The latest explanations are less the emitted energy and more the thermalization of the LT. The radiation is more prevalent in the UT where there are fewer molecules (density of).
The uncertainty is highest with (i) how much of the co2 is man-made, (ii) how much we have warmed and man’s contribution, (iii) the ECS. We realists believe these are all low.
We also believe that it is immoral to foist policies based on loose aka unsettled science when they clearly cannot achieve the claims (mainly affordability and co2 per kWh reduction).
Great response TC. Many believe that atm co2 levels are natural and that removing any would cause the oceans to replace it. Apparently a feature to do with Henry’s Law and equilibrium.
I am beginning to view the following climate driver as an option... Reading the book Hoax now... full of science. Ned Nikolov: Beyond the Greenhouse Theory | Tom Nelson Pod #268
Nigel, i see on Telegram that our realist community is trying to get on the same page. I have always been attracted to the thermodynamic autocompression theory…. But wonder, how do all the other forcings work given this autocompression is true? We have variations in sun’s TSI, clouds, distance to sun, magnetosphere, tectonics/volcanism, Henry’s Law, sun’s activity, water vapor, etc (cant think of anymore)… what affect do these natural changes have on the autocompression theory?
The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels.
Look.. the main issue is NOT who may be right and who might be wrong… but that it’s clearly unsettled with plenty of unknowns to the point that any policies and certainly something as horrific and foolish as NetZero should not be undertaken. And especially when we see that although some warming has taken place its mostly benign….
I am from the South. Starting with “ look” is not a good “look”. Luckily i see your ubiquitous posting all over the place and know you have to deal with some idiots and crazies, but look, i ain’t one of them. And i know that NZ policies are technically and economically infeasible, and a misapplication of capital and effort, and pointless, and will immiserate the poor and make the undeserved rich! 🤑 I’ll continue to monitor Telegram for a polite answer to my question
oops..I had no intention of offending..... of course we agree on the whole NZ thing but to get to the correct place I felt it best to try to not take sides but declare the whole of the science unsettled as that way we justify doing only adaption that is probably all we should do anyway..... even the climate realists are not 100% aligned on the science.... but all of the arguments in the post I did have some merit ... and its clear that the IPCC approach is full of holes... Like you I keep prodding the Telegram guys to focus on the correct science.. but no alignment so far.... this is the open minded approach Tom Nelson takes and its a good one... his site is real useful.
Ok, i am a Tom Nelson fan and love all the various potential alternatives (including GHG gases other than co2!). Your weak apology is accepted. You are, of course, from the north (although i have no clue where you’re from).
A word of caution about getting "on the same page". The climate alarmists have done that, but they got on the wrong page. There is a lot of investigation to do before we KNOW what the right page is. Let's do the investigation with open minds and follow where it leads.
Agreed....The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels.
Wrong ... almost all the climate impact metrics you mention are either flat or in decline and their causation is not the climate but weather patterns that are not unprecedented.... If you won’t look at the data I cannot help you...
I will be kind and feed you some.. but why not read my post …
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
In this post I explained that the IPCC narrative that CO2 is the driver of climate change has been strongly contested by other scientists with demonstrated proof, which means at best that the science is unsettled.
The best explanation is contained in these two reports and presentation videos are also included.
Then I also listed in the post all the other climate change mechanisms scientists are suggesting be further reviewed and most of these are not deemed to have human causation.
The so-called experts just won’t accept these facts against their “holy narrative” but continue to put forward weak evidence as to the reason for the mild warming of the planet mostly focused on CO2 as the driver… They only show obscure papers and reports that are not documented inside the IPCC scientific base material which in itself is very weak and biased. This position is defined by the report from CLINTEL that is linked in the post. The IPCC relies on a dubious hockey stick to try to prove that the current slight warming is unprecedented and they use climate models that even fail to predict the past never mind the future.
Its all to do with the Sun!!!
Here is one of many scientific works that shows that the climate is controlled more by atmospheric thermodynamics rather than radiative forcing and CO2.
This paper and the presentation provides an empirical model produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.
The global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it, and has fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate.
New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
There are a growing number of technical participants like me that now question the mainstream narrative and are now insisting we stop blindly following it that will have disastrous results to our prosperity and well being. So its time to call the science unsettled and review all the options. This is now the approach being taken by many new governments….. and its about time.
Based on your Substack handle you have no credibility… just an agitator… go away before I grant your wish.. unless of course you have any facts to impart
Here is my response to your multi comments in this post….
My main point of writing the post is to strongly suggest that the science is clearly not settled, with a wide range of scientific facts and theories on causation some of which have nothing to do with human influence…see the list of “arguments” I prepared..
Then…. so far we have seen a very low impact to our flourishing from what may be a naturally warming planet of about 1.5 degrees in the last 300 years, with some estimates being no more than 1 to 0.5 degree for a whole century going forward. None of the models are accurate and don’t cope with the impact of clouds that are mainly believed to reduce sensitivity not increase it. In fact some argue that the slight increase in temperature and more CO2 has improved the food supply across the globe.
Our weather temperature variation is almost 10 times the so-called average temperature anomaly that is a weird average that keeps getting questioned due to measurement errors both now and more so in the past based on error prone proxies.
Then we have a significant cost to our flourishing with the implementation of climate mitigation (NetZero) with immature technologies that clearly don’t work and such a NetZero policy direction may be far far worse than just a focus on localized adaption…. And certainly we wont get non western nations to participate in mitigation even though they produce most of the CO2
So.. I would suggest that we should do nothing more than obvious short term adaption and get on with prosperity using the power of the latest fossil fuels and nuclear until the science gets more settled.
Its foolish and non-viable to have policy makers moving forward on NetZero actions that wont work and which we may not need that quite frankly will be far worse than if we do nothing.
I would like to see far more open communication between ALL scientific factions before we commit to what may be draconian policies for maybe no reason.
The science is not settled…. You can argue all you want….. but that’s my position and many agree with me.
I noticed that you dont write any posts.. why dont you do that with the position you are taking...
The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels. And we will not be going to other forms of energy until they are proven ready, and about the only one ready is nuclear… the rest are not viable or reliable or cost effective.
You're worrying yourself unnecessarily, Dale. Read the latest IPCC report - the actual report written by scientists, not the executive summaries written by activists to frighten people - and you'll see there is nothing to fear.
The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels.
🤔 Thought Experiment to Consider
Absorption and emission from CO2 is at the 15 micron wavelength.
This is long wave far-infrared with a temperature that equates to -80 C per Planck.
It can only warm things colder than it, unless it is a gas with higher kinetic energy than the others around it.
The lower atmosphere ranges from 15 C to -56 C.
Assuming that the kinetic energy of CO2 is the same as the other gases around it, can CO2 heat the lower atmosphere or Earth?
Hint: Second Law of Thermodynamics
The latest explanations are less the emitted energy and more the thermalization of the LT. The radiation is more prevalent in the UT where there are fewer molecules (density of).
The uncertainty is highest with (i) how much of the co2 is man-made, (ii) how much we have warmed and man’s contribution, (iii) the ECS. We realists believe these are all low.
We also believe that it is immoral to foist policies based on loose aka unsettled science when they clearly cannot achieve the claims (mainly affordability and co2 per kWh reduction).
Here is a very good piece on the inevitable results of NZ in NZ
https://open.substack.com/pub/newzealandenergy/p/hanging-in-the-ballance?r=8qay0&utm_medium=ios
Many reasons point to CO2 being a small participant in climate change.
Kinetic energy transfer from CO2 vanishingly small as well.
CO2 is 400 ppm, how can it be reduced to 2500 ppm ?
Please run the numbers for us as you say.
Great response TC. Many believe that atm co2 levels are natural and that removing any would cause the oceans to replace it. Apparently a feature to do with Henry’s Law and equilibrium.
I am beginning to view the following climate driver as an option... Reading the book Hoax now... full of science. Ned Nikolov: Beyond the Greenhouse Theory | Tom Nelson Pod #268
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1GgmBIew9Y&t=458s
Darwin Throne: “HOAX! why burning fossil fuels doesn’t cause climate change” | Tom Nelson Pod #305
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msKBM1UG4Sk&t=1183s
Not quite so. The IR is rerouted to neighbouring lines and emiited to space. It doesn't reach the surface.
Nigel, i see on Telegram that our realist community is trying to get on the same page. I have always been attracted to the thermodynamic autocompression theory…. But wonder, how do all the other forcings work given this autocompression is true? We have variations in sun’s TSI, clouds, distance to sun, magnetosphere, tectonics/volcanism, Henry’s Law, sun’s activity, water vapor, etc (cant think of anymore)… what affect do these natural changes have on the autocompression theory?
The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels.
Ok, but… they are so sure their science is right and you and Ed are telling me our response is “well, we know it’s not that!”
Look.. the main issue is NOT who may be right and who might be wrong… but that it’s clearly unsettled with plenty of unknowns to the point that any policies and certainly something as horrific and foolish as NetZero should not be undertaken. And especially when we see that although some warming has taken place its mostly benign….
I am from the South. Starting with “ look” is not a good “look”. Luckily i see your ubiquitous posting all over the place and know you have to deal with some idiots and crazies, but look, i ain’t one of them. And i know that NZ policies are technically and economically infeasible, and a misapplication of capital and effort, and pointless, and will immiserate the poor and make the undeserved rich! 🤑 I’ll continue to monitor Telegram for a polite answer to my question
oops..I had no intention of offending..... of course we agree on the whole NZ thing but to get to the correct place I felt it best to try to not take sides but declare the whole of the science unsettled as that way we justify doing only adaption that is probably all we should do anyway..... even the climate realists are not 100% aligned on the science.... but all of the arguments in the post I did have some merit ... and its clear that the IPCC approach is full of holes... Like you I keep prodding the Telegram guys to focus on the correct science.. but no alignment so far.... this is the open minded approach Tom Nelson takes and its a good one... his site is real useful.
Ok, i am a Tom Nelson fan and love all the various potential alternatives (including GHG gases other than co2!). Your weak apology is accepted. You are, of course, from the north (although i have no clue where you’re from).
A word of caution about getting "on the same page". The climate alarmists have done that, but they got on the wrong page. There is a lot of investigation to do before we KNOW what the right page is. Let's do the investigation with open minds and follow where it leads.
Agreed....The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels.
Wrong ... almost all the climate impact metrics you mention are either flat or in decline and their causation is not the climate but weather patterns that are not unprecedented.... If you won’t look at the data I cannot help you...
I will be kind and feed you some.. but why not read my post …
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYVyU_q9Uo&t=242s
What are these evacuees and refugees ??/. its not driven by climate.. more economic opportunity
Ok you crossed the line.... anything else before I take care of you?
Dale Stafford
Thanks Ed.... Please ....no more nut jobs today
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/the-climate-emergency-quiz-updated
Not so and repeating your claim doesn't make it true either. Its rerouted to neighbouring lines and lost to space. It doesn't reach surface.
Yet the fact is models run too hot and best ECS is now under 2.0..some say 1.8. Others say well under 1.0. No emergency.
Who you talking about?
Time waster...
In this post I explained that the IPCC narrative that CO2 is the driver of climate change has been strongly contested by other scientists with demonstrated proof, which means at best that the science is unsettled.
The best explanation is contained in these two reports and presentation videos are also included.
http://www.nigelsouthway.org/storage/01K0CGYVZN3P4FZ79E502FB683.pdf
https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2006.03098
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA8elCE75ns&t=7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfwnKWIWPzk&t=1846s
Then I also listed in the post all the other climate change mechanisms scientists are suggesting be further reviewed and most of these are not deemed to have human causation.
The so-called experts just won’t accept these facts against their “holy narrative” but continue to put forward weak evidence as to the reason for the mild warming of the planet mostly focused on CO2 as the driver… They only show obscure papers and reports that are not documented inside the IPCC scientific base material which in itself is very weak and biased. This position is defined by the report from CLINTEL that is linked in the post. The IPCC relies on a dubious hockey stick to try to prove that the current slight warming is unprecedented and they use climate models that even fail to predict the past never mind the future.
Its all to do with the Sun!!!
Here is one of many scientific works that shows that the climate is controlled more by atmospheric thermodynamics rather than radiative forcing and CO2.
This paper and the presentation provides an empirical model produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.
The global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it, and has fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate.
New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
http://www.nigelsouthway.org/storage/01K0D43G9S1HHN44N44T7F19B4.pdf
Ned Nikolov: Beyond the Greenhouse Theory | Tom Nelson Pod #268
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1GgmBIew9Y&t=458s
There are a growing number of technical participants like me that now question the mainstream narrative and are now insisting we stop blindly following it that will have disastrous results to our prosperity and well being. So its time to call the science unsettled and review all the options. This is now the approach being taken by many new governments….. and its about time.
Based on your Substack handle you have no credibility… just an agitator… go away before I grant your wish.. unless of course you have any facts to impart
Hey Dale, you try go argue with Ned. Hypocrite.
I see no value in any further conversation...... disrespect and personal attacks will not be tolerated…..
Dale
Here is my response to your multi comments in this post….
My main point of writing the post is to strongly suggest that the science is clearly not settled, with a wide range of scientific facts and theories on causation some of which have nothing to do with human influence…see the list of “arguments” I prepared..
Then…. so far we have seen a very low impact to our flourishing from what may be a naturally warming planet of about 1.5 degrees in the last 300 years, with some estimates being no more than 1 to 0.5 degree for a whole century going forward. None of the models are accurate and don’t cope with the impact of clouds that are mainly believed to reduce sensitivity not increase it. In fact some argue that the slight increase in temperature and more CO2 has improved the food supply across the globe.
Our weather temperature variation is almost 10 times the so-called average temperature anomaly that is a weird average that keeps getting questioned due to measurement errors both now and more so in the past based on error prone proxies.
Then we have a significant cost to our flourishing with the implementation of climate mitigation (NetZero) with immature technologies that clearly don’t work and such a NetZero policy direction may be far far worse than just a focus on localized adaption…. And certainly we wont get non western nations to participate in mitigation even though they produce most of the CO2
So.. I would suggest that we should do nothing more than obvious short term adaption and get on with prosperity using the power of the latest fossil fuels and nuclear until the science gets more settled.
Its foolish and non-viable to have policy makers moving forward on NetZero actions that wont work and which we may not need that quite frankly will be far worse than if we do nothing.
I would like to see far more open communication between ALL scientific factions before we commit to what may be draconian policies for maybe no reason.
The science is not settled…. You can argue all you want….. but that’s my position and many agree with me.
I noticed that you dont write any posts.. why dont you do that with the position you are taking...
Dale..... I booted the "dude" because he had no facts and was abusive.... I dont mind your comments and will respond soon.
your welcome.
I think talking with you is a lot like the saying ... don’t wrestle with a pig you get dirty and the pig likes it…. enough.
whatever you say dude.
The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels. And we will not be going to other forms of energy until they are proven ready, and about the only one ready is nuclear… the rest are not viable or reliable or cost effective.
Leaving aside predictions of the effects of climate change, what are the disasters we are dealing with right here and now?
You're worrying yourself unnecessarily, Dale. Read the latest IPCC report - the actual report written by scientists, not the executive summaries written by activists to frighten people - and you'll see there is nothing to fear.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
Yes I have. Their methodology is simply unbelievable. Every weather event is due to climate change apparently.
The key thing is that the climate science is far from settled and until it is all we should do is focused and localized climate adaption using the power of fossil fuels.