Daily News 16 Feb 2025

Science Escapes Them, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship

They are successfully creating a story that is unifying the conservative message on a range of issues, I am referring to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship that will be meeting in London this week. They include so many influential politicians even Mike Johnson the 56th Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Donald Trump mentioned him by name second, or was it third, in his inaugural address on becoming President. Johnson is on the advisory board of ARC and spoke at the first ARC conference in London in November 2023. I was there.

They claim to be working to “re-laying the foundations of our civilisation”, but there will be no mention of science.

The conference will be in London the home of the Royal Society, that has more recently been captured by much that is fashionable. And fashion is of course the lowest form of ideology. Founded on 28 November 1660, the Royal was granted a royal charter by King Charles II and is the oldest continuously existing scientific academy in the world.

Then there is the British Museum of Natural History, also in London. This, and so many other science institutions, including Australia’s science agency the CSIRO, now take their lead from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC sits under the United Nations. It was established under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), ostensibly with the aim of measuring the impact from humankind on the Earth’s climate, to the extent that the FCCC have instructed the IPCC to only consider the human component of climate change. For simplicity, this would mean that if there was for example 100 mechanisms of action and interaction driving changes in climate, and the category of human action was one of those mechanisms, the FCCC has instructed the IPCC they are only allowed to talk about that one mechanism and must ignore the other 99. This kind of myopic directive is how you get nonsense claims like the one on the front page of the CSIRO website that “90% of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide are from the burning of fossil fuels”.

What they might mean is that 90% of human emissions are from fossil fuels, but the way it is written most people would assume that 90% of the carbon in the atmosphere is from us – you and me, our cars, factories and plastic bags. That is a nonsense! When all the natural sources are considered, emissions from combustion of oil, gas and coal are a small percentage and impossible to separate from other plant sources including all the carbon dioxide breathed out by forests and phytoplankton, not to mention forest fires. Carbon dioxide is in deed a well mixed gas, and very soluble in the ocean.

Meanwhile, at the conference this week, in London, ARC will likely also continue to promote the policies of one of the darlings of the heterodox climate consensus community, political scientist Bjorn Lomborg.

Lomborg will likely tell the delegates that global warming is real, human caused, but he will say, it is just not an emergency. It will speak nonsense and he will be applauded by all the conservatives and the hangers-on. He will tell them what is fashionable or what could be fashionable never mind the facts.

Lomborg and one of his funders, Bill Gates, now see an advantage in an energy transition to nuclear. That was something Margaret Thatcher first spruiked back in the 1980s, only to be told by Nigel Lawson that nuclear could only be competitive with North Sea gas etcetera if there was government intervention, subsidies, and on it goes.

When I attended the first ARC conference, I was dismayed by all that I heard, especially the penultimate closing address that was by Lomborg. As well as assuring us that carbon dioxide was responsible for climate change, he mentioned the advantages of vaccines. Almost in the same breath, and without context, certainly without acknowledging the role of big pharma in the Covid fiasco of mandates and adverse events denied at the time and at the first ARC conference, and it is not on the agenda for discussion this week.

At the conference this week a book will be launched, ostensibly bringing together the sharpest minds of our times in history, economics, philosophy, as well as artists and statesmen. So, their story goes. There is no mention of science or women. There is mention of this new book uncovering the best that our civilization has given us, but again no mention of science.

I put some effort into a series of blog posts when I attended ARC in 2023. I explained how I was dismayed at how many conservative Australian politicians were there, all agreeing vigorously with everything that was said that did not include any discussion of the direction of science that has been critical to western civilization.

There is ARC Research that claims to be a not for profit company which exists to renew social fabric, develop a pro-human vision of energy, business, and governance, and ultimately, tell a better story for our future. But how can any organisation undertake research if it does understand the fundamental principles of evidence and method. If it will use words as the IPCC does to quarantine discussion to a minuscule component of the natural world, of the natural order of things.

For sure science has been abandoned by today’s conservatives, who are on the political ascent, and this should be of concern to us all.

My blog posts from November 2023 with a focus on climate are here:

“ … at the ARC conference in London, there was this assumption that everyone knows carbon dioxide causes warming of the Earth and the oceans and that as atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide rise we risk even more warming, but no-one was prepared to engage in any detail or explain the physical mechanisms. Certainly, no-one wanted to explain to me how the spike that was occurring in global temperatures while I was in London, how it had been caused by carbon dioxide.”

I wrote back in December 2023 in my final blog post about ARC, that I wanted to begin some discussion about the science, about carbon dioxide and climate change. It has taken me some time to get going, and I thank you for your patience.

It was a year later, in December 2024 that I interviewed Bill Kininmonth, and next Tuesday I will be interviewing Ivan Kennedy – a professor at Sydney University.

We will be discussing both the surprising history of how it is that carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa has come to define global trends, and the chemistry of carbon, it being so soluble in seawater. Kennedy is quite the expert when it comes to carbon chemistry, especially issues of acidification and calcification.

It is likely that we will hypothesise that what is being measured at Mauna Loa is almost certainly degassing from the ocean, I am going to suggest from the equatorial Pacific Ocean, rather than emission from the combustion of coal, gas or oil – and certainly not uneven respiration from northern hemisphere forests that is so often proposed to explain seasonal trends in carbon dioxide concentrations at Moana Loa.

If you are so inclined to come down this rabbit hole with us, you will need to register for what will be my first Zoom webinar!

When: Feb 25, 2025 12:00 PM Brisbane
Topic: Oceans Breathe Out Carbon Dioxide. Part 2/Towards a New Theory of Climate Change

After registering, you should receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

via Jennifer Marohasy

https://ift.tt/KN5FSR3

February 16, 2025 at 03:17PM

Daily News 16 Feb 2025

Sun Rules Earth Climate

On February 12, 2025, Tom Nelson conducted the above interview with solar physicist Valentina Zharkova: Grand solar minimum is underway. Below is my synopsis of lightly edited transcript excerpts from the closed captions along with key graphics in her presentation. H/T Chiefio

The full content of the video is:

Time line of segments:
0:00 – Introduction to Valentina
0:35 – Understanding the Solar Cycles
4:25 – Challenges In Measuring Sun
5:10 – Discovering The Background (magnetic fields)
6:00 – Analyzing Magnetic Waves
7:50 – Predicting Solar Activity
14;45 – Grand Solar Minimum
27:25 – Implications of the Grand Solar Minimum
37:55 – CO2 and Temperature Correlation
39:10 – Solar Cycles and Earth’s Temperature
42:45 – Solar Inertial Motion and Climate
48:30 – Future Climate Predictions
1:05:20 – Volcanic Activity and Climate
1:07:30 – Earth’s Magnetic Field
1:12:10 – Concluding Thoughts

Transcript Excerpts

Today we’re talking again about Grand solar minimum but I also speak about a little bit of solar radiation and verification of the new solar activity index we discovered with the existing one which is derived by average Sunspot number.

Understanding the Solar Cycle and Sunspots

The solar activity cycle is about 11 years and on the Sun it occurs that in the start of the cycle on the left image the sun has Southern polarity. And during the cycle this polarity slowly migrates in the opposite direction and so the next solar minimum you have polarity changed and this happens approximately every 11 years. so basically what is happening the the loops appear in the Solar surface and the occurring as the active region for forming coronal mass injections flares and different fluxes towards the Earth and other planets.

So in the past we were dealing with the sunspots. In the 18th century Wolff discovered that this Sunspot appears on this latitude 30° and migrates slowly towards the equator and basically this is the basic Solar activity index using daily average Sunspot numbers.

Why we love sunspots and why we support this for a couple of centuries is because sunspots actually are Roots which are embedded into the Photosphere (the surface layer of the Sun that gives off light). And we see them from outside with the naked eye but basically they are the places where magnetic Loops are embedded.

The problem with Sunspots is that we see only a few of them. Even with this Solar maximum there’s only a small part of the solar surface covered with them. Whatever we use to detect them, always the Sunspot index is defined by people manually. They agree from different observatories what number of sunspots which configuration Etc. So the Sunspot number changes during 11 year cycle.

Discovering The Background (magnetic fields)

So we decided to look at the background field in which these sunspots are embedded so on the top is the B is the background magnetic field measured at solar observatory in Stanford with orange. So you see clearly that the leading polarity of Sunspot always opposite to the polarity of the background magnetic field in that hemisphere. It was not only us who detected this it was others as well so it was very encouraging. We decided we can detect solar activity with much better accuracy.

The black curve is our summary modulus summary curve and the red is a sunspot number and you see that our a Vector summary Eigen vectors will represent this Solar, remembering that our index represents the magnetic field of the background Sun. In 2022 we added Cycle 24 and discovered that our curve still represents Sunspot index. At the bottom is the summary curve modulus summary curve cycle 25 where we are now, Here we see our prediction that the maximum will be actually year 23-24 and now there will be a very sharp drop of the activity, and we have two little Maxima before the minimum between cycle 25-26. Cycle 26 will be have very low amplitude, 70% lower than the previous two cycles.

So how it works. If you have two waves on the top two black waves which are running with the same amplitude but if the face difference is zero you have constructive interference. In the cycle 26 we can see the amplitudes are going opposite with the resulting amplitude becoming zero. This is what we observe on the sun and I teach my first year physics students how they interact. There’s no miracle, just basic physics of the waves and this effect called beat effect.

Implications of the Grand Solar Minimum

Now we come back to solar radiance and climate so first we now know that we entered into a grand solar minimum, the temperature started decreasing. But the problem with the grand solar minimum is that during previous Grand solar minimum, which was the Maunder minimum in 17th century, the Solar Radiance reduced by 3 watts per square meter approximately. But the temperature during Maunder minimum decreased approximately by one degree maximum.

Different investigations show slightly different variations but mostly they all reconstruct temperatures during and after the minimum to find where the surface temperature was reduced on the the globe. So this is what you see for Northern Hemisphere, this is Europe, very dark blue is reduction of temperature by one degree. And it is mostly all Europe, Russia and Siberia, and also all Northern America and Canada.

So basically this is probably we are heading towards now. We have noticed the cold flashes from the drop of the temperature that occurred because drop of abundance of ozone created by solar ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. If the solar radiation is reduced, this layer abundance of ozone is reduced and it affects planetary atmospheric waves.

In the left image Globe the stable just stream flows somewhere in this path and separate middle latitude from the north Northern latitude, but when ozone layer is reduced it causes giant Wiggles in just stream shown in the right plot called wind from arctics can now penetrate to the southern latitudes as shown on the picture. It kicks off North Atlantic oscillation and balance between permanent low pressure system near Greenland and permanent high pressure system and the South into Negative PH. It was reported 24 years ago go and it works now.

We are trying now to say that the temperature will be increasing because the sun become closer to us but the sun is very humane it gives us this grand solar minimum for 30 years to sort out our understanding how the heating comes through and then prepare for the next stage of heating which come does no matter what we do on Earth; if we stop using fuels, we crawl to the caves and start using I don’t know what energy. All people will die still the temperature will increase, it doesn’t matter what we do.

So this prediction of the anthropogenic global warming people is not working. The temperature will be increasing no matter what we do with CO2 because the increase of the temperature comes from the solar inertial motion. So this my conclusion: We had this global warming–it is real; it is not caused by humans because human only contribute 6% maximum of all CO2. And CO2 is a very good gas because it is mostly absorbed by the plants and not by humans.

Global warming is caused by this Solar inertial motion and gravitation of large planets which drag the Sun from the center Body Center closer to the planets and this causes the increase of the temperature. And the temperature as I shown in my book will increase by 2.5-3° by 25-2600 years. This is the end of the story.

TN: Thank you it sounds like we’re due for some cooling between now and 2053 but warming in general between then and 2600. I’m curious, do you think we’re going to see the temperatures freeze over at all?

Yes, I’m confident it will be freezing from 2031 to 2042 for sure. This will be the worst period of cold air and cold temperature and not only temps. Rivers and the ponds will be freezing all right and other dramatic things that might happen. It’s going to be a lot harder to grow wheat in Canada for example, I would guess during that time absolutely. In 17th century people heated their houses with their own fireplaces, now we have central heating. If we don’t have electricity even our Central heating is not working, so you need to have the portable generators run from fossil fuel or have a wood stove in your house. At that time people grew up something in their Gardens, now people don’t know how to grow up anything, so it will be really really difficult.

Frack Off!

This week’s news that a large gas field has been discovered in Lincolnshire should be treated with caution. We here at Cliscep are sceptics, after all. There has been much excitement in some quarters about the possibility that vast amounts of gas could potentially be extracted and that this could enhance the UK’s energy security. A recent BBC article cited claims by the company that made the discovery (Egdon Resources) to the effect that it could generate a GDP contribution of £140bn and up to 250,000 direct and indirect jobs and offset 202 million tonnes of CO2 associated with imported gas – said to be equivalent to the annual emissions of “over 40 million cars”. When renewable energy companies make claims of this type I tend to be highly sceptical, and I will also reserve judgement in this case. It’s simply far too early to tell. There are also suggestions that any gas there might be will be capable of extraction only by fracking, and local people are concerned about this possibility. I think that concerns about the safety of fracking are overdone but, just as I believe that worried locals confronted with industrial scale wind, solar, pylon and BESS developments should be listened to, so should locals concerned about fracking. National infrastructure projects relating to the UK’s energy needs and security should be subject to a fair and objective planning regime, and not one driven by dogma one way or the other.

Which brings me to the nub of this issue. Now that fracking is potentially back on the agenda, it’s worth taking a look at the utterly inconsistent and hypocritical way in which our current government seeks to treat locals concerned about fracking and locals concerned about renewable energy projects and their associated industrial-scale infrastructure. A couple of internet articles cast some light on this topic. First, an article from Drill or Drop? in October 2022. Second, an article in the Metro from December 2024.

The first article was written around the time of Liz Truss and her ill-fated and short-lived government, which proposed to remove the ban on fracking. Ed Miliband, now Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, was then the Shadow Climate Secretary, and he took the opportunity to visit what the article described as the “shale gas village” of Misson in Nottinghamshire (a company had drilled a shale gas well nearby in 2019, though it had not yet secured planning permission to start fracking). Speaking in the village pub, Mr Miliband said he would stand with local communities and would ban fracking for good – 70% of village residents had signed a petition opposing the shale gas well. It is, I think, worth looking at what exactly Mr Miliband said, and comparing (and contrasting) it with what he and the Prime Minister have to say about people who oppose their favoured energy infrastructure projects. Here’s what he said to the inhabitants of Misson:

Labour will stand with communities in opposing the Conservatives’ dodgy plans to impose expensive, dirty and dangerous fracking on the British people.

Fracking would make no difference to energy prices and could risk the health of local communities, nature and water supplies.

Labour will stand up to Liz Truss’ unjust charter for earthquakes, including her plans to outsource decisions about local consent to fracking companies.

He is reported as having more to say, too. He described as “insulting” the suggestion that residents would be offered cash for consent. He said the government could not be trusted. Fracking would industrialise the local landscape and would ruin local businesses, leading to a loss of local employment, he said. There were cheaper, quicker, renewable alternatives to tackle the energy crisis, he added, in a statement of great dubiety.

Fast forward just over two years to the Metro article, with Mr Miliband now in a position of power, and it’s clear that all the things he held dear when talking about fracking don’t apply to his plans for renewable energy and associated developments. Unlike Liz Truss, he can be trusted! It seems that offering residents cash for consent is no longer insulting. Instead, he is reported as saying “The principle for this government is, if you host clean energy infrastructure in your community, you should benefit from it.” Among the other incentives offered to people living near such sites will be “community funds for solar and wind” he added. He now thinks:

It also means making some decisions that I think are the right decisions, but some people may not support – for example, the need for large onshore wind farms.

His concerns, when he was in opposition, no longer seem to count. His 2022 worries about industrialising the local landscape, ruining local businesses, and a consequent loss of local employment bother him no more. Also ditched is any plan to stand with local communities concerned about the imposition on them of expensive, dirty and dangerous industrial infrastructure. Risk to the health of local communities, nature and water supplies can now be ignored. Concerned that a BESS scheme on your doorstep might be dirty and dangerous? Bothered about local water sources, nature, health? Forget it. Sir Keir has vowed to defeat what he calls a challenge culture by taking on the Nimbys, as he so charmingly puts it.

It gets worse, too. Members of this government have repeatedly said, both when in opposition and now that they are in power, that they intend to “ban fracking for good”. In response to the Lincolnshire discovery, the Telegraph reports a spokesman for DESNZ as saying:

We intend to ban fracking for good and make Britain a clean energy superpower to protect current and future generations. The biggest risk to our energy security is staying dependent on fossil fuel markets and only by sprinting to clean power by 2030 can the UK take back control of its energy and protect both family and national finances from price spikes.

Whilst respecting the wishes of locals who are anxious about fracking, I regard the above comments as both imbecilic and undemocratic. What does banning fracking for good mean? Do they have the arrogance to assume that they can somehow prevent a future sovereign Parliament elected by voters some years hence from pursuing its own energy policy? What are they going to do? Booby trap the gas fields? Probably they think they can cap all existing shale wells in order to make future exploitation more difficult and more expensive. As for energy security, seeking to guarantee that in no circumstances will the UK in future be able to exploit its own energy resources has to be one of the crassest policies imaginable. By all means, as Labour has a constitutional mandate (albeit not a popular one, since only around 20% of the electorate voted for them) pursue the energy policy today that you believe in. I disagree with you, but that’s my problem – living in a democracy means that I respect the outcome of the election even though I disapprove of it. But how dare you purport to legislate for the future? This reflects comments in the early House of Lords debate about Great British Energy (GBE) to the effect that steps should be taken to “future proof” GBE against attempts by a future government to undermine it. Such sentiments are unacceptable in a democracy. I’m not very keen on hypocritical politicians either.

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/2s73YfQ

February 16, 2025 at 01:30PM