Month: June 2024

Daily News

‘Skeptical Science’ Gets Comeuppance on Social Media

“Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 follows. And see if this organization will simply prepare an entry on what ‘skeptic’ arguments are the best. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.”

On LinkedIn, the alarmist Skeptical Science posted:

Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn as well. Here is a list of some signs to be on the lookout for when reading posts or comments related to human-caused climate change or global warming:

Read the list here, but their pitch is little more than ‘trust us’ and visit the DeSmog database of “deniers” for the bad actors. (Note: DeSmog’s smear-list encyclopedia has backfired! First, there are so many excellent thinkers and influencers on the list that a new ‘majority’ has been identified. Here is my entry. Second, many folks not on the list are upset and want their non-alarmist views recognized.)

Skeptical Science’s list continued in a comment that begins: “Sometimes a commenter’s job or tagline can also give a clue. If there’s a relationship to anything having to do with the fossil fuel or mining industries, whatever is being written might need to be read with a suitably large grain of salt.”

And ends: “Reactions via the „laugh“ icon on serious topics like human-caused climate change could either have happened accidentally (unlikely) or be a sign that the commenter doesn‘t quite (want to) grasp or accept scientific findings on the topic (quite likely).”

The comments were harsh. Here are some.

Randall Utech: There are thousands of independently thinking individuals (geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists, engineers, meteorologists, physicists, chemists) practicing science. They are not paid to confront the alarmists but merely see the climate science (a relatively immature science) as unsettled. Questioning the all-pervasive climate narrative is exactly what scientists should do. Unfortunately for many of the masses with little time to investigate on their own, the deck is stacked against them due to what is in most cases pervasive propaganda from your side of the of the arena.

You call yourself scientists but you disregard the fundamental purpose [of] science which is scientific debate. By silencing opposing viewpoints, you are no longer a scientist or providing scientific information, you are providing propaganda or misinformation. We want to have a full discourse of this topic. If you negate a viewpoint that doesn’t conform to your view, you are not a scientist you are a manipulator; you care nothing about reality and only about the viewpoint you want to provide.

Rob Bradley: So tell all of us on LinkedIn how to think and what to believe? Stay vague and invoke half-truths and strawmen/women (above) and try to get the critics to ‘lay down their arms’?

I have engaged in numerous debates on LinkedIn with climate alarmists to great profit for me and for the other readers. Why not go ahead, Skeptical Science, and list the valid points of the CO2/climate optimists?

Talk about the distribution of the enhanced greenhouse effect, time-series data on weather extremes, the saturation effect, government failure in the quest to address market failure, the role of adaptation instead of (futile) mitigation? And the ecological problems of wind, solar, and batteries?

Where’s the middle ground, Skeptical Science? If you say there is none, I rest my case.

My comment attracted 60 replies.

Daniel Gruenberg: “Skeptical Science is founded by a partisan cartoonist, author of the famous massively debunked 97% consensus article and is the king of climate disinformation.”

James Phillips (retired geoscientist): “This has to be the most ridiculous post I have seen on LinkedIn since I joined 10 years ago. Any true scientist with independent thinking should disregard this complete propaganda ‘climate religion’ post.”

Hans Wolkers (science journalist): “Great to see that skeptical science has a patent on the truth and doesn’t want any scientific debate nor critically thinking scientists. I guess 97% of readers agree and believe these wonderful statements?”

Robert Ballantyne: “Consensus is among scientist living on government largesse that agreed to ‘hide the decline’.”

Jim Ligon (geophysicist): “Oh I get it! If I agree then I am good. If I question as a true scientist should do then I am bad. This is not science it is religious dogma on par with the inquisition. So how do you know climate alarmists are a hoax? The print garbage like this.”

Graeme Morrison: “I like the rebuke of people ‘just asking questions’ as insincere. It made me laugh.”

Alexis Pilotelle: “Imagine publishing the same post with “quantum physics” or “organic chemistry” instead of “climate science”, taking one theory inside the field as the absolute not-to-be challenged truth. Not only this would create backlash but it would make highly suspicious the claim made by the only acceptable theory. Skeptical science should go back to basics and understand what science is instead of pushing propaganda.”

Skeptical Science, blooded, joined in:

Well, our post seems to have hit a nerve based on the many comments exhibiting exactly the warning signs to be on the look-out for! Some people just seem to prefer that others do not know what these warning signs and red flags are.

Also note that some comments with baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks against Skeptical Science and our team have been deleted and any others will be deleted without notice. It’s our page, so our rules apply.

Ad hominem? That is what the we in the non-alarmist camp endure every minute of every day. From the above exchange one Jim Hunt could only question my credentials to engage in the physical science debate. Funny how us amateurs can pin down the weaknesses of the alarmist argument (and why WUWT, for example, is the world’s leading climate website.)

Final Comment

“Skeptical Science” is a name akin to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. A ploy to fool, in this case to draw in doubters to try to show that alarmist science is settled and, in fact, science. Nope, climate models and climate physics are the opposite of settled.

Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 follows. And see if this organization will simply prepare an entry on what ‘skeptic’ arguments are the best. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.

The post ‘Skeptical Science’ Gets Comeuppance on Social Media appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/pxa5K7W

June 12, 2024 at 01:13AM

Daily News

Exit the UN Climate Treaty–Again!

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.” – President Trump, below

President Joe Biden should immediately announce that the U.S. plans to withdraw from the United Nations Paris Climate Accord. Just put it in his teleprompter someone, and it will happen. But short of this, a new President should withdraw from the Treaty–again.

On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would exit from the Paris Climate Accord. Formal withdrawal began on November 4, 2019, with notification to the UN. Effective one year later, the withdrawal was reversed by the Biden Administration on his first day in office, January 20, 2021.

The reasons for a US withdrawal were given seven years ago this month by President Trump. The logic holds with ever more reason.

THE PRESIDENT: One by one, we are keeping the promises I made to the American people during my campaign for President …. I am fighting every day for the great people of this country. Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens. The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely. They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.

Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America — which it does, and the mines are starting to open up. We’re having a big opening in two weeks. Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand-new mine. It’s unheard of. For many, many years, that hasn’t happened. They asked me if I’d go. I’m going to try.

China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants. In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.

This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage. A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound. We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty. Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.

The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries. At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt in many cases, and the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.” The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. We’ll be the cleanest. We’re going to have the cleanest air. We’re going to have the cleanest water. We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs. We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly.

And I think you just read — it just came out minutes ago, the small business report — small businesses as of just now are booming, hiring people. One of the best reports they’ve seen in many years.

I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers.

So if the obstructionists want to get together with me, let’s make them non-obstructionists. We will all sit down, and we will get back into the deal. And we’ll make it good, and we won’t be closing up our factories, and we won’t be losing our jobs. And we’ll sit down with the Democrats and all of the people that represent either the Paris Accord or something that we can do that’s much better than the Paris Accord. And I think the people of our country will be thrilled, and I think then the people of the world will be thrilled. But until we do that, we’re out of the agreement.

I will work to ensure that America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.

No responsible leader can put the workers — and the people — of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage. The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement: It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States. That’s not going to happen while I’m President. I’m sorry.

My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory and tax structures that make America the most prosperous and productive country on Earth, and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection….

The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. They don’t put America first. I do, and I always will.

The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. You see what’s happening. It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.

At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.

I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris. (Applause.) I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests. Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation. Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation. The process has begun from day one. But now we’re down to business.

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.

The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came. Believe me, they didn’t come from me. They came just before I came into office. Not good. And not good the way they took the money.

In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.” In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. And nobody even knows where the money is going to. Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?

Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated. America is $20 trillion in debt. Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure. Millions of our citizens are out of work. And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us. So think of that.

There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well. Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives. Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty. (Applause.) Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it. And I will.

Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly. It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.

The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point. And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.

As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.

It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France. It is time to make America great again. Thank you very much.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/7JQRA5y

June 12, 2024 at 12:10AM

Daily News

Climate Alarmist Hype that May 2024 is the “Hottest” Global Average Temperature Anomaly is Meaningless in the U.S. and at other global locations around the World

Guest Essay by Larry Hamlin

The usual climate alarmists’ suspects are at it again trying to use the scientifically flawed claim that a single May 2024 global average temperature anomaly data point can characterize that the “world” must be the “hottest” it’s ever been as hyped below.

Alarmists also grossly misrepresent that the earth has exceeded a 1.5 degrees threshold temperature limit that is nothing but an arbitrary and purely politically contrived alarmist propaganda claim.

Of course, this purely politically contrived climate alarmist hype tells us absolutely nothing about the actual measured temperature anomalies or absolute temperatures at any specific location anywhere in the world.

NOAA data through May 2024 for the Contiguous U.S. (shown below) overwhelmingly establishes that the U.S. is not having the “hottest ever maximum temperature anomaly” this May nor, in fact, is the U.S. even experiencing any established increasing upward trend in maximum temperature anomaly values since at least the year 2005. 

Furthermore, the highest May maximum temperature anomaly in the Contiguous U.S. occurred in May 1934 as shown below at 5.66 degrees F versus 1.22 degrees F (shown in red highlights above) in May 2024.

There isn’t a shred of scientific evidence that the U.S. maximum temperature anomalies or maximum absolute temperatures (addressed below) are at all unusual. 

Looking at NOAA ‘s maximum temperatures for the Contiguous U.S. (shown below) we see that May 2024 was only the 106th highest May (at 74.68 degrees F highlighted in red) out of 130 total measurement months with the highest May ever measured occurring in 1934 at 79.21 degrees F.  May 2024

Looking at NOAA’s data for the maximum measured temperature in California (shown below) we see that May 2024 was only the 96th highest measured May (at 76.8 degrees F as highlighted in red below) out of a total of 130 measurements with May 2001 being the highest ever California maximum (at 83.8 degrees F) measured temperature.  

Looking at NOAA’s data for the maximum temperature measured in May 2024 for Los Angeles (shown below) we see this month is only the 38th highest measured May (at 66.4 degrees F highlighted in red) out of 80 May measurement values. The highest maximum May temperature in Los Angeles was in May 2014 at 75.8 degrees F. 

Climate alarmists conceal the lack of validity in their use of a single global average temperature anomaly value to falsely hype that the world is the “hottest” ever when, in fact, this climate alarmist propaganda claim applies to no specific location anywhere on earth including the Contiguous U.S. or the state of California or the city of Los Angeles or other global locations.  

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/8LbnUug

June 11, 2024 at 08:06PM

Daily News

Clauser’s Case: GHG Science Wrong, Clouds the Climate Thermostat

This post provides a synopsis of Dr. John Clauser’s Clintel presentation last May.  Below are the texts from his slides gathered into an easily readable format. The two principal takeways are (in my words):

A.  IPCC’s Green House Gas Science is Flawed and Untrustworthy

B.  Clouds are the Thermostat for Earth’s Climate, Not GHGs.

Part I Climate Change is a Myth.

  • The IPCC and its collaborators have been tasked with computer modeling and observationally measuring two very important numbers – the Earth’s so-called power imbalance, and its power-balance feedback-stability strength. They have grossly botched both tasks, in turn, leading them to draw the wrong conclusion.
  • I assert that the IPCC has not proven global warming! On the contrary, observational data are fully consistent with no global warming. Without global warming, there is no climate-change crisis!
  • Their computer modeling (GISS) of the climate is unable to simulate the Earth’s surface temperature history, let alone predict its future.
  • Their computer modeling (GISS) is unable to simulate anywhere near the Earth’s albedo (sunlight reflectivity). The computer simulated sunlight reflected power and associated power imbalance error, are typically about fourteen times bigger than the claimed measured power imbalance, and about twenty five times bigger than the claimed measured power imbalance error range.
  • The IPCC’s observational data are wildly self-inconsistent and/or are fully consistent with no global warming.
  • The IPCC’s observational data claim an albedo for cloudy skies that is inconsistent with direct measurements by a factor of two. Alternatively, their data significantly violate conservation of energy.
  • Scientists performing the power-balance measurements admit that the available methodologies are incapable of measuring a net power imbalance with anywhere near the desired accuracy. This difficulty is due to huge temporal and spatial fluctuations of the imbalance, along with gross under-sampling of the data.
  • The observational data they report are self-inconsistent and are visibly dishonestly fudged to claim warming. The fudged final reported values, herein highlighted and exposed, are an example of the proverbial proliferation of bad pennies.
  • NOAA’s claims that there is an observed increase in extreme weather events are bogus. Their own published data disprove their own arguments. A 100 year history of extreme weather event frequency, plotted frontwards in time is virtually indistinguishable from the same historical data plotted backwards in time.
  • In Part II, I present the cloud-thermostat feedback mechanism. My new mechanism dominantly controls and stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. The IPCC has not previously considered this mechanism. The IPCC ignores cloud-cover variability.

The IPCC’s two sacred tasks – both botched!

  1. The IPCC and its collaborators have been tasked with computer modeling and observationally measuring two very important numbers – the Earth’s so-called power imbalance, and its power-balance feedback-stability strength.
  2. The Earth’s net power imbalance is its sunlight heating power (its power-IN), minus its two components of cooling power – reflected sunlight and reradiated infrared power (its power-OUT).
  3. Based on their claimed power imbalance and global-warming assertion, the IPCC and its collaborators assemble a house of cards argument that forebodes an impending climate change apocalypse/ catastrophe.
  4. Additionally, the IPCC and its contributors calculate the strength of naturally occurring feedback mechanisms that presently stabilize the Earth’s temperature and climate
  5. They claim only marginal effectiveness for these mechanisms, and correspondingly assert that there is a “tipping point”, whereinafter further added greenhouse gasses catastrophically cause what amounts to a thermal-runaway of the Earth’s temperature.
  6. The IPCC scapegoats atmospheric greenhouse gasses as the cause of global warming, and further mandates that trillions of dollars must be spent to stop greenhouse gas release into the environment with a so-called “zero-carbon” policy.
  7. The IPCC also mandates multi-trillion dollar per year geoengineering projects including Solar Radiation Management Systems to stabilize the Earth’s climate and CO2 capture projects to reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels.
  8. I assert that the IPCC and its contributors have not proven global warming, whereupon their house of cards collapses.
  9. My cloud thermostat mechanism’s net feedback “strength” (the IPCC’s 2nd sacred task to estimate) is anywhere from -5.7 to -12.7 W/m2/K (depending on the assumed cloud albedo, 0.36 vs. 0.8), compared to the IPCC’s botched best estimate for their mechanisms of -1.1 W/m2/K. My mechanism’s overwhelmingly dominant strength confirms that it is the dominant feedback mechanism controlling the Earth’s climate.
  10. Correspondingly, I confidently assert that the climate crisis is a colossal trillion-dollar hoax.

The IPCC’s computer modeling uses flawed physics to estimate the Earth’s temperature history

• The above graph is copied from [AR5, (IPCC, 2013) Fig 11.25].
• It shows the IPCC’s CMIP5 computer modeling of the Earth’s temperature “anomaly”. The various computed curves display the earth’s predicted (colored) and historical (gray) “temperature anomaly”.
• The solid black curve is the observed temperature anomaly
• Note that all 40+ models are incapable of simulating the Earth’s past temperature history. The total disarray and total lack of reliability among the CMIP5 predictions was first highlighted by Steve Koonin (former White House science advisor to Barack Obama) in his recent book- Unsettled? What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters.
• Something is obviously very wrong with the physics incorporated within the computer models, and their predictions are totally unreliable.
• Albedo is the fraction of sunlight power that is directly reflected by the Earth back out into space (OSR=100 W/m2 portion of power-OUT)


• The above Figure, copied from Stephens et al. (2015), shows the IPCC’s CMIP5 computer modeling (colored curves) of the Earth’s mean annual albedo temporal variation. The solid black curve is the Earth’s albedo measured by satellite radiometry. (The variation is not sinusoidal.)
• The added scale shows the associated reflected sunlight power. It assumes a constant solar irradiance – 340 W/m2
• Note that the IPCC’s computer modeling is grossly incapable of simulating the observed Earth’s reflected power, and especially incapable of simulating that power’s dramatic temporal fluctuation.
• The actual power’s annual variation is actually much greater than is shown by this Figure by about 18 W/m2, due to the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit and the associated sinusoidal temporal variation of the so-called solar constant.
• Despite more than 10 W/m2 gross errors in the computer simulation’s calculated reflected power, as is shown on the Figure, the IPCC [AR6 (2021)] still claims that it has computer simulated and precisely measured this power, yielding an imbalance that is equal to 0.7 ± 0.2 W/m2 – Huh?

The IPCC’s observational data are consistent with NO global warming

• Power-IN is the sunlight power incident on the Earth. The IPCC and climate scientists call it Short Wavelength (SW) Radiation. It is about 340 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface area. (It is not actually constant, but varies ± 9 W/m2.)
• Power-OUT has two components:
• One component is the sunlight energy that is directly reflected by the Earth back out into space, whereinafter it can no longer heat the planet. That component is claimed by the IPCC to be about 100 W/m2.
• The other component is the far-infrared heat radiated into space by a hot planet. It is claimed to be about 240 W/m2. The IPCC calls the far-infrared heat radiation component, Long Wavelength (LW) Radiation.
• Measuring the power imbalance consists of measuring power-IN, measuring power-OUT and subtracting. Simple enough? Not really. The problem is that power-IN, and power-OUT are huge numbers, and that the difference between them is miniscule – 0.2% of power-IN. That miniscule difference is the net imbalance that is sought, both experimentally and theoretically.

Unfortunately, it is so small that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure to the desired accuracy, 0.1 W/m2, or 0.03% of power-IN. It is much tougher to measure when power-IN and power-OUT are both also hugely varying in a seemingly random irreproducible fashion. Large variations occur both in time and in space over the surface of the Earth. As noted in a previous slide, this grossly under-sampled fluctuation is about 28 W/m2, compared with the IPCC’s claimed imbalance, 0.7 ± 0.2 W/m2.
• A variety of methods has been employed to measure these powers. They include satellite radiometry, (the ERBE, and CERES Terra and Aqua satellites), ocean heat content (OHC) measured using the ARGO buoy
chain and XBT water sampling by ships, and finally by ground sunlight observations using the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN).
• The various measured values are all in wild disagreement with each other. Importantly, none of the reported data actually show a convincing net warming power imbalance. Importantly, much of the reported data are totally fudged in a manner that dishonestly changes them from showing no warming to showing warming!

Critiques of Power-Flow Diagrams by Trenberth et al. (2010, 2014)

• Satellites measure the Top of Atmosphere energy balance, while Ocean Heat Content data apply to the surface energy balance. One may legitimately mix power-flux data at the two different altitudes, if and only if one fully understands all of the power-flow processes in the atmosphere that occur between the surface and the Top of Atmosphere. If the latter requirement is not true, then one ends up with an “apples to oranges” comparison.
• Trenberth et al. (2010, 2014) are highly critical of Loeb, Stephens, L’Ecuyer, and Hansen’s claimed “understanding” of the associated connection between the power flows at these two altitudes.
• Trenberth and Fasullo (2010) point to a huge “missing energy” indicated by the difference between the satellite data and the OHC data power-imbalance calculations, and specifically ask “Where exactly does the energy go?”
• Hansen et al. (2011) dismiss Trenberth and Fasullo’s alleged missing energy as being simply due to satellite calibration errors.
• Trenberth Fasullo and Balmesada (2014) further note that despite various considerations of the surface power balance, significant unresolved discrepancies remain, and they are skeptical of the power imbalance claims.
• In effect, Trenberth et al. are the earliest “whistle blowers” to the above-mentioned data fudges.

Part I –The Climate Change Myth– Conclusions

1. The IPCC and its contributors claim the Earth has a net-warming energy imbalance. I show here that those claims are false.
2. The IPCC bases its claims on computer modeling of the Earth’s atmosphere, and on observational data from a variety of observational modalities. Both the computer models and the observational data are grossly flawed, and fudged.
3. The IPCC’s computer modeling and its predictions are totally unreliable. There is something clearly very wrong with the physics incorporated within these computer models. Since the computer models can’t even explain the past, why should anyone trust their prediction for the future?
4. Not one of the observational modalities for measuring the Earth’s power imbalance convincingly shows net global warming.
5. I show where various observers and the IPCC have dishonestly fudged their reported data, and have dishonestly changed it from showing No Warming, to showing Warming. Crucially important data fudges are revealed here and highlighted in red. If you don’t believe me, check my arithmetic.
6. The IPCC and NOAA further claim that the purported power imbalance has already caused an increase in dangerous extreme weather events. NOAA’s own data disprove their own claims.
7. I thus offer Great News. Despite what you may have heard from the IPCC and others, there is no real climate crisis! The planet is NOT in peril!
8. The IPCC’s (and NOAA’s) claims are a hoax. Trillions of dollars are being wasted.

Part II – The cloud thermostat 

1. So what is really happening? Why is the earth’s climate actually as stable as it really is?
2. The cloud thermostat mechanism is clearly the overwhelmingly dominant climate controlling feedback mechanism that controls stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. It thereby prevents global warming and climate change.
3. The cloud-thermostat mechanism provides very powerful feedback that stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. It great strength obtains from the observed large fluctuation of the Earth’s power imbalance.
4. The mechanism gains its strength from the Earth’s observed very large cloud-cover variation. The power imbalance is actually observed to be continuously strongly fluctuating by anywhere between 18 to 55 W/m2.
5. Clouds modulate the outgoing Shortwave power and therefore control the Earth’s power imbalance, minimally with a 18 W/m2 available power range (ignoring the added 18 W/m2 solar-constant variation), which is minimally 26 times the IPCC’s 0.7 W/m2 claimed power imbalance, and 45 times the IPCC’s ± 0.2 W/m2 power imbalance error range.
6. The above numbers use the IPCC’s assumed data parameters. With more realistic assumptions, the cloud-thermostat mechanism controls the Earth’s power imbalance with a 73 W/m2 available power range, which is 100 times bigger than the IPCC’s 0.7 W/m2 claimed power imbalance, and 180 times bigger than the IPCC’s ± 0.2 W/m2 power-imbalance total error range.
7. This seemingly random fluctuation of the power imbalance is not random at all, but is actually a crucial part of a thermostat-like feedback mechanism that controls and stabilizes the Earth’s climate and
temperature. It is observed by King et al. (2013) and by Stephens et al. (2015) to be quasi-periodic,
8. Just like the thermostat in your home, the power-imbalance is never zero. The furnace or AC is always either ON or OFF. The thermostat simply modulates the heating/cooling duty cycle.

Features of the cloud thermostat mechanism

1. In preparation for the introduction of this model, I first describe important, underappreciated, but conspicuous properties of clouds – their variability and their strong reflectivity of sunlight (SW radiation).
2. I show that the cloud-thermostat mechanism involves the dominant (73%) use of sunlight energy by the planet.
3. I show that when the cloud-thermostat mechanism is viewed as a form of climate-stabilizing negative feedback, it is by far the most powerful of any such mechanism heretofore considered.
4. The IPCC estimates that the net stabilizing feedback strength or the Earth’s climate, including the destabilizing feedback strength of greenhouses is about -1 W/m2/ºC.
5. I show that the cloud thermostat feedback increases the net natural stabilizing feedback strength to about anywhere between -7 W/m2/ºC and -14 W/m2/ºC, depending on the assumptions used.

There are 5 important take-home messages to be gleaned from these satellite photographs.

1. Clouds reflect dramatically more sunlight than the rest of the planet does!
2. Clouds of all types appear bright white!
3. The photos (along with a large number of careful measurements) strongly suggest that the average cloud reflectivity (of sunlight) is about 0.8 – 0.9. (For comparison, white paper has a reflectivity of ≈ 0.99.) [Wild et al.(2019) claim that cloud reflectivity is 0.36.]
4. The rest of the planet appears much darker than the clouds. The average reflectivity of land (green and brown areas) and ocean (dark blue areas) is ≈ 0.16.
5.Cloud coverage area is highly variable over the Earth.

What does sunlight mostly do when it reaches the Earth’s surface?

• It is commonly believed that sunlight that is absorbed by the Earth’s surface simply warms the surface. That may be true over land. But land represents only about 30% of the surface.
• Oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface. Correspondingly, about 70% of incoming sunlight falls on the oceans. Virtually all of the Earth’s exposed water surface occurs in the oceans.
• Following the AR6 power-flow diagram, 160 W/m2is absorbed by the whole Earth, meaning that roughly 70% X 160 = 112 W/m2 is absorbed by oceans.
• The AR6 power-flow diagram indicates that 82 W/m2 is used for evaporating water, and not for heating the surface.
• Since clouds are mostly produced over the oceans (because that’s where the exposed water is), then 82/112 = 73% of the input energy absorbed by the Earth’s oceans is used, not for warming the Earth, but instead simply for making clouds.

How does the cloud thermostat work?

1. Recall that the IPCC’s AR6 power-flow map asserts that 73% of the input energy absorbed by the Earth’s oceans is used, not for warming the Earth, but instead simply for evaporating seawater and making clouds, rather than for raising the Earth’s surface temperature. Recall that the Earth has a strongly varying cloud cover and albedo.
2. Temperature control of the Earth’s surface by this mechanism works exactly the same way as does a common home thermostat. A thermostat automatically corrects a structure’s temperature in the presence of varying modest heat leaks. For the earth, the presence of significant CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere, manmade or not, provides, in fact, a very small heat leak (at most, about 2 W/m2).  Note that, just like the Earth, the power imbalance for a thermostatically controlled system is never zero. It is always fully heating or fully cooling.
3. How does the cloud thermostat work? When the Earth’s cloud-cover fraction is too high, then the earth’s surface temperature is too low. Why? Clouds produce shadows. Cloudy days are cooler than sunny days. A high cloud-cover fraction equals a highly shadowed area. With reduced sunlight reaching the ocean’s surface and lower temperature, the evaporation rate of seawater is reduced. The cloud production rate over ocean (70% of the earth) is low because sunlight is needed to evaporate seawater. The earth’s too-high cloud-cover fraction obediently starts to decrease. Very quickly, cloud-cover fraction decreases, the temperature increases. The Earth’s cloud-cover fraction is no longer too high. Equilibrium cloud cover and temperature are restored.
4. When the Earth’s cloud-cover fraction is too low, the surface temperature is then too high, then the reverse process occurs. With low cloud cover, lots of sunlight reaches the ocean surface. Increased sunlit area then evaporates more seawater. The cloud-production rate obediently increases and the cloud-cover fraction is no longer too low . Equilibrium cloud cover and temperature are again restored.
5. Depending of one’s assumption regarding cloud reflectivity (albedo), the cloud thermostat mechanism has anywhere between 18 and 55 W/m2 power available from cloud-fraction variability to overcome a wimpy 0.7 W/m2 heat leak (allegedly blamed on greenhouse gasses) and to stabilize the Earth’s temperature, no matter what the greenhouse gas atmospheric concentration is!
6. These two fluctuating opposing processes, when in equilibrium, provide an equilibrium cloud-cover fraction, and an equilibrium average temperature. The earth thus has a built in thermostat!

Feedback strength of the cloud thermostat mechanism

1. The resulting cloud-thermostat mechanism’s feedback parameter is now readily evaluated under the two scenarios associated with two choices for cloud albedo. The details of the calculation are shown in Appendix D.
2. Using the AR6 choice for cloud albedo, αClouds = 0.36, we have λClouds ≈ – 5.7 W/m2 K, which is 1.7 times larger than (the misnamed) λ Planck , heretofore the strongest feedback term.
3. Alternatively, using the more reasonable choice for cloud albedo, αClouds = 0.8, we have λClouds ≈ -12.7 W/m2 K, which is 3.8 times larger than (the misnamed) λPlanck.
4. These values are plotted as an extension of the AR6 Figure 7.1, which shows the feedback strength for various mechanisms. The total system strength is shown in the left-hand column.
5. Viewed as a temperature-control feedback mechanism, in either scenario, the cloud thermostat has the strongest negative (stabilizing) feedback of any mechanism heretofore considered.
6. It very powerfully controls and stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature.

Part II – Conclusions

1. I have introduced here the cloud-thermostat mechanism. It is clearly the overwhelmingly dominant climate controlling feedback mechanism that controls stabilizes the Earth’s climate and temperature. It thereby prevents global warming and climate change.
2. The IPCC’s 2021 AR6 report (p.978) claims that climate stabilizing natural feedback mechanisms have a net (total) stabilizing strength of -1.16 ± 0.6 W/m2/K. My cloud feedback mechanism has a net stabilizing strength of anywhere between -5.7 to -12.7 W/m2/K, depending of one’s assumptions regarding the albedo of clouds.
3. My cloud thermostat mechanism provides nature’s own Solar Radiation Management System. This mechanism already exists. It is built in to nature’s own cloud factory. It works very well to stabilize the Earth’s temperature on a long term basis. And, it is free!

“Recommendations for policy makers”

1. There is no climate crisis! There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s now enormous population. There is indeed an energy shortage crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science, and by
government’s associated incorrect muddled response to it.
2. Government and business are currently needlessly spending trillions of dollars on efforts to limit the greenhouse gasses, CO2 and CH4, in the Earth’s atmosphere.
3. CO2 and CH4 are not pollutants. They must be removed from every list of defined pollutants. They have a negligible effect on the climate. Trillions of dollars can be saved by this one simple measure alone! Additionally, the CO2 Coalition points out that atmospheric CO2 is actually beneficial.
4. I recommend that all efforts to limit environmental carbon should be terminated immediately! Trillions of dollars can be saved by eliminating carbon caps, carbon credits, carbon sequestration, carbon footprints, zero-carbon targets, carbon taxes, anti-carbon policies and fossil-fuel limits, in energy policy and elsewhere.

      via Science Matters

      https://ift.tt/HkbqmCO

      June 11, 2024 at 04:22PM