Being Disagreeable – At Christmas

From Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog

Jennifer Marohasy

It is increasingly difficult to articulate a sceptical perspective on catastrophic human-caused climate change and other such issues. Not only with colleagues, but also within extended families. This is especially the case at Christmas time when there is an expectation, we will all be agreeable, and get on with each other. The spirit of bonhomie and all that stuff.

In 2022, to be sceptical of the climate catastrophe is to be a social outcast, and this extends to wanting to celebrate the health of the Great Barrier Reef. We are meant to be crying over everything. Yet Christmas should be a joyous time.

According to clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet, the type of totalitarianism that insists we only speak of catastrophe does not form in a vacuum. It arises from a collective psychosis when members of a community share an underlying anxiety and lack a common purpose. It is a form of group hypnosis that destroys an individuals’ ethical self-awareness and robs them of their ability to think critically.

In his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Prof Desmet suggests that it is incumbent upon each of us who can see through the soul-destroying propaganda to continue to speak out. That to be silent is not an option.

In my very first film, Beige Reef, I finish with comment that:

Filming corals at Beige Reef is a form of resistance – our purpose is very simple, to acknowledge Beige Reef. To be acknowledged is to be admitted and accepted as true.

As I explain in the film, the experts claimed that this coral reef had been destroyed by climate change. But it hadn’t.

If they can deny the existence of a fair-sized coral reef at the entrance to Bowen harbour with that false claim published by prestigious scientific journal Nature, what other mischief can they get up to?

Poet Dorothea McKellar was loving Australia as a land of drought and flooding rains at the beginning of the twentieth century – back more than 100 years ago. In 1908 she wrote:

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror –
The wide brown land for me!

A stark white ring-barked forest
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold hush of noon.
Green tangle of the brushes,
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops
And ferns the warm dark soil.

Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When sick at heart, around us,
We see the cattle die –
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady, soaking rain.

Core of my heart, my country!
Land of the Rainbow Gold,
For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold –

These same natural climate phenomena are now touted as proof of recent human-caused catastrophe.

American Naomi Oreskes was given a whole hour on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Science Show (21st December 2022) to absurdly claimed that droughts and floods in Australia are proof of human-caused catastrophic climate change and that worldwide there are no peer-reviewed studies – that is right, not even one – that contradict the consensus position that climate change is entirely human caused.

These claims, and much of the rest of what Professor Oreskes said, are misinformation. Propaganda. And they need to be resisted.

As I document in my submission (co-authored with Chris Gillham) to the NSW Flood Inquiry, there has been no overall increase in the intensity or frequency of extremely wet days.

Once upon a time, presenter Robyn Williams, who has controlled the science show for decades, may have invited me on to put the alternative perspective. Afterall, I have even published in a peer-reviewed journal (GeoResJ Vol 14, Pgs 36-46) estimating the contribution of human-caused versus natural climate change to recent warming. My study (co-authored with John Abbot) suggests, that without the industrial revolution, there would have been a period of warming through the twentieth century. We estimate the human contribution to current warming as at most 0.2 °C. That is miniscule. And the mere presence of our published paper disproves Prof Oreskes claim that such studies do not exist.

It took an enormous effort, supported by the B. Macfie Family Foundation through the Institute of Public Affairs, for such research to emerge despite the gate keepers. That it is denied by Naomi Oreskes and Robyn Williams is disappointing. But not a reason to give up.

You may get cancelled this Christmas for having the type of opinion now denied on the Science Show, or it could be simply that you laugh inappropriately, or choose to point out a logical inconsistency in your favourite progressives’ argument or, worse, that you show them up to be bias.

I made a very short film earlier this year with my dear friend Jared, entitled Washed Away. It is how I feel sometimes. But, like the rocks that form the platform below Boiling Point Lookout in Noosa National Park, we can resist.

We can even be disagreeable at Christmas and explain that sea levels used to be 120 metres lower than they are today.

You read that correctly: sea levels used to be 120 metres lower. There is a chart, with a citation, in the film. I dare you to invite your most ‘progressive’ relative to watch it with you, this Christmas.

Best wishes, and more power to you.

5 38 votes
Article Rating
110 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 25, 2022 6:15 am

But all those living corals are just a fossil fuel company conspiracy!
And it being -6C near Austin Texas today is a clear indication of global warming!
Trust us!

vuk
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 25, 2022 8:54 am

Not to be concerned, it’s only the first swallow of the AIA (‘Anthropocene’ Ice Age), 

jshotsky
December 25, 2022 6:22 am

Atmospheric CO2 levels are a result of climate change, not the cause.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  jshotsky
December 25, 2022 6:45 am

Both are largely wrong: CO2 levels were a result of temperature changes, but current levels are 120 ppmv above what temperature would give: about 13 ppmv higher than during the LIA, or about 295 ppmv, not 415 ppmv.
The opposite is true too: more CO2 give some warming (about 1 K for 2xCO2), but that is far more beneficial that that it gives any troubles…

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 25, 2022 6:50 am

Those figures don’t work if ice cores fail to record large shorter term variations as in now looking increasingly likely.

Richard M
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 25, 2022 7:04 am

CO2 does not produce warming above saturation levels. We are way over that level. You are making the same mistake that many make by looking at radiation only and not factoring in boundary layer feedback. The net warming becomes trivial.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard M
December 25, 2022 11:23 am

There is no such thing as a “saturation level”. All CO2 adds to the current impact. It’s just that at current levels, the impact of more CO2 is quite small.

Duker
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2022 11:51 am

Yes.
The global carbon cycle puts it into perspective

Fossil fuels are just the margin of error of the annual carbon flux from all sources

carbon_cycle2[1].png
Richard M
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2022 1:23 pm

Yes, there is saturation. Saturation of surface energy absorption. That’s all I am talking about. Before spouting off you should try to understand what is being said.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2022 5:31 am

Mark,

The earth only emits a certain amount of 15 um radiation. When there is sufficient CO2, that amount is totally absorbed. That is saturation, and more CO2 has no additional radiation to absorb.

Only additional “warming” due to “back radiation” could increase the radiation available for more warming. Think about the logic there and entropy.

Richard M
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 26, 2022 5:49 pm

Exactly, now add in the fact there cannot be a back radiation flux. A flux only goes in one direction and we know it goes from the surface to space.

Hence, the only back radiation throughout the atmosphere is local. And, the local back radiation is always getting absorbed quickly by the higher density of molecules below it. One exception. Very near the surface we will get an increase which doesn’t have enough CO2 below it to absorb all the back radiation.

This is the back radiation seen in Feldman et al 2015. How much does it warm the surface? Doesn’t really matter. The energy is simply moved back into the lower atmosphere to maintain equilibrium.

No magic required at all. When this energy moves from the very low atmosphere to the surface it cools the atmosphere and warms the surface. This imbalance causes energy to flow back to the atmosphere to reestablish equilibrium. We end up right back where we started.

The net result is all that matters and the net is zero warming of the surface.

Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2022 6:02 pm

Richard M December 26, 2022 5:49 pm

Exactly, now add in the fact there cannot be a back radiation flux. A flux only goes in one direction and we know it goes from the surface to space.

I see this misconception frequently. It’s simply not true.

Suppose you have two flashlights (torches for the English) pointed straight at each other. Further, suppose one is strong and one is weak.

There is a radiation flux of photons going from the strong one to the weak one. We know the radiation flux exists because it illuminates the weak flashlight.

There is also a radiation flux of photons going from the weak one to the strong one. We know the flux exists because it illuminates the strong flashlight.

This alone disproves your claim that “a flux only goes in one direction”.

You appear to be conflating “flux” with “net flux”. A net flux indeed only goes in one direction, from the strong flashlight to the weak one.

How large is the net flux? It is the mathematical difference between the two, i.e., the strong flux minus the weak flux.

In the case of the earth, the same is true. There is a downwelling flux of thermal infrared from the atmosphere to the surface, about 340 W/m2. We know it exists because we can measure it from the surface.

There’s also an upwelling flux from the surface, about 490 W/m2. We know it exists because we can measure it from the satellites.

This leaves a net flux on the order of 150 W/m2, which as you point out, goes from the surface upwards.

Best regards,

w.

Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 26, 2022 6:45 pm

Willis, you are correct for a single beam of light. But, we aren’t dealing with a beam of light. We are dealing with constant absorption/reemission of photons in a gravitational field. Yes, that changes everything.

A lot of people don’t think through what this means. It more like having a bunch of little flashlights that also absorb light. It is not obvious.

To understand what actually happens think about Joe average 15 mm photon emission. What happens is a downward directed photon doesn’t get far before getting reabsorbed. If it is directed up, it will have fewer molecules above it to absorb it than if it is directed down. Gravity reduces the density as you go up. The average distance before reabsorption is shorter for the downward directed photons. The overall average is [D(up) – D(down)]/2 and is upward.

It is in fact gravity (or more specifically the changing density) that creates the flux and it only varies in one direction.

The flux is the statistical average of all the photons and is upward. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not this simple, but this gives the general idea. You may get a few rogue photons that go against the flow, but they are so small as to be easily ignored. My own guess is 99.99% of the photons that reach the surface were emitted within 20 meters of the surface.

What you are measuring at the surface is not a flux. It is the downward radiation from the molecules located within that lower 20 meters. The energy radiated downward from higher in the atmosphere is reabsorbed within the atmosphere.

Since the vast majority of the energy is coming from right above the surface and it cools, you end up with the warmer surface moving that energy right back into the lower atmosphere (2nd Law) and canceling out any net warming.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2022 10:27 pm

Let me add a couple of thoughts that may help in understanding my falsification of any warming from CO2.

Willis mentioned a flashlight which radiates energy (photons) in a beam through the air. It works this way because the photons are high energy and are not absorbed by gases in the atmosphere. His analogy fails with low energy LWIR such as interacts with CO2. If his beam of light was LWIR it would get absorbed immediately and the energy transferred to other gases in the atmosphere. Nothing would be illuminated. It would just disappear.

Meanwhile, the atmosphere itself is emitting the same LWIR in all directions. Think of it as a photon cloud. If you could see it, it would be a blur of photons moving in all directions. This blur would slowly move upwards via dozens (maybe thousands) of absorption/reemission sequences. It moves upward only because it is in a gravity field. As I explained previously, this causes upward emissions to travel further before reabsorption than downward emissions.

Since it is gravity (changing density) that drives this movement, it helps determine the speed of the photon cloud. The cloud moves upward gaining speed and thinning out as it goes. Eventually, it disappears into space.

While there are all kinds of downward moving photons in the cloud, the net movement will be upward. It is the net movement that determines the energy flow.

It takes a major reset in thinking to get away from the beam of light visual that Willis presented and accept the photon cloud visual which is how the atmosphere actually cools. It opens up an entirely different way of viewing the role of GHGs. The warming of the atmosphere is from the bottom up and not from any top down greenhouse effect.

As energy rises through the atmosphere it is continually adjusting the temperature of each layer to match its density. This stabilizes the atmosphere and maintains the lapse rate.

I’m wondering if climate science teaches a visualization similar to what Willis mentioned. That would explain a lot.

Reply to  Richard M
December 26, 2022 10:43 pm

Richard M December 26, 2022 6:45 pm

To understand what actually happens think about Joe average 15 mm photon emission. What happens is a downward directed photon doesn’t get far before getting reabsorbed. If it is directed up, it will have fewer molecules above it to absorb it than if it is directed down. 

Above you said there were no downwelling photons. Now you say there are downwelling photons … ???

Willis mentioned a flashlight which radiates energy (photons) in a beam through the air. It works this way because the photons are high energy and are not absorbed by gases in the atmosphere.

I fear that’s not true. Light is absolutely absorbed within the atmosphere, just not as quickly as DWIR.

The flux is the statistical average of all the photons and is upward

Again I say, you are conflating “flux” with the “net flux”. A flux is just a flow. And there is, as you admit above, both an upwards and a downwards flux. You are correct, however, that the net flux is upwards, about 150 W/m2.

And the net flux is not the “statistical average of all the photons”. It is the difference between the flux in one direction and the flux in the opposite direction.

Finally, you say:

My own guess is 99.99% of the photons that reach the surface were emitted within 20 meters of the surface.

The problem is that all of your claims seem to be based on your “guesses”, your guesses about the difference between flux and net flux, and your guess about the location of the emission of downwelling photons.

Scientists actually measure these kinds of things so we don’t have to guess. They measure the upwelling flux (~ 490 W/m2), and the downwelling flux (~ 340 W/m2), and the altitude the downwelling flux is coming from. My bible in these matters is Geiger’s text, “The Climate Near The Ground”. I strongly suggest you buy a copy and read it cover to cover before engaging in any more guessing. Here’s where the downwelling radiation actually emanates from. You’re off by a couple orders of magnitude.

comment image

Best regards,

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 27, 2022 7:42 am

Above you said there were no downwelling photons.

Funny, why would I say that when I believe downwelling photons do exist? Where is the quote Willis loves to chastise everyone about? I believe I said there was no flux. I’ve stated a couple of times that downward photons exist. For example.

What happens is a downward directed photon doesn’t get far before getting reabsorbed.

With that I must say this response does not rise to the normal level I expect from Willis. Why fabricate something?

The problem is that all of your claims seem to be based on your “guesses”

I should have provided a link. My bad. My “guess” is based on the work of Dr. Heinz Hug. Here is a link and the quote:

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

As the transmission T = 10-3.21 is 0.6 per mille, we conclude that the relative absorption around the peak is 1-T = 99.94% which takes place already within a 10 m layer near ground.

This work, based on HITRAN, essentially concludes almost all the upwelling IR is absorbed within 10 meters. If this is true, and even the IPCC admits to this saturation, then how does DWIR go “a couple orders of magnitude” further?

I may be wrong, but since all the 15 mm photons are around the same amount of energy, their ability to pass through the atmosphere at 600 or 6 meters should be almost the same.

I’m also confused by the chart Willis showed. It appears to show that 80% of DWIR comes from 600 meters AND 80% comes from 500 meters AND another 80% comes from 400 meters down to about 75% coming from within 100 meters. I must be reading it wrong as clearly this is impossible.

I have a feeling WE’s chart is based on measuring DWIR in the atmosphere and ASSUMING that the existence of some amount of DWIR at various altitudes means the same photons are moving downward (i.e. a flux).

Instead, what’s really happening is photons are continually being absorbed and new ones emitted. It is new photons that are being measured at lower altitudes. This view would look exactly the same to the devices doing the measurement and would agree with Dr. Hug’s findings.

PS. note that the atmospheric boundary layer is generally assumed to be about 100-1200 meters thick. As long as the IR originates within the boundary layer my conclusions are still valid. If only 10% (or less) come from above the boundary layer, it would mean maybe 90% of the greenhouse effect goes away.

Reply to  Richard M
December 27, 2022 9:28 am

Richard, you said “there cannot be a back radiation flux”. Now you say there are downwelling photons, but there is no downwelling flux.

A “flux” is a flow of photons, whether it is one per second or a billion per µsec, whether it is up or it is down. If there are downwelling photons, there is assuredly a downwelling flux. As I’ve said several times, you are conflating a flux with a net flux.

As to where the downwelling photons originate, you’re attempting to change the goalposts. Your statement was:

My own guess is 99.99% of the photons that reach the surface were emitted within 20 meters of the surface.

But your link to john-daly.com reflects where they are absorbed, not where they are emitted. In addition, Dr. Hug’s claim is based on theory, whereas my figures are actual observations. (Czepa, O and Reuter, H, Arch. f. Met. (B) 2, 250-258, 1950)

Finally, you say above:

Exactly, now add in the fact there cannot be a back radiation flux.

But your own john-daly link above says (emphasis mine):

Half of this thermalized IR can be considered to enhance the back-radiation and thus warming the ground.

So your own cited author says, as does most everyone but you, that a back radiation flux not only exists, but also that it leaves the ground warmer than it would be without the back radiation.

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 27, 2022 2:20 pm

A “flux” is a flow of photons, whether it is one per second or a billion per µsec, whether it is up or it is down. If there are downwelling photons, there is assuredly a downwelling flux. As I’ve said several times, you are conflating a flux with a net flux.

Let’s just assume we mean different things when using the word “flux” and move on to what is actually happening in the atmosphere. When I use the term I am referring to a continuous flow of energy.

What I am seeing is individual photons go in all directions but the downwelling ones are always local to the point of emission. Hence there is no continuity in the flow. My key point is that almost no energy radiated from above the boundary layer makes it to the surface.

It is true that Dr. Hug’s experiment is different than what I am talking about. My claim appears to be unique. That doesn’t mean his results are not useful.

But your link to john-daly.com reflects where they are absorbed, not where they are emitted. 

The point of my reference is that ALL of the surface energy is absorbed in only 10 meters distance. My point is this also means DWIR cannot travel downward any large distance without being absorbed. Seems to me Dr. Hug’s experiment supports this view. If anything the distance downward should average less than a distance upward due to gravity.

Dr. Hug’s claim is based on theory

I thought all the radiation models were based on actual observations. Dr Hug uses HITRAN. Do you have some evidence to support your assertion?

my figures are actual observations

No, your “figures” are based on an interpretation of those observations. There is no technology to trace the movement of individual photons through the atmosphere.

I perfectly understand that most people interpret DWIR as seen in radiation models as a flux of energy. If you look at any altitude you see DWIR and it increases as you move lower in the atmosphere. What I am saying is there exists and alternate interpretation that also agrees with that data.

In addition, the alternate interpretation fits with Dr. Hug’s finding that IR energy is absorbed over very short distances in the atmosphere.

If you can explain why upwelling surface IR is absorbed in such a short distance (<10 meters) without the same happening to downwelling IR, I would be happy to listen.

Nothing you have shown refutes my interpretation of the data. In addition, Dr. Hug’s results appear to confirm very short transmission distances for 15 mm LWIR in the atmosphere.

Once a person considers this view it changes completely how one perceives the warming effect of GHGs. They first warm the lowest layer of the atmosphere and then warm the higher layers as part of the same process of removing the energy. Very efficient. It also stabilizes the lapse rate. This is the way a good engineer would design it.

Finally, consider what it means if my view is correct. If a greenhouse gas is well mixed and its surface absorption is saturated, it no longer can produce any additional warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
December 27, 2022 3:39 pm

Let’s just assume we mean different things when using the word “flux” and move on …

Thanks, but no. The fact that you want to use your very own personal definition of “flux”, one that has no relationship to the standard definition used by everyone else in the field, as well as disagreeing with the dictionary definition, means that we have no common language. And without a common language, there is no hope of us ever understanding what the other is saying.

In addition, you claimed that there is no such thing as “back radiation” … then you post a link that says:

Half of this thermalized IR can be considered to enhance the back-radiation and thus warming the ground.

And when I point out this bizarre circumstance, that you’ve contradicted yourself entirely, you ignore it completely and continue blithely sailing along with your personal ideas and claims.

Sorry, but I fear I have no interest in swimming upstream against that kind of current. I fear you’ll have to find someone else to listen to your thoughts. You’ve burned your bridges with me.

My best regards to you.

Sadly,

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 27, 2022 4:28 pm

Sorry, but I fear I have no interest in swimming upstream against that kind of current.

I already explained both of your criticisms. So, what was your response? You ignored them. Doubt you even read them.

The fact that you want to use your very own personal definition of “flux”, one that has no relationship to the standard definition used by everyone else in the field

No, I don’t care what word is used. That’s why I provided the exact meaning of what I was describing. You can call it whatever you want. I have no interest in redefining anything. I’m just trying to communicate my idea. Why are you hung up on a word? It appears you are using this as an excuse to move on.

I point out this bizarre circumstance, that you’ve contradicted yourself entirely

No, I haven’t contradicted myself in the least. I used a reference to make one specific point. I never claimed everything in the reference was gospel. That the author has the some misconceptions is irrelevant to his experimental results which is my point.

I was hoping to get a good review of my idea but sadly that didn’t happen. You’ve made it very clear you are not interested in understanding my idea. Your time, your choice.

Reply to  Richard M
December 27, 2022 6:16 pm

I was hoping to get a good review of my idea but sadly that didn’t happen. You’ve made it very clear you are not interested in understanding my idea.

I have NO CLUE what “your idea” might be. I tried to understand it, but as I said, you are speaking another language.

Sorry, but I’m gonna pass. And not because I’m “not interested”, nor because I’m using your bizarre definition of a flux “as an excuse to move on”.

It’s simply that your claims fly in the face of common sense. For example, you claim there is no “back radiation”, when it’s been measured all over the planet by scientists of every country.

The US has a whole network of “SURFRAD” stations around the country that measure back radiation every minute of the day, even your own link says it’s real … and you claim it doesn’t exist?

I cannot deal with that level of denial of reality, nor am I interested in trying.

Sadly,

w.

Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 27, 2022 9:30 pm

Sigh. Right back with the same claim.

you claim there is no “back radiation”,

I never claimed there was no back radiation. More than once I specifically stated downward directed IR exists. So once again you create a strawman and attack it. This is why I stated you weren’t interested. I may not be the most articulate person in the world, but there’s no legitimate way for you to make the claim you just made above. Here are multiple quotes from my comments above.

the only back radiation throughout the atmosphere is local”
“the local back radiation is always getting absorbed quickly
a downward directed photon doesn’t get far before getting reabsorbed
there are all kinds of downward moving photons in the cloud,
the atmosphere itself is emitting the same LWIR in all directions

So, where is this claim of mine that there is no back radiation?

I don’t see how this is confusing you. I really don’t think those quotes are at all ambiguous.

One more time …

What I have claimed is there is no flow of 15 mm IR energy downward through the atmosphere. Let me explain yet again. The measurements of downward directed IR high in the atmosphere, which you think falsify my claim, are measuring local IR. IR emitted very close to the measurement device. That IR is absorbed quickly back into the atmosphere and doesn’t make it to the surface.

Same is true near the surface. The DWIR measured at the surface is emitted just above the measuring device.

The DWIR measurements are all seeing local IR. However, the flow of energy is upward. There is no downward flow of energy. All you need is to see that each emission/absorption pair that moves energy upward or downward. is very short. The net flow becomes the only real flow.

What is driving this flow? The changing density of the atmosphere. This is what drives the net flow upward. The DWIR only slows the upward flow.

The IR photons are only temporary holders of energy. Upon reabsorption that energy disappears back into the atmosphere. It is only the total energy movement that matters. Each IR emission is like a nudge against the massive energy body. You have to add up all the nudges to see the flow.

Even the trillions of 15 mm photons moving around at any one time are just nudging the energy body. The nudges are the sum of the photonic energy and the direction is the sum of their distances traversed.

I realize I am basically saying “there is no spoon”. Sorry, I don’t have a blue pill. You really have to dive in to understand.

The only way this works is if reabsorption happens very quickly. This is why the Hug experiment is important. It supports the view that the number of CO2 molecules are sufficient to quickly absorb all the photons moving around.

Reply to  Richard M
December 27, 2022 11:19 pm

Richard, you say:

Sigh. Right back with the same claim.

you claim there is no “back radiation”,

I never claimed there was no back radiation. More than once I specifically stated downward directed IR exists.

Here’s the exact quote:

Exactly, now add in the fact there cannot be a back radiation flux.

The bizarre part is, ANY downward-directed infrared IS a flux, often called a back-radiation flux. So you’re both accepting and denying that such a flux exists …

As I said, we appear to be speaking a different language, which is why I am not interested in reading your comments. You appear to say something. But when asked about it you claim you’re not saying that at all, you’re saying something totally different. Then you go into some complex explanation of why a downward flux of radiation really isn’t a flux, it’s really radiation going in different directions at different speeds, and the upward flow is slowing down the downward flow or maybe the opposite, and thus red really is blue and up really is down, and the radiation is coming from a shorter distance above, not a longer distance above, and thus there really is no spoon … but here’s the thing.

Your. Explanations. Make. No. Sense. To. Me.

Here’s my explanation.

In general, upwelling longwave infrared radiation is absorbed and re-radiated multiple times before reaching space. This is called an upwelling IR flux.

In general, downwelling longwave infrared radiation is absorbed and re-radiated multiple times before reaching the surface. This is called a downwelling IR flux, also called a back-radiation flux. These are often abbreviated as DWIR and UWIR.

The net flux is the difference between these two very real, physical, measurable fluxes. It is UWIR minus DWIR. As you might expect, it goes from hot to cold, i.e. from the earth to space.

NO serious scientist that I know of thinks that (except for in the “atmospheric window”) upwelling radiation goes straight to space.

NO serious scientist that I know of thinks that downwelling radiation goes straight to the ground.

You seem to think you’re one of the few people who noticed this. Yes, the final re-emission of most downwelling radiation is from the bottom few hundred meters of the atmosphere.

SO WHAT?

Seriously, despite all of your explanations, I have no clue what you think this means, why you think other people don’t know this, or why this makes you claim there is no back-radiation flux.

Now, there may be folks out there who speak your curious language. I encourage you to seek them out and talk to them. But talking to me is no good—I don’t speak your language, and your explanations make things less clear, not more.

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 28, 2022 7:35 am

The bizarre part is, ANY downward-directed infrared IS a flux, often called a back-radiation flux. So you’re both accepting and denying that such a flux exists …

Finally, you understand what I am saying. You disagree. Fine. Now we can have a discussion.

You have a river with bends such as the Mississippi. The water flows south into the Gulf of Mexico. Do you think the river has a northward flux simply because a few bends temporarily push the water north?

My view is there is no northward flux. There are points of temporary northward movement. All that movement is local.

SO WHAT?

That means the fact you can measure places where water is moving northward does not mean any water makes it northward from Memphis to Lake Itasca

I believe this is our point of real disagreement. You appear to disagree and claim the very existence of water moving northward means the northward flux exists and water does make it from Memphis to Lake Itasca.

You seem to think you’re one of the few people who noticed this. Yes, the final re-emission of most downwelling radiation is from the bottom few hundred meters of the atmosphere.

Sorry, there is no such thing as a “final re-emission”. In my analogy that requires that some water above Lake Itasca made its way all the way up the Mississippi from Memphis.

IIRC the water out of Lake Itasca does flow north for a few miles before the Mississippi river turns south. You could put a sensor there and measure it. It is meaningless to the big picture.

I hope you can now see where we disagree. I am telling you that no significant amount of energy makes it’s way down through the atmosphere. All the energy radiated to the surface from the last few meters is energy located very low in the atmosphere.

I have no clue what you think this means

I told you what this means previously but we got sidetracked on whether a downward flux exists. Let’s see if I can make it clear.

No downward energy flux means that once surface radiation is saturated the addition of more CO2 cannot produce warming. There is no 3.7 W/m2 of downward energy flux from doubling CO2, so there can be no warming.

What is really happening low in the atmosphere is energy is constantly cycling back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere. It is part of what creates boundary layer equilibrium. If you double CO2 you will be able to measure more 15 mm photons reaching the surface. However, that’s simply part of the same equilibrium cycle. More energy will also cycle back from the surface to the low atmosphere. Hence, no warming can occur.

This result is why I think this is important.

stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 28, 2022 6:45 am

Willis, you said “A “flux” is a flow of photons”. Now you have also told us in the past that electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. So what units should we measure this flux in?

stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 28, 2022 7:03 am

Willis, you wrote “Scientists actually measure these kinds of things so we don’t have to guess. They measure the upwelling flux (~ 490 W/m2), and the downwelling flux (~ 340 W/m2)”

No, they don’t. They make these numbers up. The last time we pointed this out to you, you and your gang of undereducated groupies came up with the following “brillant” rebuttals:

W.E.: I can’t believe government scientists would lie to me, so you must be wrong
Trick: I have an IR thermometer, and I don’t know how that works either, so you must be wrong
Monte Carlo: You’re wrong, and here’s the equation that proves that you’re right… wait a minute… umm
Rud Istvan: You must be wrong because Willis would never make a fundamental error

So I have a couple of suggestions for you:

1) See if you can recruit a higher class of followers, because these ones are making you look incompetent
2) Refrain from any form of argument from authority, argument from incredulity, and ad hominems, as a matter of principle

And a question:

What are the raw (unadjusted) measurements from the pyrgeometers (i.e., thermopile voltage times sensitivity) at night?

Reply to  stevekj
December 28, 2022 8:43 am

Richard M December 28, 2022 7:35 am

The bizarre part is, ANY downward-directed infrared IS a flux, often called a back-radiation flux. So you’re both accepting and denying that such a flux exists …

Finally, you understand what I am saying. You disagree. Fine. Now we can have a discussion.

This is exactly the problem. I do NOT understand what you are saying. You are saying there both is and isn’t a downward flux. And no, I don’t understand that in the slightest.

You have a river with bends such as the Mississippi. The water flows south into the Gulf of Mexico. Do you think the river has a northward flux simply because a few bends temporarily push the water north?

My view is there is no northward flux. There are points of temporary northward movement. All that movement is local.

This is a joke, right?

At any point in the atmosphere, there is both an upward and a downward flux. It’s not “a few bends temporarily” as in your river example.

It’s at all points at all times. Go to MODTRAN, pick any altitude, look up, and then look down. Unlike any river ever, there’s a flow in both directions everywhere.

Saying it’s like a river with a few bends reveals a profound misinterpretation of reality.

I give up. You truly don’t understand, and you are determined to remain in that condition.

Pass.

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 28, 2022 10:50 am

Saying it’s like a river with a few bends reveals a profound misinterpretation of reality.

My Mississippi analogy was essentially falsification by example. I understand your resistance. It’s not a great analogy. Maybe fish, boats, barges, etc. moving against the current would be a better analogy. Same result though.

It’s still possible in my analogy that a few drops of water make its way upstream. The key point is vast majority of what you regard as a downward flux is simply local movements of energy.

I give up.

Don’t give up. Whether you realize it or not you now understand there can be a difference between a flux and local movements. But, you still think the large amounts of local downward energy movement in the atmosphere will result in some kind of a flux.

 there is both an upward and a downward flux

Okay, there may be a trivial amount of energy that makes its way against the upward current of energy flow, however, just like the drops of water in my analogy, it is trivial and can be assumed to be zero.

Go to MODTRAN, pick any altitude, look up, and then look down. Unlike any river ever, there’s a flow in both directions everywhere.

Sorry, it’s an illusion. It all local movement that disappears.

What got me on the right path was looking at an average photon emission-absorption (EA) event. The average EA event moves energy almost straight up a short distance before being reabsorbed. From a mathematical point of view, we can replace all real photons with an average photon and should get the same final result.

What happened to the downward flux?

There never was one. Conceptualizing the energy flow as a statistical average of all the EA events can help change your perspective. You’re a math guy too.

I suspect your objection will be that I’m simply focusing on the net flow and ignoring its components. My claim is your components are simply mathematical constructs. They don’t exist in reality.

How did I get there? The average energy flow is not just a conceptualization. It’s closer to reality. I looked at energy flow in the atmosphere as a process of radiation physics for a long time. I was wrong. It’s more than that. You need to include ALL the energy in the atmosphere to achieve a real understanding of what is occurring.

First you have to understand that every EA event is unrelated to every other one. The quanta of energy being moved is almost always different. I assume you already know that when a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon the energy is a million times more likely to be transferred to another atmospheric molecule due to a kinetic energy collision than reemitted. Hence, we can ignore instantaneous reemissions.

So, what is really going on is we have a massive energy store (the molecules in the atmosphere) where occasional EA events move a tiny fraction of energy a few meters where it becomes part of the massive energy store (MES) again.

The only movement of the MES occurs as the result of trillions of EA events. In essence, the movement will follow the average EA event as I mentioned in the conceptualization.

What is really happening in our atmosphere is energy mainly enters near the surface and becomes part of the MES. The ongoing EA events slowly move all energy upwards. It takes a long time for new energy to make its way upward where it finally radiates to space. Both the upward and downward fluxes, which you can compute mathematically, disappear.

The understanding that the energy flow is a slow process helps in understanding the only real flux.

Reply to  Richard M
December 28, 2022 11:02 am

As I said, we’re speaking different languages.

It appears that the difference is so great that you don’t understand that “Pass” means I have absolutely no interest in your bizarre ideas, your impenetrable ideation, your well-defended misunderstanding, or your totally flawed analogies.

I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. GO TALK TO SOMEONE ELSE, I’M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR FANTASIES.

Sadly,

w.

Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 28, 2022 11:39 am

 we’re speaking different languages.

I’m speaking in terms of scientific concepts. It’s not easy but also not all that hard to understand. First, you have to accept that your understanding of this specific slice of science may be faulty. Until you do that, you will continue to resist.

Let me just go over the last little piece once again as I suspect you skipped right over it.

Every emission-absorption (EA) event is independent. The energy moving may have reached the planet weeks apart. So ask yourself, how can you even combine them mathematically into any kind of useful knowledge? What exactly is a mathematical computed sum (flux) of these independent events telling you?

Reply to  Richard M
December 28, 2022 11:01 pm

Richard, the languages we’re speaking are so different that you don’t seem to understand simple English. So I’ll make it even simpler.

PISS OFF, GO WHINE AT SOMEONE ELSE, I’M NOT INTERESTED IN THE SLIGHTEST IN YOUR BIZARRE CLAIMS!!!

Clear enough for you?

w.

Richard M
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 29, 2022 6:23 am

Part of my reason for posting these comments is to make the information available to anyone. Feel free to ignore the science I present.

You have helped me though. Trying to explain this concept has improved and widened my own comprehension of the topic. For that I thank you for your time.

Reply to  Richard M
December 29, 2022 9:35 am

Thanks, Richard. I hold no animus towards you, I just think that our languages are too different to make discussion profitable.

Best regards to you and yours,

w.

Reply to  stevekj
December 28, 2022 8:47 am

stevekj December 28, 2022 7:03 am

The last time we pointed this out to you, you and your gang of undereducated groupies came up with the following “brillant” rebuttals:

W.E.: I can’t believe government scientists would lie to me, so you must be wrong

You are an unpleasant, insulting, lying sack of bovine excrement. You are pretending I said something that I never in my life have said. Anyone believing a word out of your mouth is a damn fool.

I don’t have any truck with liars, steve. Go spread your falsehoods elsewhere, not interested.

w.

stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 30, 2022 8:09 am

Well Willis, this is a direct quote from you (there are others in a similar vein):

“This claim means that the thousands and thousands of scientists spending lots of money on pyrgeometers are either being totally fooled about what pyrgeometers do, or are part of a gigantic conspiracy.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/surface-radiation-absorption-and-emission/#comment-3590424

Are you sure I am lying when I claim that you are relying on argument from authority? Is your direct quote substantially different from my paraphrase?

Anyway, that’s an improvement. Now that we can eliminate the argument from authority, which was your only previous justification for believing the nonsense coming out of the SURFRAD stations, you can proceed to an actual physics justification. What have you got?

Reply to  stevekj
December 30, 2022 9:18 am

stevekj December 30, 2022 8:09 am

Well Willis, this is a direct quote from you (there are others in a similar vein):

“This claim means that the thousands and thousands of scientists spending lots of money on pyrgeometers are either being totally fooled about what pyrgeometers do, or are part of a gigantic conspiracy.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/surface-radiation-absorption-and-emission/#comment-3590424

Are you sure I am lying when I claim that you are relying on argument from authority? Is your direct quote substantially different from my paraphrase?

Yes, you are either lying or totally lacking in reading ability. Your “paraphrase” was:

W.E.: I can’t believe government scientists would lie to me, so you must be wrong

I said nothing about “government scientists”. Not one word. You made that up, either a lie or a monumental inability to read.

I also said nothing about whether the “government scientists” would lie. How could I, since I hadn’t mentioned “government scientists” at all??

I said that the idea that either there is a worldwide pyrgeometer conspiracy, or that thousands of scientists all around the planet are being fooled about the capabilities of the pyrgeometers they’re using, doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Do you really believe either of those are true?

I mean, do you seriously think that all the scientists around the world are part of a gigantic pyrgeometer conspiracy, and not one has broken their silence?

Or do you truly believe the manufacturers of the pyrgeometers have fooled those thousands of scientists about what is being measured, and not one of those scientist ever noticed?

Really? That’s your final answer?

And that’s why I ask that people quote my words exactly.

Finally, no, that’s not an appeal to authority. It’s an appeal to common sense, which sadly is the least common of the senses these days.

w.

Last edited 1 month ago by Willis Eschenbach
stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 31, 2022 1:25 pm

It is true you didn’t say “government”, but then, see if you can find any of those pyrgeometer scientists that aren’t government funded. They all are, as far as I can tell. SURFRAD is run by NOAA. That is a government agency. The scientists working at universities are all government funded too. So my addition of that word does not change your case. (Do you think you would have objected any less to what I wrote, if I had left out the word “government”?? Or is that just nit-picking?)

When you say “the idea that either there is a worldwide pyrgeometer conspiracy, or that thousands of scientists all around the planet are being fooled about the capabilities of the pyrgeometers they’re using, doesn’t pass the laugh test”, that is identical to saying “I believe all those folks, because I cannot believe they are all either lying or incompetent”. (Yes, sure, I left out the “incompetent” alternative for brevity, too, but that doesn’t help your case either – I can guarantee you still would have objected if I had added that, but feel free to tell me you wouldn’t have)

And yes, that is what “argument from authority” means. There is no “common sense” here, it is just “I believe these scientists because they are authorities“. That is the textbook definition of “argument from authority”. Note that the number of scientists involved doesn’t really change the definition. And this argument is a fallacy. You should know that.

(If you prefer, we can replace “argument from authority” with “argument from incredulity”, in the form of “I believe these scientists, because I can’t believe the alternative”. That’s a fallacy too, of course, and doesn’t make you look any better.)

My point stands: you believe the pyrgeometer scientists because they are official pyrgeometer scientists, and for no other reason. Exactly what you wrote above, and what I attributed to you in my paraphrase.

Reply to  stevekj
December 31, 2022 10:15 pm

Dude, you are hilarious. I appealed to your common sense. It appears you are sadly lacking in that department.

Pass.

w.

stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 1, 2023 10:38 am

Hahaha “common sense”? That is not how physics works. That’s why it took hundreds of years for people much smarter than you or me to figure some of these principles out. No, you can’t appeal to “common sense”, especially without having studied any of the relevant theory.

I might just have to invent a new logical fallacy and name it after you. The “appeal to common sense”, also known as the Willis Eschenbach fallacy. There you go! Not everyone gets to have a new logical fallacy named after them, so that’s quite an accomplishment. It’s a shorthand for some combination of Strawman, Appeal to Ignorance, False Dilemma, Causal Fallacy, Appeal to Authority, Bandwagon Fallacy, and probably a few others that I missed. But we’ll just call it the “Common Sense Fallacy” or “Willis Eschenbach Fallacy” for short.

So next time you post this falsehood, and I correct it, I will summarize your standing rebuttal as “I can’t believe all those scientists would be lying or incompetent, that’s just common sense, therefore you’re wrong.” And then I fully expect you to call me a liar, again, because that’s just the way you roll. It’s much easier than addressing the argument on its merits, right? Especially when you don’t actually understand the merits.

Reply to  stevekj
January 2, 2023 2:39 pm

Bro’, look, I get it. You don’t have common sense. But that’s no reason to whine to me about it.

Pass.

w.

stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 3, 2023 2:56 pm

What is “common sense”, exactly? Is it “believe whatever Willis says”? Funny thing about “common sense”, it’s not very common, and often not very sensible either. That’s why appealing to it is a logical fallacy. Every man’s common sense is different. It’s like argument from authority, without the authority. It’s really just so much verbal gas. Keep on “Passing” it…

Reply to  stevekj
January 3, 2023 4:11 pm

I say again:

I said that your claim that either there is a worldwide pyrgeometer conspiracy, or that thousands of scientists all around the planet are being fooled about the capabilities of the pyrgeometers they’re using, doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Do you really believe either of those are true?

I mean, do you seriously think that all the scientists around the world are part of a gigantic pyrgeometer conspiracy, and not one has broken their silence?

Or do you truly believe the manufacturers of the pyrgeometers have fooled those thousands of scientists about what is being measured, and not one of those scientist ever noticed?

You’re more than welcome to believe either of those ludicrous claims. People with common sense look at you and laugh.

Pass.

w.

stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 5, 2023 12:56 pm

You are certainly welcome to say again whatever you wish.

If you look carefully, you will see that I am not saying anything about the sociology here. I am just pointing out that the physics is false. You have no idea how the physics works, so you had to desperately resort to arguing about the sociology instead, and hope that no one noticed the switch. Unfortunately, your grasp of sociology is stuck at about a third-grade level (“Why would anyone lie to me?”), and isn’t really any more advanced than your knowledge of physics, so you immediately had to resort to a logical fallacy. I’ll get to that in a moment.

First, remember, there is no point at all in worrying about the sociology until you have figured out the facts. Just the facts, ma’am, as they say. Sort out the “what” before you get all tied into knots about the “who”, the “how”, and the “why”. That’s just basic investigative procedure. Don’t take my word for it, though – ask someone who does that sort of thing for a living, such as a private investigator, or crime scene detective, for example. (Yes, we are looking at a crime scene.)

Next, as far as sociology and debating goes, most of us learned somewhere around second grade that we wouldn’t be winning any arguments by saying “I’m right! It’s just common sense! You’re wrong! Stop arguing with me! Shut up! Liar! Sack of bovine excrement! Pass! Pass! Pass! Waaaah!” That type of argument usually turned out to fail to convince anyone, and instead often led quickly to fisticuffs.

But while you were failing to learn about either physics or sociology, probably because you were busy fishing, and nothing wrong with that, the rest of us were busy learning about logic. It is a whole subsection of philosophy devoted to making arguments that cannot be simply shouted down, or punched into submission, and must instead be reasoned with. That involves axioms, premises, rules of inference, chains of deduction, and ironclad conclusions.

And then naturally, along with that field of endeavour came a whole series of fallacies, i.e. errors of logic, engaged in by people who didn’t really get the whole “logic” thing. You have attempted to rely on many of those in this particular discussion. Primarily of course the argument from authority (and then, when you realized that I wasn’t going to fall for that, the argument from no authority at all except yourself, which is not an improvement. Indeed, that one is attempted so rarely outside of grade-school playgrounds that it doesn’t even make the Top 15 Logical Fallacies list, which is why I had to invent a new name for it and then christen it in your honour).

So I guess we can conclude that your knowledge of logic is stuck in about the same place as your knowledge of physics and sociology – somewhere around third grade. Brilliant! But I have no doubt at all that you make an excellent fisherman.

Reply to  stevekj
January 5, 2023 1:10 pm

Pass. I note you haven’t even begun to explain how every single scientist using a pyrgeometer, and every single manufacturer of pyrgeometers, somehow doesn’t understand how they work or what they measure.

As the old saying has it, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think.”

w.

stevekj
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 6, 2023 2:55 pm

No, Willis, I have not begun to explain all of those things. They aren’t my point, and I certainly can’t read anyone’s mind. My point is that the physics of the adjusted published numbers (not the measurements, which are fine, only the adjustments) are false. You are arguing against a different point entirely. A made-up point, one that I never said. Not only is that a Strawman Fallacy (along with all the other fallacies I mentioned, including but not limited to False Dilemma), but much worse than that, it is a straight-up violation of the Willis Eschenbach First Rule of Internet Debating. As I recall, that rule says something about “quoting what you are replying to”. Do you remember that rule? Do you remember why you invented it? Was it something about it being reasonable to expect a man to defend what he says, but not to expect a man to defend what someone else thinks he is thinking? Or even, in this case, what someone else thinks he is thinking other people are thinking? And do you remember how mad you get when someone other than you violates that rule? Because I remember. You get apoplectic with fury. A lot of very bad names come from your keyboard when that happens. But I guess that rule is only for other people, right, Willis? Does the word “hypocrisy” mean anything to you?

If you really honestly want to find out why people (not me) are publishing false numbers, you will have to ask them yourself. That could be illuminating. But there is no sense in doing that until you have satisfied yourself that the numbers are indeed false. I certainly don’t expect you to take my word for that. But I can tell you what question you need to ask your nearest professional theoretical physicist, if you are seeking the truth. That’s what a scientist faced with an assertion outside his domain of expertise would do.

But instead of all that hard work, just go ahead and “Pass”… it’s obviously what you’re best at. It’s a lot easier than thinking, certainly. Or following your own rules. Or learning some physics, so that you can ascertain the truth of my statement for yourself, from first principles. (Physics is interesting that way – it doesn’t depend on anyone’s opinion. Neither mine, nor yours, nor any other scientist’s either, regardless of how many of them there are.)

rckkrgrd
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 25, 2022 7:47 am

I am beginning to be skeptical about many more of the generally accepted claims of the climate change, AKA global warming, crowd. Who decides that the actual level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a consistent and precise 415 ppm or that the temperature of the earth has actually warmed.
Could it be that these assumptions are just an artifact of uneven, insufficient, widely spaced, biased, or just largely inaccurate measurements.
CO2, as an example, is supposedly assumed to be distributed evenly throughout our atmosphere while it is obvious it varies by extreme amounts depending on your location. Examples would be near volcanic vents. indoors, in or near large population centers, at your car’s tailpipe, or your own tailpipe. Thinking about it reveals uncountable possible examples.
Temperature measurements are only slightly better by virtue of being much more numerous.The problem here is consistency with many apples and oranges comparisons and many measurements being grouped into rather tight geographical areas.
Proxy measurements of past levels are even worse ,with a degree of accuracy that is laughable when compared to the tight boundaries of current conditions. Juggling starting and ending dates can produce any result you wish for if you are searching for trends.There is a reason that nearly all studies use the fudge words “may” or “could”.
There is no unit of measurement large enough to encompass the boundaries of my skepticism.

MarkW
Reply to  rckkrgrd
December 25, 2022 11:27 am

We have satellites that measure both temperature and CO2 levels for nearly the entire world. They show that there has been warming and that CO2 levels have risen.

Duker
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2022 11:56 am

PPM, its only measurable because scientists can. The planet itself wouldnt be aware apart from some better growth from plants that take up CO2
An Ice Age, thats really noticeable

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2022 4:42 am

Satellites don’t actually measure temperature. They measure irradiance which has numerous factors affecting it, things such as clouds. The samples are actually pretty sparse and measured locations are not consistent.

They may provide a useful metric but it’s not really measuring temperature and its accuracy is not sufficient to discern the differences being quoted in the hundredths digit.

rckkrgrd
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2022 7:57 am

For about 40 of the earths 4 billion plus years.What did I just say about start and end dates or the accuracy of measurements.
John Christy or Roy Spencer do not seem overly concerned about global warming/climate change. they are the scientists very closely associated with satellite sata.

vuk
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 25, 2022 9:05 am

About 100ppm above the LIA is good for the biosphere.
About 100ppm below the LIA would initiate extinction of biosphere.

MarkW
Reply to  jshotsky
December 25, 2022 11:21 am

You actually believe a 1C increase in temperature is sufficient to drive CO2 levels from 280ppm to around 410ppm?
By adding up the total amount of oil/gas/coal that has been mined over the last 150 years, we can calculate that the burning of them is more than enough to account for all of the CO2 increase that has been seen.

The answer to bad science, is not more bad science.

jshotsky
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2022 12:52 pm

What I believe is that it has been shown in study after study that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, not the other way around. I didn’t do the science, I read it.
The Little ice age ended about 170 years ago…and CO2 has been rising ever since.

Editor
Reply to  jshotsky
December 25, 2022 2:59 pm

A problem with those studies is that they looked at a world where CO2 was being removed from the biosphere, either as coal or new limestone.

I don’t think the geologic record clearly shows a period like the present where that carbon is being returned to active use. Perhaps you can provide some references.

rckkrgrd
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 26, 2022 8:07 am

CO2 is still being removed from the atmosphere. Currently more is being added but a balance and subsequent reversal is likely to be reached.
For practically all of earth’s history there has not been a balance, with more CO2 being removed than added until nearly catastrophic low levels were reached, very recently.

HotScot
December 25, 2022 6:34 am

Believe it or not we are winning.

A recent global poll found the number of people doubting the climate change narrative has risen to 40%. French scepticism has risen by 8% in the years since the last poll was run.

We note the narrative has moved from global warming, to climate change, and now the CO2 debate has largely been dropped in favour of wild claims of extreme weather – which always happens ‘somewhere else’.

Then there’s Guterres’ claim of a 500% increase in extreme weather. It’s just not believable even by die hard cult members.

As mankind has never achieved anything without optimism, I remain optimistic. We will resist this attack on humanity.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.

Last edited 1 month ago by HotScot
Tom.1
Reply to  HotScot
December 25, 2022 6:43 am

I don’t think we are winning, at least not at the moment. Climate change is simply a convenient excuse for reordering society as progressives would like it. This is going to continue ad nauseam, or until they are able to bring about total societal collapse, which may not be their goal, but if it happens, they will be the reason.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom.1
December 25, 2022 7:08 am

Metaphorically, we are heading to Venezuela to live as Uyghurs.

We have to continue the fight against the idiot puppets and their idiot masters.

Scissor
Reply to  HotScot
December 25, 2022 6:58 am

The battle is raging. Life expectancy in Western nations has fallen recently, not due to covid in 2020, but as a fallout of covid responses, declining by 2-3 years in 2021/2022.

Hopefully, we recover from the elevated excess injuries and deaths that are taking their toll.

Last edited 1 month ago by Scissor
Decaf
Reply to  HotScot
December 25, 2022 9:09 am

Merry Christmas! I remain optimistic and unflagging in my determination to speak out. Unfortunately, ever since discovering this great website no one has brought up any climate nonsense in my hearing! Maybe they’ve already learned not to. But now I can provide any number of good points and use this site as a reference. I have, of course, sent links to many people. It’s good to hear skepticism is at 40%. I expect that as more vaccine fallout occurs, that number will rise even higher.

Gunga Din
Reply to  HotScot
December 25, 2022 10:09 am

Even though Christ was born in the Fall (September 11, 3BC is the best I know), this is the day when his birth is celebrated, so, YES, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!

And, we are winning.
The only people who seem to really care about CAGW anymore are those who use the scare for political power, profit, and those who are riding it to promote their own agenda. And the useful idiots.
Most people are waking up from the fantasy to reality.
Unfortunately, those in power still find it a useful lever.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gunga Din
AndyHce
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 25, 2022 12:53 pm

Whether or not someone really believes something can be quite difficult to decipher but I know people who gleefully accept all the nonsense because it supports their own nonsensical hatred of “Big Oil” or their own very narrow interest in “the environment”.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 25, 2022 8:06 pm

We are definitely not winning the climate wars. I’ve been hearing people say this for 20 years, and it’s only gotten much, much worse.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 26, 2022 1:54 pm

In the realm of those we’ve ceded power to, no. They love power!
But in the realm of those freezing in the dark because they have no power?
I think so.
I hope I’m not wrong.

g3ellis
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 25, 2022 8:47 pm

RE: Christ born in the Fall. I have never seen this reference and would not believe it without reference. Jesus was born in the Spring, either March or April. The biggest key is that the flocks were in the fields. That reference places it in the Spring. Got that from my dad, who was M. Div from Nashotah House (also MS Bio-chemistry UTenn).

Gunga Din
Reply to  g3ellis
December 26, 2022 8:22 am

Farmers would sometimes hire shepherds to graze their flock in their fields after the harvest. The sheep get fed and the field gets fertilized.
Also:
Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was serving in the Temple during “the course of Abia” when an angel appeared to him and told him that he and Elizabeth were going to have a son. The course of Abia was at the end of May to very early June. After his service was up he return home and Elizabeth conceived.
In her 6th month, assuming Zechariah didn’t dawdle, likely end of November to early December, Gabriel visits Mary and she goes to visit Elizabeth. Mary, now pregnant, stays about 3 months and returns for her own wedding ceremony. Now we’re into the end of February to early March. 6 months later puts us in late August to early September. (September 11 was the Feast of Trumpets in 3 BC.)
There are also astronomical aspects that have to do with the Magi and just what they saw and when that I’m not going to get into.
Here are a few links I found after a quick search.
https://drmsh.com/september-11-happy-birthday-to-jesus/
https://goodnessofgodministries.international/2011/12/22/when-was-jesus-christ-born-the-bible-says-september-11-3bc-the-day-of-the-feast-of-trumpets/
https://www.breadforbeggars.com/2019/01/what-was-the-magis-star/

PS I’m associated with any of the sites.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gunga Din
Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 26, 2022 9:38 am

YIKES!
PS I’m associated with any of the sites.”
Should be:
“PS I’m not associated with any of the sites.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 26, 2022 2:04 am

I thought that sheperds with their flocks by night was in fact a spring phenomenon and He was supposed to have been borne about Easter…Christmas is the old pagan midwinter festival of Yule, associated with death of the old year and rebirth of a new.
The Romans simply took it over and altered its meaning.
As they did with most of the other pre Christian festivals (and holy shrines)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 26, 2022 8:23 am

See my reply above to g3ellis.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 26, 2022 8:27 am
Gunga Din
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 26, 2022 2:24 pm

Christmas is the old pagan midwinter festival of Yule, associated with death of the old year and rebirth of a new.
The Romans simply took it over and altered its meaning.
As they did with most of the other pre Christian festivals (and holy shrines)”

True. Once the early church strayed from the scriptures themselves, many pagan beliefs and traditions were “baptized” as being “Christian”. Including saying the rebirth of “The Sun God” was when real Son of the real God was born. (And calling a man a god.) Many of the earliest Roman Catholic patron saints of this or that were the names of pagan gods of this or that.
However, Christ was born, “the seed of the woman”, lived and died and was raised from the dead so that all may come.
(Romans 5)

Ron Long
December 25, 2022 6:43 am

Good posting from Dr. Jennifer, as usual. Here is one of my favorite holidays gatherings comments, disguised as a Climate Reality Check: The Romans built a hexagonal port, called Portus, at the Mediterrnean coast, about 200 meters inland with a connecting canal, with numbered hitching posts for the grain ships to unload around the six sides. This was at the height of the Roman Warm Period, and Rome was the largest city in the world, and needed these grain ships to feed everyone. Where is that hexagonal port today? It is 30 kilometers inland and 8 meters higher than current sea level. If who you are talking to can’t figure what this implies talk about something else, like what your favorite new perfume is.

Scissor
Reply to  Ron Long
December 25, 2022 7:41 am

I’d like to see Portus someday. It was built over 20 years begun by Claudius in 46 AD. The following interesting article on its history indicates that it was basically silted in from disrepair.

https://www.romanports.org/en/articles/ports-in-focus/181-portus-rome-s-imperial-port.html

climategrog
Reply to  Scissor
December 25, 2022 8:20 am

Sounds a lot like Aigues Mortes ( pronounced Egg Mort meaning dead waters) in southern France

Last edited 1 month ago by climategrog
1saveenergy
Reply to  climategrog
December 25, 2022 10:49 am

In North Wales, we have two examples of the finest military architecture from the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century in Europe … Harlech Castle & Beaumaris Castle.

Both built with watergates to allow reprovisioning by sea (Harlech Castle survived a 7-year siege between 1461 and 1468 ); both watergates now are way above modern sea level, & a long way from the high watermark.
Beaumaris has a car park on the old seabed & Harlech has a railway station next to the watergate & a golf course & a small village on the old seabed.

The result of a combination of longshore drift, isostatic rebound & falling sea levels.

rckkrgrd
Reply to  Ron Long
December 25, 2022 8:00 am

Hmmm, I think it implies that sea levels have fallen, the land has risen, both, or divine intervention. I think the last would be the most widely believed or at least the easiest to use as an argument. It can’t be disproven. Much like a lot of so called climate science.

John Oliver
Reply to  Ron Long
December 25, 2022 8:47 am

That is a perfect way to politely stimulate a Climate conversation with out getting to technical. Pick things that are undeniable that will make people think to themselves “maybe there is more to this subject than we have been told”. Thanks

robaustin
Reply to  John Oliver
December 25, 2022 10:13 am

The problem is that even when one presents a climate fact that is undeniable and contradicts the alarmist narrative, these people dismiss it and respond with the old “vast majority of scientists” counter argument from authority. In essence, they want to believe in impending doom, some weird “madness of crowds” phenomenon.

Joe Gordon
Reply to  Ron Long
December 25, 2022 10:42 am

It’s one of those facts that today’s cheerleaders for the climageddon cannot handle. Of course, they think of facts as racist and colonizing, so they will ignore them.

Hopefully, some day, a new generation will rise, eager to take bites from the forbidden apples of knowledge.

One important clarification. It is about 20km to Rome, but it is connected to Rome by the Tiber. Portus was connected to the Tiber by a short canal. It is only about 2 km from the Mediterranean today.

Whether it’s 2km or 30km, the fact remains that this massive port was created, 2000 years ago, on the shore of a sea that is now a city of 80,000 people called Fiumicino. If you’ve been to Leonardo Da Vinci Airport, which serves Rome, you’ve been to Fiumicino.

Last edited 1 month ago by Joe Gordon
lb
Reply to  Ron Long
December 25, 2022 1:51 pm

Italy is a poor proxy for sea-level rise or fall. For example, near Naples, there’s the “Portus Julius”, a port that’s now below sea level. All because the area is very active geologically.

Google maps shows the under water structures: https://www.google.ch/maps/place/Portus+Julius/@40.8292536,14.0934012,1480m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x12d6226476e6692b:0x26082c92064b4e21!2s57025+Populonia,+Livorno,+Italien!3b1!8m2!3d42.98961!4d10.4918079!3m4!1s0x133b11e698077e07:0x69d7978759120f6d!8m2!3d40.8285121!4d14.0928727!5m1!1e4

Mr.
December 25, 2022 6:44 am

Thanks you Jennifer.

My humble comment to your timely post would be to just some of Kipling’s poetic words of “If” to that of the iconic Dorothea McKellar poem –

“If you can keep your head when all about you   
   Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
   But make allowance for their doubting too;   
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
   Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
   And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise”

ATheoK
Reply to  Mr.
December 25, 2022 7:39 am

“It took an enormous effort, supported by the B. Macfie Family Foundation through the Institute of Public Affairs, for such research to emerge despite the gate keepers.

That it is denied by Naomi Oreskes and Robyn Williams is disappointing. But not a reason to give up.”

If Doctors Darwin, Einstein and Hubert H. Lamb walked the Earth today with Dr. Lindzen, there would still be scammers trying to use the global warming hypothesis as their method for taking over countries by communism.

Nothing at all to do with reality, truth, weather or climate.

Naomi Oreskes is a perfect example of falsehoods spread by a master merchant of doubt. Her book is a projection of her own actions against her opponents.

“You may get cancelled this Christmas for having the type of opinion now denied on the Science Show, or it could be simply that you laugh inappropriately, or choose to point out a logical inconsistency in your favourite progressives’ argument or, worse, that you show them up to be bias.”

If your desire is to be recognized and appreciated for your efforts by those spouting falsehoods, you will be disappointed.
Nor is arguing trivialities with people blinded by propaganda a path to being liked and popularity ranked.

Elon Musk, by bringing common sense to Twitter has already proven that much of the person cancelling lies and falsehoods are spread by bots and trolls. Either paid or created to specifically ramp up falsehoods against individuals and businesses.

Fear not the evil, hold the truth in your head and heart and be blessed by that knowledge.

“I made a very short film earlier this year with my dear friend Jared, entitled Washed Away. It is how I feel sometimes. But, like the rocks that form the platform below Boiling Point Lookout in Noosa National Park, we can resist.”

Thank you!

Keep in mind that “Boiling Point Lookout”, in the previous interglacial, would be deep underwater.

People are desperate to blame humanity around them, for weather and natural Earth cycles is their own problem, not yours.

That innate desire for those feeling guilt to destroy Western Civilization is not their own ideas, it is foisted upon them by propagandists (Oreskes) whom incite the guilt flame while blaming followers of truth. Because, those like Oreskes fear the truth more than the fear of weather they preach.

As you have been doing all along, publish the truth and only respond to legitimate scientific questions, not gullible babble.

Thank you Jennifer for your honesty and candor!
Enjoy this holiday with family and the upcoming sparkling New Year!

Last edited 1 month ago by ATheoK
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Mr.
December 25, 2022 8:14 am

A take on if that my Air Force officer father found useful during his years at the Pentagon:
”If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs, then you just don’t understand the situation.”

Tim Gorman
December 25, 2022 6:48 am

I am not Australian and don’t know about all the references but the words in this song by the Seekers speak of things that are common in Australia – long before global warming became a meme. Things such as droughts and flooding rains. Would that the climate alarmists could read these lyrics and lose their paranoia and psychosis.

The Seekers Lyrics

“I Am Australian”

I came from the Dreamtime

From the dusty red soil plains

I am the ancient heart

The keeper of the flame

I stood upon the rocky shore

I watched the tall ships come

For forty thousand years I’ve been the first Australian

I came upon the prison ship

Bound down by iron chains

I fought the land

Endured the lash

And waited for the rains

I’m a settler

I’m a farmer’s wife

On a dry and barren run

A convict then a free man

I became Australian

I’m a daughter of a digger

Who sought the mother lode

The girl became a woman

On the long and dusty road

I’m a child of the Depression

I saw the good times come

I’m a bushy, I’m a battler

I am Australian

We are one

But we are many

And from all the lands on earth we come

We’ll share a dream

And sing with one voice

I am, you are, we are Australian

I’m a teller of stories

I’m a singer of songs

I am Albert Namatjira

And I paint the ghostly gums

I’m Clancy on his horse

I’m Ned Kelly on the run

I’m the one who waltzed Matilda

I am Australian

I’m the hot wind from the desert

I’m the black soil of the plain

I’m the mountains and the valleys

I’m the drought and flooding rains

I am the rock

I am the sky

The rivers when they run

The spirit of this great land

I am Australian

We are one

But we are many

And from all the lands on earth we come

We’ll share a dream

And sing with one voice

I am, you are, we are Australian

We are one

But we are many

And from all the lands on earth we come

We’ll share a dream

And sing with one voice

I am, you are

We are Australian

I am, you are

We are Australian

John Oliver
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 25, 2022 9:29 am

Brings back beautiful memories, sometimes bitter sweet. Early to mid sixties were really a wonderful period in time but it all shifted quickly to turmoil and social strife. But some good things came out of it.. Sadly many of if these greats from my generation are “dust in the wind”now- but leave us these musical gifts.

RickWill
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 25, 2022 2:08 pm

Judith Durham passed away this year. A unique voice.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  RickWill
December 26, 2022 5:43 am

I watched a documentary about her some years ago. A unique lady and certainly a well remembered voice!

Curious George
December 25, 2022 9:02 am

Professor Naomi Oreskes is disagreeable, Christmas or no Christmas. The quality of her teachings are legendary, don’t be surprised when she keeps up her good work even in Australia 🙂

johnesm
December 25, 2022 9:44 am

They do the same thing here all the time. The same ones who like to yell at us “weather isn’t climate!” will conveniently use every conceivable occurrence to “prove” CAGW. Is there a hurricane on the Gulf Coast or East Coast? Climate change. A bad flood on a floodplain in the Midwest? Climate change. A drought or fires in the always semi-arid or desert Southwest? Climate change. Avalanches in Colorado? Even that they claim is because of climate change.

Whenever they say “climate change”, remember that it’s really climate same, and it’s all one colossal lie.

Merry Christmas and happy New Year to all.

Kevin Kilty
December 25, 2022 10:07 am

According to clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet, the type of totalitarianism that insists we only speak of catastrophe does not form in a vacuum.

Back when Prof. Desmet was probably still in short pants we had a most interesting but frightening mass hysteria in the U.S. It was the “satanic ritual abuse hysteria”. It began focussed on day-care centers, but managed to spread into other social groups and even into police departments and ran from about 1984 to 1994 or so. The journalist Lawrence Wright wrote about the hysteria as it coursed through parts of central Washington state in his book “Remembering Satan”. A central facet of the hysteria was the tendency of some people, under the stress of the hysteria, to self hypnotize. In this state they were so suggestible that they would agree to any assertion made by “investigators” no matter how absurd. It does little good to describe what went on in, say, the Tacoma police department as one has to read the book to get an inkling of its surrealness. However, in some parts of the country, New England for instance, people were given long prison sentences on the most preposterous testimony of children under the age of six or seven — tales of goats flying through the air, evil clowns, naked dancing, magic knives that could be used to stab a person but leave no mark — all done during daylight hours when the general public wandered in and out of the childcare facility, and all coaxed out of the children or coached by childhood counselors.

Much of the hysteria, and ludicrous testimony, was driven by clinical psychologists, journalists and counselors abetted by self-serving prosecutors with political ambitions. The investigations of a Stanford U. psychologist helped to deflate the whole thing in Wright’s book, but there were rational prosecutors and journalists (Dorothy Rabinowitz, for example) in other places who refused to succumb to the absurdity.

Our present hysterias (covid+climate change) are driven by journalists, social scientists, and the occasional celebrity physical scientist, and abetted by ambitious politicians. So far, despite attempts by many persons like Ms. Marohasy, Peter Ridd or Steven Koonin or any number of our community here, there is no one like the rational psychologist of Wright’s book to initiate deflation of the mass psychosis.

It all has to run its course. Continue until it can no longer. So buckle up.

Last edited 1 month ago by Kevin Kilty
Editor
December 25, 2022 10:13 am

Good lady Jennifer, my profound thanks for your unwillingness to give in. Your work and your perseverance are an inspiration to all honest folk.

My very best Christmas wishes to you and yours,

w.

michel
December 25, 2022 10:59 am

“These claims, and much of the rest of what Professor Oreskes said, are misinformation. Propaganda. And they need to be resisted.”

I think this is mistaken. They are not intended really as statements. They are false of course, but they aren’t intended to have any cognitive content, and are not intended to persuade by informing (albeit falsely). Those uttering these statements are testifying. Uttering them is both bearing witness and setting and confirming the standards for being a true believer. Truth is immaterial, and no amount of rational argument will prevent people from continuing to say them.

The mechanism is ably explained by McWhorter in ‘Woke Racism’, in his diagnosis of Critical Race Theory. Its the same mechanism at work in the examples JM quotes in this post.

This is why climate activists are always demanding that things be done, because climate, which on their own theory will have no effect on it. The point is not to have any effect on climate or emissions. The point of demanding them is to testify.

We see this at COP year after year. We also see it in utterances about sex and gender. Frequently people when testifying in this way say things which the evidence suggests strongly they do not believe and often have not even seriously thought about. You don’t have to think about it, you are testifying to your social or political circle that you really do belong. Listen to the Extinction Rebellion or the Just Stop Oil people, and this is what you will hear.

McWhorter’s prescription on Critical Race Theory is equally applicable to climate. To adapt his argument, you are not going to persuade anyone that CAGW is not a thing. All you will do is convince them you are a denier and what you say can be disregarded.

Your only tactic is to focus on things where objectivity still remains and where measurable differences can be argued about. Don’t object to wind on the grounds that there is no danger from warming. But do have discussions about how best to power the grid, what it would take to do it with wind, what the tradeoffs on reliability and generating technologies are. Same thing with coral and polar bears. Yes, publish the real story. But don’t expect to persuade the true believers, or even to get them to pay serious attention.

It would be like trying to persuade a believer that trans substantiation doesn’t happen, you have taken samples and can prove it. No, won’t make any progress with that, either.

I have come to think in the course of the past year that its essential to understanding the climate mania to see the parallels to the sex/gender and race manias. I gave some suggestions on reading about the other two in the open thread.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/24/open-thread-45/#comment-3655734

At bottom though its pretty simple. Do not think or proceed on the basis that you are dealing with rationally formed opinion and logical cognitive discourse. It may masquerade as that, but in reality its something quite different, its more like the responses in a church service.

rah
December 25, 2022 11:04 am

comment image

The authorities tried everything to try and stop him and his message and nothing worked!

Last edited 1 month ago by rah
Duker
Reply to  rah
December 25, 2022 12:04 pm

The ‘disinformation’ wouldnt have spread so *easily* without a single empire to facilitate with roads , migrations and cultural similarities.
Over 30 years, Paul clocked up around 10,000 miles, traveling across the Roman Empire. He preached in some of the empire’s most important cities. Although places like Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth and Athens looked magnificent, they were also home to tens of thousands of poor, desperate people who were the perfect audience for the Christian message of eternal life.

Like Jesus, Paul spoke to people in their homes and synagogues. But he went beyond Jesus, who had only preached to Jews. Paul believed his message should also be taken to gentiles – the non-Jews.’
It also moved on from being jewish sect and left behind many of its traditional laws

rah
Reply to  Duker
December 25, 2022 12:13 pm

And in the end, the very state that did everything it could to stop his message was converted to it!

RickWill
Reply to  rah
December 25, 2022 2:24 pm

The United Nations empire has been trying to develop its own source of income for decades now. They lost an opportunity with taxing emails.

They now see climate ambition as a money tree. If they can get ambition uo to a trillion a year and skim 3% administration fee, it will be similar to what the Roman church managed with guaranteed salvation through tithing.

Duker
Reply to  rah
December 25, 2022 2:39 pm

Not did ‘everything’ The persecution was only sporadic under a few emperors.
Once it was accepted as a state religion that made it really widespread. Its not called ‘Roman’ Catholic for nothing.

davidf
Reply to  rah
December 25, 2022 9:18 pm

Because it was politically expedient for Constantine to do so. 1700 years later, we see the same behavior. It would appear we have learned very little in the intervening period

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Duker
December 26, 2022 5:50 am

Lot’s of folks don’t understand that Paul was the person responsible for spreading Christianity throughout the world. Without him, Peter would have been satisfied to have Christianity simply become a sect of Judaism.

David Wojick
December 25, 2022 11:50 am

Kiss a whale for Christmas (a quick video)

https://twitter.com/TansuYegen/status/1605812328196251648?s=20&t=O5AUEElA9PIhCIt1GEF51A

Here’s to a Whale of a New Year. Go skeptics!

Jennifer Marohasy
December 25, 2022 1:51 pm

So much thanks to the community here for all that you share and all that you do … and for all the rational discussions over the years.

And here is my favourite Judith Durham/The Seekers Christmas carols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHfKfBV0-Zg .

She died this past year, in August.

RickWill
December 25, 2022 1:54 pm

Earth is cold at the depth of glaciation for three reasons:

  1. The lapse rate because the land north of 40N has and average 600m rise above sea level so is cooler by virtue of the lapse rate.
  2. It is impossible to get a block of snow covered ice warmer than 0C.
  3. Glacier calving cools the ocean water. That is what eventually terminates the glaciation.

However to get to this state of getting water from ocean to land requires considerable ocean heat input.

The rapidly increasing temperature of the oceans in the NH is resulting in more snowfall and that eventually leads to accumulation. Once the process gets under way, it has positive feedback because the snow will only thermalise about 35% of the incoming solar EMR.

What is being observed now and labelled “global warming” is the termination of the modern interglacial.

Snowfall records will be a feature of weather reporting for the next 8,000 years. This is the basis of real climate change.

Duker
Reply to  RickWill
December 25, 2022 2:45 pm

Wasnt there rapid warming periods – regionally- during the ice ages, some lasted longer and were more widespread to become recognised inter-glacials like the present and I seem to remember some even warmer than now with less remnants of ice outside of polar regions.
My thoughts are that as well as effects you mentioned , changes to major ocean currents led to the early ‘snowball planet’

Editor
December 25, 2022 2:55 pm

American Naomi Oreskes was given a whole hour on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Science Show (21st December 2022)

No wonder you’re in a bad mood. Did they make you watch the whole hour?

Leo Smith
December 26, 2022 2:08 am

I think overall from being a tinfoil hat conspiarcy theory, climate scepticism is now embraced by really quite a large proportion of people and is espoused by them publicly when it wont results in them being ostracised and losiung their jobs.
So you find it more in retired people, anonymous blog posters, and opinion polls .

ferdberple
December 26, 2022 6:02 am

A different approach is required. The war is most definitely being lost and the madness spreading. The EU sees gas shortages as a reason to install more solar panels, while an ocean of gas lies beneath their feet.

ferdberple
December 26, 2022 6:24 am

The video shows that climate change is real.
It is a natural event like sunrise and sunset.

At one time we believed the God’s caused the sun to move We believed that prayer and sacrifice to the gods could increase crop yields. Even today people believe prayer can cure the sick. Great sacrifice was made to try and cure Covid.

Arguing against climate change is a false argument. The question has not been answered. What is the average and standard deviation of climate? Unless we are more than 3 deviations away from average, climate change is simply a natural process

Dennings showed this year’s ago and revolutionized manufacturing. Without a measurement of natural variability no one knows if humans are changing the climate or not.

As such climate change is an unanswered question. To argue that climate change is not happening leaves WUWT open to attack with the D word. Time to adopt a different strategy.

Last edited 1 month ago by ferdberple
Bruce Cobb
December 26, 2022 12:18 pm

In the beginning Gore created An Inconvenient Truth. Now the Climate was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of Gore was hovering over the surface of the waters.Then Gore said, “Let there be Global Warming” and there was Global Warming. Gore saw that the warming was bad, and Gore separated the natural climate change from the manmade climate change. Gore called the natural climate change “whatever happened before the industrial revolution,” and the manmade climate change he called “evil.” Then came a period of darkness and a great cry went out upon the lands, and the people rent their clothes and wore sack cloths and spread ashes upon their heads. And Gore was greatly pleased at this and saw that it was Good.
The end.

Loren Wilson
December 26, 2022 4:05 pm

To the author – what a great picture!

MikeN
December 27, 2022 7:39 am

Like all initiatives, the first step is to soberly assess the current state. The current state of the typical, “purple-pilled” American conservative (the vast majority of conservates) is fear. Conservatives are failures because they no longer interact with the real world. Conservatives hire proxies and contrive fake worlds to live in because they’re at heart frightened people. Conservative’s reaction to Covid, mandatory vaccines, masks, social distancing, and the egregious inability to mount any sort of pushback related to now multiple, mass occurrences of election fraud has made this clear.

Impotent, “purple-pilled” conservatives live in fake cyber worlds. It’s becoming conceivable that Instapundit, AOS, Althouse etc… are shadow-funded operations to keep tabs on conservatives and more importantly offer a cathartic outlet that provides a sports-like fan following for conservatives to blow off steam and reduce the possibility of mass uprising. Extremely alarming is the majority believe online political interaction is a replacement for the physical world – they have become deluded and believe they are interacting with friends and compatriots, enemies and spies when of course it is all fake.

The primary reason to interact online politically is to drive action and change. Online civil discourse is impossible. Civil discourse can only happen in reality where the threat of violence (a punch to the face) exists. The only value of online discourse is the use of public shaming to drive change. Conservatives are a very frightened people. Frighten people are susceptible to shame. To effect change, red-pilled conservatives must agitate (troll) our purple-pilled compatriots, so they ultimately realized their impotence and drive them to action. The responsibility of driving change is not with the Blog owner. Legally they can’t expose themselves. The responsibility of effecting change lies with true conservatives.

If conservative keyboard warriors took just 10% of the time they waste cruising the conservative political internet venting and bloviating in their echo chambers and instead walked out to the street with a sign and peacefully protested we’d be living in an entirely different America.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights