How a “scientific consensus” that “climate change is mostly human-caused” was forced by:
1) Shutting down funding for scientific research into natural causes.
2) Punishing scientists who continued this research anyway.
🔹 🔹 🔹 🔹
This is an excerpt from “Climate The Movie” (2024). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAUsvVhgsU
Trofim Lysenko lives.
What a disgraceful state of affairs.
I’ve kept track — Dr Willie Soon has been (so far) FALSELY accused of taking Exxon bribes in 34 U.S. “ExxonKnew”-style lawsuits. Character assassination is the main tactic the enviro-activist side uses to prompt reporters not to look into the science assessments from skeptic scientists. Within the barely months old State of Maine v BP lawsuit, it resurrected a 7 year-old false claim out of another lawsuit about the late Dr S Fred Singer. When these mobsters cannot debate the message from skeptic climate scientists, they kill the messenger in the eyes of the public.
“1) Shutting down funding for scientific research into natural causes.”
Man is natural. When I light a campfire, I am creating a “Personal Heat Island” (PHI).
If there is no change to the rest of the world (that is, if no offsetting cooling takes place elsewhere), the average global temperature has increased. It must.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Now multiply me by 8 billion or so.
Why would anybody be surprised that temperatures increase when more heat is being generated?
And what would magically happen to the energy you released if you hadn’t built the fire?
Zig Zag,
“And what would magically happen to the energy you released if you hadn’t built the fire?”
It would remain in the wood as mass. Why do you think that wood is magic before it oxidises? Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say.
Are you trying to disagree with me, but can’t quite figure out what you are disagreeing about?
So that wood mass increases forever? The world would be full of wood, in that case.
The energy will be released in some way whether or not the fire is built. It’s merely a part of a long cycle.
Wood decays, if it didn’t, we’d be buried in wood.
The rate of decay equals the rate of growth.
By burning a tiny amount of wood in your fire, you have advanced the generation of heat by a few months. You have not created new heat.
Beyond that, even 8 billion campfires is small beans compared to the energy coming from the sun.
Mark, decaying wood generates heat, but I think you are just trying to confuse the issue. As I wrote before, re you trying to disagree with me, but can’t quite figure out what you are disagreeing about?
Burning hydrocarbons – wood, oil, coal, gas – creates heat. The Sun is irrelevant – the Earth has cooled from its original molten state.
Presumably, you somehow believe that adding CO2 to air makes the atmosphere hotter, but you have the sense to realise how nonsensical that is.
Maybe you could complain about something I presented as fact, rather than something I didn’t?
And where did all the energy released by the Palisades bushfire go ?
Take your finger, and point it upwards !!!
He raises an interesting point. The energy released by human activity is real and measurable, its the urban heat island. Yet no one is claiming that it affects global temperatures in any significant way. Why is that?
The energy he mentions will be released in some way whether or not the fire is built. It’s merely a part of a long cycle.
Start talking about a coal fire, that’s a different time scale altogether…
The UHI is not creation of energy or transforming potential chemical energy into thermal energy. UHI is primarily due to the vast increase in surface area and the material used the store energy during the day and release it at night.
Plus, the enormous amount of energy concentrated in a small volume via electricity and gas usage.
The point being, the UHI effect would still be present (diminished to some degree) even if the city were unpopulated and the lights and AC all turned off.
“Plus, the enormous amount of energy concentrated in a small volume via electricity and gas usage.”
Exactly – raising the temperature. The global average must increase.
What do you think causes average atmospheric temperatures to rise?
Forget the Sun, the Earth has cooled since the surface was incandescent. The heat of the Sun during the day is radiated away during the night.
Fools, frauds and the gullible believe that adding CO2 to,air makes it hotter! You don’t, do you?
CO2 has a miniscule effect on atmospheric specific heat capacity, but that amount is lost in the noise.
I did a study in 2022. Just world wide coal for electricity. The energy released, thermal energy into the air and water plus electricity (ultimately ends up as thermal energy) was sufficient (over the 12 month interval) to raise the lowest 105 feet of the atmosphere by a full 1 C.
The problems with most discussions concerning Earth’s energy systems is a lack of including latencies. EM is c. Thermal in air is < speed of sound. Conduction in water is faster than in land. This ignores currents and fluid dynamics, of course.
My point was and still is, the UHI is not exclusively about the electrical energy input into the cities or even the vehicle energy use.
You will still have a UHI even if all the people left and the lights were turned off because of the massive increase in surface area relative to the size of the land surface area supporting the buildings and the materials used to construct the buildings, sidewalks, roads, etc., and that the environment no longer was plant dominated.
To your point, as we convert natural resources into thermal energy, the planet warms is correct. I agree.
Compared to the amount of energy coming from the sun, the amount of energy released by burning wood and fossil fuels is incredibly tiny.
Mark, during the night, all the heat of the day is lost to space. You may have noticed the surface is no longer even red-hot.
It doesn’t matter – adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, does it?
This is true, but even if tiny, it must be accounted for else the analysis is flawed.
He raises an interesting point. The energy released by human activity is real and measurable, its the urban heat island. Yet no one (other than Micheal Flynn) is claiming that it affects global climate in any significant way. Why is that?
It occurs also in non urban areas.
The difference in oxidizing wood, burning versus decomposition is not the amount energy, it is the latency. Burning is quick. Rotting takes a while.
Rotting is constant and widespread.
Burning is usually a small point for a short period of time.
If rotting did not equal the amount of wood being grown, there would either be little to no wood on the ground or we would be up to our eyeballs in wood scraps. Depending on which factor dominated.
Or wood might be harvested and made into houses or furniture, mighty British forests might be turned into charcoal for smelting metal, or the timber used for shipping.
Vast quantities of timber might be turned into wood chips, and burned to create electricity, or turned into wood pulp for paper, or building products.
What’s your point? Are you one of the gullible crowd who believes that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter?
Surely not!
My point was the differing rates.
Leave a log on the ground, it will emit the same amount of energy as it decomposes as when it is burnt. When it is burnt, the energy release is much, much more rapid. That alone is the point I made.
This is a contributing factor to UHI. The Urban Heat Island effect is greatly and deliberately underestimated, IMO.
It is. But it is not just the energy consumption in the urban setting.
It is the materials used and the vastly increased surface area relative to the area of the buildings’ foundations also.
How big a campfire are you pondering?
Size matters, because by your theory, even the match you used to light the campfire would contribute some “global warming”.
A normal campfire’s heat would be all dissipated / absorbed 10 feet or so from the fire. So undectable in the wider atmosphere.
Smoke particles in the atmosphere from billions of combustion sources is a another matter.
And I suggest – the real problem stemming from human activities.
But are smoke and other particles emissions a heating effect or a cooling effect?
As usual, so many questions, Grasshopper.
A single ant can move 1 grain of sand. A million ants can move a beach.
The devil’s in the details and many details are omitted in the models and other analysis.
Energy inputs to the environment all count. Size only determines how much one counts relative to another. And yes, smoke (aka particulate carbon) are know to cause reflection and blockage of sunlight effecting a cooling.
Sparta, the interesting thing is that there is no minimum change to the inputs of a chaotic system. The heat from a campfire may cause a tornado in Texas, or may prevent one. Lorenz referred to the flap of a butterfly’s wings, and a campfire provides a greater energy input.
The takeaway is that nobody can predict the future, and everything affects everything else – one way or the other, for better or for worse!
Concur, which is why I advocate for all the details to be included and assessed.
“So undectable in the wider atmosphere.”
You sure about that?
Mr,
“A normal campfire’s heat would be all dissipated / absorbed 10 feet or so from the fire. So undectable in the wider atmosphere.”
Not physically correct. Any radiation from the campfire which reacts with matter raises the temperature of the matter, if the matter is colder. The radiation all eventually flees to outer space, whether directly, or not.
However, small or not, the global average temperature has risen, due to my campfire. Even humans generate 100 watts or so. Continuously. So, removing 8 billion 100 watt heat sources will decrease the average temperature. Adding another 8 billion will raise it.
It doesn’t really matter – adding CO2 to air does not heat the air. Something like a campfire will, as you say – some of its radiation is absorbed by the air – heating it if the campfire is hotter than the air. Basic physics.
You are correct.
Energy production puts thermal energy into the environment.
I did a calculation back in 2022 using just coal. The thermal energy released world wide from burning coal (only coal was calculated) was sufficient to raise the first 105 feet of the atmosphere by 1C. Energy went directly into the air. Energy went directly into the cooling system (usually a lake or river). Energy went down the wires as electricity. Electricity, all of it, ultimately enters the environment as thermal energy (although some is emitted and electromagnetic energy)..
What was not done is analysis of how the growing population and the corresponding increase in energy production tracked the gradual warming of record (assuming those records are accurate).
Top of Atmosphere is generally considered to be about 100km. Call 105 feet, 31 meters.
100,000 meters, vs 31 meters. Even considering the fact that air density decreases as you go up, Your 1C in the first 105 feet will warm the entire atmosphere by only a few thousandths of a degree.
On the other hand, the sun warms the entire atmosphere by close to 10C every day.
“On the other hand, the sun warms the entire atmosphere by close to 10C every day.”
Or more. And of course, during the night, all the heat of the day is lost to space. What is your point? Do you believe that adding CO2 to air makes the air hotter?
It doesn’t, of course.
If they are allowed to run calculations to 6 decimal places, then this should not be ignored.
Also consider it was only coal for electricity.
Also the sun warms the oceans and the land and the oceans and the land warm the atmosphere.
Firstly, this kind of blatant bias by the scientific (in loose terms) establishment leads to people like Nailhead and Simon etc., to accept it as absolute truth with a religious intensity due to their malleable nature.
And secondly, it’s the sun, stupid.
Worth repeating (and with apologies to the Clinton Presidential campaign):
It’s the sun, stupid.
The sun allows life on Earth. Cycles are also part of life on earth.
Within our solar system, we have 8+1 planets that have varying orbital periods, velocities, inclinations and eccentricities that create their own subtle effects on the earth and sun. All of these orbital parameters are continually calculated for satellite launches and space exploration and are well known, but not publicly available. Clever citizen mathematicians can do these calculations using spreadsheets.
On earth, the result is qualitatively repeatable non-persistent climate cycles that can be loosely linked to various orbital solar system periods. Unfortunately, due to the varying orbital characteristics of our solar system planets, these cycles can strengthen and fade through time. They do not pass the quantitative statistical sniff test which appears to be a prerequisite for acceptance in the climate debate. Therefore, they are dismissed.
It’s a sad day when those studying the life-giver ball of plasma are vilified and shunned.
So the signs of the Zodiac ,could have some prevalence.( Maybe )
It seems you agree using a mean planet radius, an average sun temperature, and a mean solar orbit radius are introducing errors that are totally ignored.
are introducing errors that are totally ignored
Not errors – just inherent variability of the cycles. Each repetition exhibits slightly different characteristics. You know the cycle exists and repeats, but each following cycle has a slightly different length and/or external climate response on earth. This messes with traditional statistical methods, resulting in a negative response when in most cases, there is no other known cause.
The solar cycle is a prime example – why does it vary? Are there external factors at play?
The obvious answer lies with the gravitational effects of the planets in our solar system modifying the suns internal dynamo.
Average temperature when the EM irradiance is T^4.
Mean orbital radius for an eccentric elliptical orbit? 1/r^2
Using those values for the entire year?
And then calculating beyond the basic limits or scientific notation?
It most certainly does introduce errors.
The definition of variables you present is correct. The point is the climatologists ignore those variables and that is a source of error.
Consider:
The (Tmax-Tmin)/2 is used to compute a Tave.
So Tave for 25 C and 5 C is 15 C.
The electro magnetic energy emissions for 25 C and 5 C (average them) is nearly 3 W/m^2 greater than the EM emissions for 15 C. Using the bogus 341 W/m^2 average solar irradiance, that calculation introduces an error that is greater than the reported 0.6% energy imbalance.
The use of averages introduces errors as I originally posted.
If you are going to count Pluto, you should probably count Ceres, as well as several Kuiper Belt objects that are larger than Pluto as well.
Way above my mathematical grade. I’m sure there are others like P. A. Semi from a decade or so ago, whose solar system angular momentum calculations on the sun allowed me to identify the most recent (planetary) Bray cycle length as 2,543 years.
Does it really matter if the consensus is wrong? After all they only want to provide us with cheaper energy bills and more plentiful rewarding green jobs. What’s not to like?
Did you forget the /sarc tag?
+2 with the\sarc rag
Honestly, silencing the “critical” people is not very effective. For one they not have much to say, for the other there are enough means to publish stuff anyhow. But there are more important ways of manipulation.
1. Distraction.
Claim anything stupid (the worse, the better), like polar bears starving from climate change, great barrier reef bleaching, how much rain, wind, sunshine is due to climate change.. whatever. The “critical side” will not be able to ignore the bone and happily runs after. Such claims are perfectly expendable and thus serve as total distractions.
2. Misinformation
Most climate scientists do not know their very science. They do not need to, because the climate models will know it all, or so they assume. There is amazing incompetence all over the place. The incompetence then trickles down and no one really knows anything. If anyone on the critical side makes it past the distraction, they will inevitably chew on the misinformation.
There is plenty of subject matter to work on and it promotes all crazy ideas. The confusion then is so bad, you can’t even have a rational discussion on what are real issues with climate science.
Change climate scientist to climatology researcher. There are no degrees offered in climate science.
No. But the purveyors of “climate science” not science faux science reap enormous benefits such as publishing papers even in supposedly highly regarded publications such as AAAS Science magazine, which AAAS is strongly bought into reaping benefits of propaganda. Are IPCC forecasts of climate change accurate… good question, these are politically driven and IPCC aim is wealth transfer from the wealthy western economies to the rest of the world.
Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing.
A few quotes.
— “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Where would conversations in the British Isles be without the weather to get us started?
Do we get better with age at foretelling weather or just the same as we ever were? At least we have stories to tell about the wildest, wettest, coldest, hottest, sunniest, cloudiest, windiest, and so on that we can remember.and the variety increases the older you get and the more places in the Isles you visit..
Nature is just so incredible because of her fond love for keeping her members busy passing the news on and not just in human conversations either..
As you were folks. Some freezing dooming has been de-simulated for the time being-
Europe deep freeze from Atlantic current collapse unlikely this century, computer simulations show
although there will be peer review to make sure Musk’s Big Balls hasn’t had a hand on it.
It’s definitely driven at the top by monied interests, powerful individuals and corporations like the Bill & Melinda Gates, Coca Cola, Nestle, and the energy companies (including hydrocarbon)
They work in cohoots with environmental terrorists like the Rome Club and politicians /policy makers
Then there are foundations, NGOs and the like, funded by these various interests and advising governments, who mobilise the useful idiots with the help of the media
True believers are at the bottom of this heap
Academics are part of the parasitic class, which includes consultants, ‘tech’ companies reliant on government handouts to keep going until bought out by bigger players and any other actors that benefit from this juggernaut
Not many will be die hard believers (mostly just those in the media spotlight). Most are just going along with the ‘consensus’ to get funding, papers in top journals, and ultimately promotion
This is not confined to ‘climate science’. It pervades most areas of modern day scientific activity in universities, especially medical science.
All sorts of wacky theories and hypotheses can persist without serious challenge because there is self censorship, outright censorship and ostracisation, or unspoken rules against funding for alternative hypotheses
Allied to this, science has been utterly corrupted. Journals corrupted, scientific associations and bodies corrupted, funding systems corrupted, and academic structures corrupted
Science is ruled by a mediocre managerialist class that rose to the top like scum during the great shift that took place over the last 30 years or so
Their real skills lie in shamelesses and lack of self awareness when it comes to securing funding and in claiming credit for the work done by others.
It is no wonder that they are easily corrupted by political ideologies and money
Patterns. Think of the COVID narrative. A constant litany of do this or prediction of illness, death, death to others, etc. And if you do not get on board, you are the problem. And you must be mentally ill to not get on board with the narrative. And like COVID, none of the purveyors that selfishly enriched themselves will be held to account. It’s like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football. Thanks to WUWT for staying the course.
Facebook doesn’t like this post, it was removed as ‘spam’ within 30 seconds of posting there.
There are too many different things that affect climate change. We don’t even know the half of it. However, just a couple of thoughts.
I propose we find a way to react it in situ. Perhaps with an atom of a certain weight that would render it as a stable gas, that is also capable of polymerizing into a liquid say 8-12 atoms long.