The Destructive Behavior of Climate Alarmists

Yet another whack job who is self published and nothing else. Also I believe his degree, if he really has one, is in socialolgy, not climate science.

In other words it's just more garbage.

I gotta admire your devotion to your faith, though.

 

You just aren't familiar with the science.
Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Has Not Been Enhanced, But Instead Its Impact Has Declined Since 1983
By Kenneth Richard on 10. April 2023

Share this...
In the satellite era scientists have continued to observe the Earth’s total greenhouse effect (which includes effects from greenhouse gases and clouds) exerting an overall negative impact (cooling) on surface temperatures since the 1980s. This rules out both CO2 and an enhanced greenhouse effect as drivers of global warming.
Earth’s total greenhouse effect impact on climate is realized by the sum of all contributors to it: water vapor, clouds, and the “anthropogenic” greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4.

Given the modern assumption that humans are responsible for global warming due especially to our CO2 and CH4 emissions, it stands to reason that Earth’s downwelling longwave (LWdn) should be increasing and thus the Earth’s greenhouse effect should be enhanced due to the rising greenhouse gases emissions.

But, as Cess and Udelhofen (2003) reported 20 years ago, Earth’s greenhouse effect has not been enhanced in recent decades. Instead, it has been in a state of decline since the 1980s.

“[T]he negative trend in G [greenhouse effect] indicates that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is temporarily [1985-1999] decreasing despite the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing.”


Image Source: Cess and Udelhofen, 2003
Song et al. (2016) also reported a flat (declining) greenhouse effect trend (shown in red) from 2002 to 2014 when all greenhouse effect factors (“all-sky”), including clouds and water vapor, are considered. The effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 were “offset” by the effects of clouds in producing the “zero-trend greenhouse effect” over this period.



Image Source: Song et al., 2016
A new study (Zhang and Rossow, 2023) employs another data set (FH) and also shows the total greenhouse effect (expressed as downward longwave, or LWdn) declining from 1983 to 2017 (and 2001 to 2020 in the CERES record) even though the data “account for increasing CO2 and CH4” and this “should produce an increase in LWdn”. It doesn’t, of course, as CO2 and CH4 are not influential enough to compete with the greenhouse effect of clouds.

“The LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)] shows a very large anomaly declining rapidly at the beginning of the record until the late 1990s. … The FH calculations (and previous versions) account for increasing CO2 and CH4 abundances, which should produce an increase in LWdn, all other things being equal; but as Fig 3…shows, the near surface air temperature (Ta) and skin temperatures (Ts) from ISCCP-H used in FH are generally decreasing. … [July 1983 to June 2017] overall downward trend in FH LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)]”


Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023
The scientists also point out that trends in global mean albedo correspond to an “increase in surface solar radiation” since the 1980s (which can explain the warming over this period). Also, the W/m² trends in shortwave and longwave top-of-atmosphere fluxes are “dominated” by cloud cover changes or “caused almost entirely by cloud effects.”



Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023
In recent years there have been several other studies documenting an observed decreasing greenhouse effect despite the increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 (Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020). All of them note that natural cloud variations, which have a greenhouse effect impact larger than that resulting from a 100-fold increase in CO2 (Ramanathan et al., 1989), are driving the recent greenhouse effect decline, overriding the anthropogenic emissions impact.



Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020
The clear implication of these observations is that an enhanced greenhouse effect has not been driving any warming trend since the 1980s.

Further, a decline in the greenhouse effect means the impact of human CO2 emissions on the global climate are too weak to be a driver of total greenhouse effect trends or climate change.

 

Steven E. Koonin

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Steven_E._Koonin


Steven Elliot Koonin (born December 12, 1951) is an American theoretical physicist and former director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New ...

Biography
Born in Brooklyn, New York City, Koonin graduated from high school at the age of 16, received his Bachelor of Science from the California Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Arthur Kerman in the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics.[4][5][6] In 1975, Koonin joined the faculty of the California Institute of Technology as an assistant professor of theoretical physics becoming one of their youngest ever faculty, and served as the institute's provost from 1995 to 2004.[7][8]

In 2004, Koonin joined BP as their chief scientist, where he was responsible for guiding the company's long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources.[9] He was tapped for the position of Under Secretary for Science at the United States Department of Energy by Steven Chu, Obama's Secretary of Energy,[10] and served from May 19, 2009, to November 18, 2011.[11][12] Koonin left in November 2011 for a position at the Institute for Defense Analyses.[citation needed] In 2012, he was appointed the founding director of NYU's Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP).[13]

He has served on numerous advisory bodies for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy and its various national laboratories, such as the JASON defense advisory group, which he has chaired.[14] Koonin's research interests have included theoretical nuclear, many-body, and computational physics, nuclear astrophysics, and global environmental science.[15]

 

I admire your error filled reply since he has a degree in PHYSICS and has been doing heavy science work and been involved in high end institutions.

Dr. Hansen doesn't have a degree in "climate science" yet he is called a climatologist despite that he doesn't have a Meteorology or Earth Sciences degree.

Maybe you should drop your prejudice instead as your replies are really weak.

 

Instead of bloviating endlessly about how much "deniers" suck, perhaps you can answer the physics (note: not fanciful climate science chock full of erroneous models and zero empirical data) question.

"Global warming" theory basically proposes that somehow 4 tablespoons of boiling water will significantly warm a standard bathtub of water. That's the math of the global warming "consensus".

Please explain in simple, proper English, how that happens.

Nobody here has even given that a shot no matter how many times I bring it up.

 

The irony is that w/ the proper controls the tub's temp increase can actually be measured. The global warming problem is that nobody's taking temperatures --sure, they got "anomalies", but no temperatures and that's the only measurement that will tell u if something's warmer.

 

Bullshit. She's accusing the IPCC of corruption and ranting about "groupthink".

She's a climate denying whack-job.

 

How am I supposed to convince someone who can see the sky is blue, but still chooses to believe it is purple, that the sky is indeed blue when even the evidence of his own eyes isn't enough. The proof has been provided to you people ad infinitum. At this point there is no debate. All I'm doing is laughing at you.

 

Climate science from an art designer and creator of advertising campaigns.

You're still posting crap from deniers.

And it doesn't matter how much of it you post. It will still be crap.

 

An oil company employee?

Seriously?

LMAO!!

 

Sorry, but that's just an uninformed falsehood.

 

That post references and links research papers from peer-reviewed journals. Either you did not read or you don't understand the material.

 

Yes, and Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration.
I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that you're unprepared for the discussion.

 

So you're angry and clueless. Whatever.

 

That's mighty polite of you but unnecessary as I made no errors.

Niether. As previously noted I am highly amused, in a "can't look away" kinda way.

 

“It's a universal law -- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

 

What intolerance? I'm letting you have your say, I'm just laughing while you do it.

And if you had an education you wouldn't be fishing at substack for your talking points.

 

I conclude you don't read. Nothing I have posted to you is from Substack. You have ignored multiple peer-reviewed papers.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

― Edmund Burke

 

He doesn't care Jack that is why he has nothing to say of substance and intelligence.

 

Alarmist flapdoodle proceeds without evidence, again.
Claim: Turbulence is Getting Worse due to Climate Change
Guest Blogger
…none of the news reports contained any actual turbulence data to see if this is actually becoming a problem in a warming world. . . .

 

Yeah, the climate crisis liars ignored the turbulence data from the NTSB which is why this easy counterpoint was easy to post and impossible to refute.

 

Really? You're connecting the noise and saying it's the signal? That's not how statistics works, ever.

Why keep this up? The coming El Nino is going to blast the high temp record, after all, and your cooling claims will look even more ridiculous.

You need to retreat at least to a "yes, strong warming exists, but it's natural!" position.

After that, you can withdraw to "okay, humans caused the strong warming, but warming is good!".

Then, you can take a stand at "okay, warming is bad, but it costs too much to fix!".

And finally, you can use "Well, the warming was catastrophic, but if you weren't so rude, we would have accepted reality, so it's your fault we spent decades being totally wrong!".

 

LOL, once again you say it is El-Nino's that causes warming while omitting CO2 completely who is the usual bogey man warmist/alarmists normally cry over what happen.......

Epic Fail!

 

I'm quite comfortable where I am.
In 2016 a powerful El Nino broke a lengthy Pause in warming and created another "hottest year ever." Since then temperatures have fallen, and that decline seems likely to continue indefinitely. It is now fair to ask whether the overall temperature trend has turned from warming to cooling.

Solar Update September, 2021
2021 › 09 › 22 › solar-update-september-2021
by solar hemisphere 1985 – 2021 ... Breaking down solar activity by hemisphere shows that solar activity ... relative length of the solar cycles. ... Figure 6: F10.7 flux for solar cycles 19 to 25 aligned
modulates the solar signal on the decadal scale, but that the QBO is itself modulated by the solar variability


Our planet’s temperature peaked in 2016 and has been in a disciplined decline since. It is in a channel 0.5°C wide with a slope of -0.03°C per annum. The atmosphere had been warming at 0.013°C per annum according to Dr Roy Spencer’s work. If the established cooling trend continues it will only take another decade to get back to the temperatures of the early 1980s. With the cooling trend firmly established, the question is: Can the proximate cause be found in the solar record?


. . . .

 

When the cure is worse than the disease. . . .
Manmade: Studies Suggest That Wind Parks Cause Climate Change, Even Regional Drought
By P Gosselin on 7. May 2023

Share this...
Plastering the landscape with wind turbines for producing renewable energy may lead to regional drought.

Germany has so far installed over 30,000 wind turbines, which is about 1 every 11 sq. km. Plans are calling for doubling or even tripling wind power capacity. But this may be detrimental as new studies show that wind farms are altering local climates, and thus may be having an effect on global climate and contributing to regional droughts.

Northern Germany, for example, has a high concertation of of wind turbines and has seen an unusual dry spell since 2019. Fortunately, recent rains have alleviated these drought conditions. Alarmist climate scientists of course blamed rising CO2 emissions for the North German drought.

Yet, a recent paper by Wang et al (2023) shows that wind farms reduce regional soil moisture, thus confirming earlier model simulations of wind-park-made climate change, e.g. by Zhou et al (2013).

German online SciFi site here reports in depth on the topic. “Climate change: Wind farms cause drought and dryness – Evidence is mounting [New study]“. . . .