global warming

Click the four arrows at the bottom right to expand article size to fit your screen. Roll the mouse wheel to expand further.

The title of this article asks two questions. The author does not answer either of them. He explains how molecules like CO2 and H2O can (and they do) absorb and re-emit (i.e. scatter) specific wavelengths of infrared radiation (aka IR radiation). He is not wrong about that, but much of what he says is opinion or conjecture, and he leaves out a great deal of factual information that makes the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative to be completely bogus. None of what he says answers these 2 questions. He just dodges them.

Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, densest, and most reliable energy source. The value proposition for nuclear energy is unparalleled. It is the answer for governments and nongovernmental organizations worldwide that are clamoring for a reduction in human-generated CO2 emissions. Humans flourish when they have access to plentiful, safe, and reliable energy. Nuclear excels at all of these.

One of the easiest things to do is to go along to get along. This is true in so many areas of life, including knowledge of science topics. If you don’t have an in-depth knowledge of a particular area of science, the “easiest thing” kicks in rather effortlessly.

Apparently, the fate of civilization depends on adherence to alarmists with insight of the future of Earth’s atmosphere that is overly burdened by the emissions of modern living.

Certainly, human activity has an impact on the environment, but not all of it is bad. And most of the bad can be mitigated with reasonable action — action that can be informed by disparate perspectives.

April 30, 2021, is Arbor Day; a day when we are encouraged to "plant a tree". It would be appropriate to adopt a second slogan, "feed a tree". Feeding-a-tree can be accomplished by implementing a greenhouse operating procedure that uses our carbon emissions ("carbon dioxide", "CO2") to enrich the atmosphere.

American President Joe Biden and his Climate Crisis Czar John Kerry are leading a campaign to starve-trees (and humanity). It is based on the mistaken belief that CO2 provides us with a global, temperature-control knob. Astonishingly, the alarmists' own climate models overwhelmingly debunk the "climate-emergency" fear mongering.

For the modern world to continue to advance and maintain regional and global peace, it is necessary to support fossil fuels and nuclear power and avoid dependence on wind and solar schemes.

Official data released August 4, 2022 reveals that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is in excellent health, with coral cover reaching record levels for the second consecutive year. The increase will be surprising to members of the public, who are regularly hit with scare stories about coral bleaching and false tales about a reef in long-term decline.

Dr Peter Ridd says: “In recent years, the media around the world has been reporting coral bleaching events in increasingly apocalyptic terms. This data proves that they are simply scaremongering.”

GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said: “This is just the latest example of empirical data making a mockery of the catastrophists. For how much longer do they think they can get away with it?”

Ian Plimer argues that the movement claiming human activity is responsible for global warming has been transformed into a “modern green religion” filling the void left by the decline of traditional Christianity in first-world Western countries.

As a respected geologist and professor emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Plimer said his professional interest is in science, not beliefs. In regard to science, he made clear that:

“I don’t have opinions. I don’t believe. I have conclusions based on facts. And so, I’m very, very different from the modern green religion.”

The phrase “greenhouse effect,” often abbreviated as “GHE,” is very ambiguous. It applies to Earth’s surface temperature, and has never been observed or measured, only modeled. To make matters worse, it has numerous possible components, and the relative contributions of the possible components are unknown. Basic physics suggests that Earth’s surface is warmer than it would be with a transparent atmosphere, that is no greenhouse gases (GHGs), clouds, or oceans. If we assume Earth is a blackbody, then subtract the solar energy reflected, from the hypothetically non-existent clouds, atmosphere, land, ice, and oceans; we can calculate a surface temperature of 254K or -19°C. The actual average temperature today is about 288.7K or roughly 15.5°C. This modeled difference of 35°C is often called the overall greenhouse effect.

In summary, W&H have provided us with a detailed and accurate emissions model that shows only modest warming (2.2 to 2.3°C), inclusive of likely water vapor feedback, but not counting the feedback due to cloudiness changes. Both the magnitude and sign of net cloud feedback to surface warming are unknown. Lindzen has shown it is likely negative (cooling) in the tropics, but outside the tropics no one knows.

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.

Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back.

The purported climate catastrophe ahead is 100% junk science.