Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Dramatic new and improved evidence points to temperatures on Earth rising before an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The new findings are causing considerable concern in the ‘settled’ world of climate science where a political narrative promoting Net Zero demands that it is undeniable that temperatures rise after humans burn fossil fuels. The controversy has been building for about a year since initial findings were first published by the U.K. Royal Society.
The latest work from four scientists uses sophisticated stochastic or change-formulated causality techniques to examine data from numerous temperature and CO2 data sets over the last 60 years. As with the initial findings published by the Royal Society, they found the causality link placing a CO2 rise ahead of temperature cannot be scientifically supported since it is clearly shown that temperature precedes CO2 by six or more months. “All evidence resulting from the analysis suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with temperature as the cause and CO2 as the effect,” they state.
The collectivist Net Zero project relies on the assumption that humans operate a climate thermostat by burning fossil fuel. The UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change promotes the suggestion that all variation in the climate since 1900 has been caused by humans. But the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change was always shaky since no scientist can prove the actual amount of warming to be expected, while scientific observations going back 600 million years offer little proof of a conclusive link.
It will be hard for activists and alarmists to debunk these findings since the scientific process demands the need to critically examine and justify every proposed causal link. Of course given the initial involvement of the Royal Society, the cancellation weapon may be considered as a late option. However the scientists have noted that their current and more detailed work was developed after critical review in the Royal Society journal. “Some concerns expressed by critics, such as lengths of time series, effect of seasonality, effect of timescale, are dealt with in this new paper. No-one has however developed any critique of the methodology,” they note. The mathematics involved are complex and readers can access the full workings in the paper, which is linked in the first paragraph of this article.
The lead author is Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis from the University of Athens and there are three others contributors from Athens, London (Imperial) and Poznan. The paper is titled ‘On Hens, Eggs, Temperature and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere’. The reference to hens and eggs highlights a basic, age-old concept in the scientific process. What is the sequence of cause and effect – what came first, the hen or the egg?
This paper may well hasten the breakdown of the always shaky hypothesis that humans hold the climate thermostat, and can control it by regulating their own CO2 production. Ironically the recent rush to don sandwich-board doomsday placards by activists and media after a warm summer suggests its ‘settled’ days may be numbered. If human-caused CO2 was causing the climate to warm, it would only be detectable over a longer period. But the longer period does not offer much evidence of a direct link, with the last 150 years showing rises, falls and pauses in the global temperature record. Instead alarmists have had to fall back on anomalies which show one-off departures from the norm. It is impossible to link human-caused CO2, or indeed any CO2, to an outlier over a month or so. Of course this has not stopped pseudoscientists using computer models to claim they can link an individual weather event to the long-term trend.
The above graph, recently tweeted by the science writer Andy May, demonstrates how unscientific the use of individual outliers to prove a doomsday prediction can be. It shows the global temperature measured by satellites since 2015, and reveals a small downward trend over the last eight years. But there are departures from the norm, both higher and lower over the period including a spike upwards this year. When doomsters start to catastrophise the heat spikes but ignore the trend, it is time to start counting the spoons. When the Guardian runs a front page story titled ‘“Gobsmackingly bananas”: scientists stunned by planet’s record September heat‘, it might even be time to call for the men in white coats.
The Koutsoyiannis-led scientists are adamant that it is not possible to attribute climate change to just one human agent. Not least, such a suggestion fails to explain 4.5 billion years of changing climate. While not the main scope of the paper, the authors observe that natural CO2 changes due to temperature rises are larger by a factor of three than the 4% produced by humans.
The biosphere is noted to be more productive at higher temperatures with more biochemical reactions – in other words, plant growth. This leads to a ‘greening’ of the planet which in its turn produces even more of the so-called carbon fertilisation effect. It might be additionally noted that this has occurred over the last few decades with 14% more plant growth observed across the planet, a process that has undoubtedly led to less global famine.
The authors go on to provide other reasons for climate change, many of which will be familiar to regular readers including oceanic heat exchange, solar and geological activity. They conclude on a note of realism, seemingly lost in the mainstream rush to attribute all climate change to humans:
Causal links in complex systems may form endless sequences… it is naïve to expect complete answers to problems related to complex systems, or to assume that a complex system is in permanent equilibrium, and that an external agent is needed to ‘kick’ it out of the equilibrium and produce change.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
Now that the American Dream has been turned into a nightmare in part by overspending that has led to the highest interest rates in the 21st Century, it is high time to admit that, as Melanie Mcdonagh writes in The Telegraph, the electric vehicle dream, too, “has turned into a nightmare.”
Power supply for electric car charging. Electric car charging station. Close up of the power supply plugged into an electric car being charged.
Now that the American Dream has been turned into a nightmare in part by overspending that has led to the highest interest rates in the 21st Century, it is high time to admit that, as Melanie Mcdonagh writes in The Telegraph, the electric vehicle dream, too, “has turned into a nightmare.”
Mcdonagh, who admits she does not drive, points out many problems, among them the horrific impact when a heavy, quiet-running electric vehicle hits an unsuspecting pedestrian or a cyclist. She also notes that some of these “vehicles” are collecting data on route history and road speed that governments (and corporations) can use for remote surveillance (and marketing gimmickry). Another problem is that the much heavier EVs could collapse bridges and force lengthy detours.
Mcdonagh, however, has barely scratched the surface of the mess created by the hipster culture that believes everything sacred must be sacrificed before the god of carbon (dioxide) reduction. It turns out that manufacturing electric vehicles has to date been a bad investment for automakers, despite all the subsidies.
Ford Motor Co. says it will lose $3 billion on EV sales this year, after losing $900 million in 2021 and $2.1 billion in 2022, when the company sold 96,000 units. Price drops by Ford and Tesla (and doubtless other companies) are not coming because the vehicles are cheaper to manufacture but because demand has slowed despite the new Biden subsidies. As Robert Bryce points out, Ford in the first quarter of this year lost $66,446 on every EV it sold.
One reason for the huge losses is the increasing price of battery materials, reflected in the 7 percent increase in the volume-weighted average for lithium-ion battery packs from 2021 to 2022. The Biden subsidies are supposed to offset such costs, just as the Biden build in America plan (in Michigan, at least, by Chinese companies) has no chance of diminishing China’s huge lead in EV battery and vehicle production.
Senator John Kennedy (R, LA) recently asked, “If electric cars are so swell. why does government have to pay people to drive them?”
A new J.D. Power report points to a number of reasons that American consumers are sticking with internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. While the highest objections to EVs are high prices and lack of public charging infrastructure, vehicle range, charging times, and the threat of grid disruptions that render EVs useless are also deterrents. Other concerns are fires, power surges that lead to accidents, towing capacity and range, and performance in bad weather.
Even a third of Gen Z shoppers, who have been bombarded with pro-EV propaganda for most of their lives, admit they are unlikely to buy one.
It is obvious that the EV boom, such as it is, has been powered nearly entirely by heavy subsidies and marketing hype initiated by bureaucrats and politicians, most of whom have no background in auto sales or any service industries. Their M.O. is bribery and thuggery (forcing people into unwanted choices through market manipulation). Automakers are beginning to balk at these techniques, if only because they see their customer base shrinking once people cannot buy the vehicles they have used for decades.
While Ford and other companies are now boasting of the towing capacity of their EVs, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. MotorBiscuit last month reported that the Ford F-150 Lightning and Rivian R1T can be souped up to tow 10,000 pounds, far short of the gasoline-powered F-150, but with an average range of only 88 miles. That hardly works for multiple tows in a day or for towing a trailer to a campsite 100 or more miles from home.
Imagine putting your family into the truck, hitching up the Airstream, and driving out to the mountains for a weekend at the lake. Finding a charging station where you don’t have to unhitch the trailer to get to the plug-in is a huge challenge, and you have to do this multiple times on a 300-mile trip. With a maximum 90-mile range, you need to recharge every 60 or 70 miles, taking 30 minutes or more for each recharge. You lose an entire day each way. So practical.
Far worse, though, are the risks and challenges to tow truck drivers with an EV that has stopped running. Not only are the vehicles heavy, they are dead weight, locked in park, and potentially suspect to spontaneous fires that ordinary extinguishers cannot put out. A 2021 National Transportation Safety Board report notes that “the energy remaining in a damaged high-voltage lithium-ion battery, known as stranded energy, poses a risk of electric shock and creates the potential for thermal runaway that can result in battery reignition and fire.”
Of course, the bean counters with their glorious visions for an all-electric future (replete with blackouts, price increases, and other tricks to keep the majority of people off the roads entirely) do not take into consideration ANY of the real reasons people drive cars and trucks. Their ONLY consideration appears to be the imaginary reduction in carbon dioxide emissions their computer models insist can only happen by inconveniencing “the little people.”
But should those “little people” elect leaders who will end the inflationary subsidies and dictatorial mandates (including those that ban gas appliances, cripple the performance of dishwashers and HVAC units, etc.), the automakers who have heavily invested in EVs will adjust to real market conditions and continue improving long-cherished technologies.
In today’s increasingly top-down world, Mcdonagh points out that “you can’t even discuss the problems with electric cars without getting jumped on.” That is already beginning to change, especially in a freedom-loving America that has had a century-long love affair with the open road.
Meanwhile, lurking in the shadows is an option that could both reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and keep ICE vehicles on the road. Hydrogen-based synthetic e-fuels may be expensive today, but they can power ICE vehicles today and tomorrow without sacrificing a nation to the whims of China’s maniacal leadership.
Duggan Flanakin is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
A former Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas.
A brief history of his multifaceted career appears in his book, “Infinite Galaxies: Poems from the Dugout.”
There are various answers to the title question. IPCC doctrine asserts that not only does more CO2 induce warming, it also triggers a water vapor positive feedback that triples the warming. Many other scientists, including some skeptical of any climate “emergency,” agree some CO2 warming is likely, but doubt the positive feedback, with the possibility the sign is wrong. Still others point out that increases of CO2 lag temperature increases on all time scales, from ice core data to last month’s observations. CO2 can hardly be claimed to cause warming, when CO2 changes do not precede the effect. [See Temps Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse. ]
Below is a post describing how CO2 warming is not only lacking, but more CO2 actually increases planetary cooling. The mathematical analysis reveals a fundamental error in the past and only now subjected to correction.
In 1896, Svante Arrhenius proposed a model predicting that increased concentration of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere would result in a warming of the planet. In his model, the warming effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapour in preventing heat flow from the Earth’ s surface (now known as the “Greenhouse Effect”) are counteracted by a cooling effect where the same gasses are responsiblefor the radiation of heat to space from the atmosphere. His analysis found that there was a net warming effect and his model has remained the foundation of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect—Global Warming hypothesis.
This paper attempts to quantify the parameters in his equations but on evaluation his model cannot produce thermodynamic equilibrium. A modified model is proposed which reveals that increased atmospheric emissivity enhances the ability of the atmosphere to radiate heat to space overcoming the cooling effect resulting in a net cooling of the planet. In consideration of this result, there is a need for greenhouse effect—global warming models to be revised.
1. Introduction
In 1896 Arrhenius proposed that changes in the levels of “carbonic acid” (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature of the Earth. This has come to be known as the greenhouse effect. Arrhenius’ paper, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”, was published in Philosophical Magazine. Arrhenius concludes:
“If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4˚; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8˚. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4˚; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8˚ ” [ 2 ].
It is interesting to note that Arrhenius considered this greenhouse effect a positive thing if we were to avoid the ice ages of the past. Nevertheless, Arrhenius’ theory has become the foundation of the enhanced greenhouse effect―global warming hypothesis in the 21st century. His model remains the basis for most modern energy equilibrium models.
2. Arrhenius’ Energy Equilibrium Model
Arrhenius’ proposed a two-part energy equilibrium model in which the atmosphere radiates the same amount of heat to space as it receives and, likewise, the ground transfers the same amount of heat to the atmosphere and to space as it receives. The model contains the following assumptions:
• Heat conducted from the center of the Earth is neglected.
• Heat flow by convection between the surface and the atmosphere and throughout the atmosphere remains constant.
• Cloud cover remains constant. This is questionable but allows the model to be quantified.
Part 1: Equilibrium of the Air
The balance of heat flow to and from the air (or atmosphere) has four components as shown in Figure 1. The arrow labelled S1 indicates the solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere. R indicates the infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, M is the quantity of heat “conveyed” to the atmosphere by convection and Q1 represents heat loss from the atmosphere to space by radiation. All quantities are measured in terms of energy per unit area per unit time (W/m2).
Figure 1. Model of the energy balance of the atmosphere. The heat received by the atmosphere ( R+M+S1 ) equals the heat lost to space (Q1). In this single layer atmospheric model, the absorbing and emitting layers are one and the same.
Part 2: Thermal Equilibrium of the Ground
In the second part of his model, Arrhenius describes the heat flow equilibrium at the “ground” or surface of the Earth. There are four contributions to the surface heat flow as shown in Figure 2. S2 is the solar energy absorbed by the surface, R is the infra-red radiation emitted from the surface and transferred to the atmosphere, N is the heat conveyed to the atmosphere by convection and Q2 is the heat radiated to space from the surface. Note: Here Arrhenius uses the term N for the convective heat flow. It is equivalent to the term M used in the air equilibrium model.
Figure 2. The energy balance at the surface of the Earth. The energy received by the ground is equal to the energy lost.
3. Finding the Temperature of the Earth
Arrhenius combined these equations and, by eliminating the temperature of the atmosphere which according to Arrhenius “has no considerable interest”, he arrived at the following relationship:
ΔTg is the expected change in the temperature of the Earth for a change in atmospheric emissivity from ε1 to ε2. Arrhenius determined that the current transparency of the atmosphere was 0.31 and, therefore the emissivity/absorptivity ε1 = 0.69. The current mean temperature for the surface of the Earth can be assumed to be To = 288 K.
Figure 3. Arrhenius’ model is used to determine the mean surface temperature of the Earth as a function of atmospheric emissivity ε. For initial conditions, ε = 0.69 and the surface temperature is 288 K. An increase in atmospheric emissivity produces an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.
Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would produce a change in emissivity from 0.69 to 0.78 raising the temperature of the surface by approximately 6 K. This value would be considered high by modern climate researchers; however, Arrhenius’ modelhas become the foundation of the greenhouse-global warming theory today. Arrhenius made no attempt to quantify the specific heat flow values in his model. At the time of his paper there was little quantitative data available relating to heat flow for the Earth.
4. Evaluation of Arrhenius’ Model under Present Conditions
More recently, Kiehl and Trenberth (K & T) [ 3 ] and others have quantified the heat flow values used in Arrhenius’ model. K & T’s data are summarised in Figure 4.
The reflected solar radiation, which plays no part in the energy balance described in this model, is ignored. R is the net radiative transfer from the ground to the atmosphere derived from K & T’s diagram. The majority of the heat radiated to space originates from the atmosphere (Q1 > Q2). And the majority of the heat lost from the ground is by means of convection to the atmosphere (M > R + Q2).
Figure 4. Model of the mean energy budget of the earth as determined by Kiehl and Trenberth.
Equation (5) Q2=(1−ε)σνT4e(5)
Substituting ε = 0.567, ν = 1.0 and Tg = 288 K we get: Q2=149.2 W/m2
Using Arrhenius value of 0.69 for the atmospheric emissivity Q2 = 120.9 W/m2.
Both values are significantly more than the 40 W/m2 determined by K & T. The equation will not balance, something is clearly wrong.
Figure 5 illustrates the problem.
Equation (5) is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is an empirical relationship which describes the amount of radiation from a hot surface passing through a vacuum to a region of space at a temperature of absolute zero. This is clearly not the case for radiation passing through the Earth’s atmosphere and as a result the amount of heat lost by radiation has been grossly overestimated.
No amount of adjusting parameters will allow this relationship to produce sensible quantities and the required net heat flow of 40 W/m2.
This error affects the equilibrium heat flow values in Arrhenius’ model and the model is not able to produce a reasonable approximation of present day conditions as shown in Table 1. In particular, the convective heat flow takes on very different values from the two parts of the model. The values M and N in the table should be equivalent.
5. A New Energy Equilibrium Model
A modified model is proposed which will determine the change in surface temperature of the Earth caused by a change in the emissivity of the atmosphere (as would occur when greenhouse gas concentrations change). The model incorporates the following ideas:
1) The total heat radiated from the Earth ( Q1+Q2Q1+Q2 ) will remain constant and equal to the total solar radiation absorbed by the Earth ( S1+S2S1+S2 ).
2) Convective heat flow M remains constant. Convective heat flow between two regions is dependent on their temperature difference, as expressed by Newton’s Law of cooling1. The temperature difference between the atmosphere and the ground is maintained at 8.9 K (see Equation 7(a)). M = 102 W/m2 (K & T).
3) A surface temperature of 288 K and an atmospheric emissivity of 0.567 (Equation (7b)) is assumed for initial or present conditions.
Equation (9) represents the new model relating the emissivity of the atmosphere ε to the surface temperature Tg. Results from this model are shown in Table 2. The table shows the individual heat flow quantities and the temperature of the surface of the Earth that is required to maintain equilibrium:
The table shows that as the value of the atmospheric emissivity ε is increased less heat flows from the Earth’s surface to space, Q2 decreases. This is what would be expected. As well, more heat is radiated to space from the atmosphere; Q1 increases. This is also expected. The total energy radiated to space Q1+Q2=235 W/m2 . A plot of the resultant surface temperature Tg versus the atmospheric emissivity ε is shown below Figure 6.
Figure 6. Plot of the Earth’s mean surface temperature as a function of the atmospheric emissivity. This model predicts that the temperature of the Earth will decrease as the emissivity of the atmosphere increases.
6. Conclusion
Arrhenius identified the fact that the emissivity/absorptivity of the atmosphere increased with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and this would affect the temperature of the Earth. He understood that infra-red active gases in the atmosphere contribute both to the absorption of radiation from the Earth’s surface and to the emission of radiation to space from the atmosphere. These were competing processes; one trapped heat, warming the Earth; the other released heat, cooling the Earth. He derived a relationship between the surface temperature and the emissivity of the atmosphere and deduced that an increase in emissivity led to an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.
However, his model is unable to produce sensible results for the heat flow quantities as determined by K & T and others. In particular, his model and all similar recent models, grossly exaggerate the quantity of radiative heat flow from the Earth’s surface to space. A new energy equilibrium model has been proposed which is consistent with the measured heat flow quantities and maintains thermal equilibrium. This model predicts the changes in the heat flow quantities in response to changes in atmospheric emissivity and reveals that Arrhenius’ prediction is reversed. Increasing atmospheric emissivity due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations will have a net cooling effect.
It is therefore proposed by the author that any attempt to curtail emissions of CO2 will have no effect in curbing global warming.
Summary:
If Stannard is right, then the unthinkable, inconvenient truth is: More CO2 cools, rather than warms the planet. As noted before, we have enjoyed a modern warming period with the recovery of temperatures ending the Little Ice Age. But cold is the greater threat to human life and prosperity, and as well to the biosphere. Society’s priorities should be to ensure reliable affordable energy, and robust infrastructure to meet the demands of future cooling, which will eventually bring down CO2 concentrations in its wake.
Footnote:
A comment below refers to the cartoon image at the top which was an older version of K & T. The more recent version was used by the author and has slightly different numbers. Below is the actual model he analyzed:
I agree that these energy budgets oversimplify the real world, and the author’s intention is not to correct the details, but to show that the models fail when taken at face value. He is focusing on the imbalance arising from applying Stefan-Boltzmann law to an atmospheric planet. As noted below there are other challenging issues such as using the average frequency of visual light for calculating W/m^2, which is not realistic for earth’s LW radiation.
National Science Teachers Association Rejects the Scientific Method
by Dr. Sharon Camp
Never have I been so inspired upon being removed from a venue. Actually, as a retired teacher of AP (advanced placement) environmental sciences and chemistry, I haven’t been escorted from very many places. Perhaps none. I should explain.
I am a member of the CO2 Coalition, in Arlington, Virginia, where I wear my scientist hat – a B.S. in geology and Ph.D. in analytical chemistry – and serve on the organization’s education committee. In supporting our mission of educating the public and policymakers on the benefits of carbon dioxide and the role of the gas in Earth’s ecosystems, I tap into my teaching and science backgrounds.
As one of four people chosen to represent the CO2 Coalition at the March meeting of the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) in Atlanta, I looked forward to returning to a conference I found so engaging as a teacher. Thousands of educators congregate at the annual meeting to hear lectures and explore the displays of hundreds of vendors for new tools to use for labs and lessons.
I did not quite know what to expect from teachers visiting the CO2 Coalition’s conference display.
On the one hand, we offered educational materials, including beautifully designed comic books and entertaining videos, and lesson plans. All would be useful in teaching the science behind carbon dioxide as an atmospheric gas and plant fertilizer. However, we also had a newly published paper that is critical of the NSTA’s position on teaching climate change.
The 40,000-member association’s position paper, “The Teaching of Climate Science,” instructs teachers to conform to the so-called consensus that human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide will cause dangerous heating of the atmosphere and to dismiss contradictory evidence.
The association accepts the opinions of various organizations backing the popular global-warming theory while rejecting the differing views of thousands of scientists. Such dissenters include researchers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who disagree with the IPCC’s politicized, official reports to the public, and the CO2 Coalition’s more than 100 members. The plain truth is that the NSTA position ignores the tenets of the 400-year-old scientific method.
For a teacher of science like me, the scientific method is more than some formalized procedure. It requires that a student be able to write a hypothesis, design experiments to test the proposition, accurately collect high-quality data, and apply critical thinking to findings.
My labs were data-driven, meaning students were to have no preconceived notions about the results of experiments. Rather, they were to rely on the analysis of data gathered with care and integrity. Students applied the scientific method and critical thinking to actual experiments instead of learning only about abstract concepts.
How can somebody with my regard for science sit quietly by when a national organization claiming to represent 40,000 members tosses aside an empirical approach to discovery that has underpinned western civilization for centuries? How to remain silent when those claiming educational dominion over children require their adherence to an unscientific methodology and censorship of dissenting voices? Well, I can’t.
So, there I stood in an Atlanta conference center with colleagues (a communications specialist, a geologist and IPCC reviewer, and a Ph.D. in chemistry), eager to share our knowledge and educational aids – and wondering how our critique of NSTA’s views on climate change would be received.
At first, we were overwhelmed by an enthusiastically appreciative response from educators, including teachers from public and private institutions and homeschoolers. We ran out of lesson plans in two hours. There clearly was a need for non-politicized material on the science behind photosynthesis, cellular respiration, carbon dioxide, and other atmospheric gases.
More than half the teachers we encountered expressed doubts about the rhetoric of climate alarmists. Surprisingly to us, even more were shocked to learn of NSTA’s position on teaching climate change and its unquestioning rejection of evidence contradicting establishment orthodoxy. Most of the teachers – unlike, apparently, NSTA leadership – understood science to be a process of continual inquiry and debate guided by testable data.
By halfway through the conference’s second day, nearly all our material had been distributed. It was then that organizers of the NSTA gathering insisted that we stop sharing our critique of the association’s anti-science position. For refusing to yield to this censorship, we were escorted from the building.
We were, nonetheless, encouraged by finding so many educators hungry for honest discovery and, in some cases, grateful for scientific information utterly new to them. We concluded that NSTA’s narrow approach to learning is being driven by a politically-correct bureaucracy disconnected from a significant number of the association’s members.
There is hope for science education in America. Our work continues.
Sharon Camp has a bachelor’s degree in geology from the University of Georgia and a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from Georgia Tech. She has worked in industry, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and as an advanced placement environmental science teacher. She is the Senior Education Advisor for the CO2 Coalition, in Arlington, Virginia.
Periods warmer than today existed 2,000 and 1,000 years ago when Romans grew citrus in northern England and Vikings grew barley on Greenland, respectively.
Cooling towers emit vapor into the night sky at a nuclear power plant operated by EON SE in Grohnde, Germany, on Wednesday, Aug. 07, 2013. Germany’s air pollution is set to worsen for a second year, the first back-to-back increase since at least the 1980s, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to shut nuclear plants led utilities to burn more coal. Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Nuclear energy offers humanity the safest, most efficient approach to harnessing natural resources for its use. As the densest energy source available, nuclear fuel requires the least amount of material and land for electricity production.
This is sufficient reason to support the technology. Yet, some promote it as a means to address a manufactured climate emergency – worse yet, as a mere stop-gap in a transition to weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels.
Presenting nuclear energy as a so-called solution to climate change damages the credibility of those making the case and detracts from the real benefits of the technology. Suggesting that nuclear is only a bridge to the least dense energy sources – wind and solar – is absurd.
Uranium was discovered in 1789 by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist. However, it was not until the 1930s that scientists understood that its atoms could be split to release energy.
According to the World Nuclear Association, “Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal.”
Unlike intermittent solar and wind energy, nuclear power plants can operate virtually continuously to provide a steady source of electricity. In the United States, for example, nuclear plants have an average capacity factor of over 93 percent, compared to around 35 percent for wind power and even less for solar.
It is no wonder that some of the world’s leading economies rely heavily on nuclear. More than 70 percent of all electricity consumed in France comes from nuclear. All the aircraft carriers of the U.S. Navy are nuclear powered, as are about 40 percent of major U.S. naval combatant vessels.
I’ve come across multiple people who advocate for nuclear energy as a solution to a climate crisis. The problem is not with their advocacy of nuclear energy. Rather, their misstep is accepting a popular, but fallacious, theory that carbon dioxide is dangerously overheating the planet – or with their lacking the courage to confront the falsehood.
Fortitude is required in the politicized milieu of the climate debate to state the simple fact that very significant climate change occurred many times well before there were industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
Periods warmer than today existed 2,000 and 1,000 years ago when Romans grew citrus in northern England and Vikings grew barley on Greenland, respectively. The modern warming phase that began in the 17th century, starting the exit of the Little Ice Age, was well underway at the advent of our era of heavy industrialization.
In addition, the effect of CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels on atmospheric temperature is a highly debated topic.
It may not be a debate acknowledged in the mainstream media or by political elites, but thousands of scientists view assertions that CO2 is driving dangerous warming as gross exaggerations contrary to common sense and scientific integrity. Computer models attempting to predict the warming effect of CO2 almost universally fail.
So, people advocating for nuclear power on the basis of its potential to address a nonexistent climate emergency undermine their arguments for the technology’s actual benefits of safety and efficiency. The last thing we want is a mischaracterization of a wonderful and groundbreaking technology in the name of climate change.
Nuclear energy is awesome, and supporters should make an equally awesome – and factual – case for it.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK and resides in India.
A team of oceanographers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, working with a colleague from Chungnam National University and another from the University of Hawaii, has mapped 19,000 previously unknown undersea volcanoes in the world’s oceans using radar satellite data.
I have been outlining my suspicions that geothermal activity may have more to do with ocean temperature than is convenient for the warming narrative. More and more data is coming out indicating geothermal activity may be significant. Yet the paper here glosses over that and concludes with .. take a guess.
Please read to get the entire picture of the paper:
Two seamounts from the Kim-Wessel catalog before and after being centered (20 Eotvos contours). Light blue colored points indicate the original location of the seamounts. Red points are the new centers chosen based on the maximum VGG value. Credit: Earth and Space Science (2023). DOI: 10.1029/2022EA002331
Headline:19000 undersea volcanoes not known discovered.
But let’s do a critique of this.
A team of oceanographers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, working with a colleague from Chungnam National University and another from the University of Hawaii, has mapped 19,000 previously unknown undersea volcanoes in the world’s oceans using radar satellite data. In their paper published in the journal Earth and Space Science, the group describes how they used radar satellite data to measure seawater mounding to find and map undersea volcanoes and explains why it is important that it be done.
MY COMMENT: This is precisely my argument based on SSTs. that was essentially steady state from the 50s to the early 90s, but have come up in the age of increased activity.
Given seismic activity increase scored during this time
and TSI and WV are almost in lock stop
vs CO2
Seismic activity and the sun seem to have a better correlation
Given Super Ninos pump so much WV into the air and lead to step up functions
you would think they would then allow for this as a large natural cause for overwhelming man-made contribution But that is not what they do.
Here is where the article goes for a conclusion ( please read it yourself)
……But most importantly, they have a very strong impact on deep-sea ocean flow. As currents run into seamounts, they are pushed upward, carrying colder water with them, and mix in unknown ways. Mapping such currents has become more important as the oceans absorb more heat and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and freshwater melt, due to ongoing climate change.
This is unbelievable. Do the oceans absorb heat? It is a true statement but hides vital components that put this whole thing into the correct perspective,, that the amount of energy coming from the atmosphere, yet alone co2s role whatever that may be is dwarfed by the oceans
THE OCEANS AND THE SUN ARE THE LEADING CAUSES OF THE HEATING.
How is that not intuitive?
At least enough to demand a rethinking of some of the ideas that are running away with what passes for solid science today Unless you are just looking at one thing rather than the whole picture. They release wv and CO2 as they warm.
Again why are we quantifying CO2 and not WV? We have the mixing ratio chart that shows.a direct correlation of WV to Temp, there is no such thing FOR CO2. Why because there is no link that we can use.
But it goes to something I have been pointing out. Something is going on that we have no idea about and its natural. But the amazing thing about this article is it simply ignores all that and goes right back to the agenda being pushed
At the very least, and given what the warming SSTs mean for weather and climate, Ask yourself how man’s input to what is a tiny amount of energy vs the entire system, Is moving the system.
Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting.
He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore. His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here. phonyclimatewar.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.