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.
NASA’s Parker solar probe just completed one of its primary multi-year mission objectives, with the closest ever approach to the Sun. On Christmas Eve, the probe flew through the Sun’s corona at a blistering (literally and figuratively) 430,000 mph. For aircraft buffs, that’s Mach 560 — fast enough to circle the earth in about 3 minutes!
NASA’s Parker solar probe just completed one of its primary multi-year mission objectives, with the closest ever approach to the Sun. On Christmas Eve, the probe flew through the Sun’s corona at a blistering (literally and figuratively) 430,000 mph. For aircraft buffs, that’s Mach 560 — fast enough to circle the earth in about 3 minutes!
NASA’s Closest Approach to the Sun’s Fiery Surface Achieved by Parker Probe
A faint signal from Parker indicates that it survived its scorching flyby, and scientists are expecting it to download a treasure trove of data later this month. It turns out there’s a lot the guys with the PhDs don’t understand about the sun. As NASA states:
The NASA Parker Solar Probe mission is a mission designed to help humanity better understand the Sun, where changing conditions can propagate out into the solar system, affecting Earth and other worlds. As such, the primary goals are to examine the acceleration of solar wind through the movement of heat and energy in the Sun’s corona in addition to study solar energetic particles.
They’re hoping data collected while flying through the Sun’s corona will provide a few answers and make it a bit more predictable.
I confess I’m just a lowly engineer, and many of the mysteries they’re trying to unravel are well beyond my college physics courses. But reading about the Parker probe got me wondering: Doesn’t the Sun have something to do with our weather? I mean it’s warm on sunny days, and plants grow better when the earth’s surface is the closest to the Sun.
Those observations may sound obtuse, but they’re no more obtuse than “experts” saying that “climate science is settled” — when they don’t understand how the freaking Sun works! (Looking at you “Science Guy” Bill Nye.)
The science can only be settled when the smart guys understand all the factors that affect our climate — and how they interact — well enough to predict outcomes. The Sun imparts about 342 watts of energy on every square meter of the earth’s surface (according to NASA). That’s the equivalent of 44 million average electric power plants (700 times what the world has) — yet we don’t understand its fluctuations.
That’s a rather big unpredictable factor for this supposedly “settled science” — no?
One can only conclude that when highly educated people — who should know better — claim climate science is settled, they’re lying. Perhaps that’s why multiple predictions that the polar bears would be extinct, and New York would be underwater by now have all been wrong. It might also explain why the greenies avoid discussion of ice ages and interglacial periods when assuring us that our cars are delivering planetary doom – while their private jets are perfectly fine.
Given what little we know about the Sun, the anthropogenic climate change “experts” are either:
Ignorant men, succumbing to irrational fears — placing superstition above science, or Evil men — profiting by scaring us into irrational behavior. We should keep that in mind when they insist that we halt progress, live in destitution, and scare our children that apocalypse is imminent. Our only rational response is to ignore them … and cut off their funding.
Yes, IPCC, Our Climate Responds to Our Sun
John Gideon Hartnett writes at Spectator Australia The sun is in control of our oceans.Text is from John Ray at his blog, excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
In recent years, there has been observed an increase in ocean temperature. Those who adhere to the Climate Change version of events say that the oceans are getting warmer because of trapped carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causing a massive greenhouse effect leading to boiling oceans.
Well, anyone who has a brain knows that the oceans are not boiling, but let’s assume that is just hyperbole. When actual research – when actual measurements were taken – reality turns out to be the exact opposite.
New research shows that the temperature of our oceans are controlled by incident radiation from the Sun. Who would have guessed?
And as a consequence of the oceans warming, dissolved carbon dioxide gas is released due to reduced is solubility in ocean water. This means the warming of the oceans would lead (or cause) an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. One of the researchers in the study wrote on X.com:
A decrease in cloud cover and albedo means more short wavelength (SW) solar radiation reaches the oceans. Albedo is the reflectivity of the Earth. Lower albedo means more sunlight reaching the land and oceans and more warming by the Sun.
Figure 8. Comparison between observed global temperature anomalies and CERES-reported changes in the Earth’s absorbed solar flux. The two data series representing 13-month running means are highly correlated with the absorbed SW flux explaining 78% of the temperature variation (R2 = 0.78). The global temperature lags the absorbed solar radiation between 0 and 9 months, which indicates that climate change in the 21st Century was driven by solar forcing.
I mean to say that this is so obvious. The Sun heats Earth’s surface of which 71% is covered by the oceans! Basic physics!
The energy from the Sun powers all life on the planet and causes all Earth changes. Every second, the Earth receives the equivalent energy of 42 megatons of TNT in radiation from the Sun. That cannot be ignored.
Climate Change, the ideological movement which I prefer to call a cult, views all evidence through the lens of their religious belief that the Earth is warmed by human activity. That activity releases carbon dioxide gas, which has been observed to be increasing. Their belief is that CO2 traps heat in a giant greenhouse effect. That is the dogma anyway. And I must add, we all are the carbon they want to eliminate.
But how much of that observed increase in CO2 is actually from natural causes and not from human activity? At least 94 per cent is. This new evidence now suggests it could be even more than that.
If the oceans emit CO2 gas following changes in the water temperature, which this research shows is due to the amount (flux) of solar radiation reaching the surface, then more CO2 comes from natural causes.
It is basic physics that as you heat water the dissolved gases are released due to a decrease in gas solubility. This means as the solar flux increases CO2 gas is released from the warmer ocean water.
Thus an ocean temperature increase leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and not the other way around.
Space weather impacts the ionosphere in this animation. Credits: NASA/GSFC/CIL/Krystofer Kim
Well, anyone who has a brain knows that the oceans are not boiling, but let’s assume that is just hyperbole. When actual research – when actual measurements were taken – reality turns out to be the exact opposite.
John Gideon Hartnett writes at Spectator Australia The sun is in control of our oceans.Text is from John Ray at his blog, excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
In recent years, there has been observed an increase in ocean temperature. Those who adhere to the Climate Change version of events say that the oceans are getting warmer because of trapped carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causing a massive greenhouse effect leading to boiling oceans.
Well, anyone who has a brain knows that the oceans are not boiling, but let’s assume that is just hyperbole. When actual research – when actual measurements were taken – reality turns out to be the exact opposite.
New research shows that the temperature of our oceans are controlled by incident radiation from the Sun. Who would have guessed?
And as a consequence of the oceans warming, dissolved carbon dioxide gas is released due to reduced is solubility in ocean water. This means the warming of the oceans would lead (or cause) an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. One of the researchers in the study wrote on X.com:
A decrease in cloud cover and albedo means more short wavelength (SW) solar radiation reaches the oceans. Albedo is the reflectivity of the Earth. Lower albedo means more sunlight reaching the land and oceans and more warming by the Sun.
Figure 8. Comparison between observed global temperature anomalies and CERES-reported changes in the Earth’s absorbed solar flux. The two data series representing 13-month running means are highly correlated with the absorbed SW flux explaining 78% of the temperature variation (R2 = 0.78). The global temperature lags the absorbed solar radiation between 0 and 9 months, which indicates that climate change in the 21st Century was driven by solar forcing.
I mean to say that this is so obvious. The Sun heats Earth’s surface of which 71% is covered by the oceans! Basic physics!
The energy from the Sun powers all life on the planet and causes all Earth changes. Every second, the Earth receives the equivalent energy of 42 megatons of TNT in radiation from the Sun. That cannot be ignored.
Climate Change, the ideological movement which I prefer to call a cult, views all evidence through the lens of their religious belief that the Earth is warmed by human activity. That activity releases carbon dioxide gas, which has been observed to be increasing. Their belief is that CO2 traps heat in a giant greenhouse effect. That is the dogma anyway. And I must add, we all are the carbon they want to eliminate.
But how much of that observed increase in CO2 is actually from natural causes and not from human activity? At least 94 per cent is. This new evidence now suggests it could be even more than that.
If the oceans emit CO2 gas following changes in the water temperature, which this research shows is due to the amount (flux) of solar radiation reaching the surface, then more CO2 comes from natural causes.
It is basic physics that as you heat water the dissolved gases are released due to a decrease in gas solubility. This means as the solar flux increases CO2 gas is released from the warmer ocean water.
Thus an ocean temperature increase leads to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and not the other way around.
Space weather impacts the ionosphere in this animation. Credits: NASA/GSFC/CIL/Krystofer Kim
A team of climate scientists want to launch enormous umbrellas into space to reduce the Earth’s exposure to the sun and fight climate change, The New York Times reported Friday.
A team of climate scientists want to launch enormous umbrellas into space to reduce the Earth’s exposure to the sun and fight climate change, The New York Times reported Friday.
The underlying idea is that large parasols could be positioned in space such that they marginally reduce the intensity of sunlight the Earth receives and thereby mitigate some global warming, the Times reported. In order to block out enough radiation, a single sunshade would need to be approximately the size of Argentina — nearly one million square miles — and would weigh about 2.5 million tons, so scientists are looking to prove the idea could work by first producing a 100-square foot prototype with the help of $10 to $20 million of funding. (RELATED: Scientist Admits Omitting ‘Full Truth’ From Climate Study To Get It Published)
WATCH: @SenJohnKennedy Destroys Dep. Energy Secretary – Exposes Climate Change Fraud By Asking One Question
KENNEDY: "If we spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral…How much is that going to reduce world temperatures?"
Dr. Yoram Rozen, a physics professor and the Asher Space Research Institute’s director at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, is leading the team of scientists pushing the idea, according to the Times. Because the Argentina-sized umbrella would be too large to feasibly launch into space, his team is hoping to build a set of smaller shades that would diffuse the intensity of the radiation reaching the planet.
“We can show the world, look, there is a working solution, take it, increase it to the necessary size,” Rozen told the Times.
Rozen and his team are still designing the prototype, but they anticipate that they could build it within about three years once they get the required funds, according to the Times. A full-sized product would cost trillions of dollars, and that expense would likely have to be picked up by many countries, Rozen told the Times.
“We at the Technion are not going to save the planet,” Rozen told the Times. “But we’re going to show that it can be done.”
Supporters of the ambitious sunshade idea posit that, if implemented successfully, the world would still need to stop using fossil fuels to power the global economy, according to the Times.
“I’m not saying this will be the solution, but I think everybody has to work toward every possible solution,” Istvan Szapudi, an astronomer at the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii who recently published a paper examining a similar idea, told the Times.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Religious cults promise a wonderful future if only people would believe. The promise the global warming cult made is that we would see the end of snow, no doubt about it. It seems that not enough people believe and that earthly paradise is yet to come.
Religious cults promise a wonderful future if only people would believe. The promise the global warming cult made is that we would see the end of snow, no doubt about it. It seems that not enough people believe and that earthly paradise is yet to come. In the meantime, it is energy from the Sun that stops the Earth from looking like Pluto so we should keep an eye on what the Sun is up to, at least out of respect. Let’s start from the solar interior and work outward to the lower atmosphere.
Figure 1: Ap Index 1932 – 2024
The change in character of the Ap Index from the Modern Warm Period continues. Average activity is lower but the big change is the amplitude. This geomagnetic index would have its origin the Sun’s tachocline.
Figure 2: aa Index 1868 – 2024
The aa Index has dropped to the level of the last 65 years of the Little Ice Age.
Figure 3: Cumulative aa Index 1868 – 2024
This is a methodology that captures the long terms changes in trend. Now 18 years into the New Cold Period, it looks like a major trend has been established. With almost the same average level of the last 65 years of the Little Ice Age, the steepness of the downtrend is almost the same.
Figure 4: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2024
In this series Solar Cycle 25 has been appreciably more active than Solar Cycle 24. The 1970s cooling period of Solar Cycle 20 shows up as a period of small swings in activity.
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 2008 – 2024
Whereas the aa and Ap indices have a lower amplitude of activity in the current solar cycle relative to 24, the F10.7 flux has been stronger, sooner than in 24.
Figure 6: Hemispheric Sunspot Number 1940 – 2023
Energy is conserved within a solar hemisphere from one solar cycle to the next, unless it is destroyed by a retrograde movement. The north and south hemisphere have different trends of activity which suggests that this is controlled by planets crossing the plane of the solar system.
Figure 7: Solar Wind Proton Density
This figure is from Nasa’s Omniweb page. It is included because it is one of a number of solar parameters that now show a clear break in their level of activity between the Modern Warm Period and the New Cold Period.
Figure 8: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2024
Finally, this is where the rubber meets the road in terms of solar control of climate. The Sun’s magnetic field, carried on the solar wind, pushes galactic cosmic rays away from the inner planets of the solar system. This effect is strongest at solar maximum.
While they are called rays, they are particles – mostly protons and alpha particles. Upon hitting oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere, a cascade of particles is created which is largely neutrons by the time they reach the lower atmosphere. A high proportion of the atmosphere is saturated with water but lacks nucleation sites for cloud droplet formation. The neutron tracks provide nucleation sites and there is a correlation between low solar activity, neutron flux and cloud cover. Clouds are more reflective than open ocean or land and so the Earth cools. Note the period of high neutron count associated with the 1970s Cooling Period.
The whole mythology of Global Warming depends on having you NOT think about anything but radiative processes and physics. To trap you into the Radiative Model. But the Earth is more complex than that. Much more complex. Then there’s the fact that you DO have some essential Radiative Physics to deal with, so the bait is there. However…
One year time lapse of precipitable water (amount of water in the atmosphere) from Jan 1, 2016 to Dec 31, 2016, as modeled by the GFS. The Pacific ocean rotates into view just as the tropical cyclone season picks up steam.
Lately the media refers increasingly to how important is the water cycle in our climate system. Unfortunately, as usual, the headlines confuse cause and effect. For example, Climate change has a dramatic impact on the global water cycle, say researchers. from phys.org. How perverse to position climate change as an agent rather than the effect from water fluxes in the ocean and atmosphere. The headline misleads entirely (written by scientists or journos?) as the beginning texts shows (in italics with my bolds).
For Christoph Schär, ETH Zurich’s Professor of Climate and Water Cycle, “global warming” is not quite accurate when it comes to describing the driver of climate change. “A better term would be ‘climate humidification,’” he explains. “Most of the solar energy that reaches the Earth serves to evaporate water and thereby drives the hydrological cycle.” Properly accounting for the implications of this is the most challenging task of all for climate modelers.
In order to build a global climate model, grid points spaced around 50 to 100 kilometers apart are used. This scale is too coarse to map small-scale, local thunderstorm cells. Yet it is precisely these thunderstorm cells—and where they occur—that drive atmospheric circulation, especially in the tropics, where solar radiation is highest.
The workaround, at present, is to add extra parameters to the model in order to map clouds. “But predicting future climate change is still pretty imprecise,” Schär says. “If we don’t know how many clouds are forming in the tropics, then we don’t know how much sunlight is hitting the earth’s surface—and hence we don’t know the actual size of the global energy balance.”
The climatist paradigm is myopic and lopsided. A previous post below provides a cure for those whose vision is impaired by the IPCC consensus view of climate reality.
Curing Radiation Myopia Regarding Climate
E.M. Smith provides an helpful critique of a recent incomplete theory of earth’s climate functioning in his Chiefio blog post So Close–Missing Convection and Homeostasis. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
It is Soooo easy to get things just a little bit off and miss reality. Especially in complex systems and even more so when folks raking in $Millions are interested in misleading for profit. Sigh.
Sabine Hosenfelder does a wonderful series of videos ‘explaining’ all sorts of interesting things in and about actual science and how the universe works. She is quite smart and generally “knows her stuff”.But… It looks like she has gotten trapped into the Radiative Model of Globull Warming.
The whole mythology of Global Warming depends on having you NOT think about anything but radiative processes and physics. To trap you into the Radiative Model. But the Earth is more complex than that. Much more complex. Then there’s the fact that you DO have some essential Radiative Physics to deal with, so the bait is there. However…
It is absolutely essential to pay attention to convection in the lower atmosphere and to the “feedback loops” or homeostasis in the system.
The system acts to restore its original state. There is NO “runaway greenhouse” or we would have never evolved into being since the early earth had astoundingly high levels of CO2 and we would have baked to death before getting out of our slime beds as microbes.
Figure 16. The geological history of CO2 level and temperature proxy for the past 400 million years. CO2 levels now are ~ 400ppm. Source: Davis, W. J. (2017).
OK, I’ll show you her video. It is quite good even with the “swing and a miss” at the end. She does 3 levels of The Greenhouse Gas Mythology so you can see the process evolving from grammar school to high school to college level of mythology. But then she doesn’t quite make it to Post-Doc Reality.
Where’s she wrong? (Well, not really wrong, but lacking…)
I see 2 major issues. First off, she talks about the “lower atmosphere warming”. Well, yes and no. It doesn’t “warm” in the sense of getting hotter, but it does speed up convection to move the added heat flow.
In English “heating” has 2 different meanings. Increasing temperature. Increasing heat flow at a temperature.
We see this in “warm up the TV dinner in the microwave” meaning to heat it up from frozen to edible; and in the part where the frozen dinner is defrosting at a constant temperature as it absorbs heat but turns it into the heat of fusion of water. So you can “warm it up” by melting at a constant temperature of frozen water (but adding a LOT of thermal energy – “heat”) then later as increasing temperature once the ice is melted. It is very important to keep in mind that there are 2 kinds of “heating”. NOT just “increasing temperature”.
In the lower atmosphere, the CO2 window / Infrared Window is already firmly slammed shut. Sabine “gets that”. Yay! One BIG point for her! No amount of “greenhouse gas” is going to shut that IR window any more. As she points out, you get about 20 meters of transmission and then it is back to molecular vibrations (aka “heat”).
So what’s an atmosphere to do? It has heat to move! Well, it convects. It evaporates water.
Those 2 things dominate by orders of magnitude any sort of Radiative Model Physics. Yes, you have radiation of light bringing energy in, but then it goes into the ocean and into the dirt and the plants and even warms your skin on a sunny day. And it sits there. It does NOT re-radiate to any significant degree. Once “warmed” by absorption, heat trying to leave as IR hits a slammed shut window.
The hydrological cycle. Estimates of the observed main water reservoirs (black numbers in 10^3 km3 ) and the flow of moisture through the system (red numbers, in 10^3 km3 yr À1 ). Adjusted from Trenberth et al. [2007a] for the period 2002-2008 as in Trenberth et al. [2011].
So what does happen? Look around, what do you see? Clouds. Rain. Snow. (sleet hail fog etc. etc.)
Our planet is a Water Planet. It moves that energy (vibrations of atoms, NOT radiation) by having water evaporate into the atmosphere. (Yes, there are a few very dry deserts where you get some radiative effects and can get quite cold at night via radiation through very dry air, but our planet is 70% or so oceans, so those areas are minor side bars on the dominant processes). This water vapor makes the IR window even more closed (less distance to absorption). It isn’t CO2 that matters, it is the global water vapor.
What happens next?
Well, water holds a LOT of heat (vibration of atoms and NOT “temperature”) as the heat of vaporization. About 540 calories per gram (compared to 80 for melting “heat of fusion” and 1 for specific heat of a gram of water). Compare those numbers again. 1 for a gram of water. 80 for melting a gram of ice. 540 for evaporating a gram of water. It’s dramatically the case that evaporation of water matters a lot more than melting ice, and both of them make “warming water” look like an irrelevant thing.
Warming water is 1/80 as important as melting ice, and it is 1/540 th as important as evaporation of the surface of the water. Warming air is another order of magnitude less important to heat content.
So to have clue, one MUST look at the evaporation of water from the oceans as everything else is in the small change.
Look at any photo of the Earth from space. The Blue Marble covered in clouds. Water and clouds. The product of evaporation, convection, and condensation. Physical flows carrying all that heat (“vibration of atoms” and NOT temperature, remember). IF you add more heat energy, you can speed up the flows, but it will not cause a huge increase in temperature (and mostly none at all). It is mass flow that changes. The number of vibrating molecules at a temperature, not the temperature of each.
In the end, a lot of mass flow happens, lofting all that water vapor with all that heat of vaporization way up toward the Stratosphere. This is why we have a troposphere, a tropopause (where it runs out of steam… literally…) and a stratosphere.
What happens when it gets to the stratosphere boundary? Well, along the way that water vapor turns into water liquid very tiny drops (clouds) and eventually condenses to big drops of water (rain) and some of it even freezes (hail, snow, etc.). Now think about that for a minute. That’s 540 calories per gram of heat (molecular vibration NOT temperature, remember) being “dumped” way up high in the top of the troposphere as it condenses, and another 80 / gram if if freezes. 620 total. That’s just huge.
This is WHY we have a globe covered with rain, snow, hail, etc. etc. THAT is all that heat moving. NOT any IR Radiation from the surface. Let that sink in a minute. Fix it in your mind. WATER and ICE and Water Vapor are what moves the heat, not radiation. We ski on it, swim in it, have it water our crops and flood the land. That’s huge and it is ALL evidence of heat flows via heat of vaporization and fusion of water.
It is all those giga-tons of water cycling to snow, ice and rain, then falling back to be lofted again as evaporation in the next cycle. That’s what moves the heat to the stratosphere where CO2 then radiates it to space (after all, radiation toward the surface hits that closed IR window and stops.) At most, more CO2 can let the Stratosphere radiate (and “cool”) better. It can not make the Troposphere any less convective and non-radiative.
Then any more energy “trapped” at the surface would just run the mass transport water cycle faster. It would not increase the temperature.
More molecules would move, but at a limit on temperature. Homeostasis wins. We can see this already in the Sub-Tropics. As the seasons move to fall and winter, water flows slow dramatically. I have to water my Florida lawn and garden. As the seasons move to spring and summer, the mass flow picks up dramatically. Eventually reaching hurricane size. Dumping up to FEET of condensed water (that all started as warm water vapor evaporating from the ocean). It is presently headed for about 72 F today (and no rain). At the peak of hurricane season, we get to about 84 or 85 F ocean surface temperature as the water vapor cycle is running full blast and we get “frog strangler” levels of rain. That’s the difference. Slow water cycle or fast.
IF (and it is only an “if”, not a when) you could manage to increase the heat at the surface of the planet in, say, Alaska: At most you would get a bit more rain in summer, a bit more snow in winter, and MAYBE only a slight possible, of one or two days that are rain which could have been snow or sleet.
Then there’s the fact that natural cycles swamp all of that CO2 fantasy anyway. The Sun, as just one example, had a large change of IR / UV levels with both the Great Pacific Climate Shift (about 1975) and then back again in about 2000. Planetary tilt, wobble, eccentricity of the orbit and more put us in ice ages (as we ARE right now, but in an “interglacial” in this ice age… a nice period of warmth that WILL end) and pulls us out of them. Glacials and interglacials come and go on various cycles (100,000 years, 40,000 years, and 12,000 year interglacials – ours ending now, but slowly). The simple fact is that Nature Dominates, and we are just not relevant. To think we are is hubris of the highest order.
Figure 9: Two contrasting views of the effects of how the continuous intensification of deep cumulus convection would act to alter radiation flux to space. The top (bottom) diagram represents a net increase (decrease) in radiation to space
Footnote
There are two main reasons why investigators are skeptical of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) alarm. This post intends to be an antidote to myopic and lop-sided understandings of our climate system.
CO2 Alarm is Myopic: Claiming CO2 causes dangerous global warming is too simplistic. CO2 is but one factor among many other forces and processes interacting to make weather and climate.
Myopia is a failure of perception by focusing on one near thing to the exclusion of the other realities present, thus missing the big picture. For example: “Not seeing the forest for the trees.” AKA “tunnel vision.”
2. CO2 Alarm is Lopsided: CO2 forcing is too small to have the overblown effect claimed for it. Other factors are orders of magnitude larger than the potential of CO2 to influence the climate system.
Lop-sided refers to a failure in judging values, whereby someone lacking in sense of proportion, places great weight on a factor which actually has a minor influence compared to other forces. For example: “Making a mountain out of a mole hill.”
The formula for Hollywood horror films is simple. Take a normal sized creature and magnify it into a gigantic threat suggesting we’re all going to die. Just consider King Kong, Godzilla, Alien, Jaws, Alligators, Frankenfish. To give credibility to those monsters, scary movies include a few scientists claiming those giants are “existential threats” due to pollution or radiation created by humans. Similarly, Biden fearmongers climate change is an existential threat, and Al Gore fabricates the “oceans are boiling”.
Here, Dr Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist extraordinaire and emeritus professor from Harvard and MIT, describes how alarmist scientists have scared the bejesus out of people by turning a very small temperature change into a monster.
First understand, averaging winter and summer temperatures produces a useless number that would totally obscure local weather dynamics. Barrow, Alaska averages a summertime high of 47°F (8.3°C) while the winter high averages -18°F (-27.8°C). Miami, Florida averages a summertime high of 86.3°F (30.1°C) and a winter high of 74°F (23.3°C). Averaging Miami and Barrow’s annual temperatures would be equally worthless. So, scientists don’t calculate a globally averaged temperature, but instead show the average anomalies.
Dr. Lindzen graphed the average seasonal anomalies for each weather station in the BEST temperature data base from 1900 to the present. A station’s anomaly is defined as any deviation from its 30-year mean. The results are not very scary. On any given day about half the weather stations experience warm anomalies while half experience cooling anomalies.
Most anomalies cluster between +/- 4°C (+/- 7.2°F) causing each data point to merge into the thick black band of the graph. Still, larger anomalies are not uncommon, so the y-axis of the upper graph scales between +/- 12°C (+/- 21.6°F). The yellow dots represent the average for those anomalies on any given day. We see a small trend that is relatively tiny compared to the variation in actual temperatures. Not very scary either.
So, the showtime graphs isolate the average anomalies from reality, as done in the bottom graph. Now the scale on the y-axis only spans from -0.8°C (-1.4°F) to 1.2°C (2.2°F), turning a small 1°C (1.8°F) rise over 120 years into the illusion of a monster increase. That allows click-bait media, alarmists scientists and politicians to claim that climate change could lead to mass extinctions.
But any critically thinking person who is not so easily frightened realizes all living creatures adapt to far greater temperature changes over much smaller time spans.
Typically, they experience an 8°C (14.4°F) to 20°C (36°F) change between morning and noon, and a 10°C (18°F) to 30°C (54°F) change between summer and winter. Humans escaping the cold New England climate migrate to Florida for better health and experience an increase in average temperature of 11°C (20°F).
Hopefully all critically thinking people will ask “why are these politicians and internet influencers trying to manipulate us with such a fearful Hollywood representation of climate?”
Indeed, there has been a slight warming. But there are many hypotheses explaining why. Watch: Why the Sun, Not CO2, Heats the Oceans at
The wanton destruction of priceless art and heritage sites across Europe by climate change activists is insane, and one would think we’ve reached peaked insanity with this unhinged community, short of acts of eco-terrorism.
Sometimes, even banal actions, like a government study, can exhibit more ludicrousness than smearing paint on a Monet. [emphasis, links added]
The latest Biden White House-endorsed study into curbing global warming is not just a case study in wasteful spending; it’s a Rorschach test on mental health.
And there’s a reason why they want to keep it a secret: it deals with trying to bend sun rays to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising (via Politico) [author’s emphasis]:
The White House offered measured support for the idea of studying how to block sunlight from hitting Earth’s surface as a way to limit global warming, in a congressionally mandated report that could help bring efforts once confined to science fiction into the realm of legitimate debate.
The controversial concept known as solar radiation modification is a potentially effective response to fighting climate change, but one that could have unknown side effects stemming from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, some scientists say.
The White House report released late Friday indicates that the Biden administration is open to studying the possibility that altering sunlight might quickly cool the planet.
But it added a degree of skepticism by noting that Congress has ordered the review, and the administration said it does not signal any new policy decisions related to a process that is sometimes referred to — or derided as — geoengineering.“
A program of research into the scientific and societal implications of solar radiation modification (SRM) would enable better-informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits of SRM as a component of climate policy, alongside the foundational elements of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and adaptation,” the White House report said.
“SRM offers the possibility of cooling the planet significantly on a timescale of a few years.”
Still, the White House said in a statement accompanying the report, “there are no plans underway to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.”[…]
The report, which was required by Congress in a policy report accompanying the 2022 appropriations bill, was released the same week that European Union leaders opened the door to international discussions of solar radiation modification. It also followed a call by more than 60 leading scientists to increase research on the topic.
As Politico noted, Biden opened the door to this nonsense, and, of course, he would; he thinks this is an existential threat to human civilization. But before that, it was white supremacy, right?
This study reminds me of the scene in Armageddon, where NASA scientists think that by landing a shuttle on the asteroid that’s barreling toward Earth and deploying a canopy, solar winds could shift it off course and prevent an extinction-level event.
You must be logged in to post a comment.