO2 has no impact on ocean temperatures. The sun warms the oceans, then the temperature of the air regulates how quickly that heat gets out of the oceans.
H2O and CO2 absorb 100% of outgoing LWIR of 15 microns, with or without CO2 the absorption of those wavelengths is saturated. Keep trying.
Here is the video I referenced in the above post.
3) If you control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor you can find many weather stations that show no warming at all. You just did a video on Antarctica that highlights that fact, but there are many more.
https://youtu.be/FcE_OgKkekw
Overall Judith did quite well. Her heart is certainly in the right place – and yet I felt a bit disappointed.
There was a lot of arm-waving and surprisingly little mention of the science itself and, more importantly, the data.
When asked about wild fires she failed to mention that the global – and US – data shows no actual increase in wildfires. Or that the US data shows that wildfires were far worse in the 1930’s.
She also failed to spot a number of open goals.
For example, when asked about the “dangers” of CO2 she could have mentioned:
Another obvious example: the EMDAT database, as used by governments and the UN, clearly shows that over the last century deaths from extreme weather have dramatically fallen. This is a powerful proof that the “climate emergency” is complete fantasy.
Finally I was shocked to hear that she believes that the one big threat of global warming is sea level rise. Really? The peer reviewed science shows that the modern sea level rise – and glacier retreat – started at almost precisely 1820, almost as if someone had thrown a switch. Since then it’s been remarkably constant at around 2 mm per year. After two centuries of constant sea level rise mankind is perfectly fine. Yes, if sea level continued at this rate for ever – very unlikely – then eventually it would indeed be more than the height of a human – but it would be a thousand years in the future.
Her overall message – that there is no climate emergency, and that the real threat is climate alarmism – is something that I’m sure we can all agree with!
Chris
What I’ve learned from my below posts is that there are many Climate Sophists, who do a very good job making nonsensical arguments, that sound plausible, but are void of any real science. The #1 issue I notice is a complete and absolute ignorance of the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule. Climate Sophists don’t seem to be able to understand their own climate science charts.
This Chart identifies:
1) The the earth emits average 10 micron LWIR
2) CO2 absorbs 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron LWIR
3) The earth does not emit 2.7 or 4.3 LWIR unless you are over a Volcano
4) 15 micron LWIR lines up with the peak of the 210 black body curve (in reality it is actually slightly to the right of the peak)
5) 210K is -63C, and 15 micron really lies up with -80C
6) CO2 is not a black body and only absorbs a small fraction of a black body of temp -80C
7) CO2 is transparent to all other relevant wavelengths regarding the GHG effect
8) 15 Micron LWIR won’t penetrate or warm water
9) If 15 micron LWIR could warm water, backradiation would melt snow…it doesn’t
10) Ice emits higher energy 12 micron LWIR, so ice emits more heat than CO2
Dr. Christy does a great job explaining some of my points…but he also fails to address the basic quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule. There is a reason hurricanes haven’t gotten worse with more CO2 is because 15 micron LWIR won’t warm the oceans. Even if hurricanes are getting stronger it was be because the oceans are warming due to more incoming warming visible radiation.
https://youtu.be/ULpGDnuz308
Here is the temperature graphic for the South Pole. If you can’t explain how a 30%+ increase in CO2 resulted in absolutely no warming, then you can’t claim CO2 causes warming. The laws of physics don’t cease to exist at the South Pole.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Here is the graphic:
For me, it’s all summed up by the contrast between Greta Thunbergs cry “I want you to panic”, and the German activist Naomi Seibt’s advice “I want you to think!”
In 2014, researchers from Israel and Germany analyzed core samples taken from the Sea of Galilee and determined, using radiocarbon dating, that the period from 1250 to 1100 BC was the driest in the entire Bronze Age, what some scholars call a “megadrought.”
“It was a huge drought event,” says Cline. “It appears to have lasted at least 150 years, and in some places up to 300 years.”
Not all civilizations were affected equally. Some, like the Mycenaeans and Minoans, suffered a complete collapse. The same with the Hittites, who simply ceased to exist as a civilization. The Assyrians and Egyptians were largely unaffected, while others showed resilience and either transformed or redefined themselves.
One example is the rise of iron as a new metal. When Greece ran out of copper and tin and demand for bronze declined, there was an opportunity for something to take its place.
“The Cypriots switched from being masters of copper to suddenly being masters of this new iron technology,” says Cline. “As it turned out, iron was a much better cutting edge for plows, and it also made swords much better at killing enemies.”
Iron smelting was likely developed in Cyprus thanks to its proximity to iron and copper deposits. Since iron ores were common iron replaced bronze.
https://www.history.com/news/bronze-age-collapse-causes
I wanted to comment on cwright’s remark that he was shocked that Dr Curry was worried about sea level rise but my little brain cells couldn’t seem to work out the reply method so am attaching a new comment.
Dr Curry was not worried about the small (2 to 3mm/year) we have experienced over the last century or so but the effect of a natural catastrophic event on par with the end of the last ice age. Due to nature the sea rose 130 metres in 8000 years at an average of over 15mm/year and at times for bursts of over 50mm/year. Very few humans around to cause or suffer from this. The east coast of South America probably moved west 100’s of km but people could then just up sticks and move inland.
Now with 8 billion, tight county boundaries and many cities near the sea a 15 mm/year rise over a long period would be very difficult to deal with.
Alan,
Glad you could reply! With the new regime, you do need to be logged in to reply. If you’re not logged in then the Reply button on each post will not appear.
I’m pretty sure that in the video Dr Curry did not qualify her remark, she simply said she thought sea level rise was a threat.
Yes, at the end of the ice age sea level rise was far, far greater than today. Thousands of years ago the North Sea barely existed and you could walk from England to France with only a small river to cross.
But today we’re well past the end of the ice age, so that hardly applies. From one peer reviewed study the graph of sea level since 1820 is an almost perfect straight line. It’s quite remarkable for a natural process like this to be so constant over two centuries. Exactly the same applies to glacier retreat.
There’s also no credible scientific evidence or data for any acceleration. I would therefore think that any threat from catastrophic sea level rise is negligible and certainly not a threat. Mankind has experienced and dealt with far greater sea level rise in the past, and yet here we are.
All the evidence (e.g. the OECD human wellfare index) shows that over the two centuries of sea level rise human wellbeing has dramatically increased, with the greatest advances in this century. This strongly suggests that global warming is not even a problem but a huge benefit. If it had not been for this warming we would still be in the depths of the Little Ice Age. Now that really would be a catastrophe!
Chris