Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 101 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 7963 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

No Climate Emergency

Roger B
This doesn't seem to appear in the Daily Mail or the BBC, I wonder why:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/

There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate
science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should
openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while
politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation
to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with
natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no
surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to
be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are
far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover,
they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the
fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is
beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global
plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and
suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as
damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations
destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly
oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches
emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to
provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf


At last some people talking sense. After the relatively rapid rise of around 1°C between 1975 and 2000 in the Northern Hemisphere the temperatures have been relatively flat.

f95f77dc1ad4c0ab15046a656ee22cae-huge-hadcrut.jpg

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/figures/Figure11.png


We certainly need to reduce our consumption of finite resources and reduce our impact on the planet but focusing on CO2 is not the way to do it. Let's start with real pollutants that are directly harmful.


Best regards


Roger
Parents
  • 0
    Mike, I do not really agree with your potted analysis.


    The major point of this paper is that the suggestion of a "greenhouse gas" is thermodynamicaly incorrect. It is not possible for a cold object (CO2) in the atmosphere to make the earth surface warmer than itself. Heat (energy) always flows from hot to cold increasing the system entropy. The atmosphere has a tiny thermal capacity compared to the earth surface (to any tiny depth you choose) and also has a powerful mechanism that any heat in it tends to go up, so hot CO2 rises (and all the other gases) meaning that the surface heats the atmosphere, not the other way around. Conduction and convection are much stronger processes in the atmosphere than radiation, because of the very small temperature differences between components. The whole analysis of this blanket diagram and thought pattern is a deliberate attempt to confuse the situation, or possibly just straight incompetence. If CO2 were as is suggested we should fill our double glazing with it, but we do not because its major property is high thermal conductivity! If it radiated half the heat back into the house, would that not be wonderful? Instead we use Argon (in the best windows anyway) because it has particularly low conductivity and is fairly common at 1% of the atmosphere. Of course a vacuum would be ideal but is a problem to keep sealed.


    The reason that nights are cooler than days is because radiation is moving from the surface to the sky which is pretty much at absolute zero temperature. Clouds block this radiation and have a high heat capacity and a temperature which is much higher than the sky, so there is much less radiative heat loss overall, and the atmosphere stays warmer. Water vapour has a much larger greenhouse effect (if you want to call it that) than CO2 and is much more abundant, but seems if anything to cause cooling, which I see as a major objection to the whole description of the atmosphere!


    you will not enjoy the embedded video here
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
Reply
  • 0
    Mike, I do not really agree with your potted analysis.


    The major point of this paper is that the suggestion of a "greenhouse gas" is thermodynamicaly incorrect. It is not possible for a cold object (CO2) in the atmosphere to make the earth surface warmer than itself. Heat (energy) always flows from hot to cold increasing the system entropy. The atmosphere has a tiny thermal capacity compared to the earth surface (to any tiny depth you choose) and also has a powerful mechanism that any heat in it tends to go up, so hot CO2 rises (and all the other gases) meaning that the surface heats the atmosphere, not the other way around. Conduction and convection are much stronger processes in the atmosphere than radiation, because of the very small temperature differences between components. The whole analysis of this blanket diagram and thought pattern is a deliberate attempt to confuse the situation, or possibly just straight incompetence. If CO2 were as is suggested we should fill our double glazing with it, but we do not because its major property is high thermal conductivity! If it radiated half the heat back into the house, would that not be wonderful? Instead we use Argon (in the best windows anyway) because it has particularly low conductivity and is fairly common at 1% of the atmosphere. Of course a vacuum would be ideal but is a problem to keep sealed.


    The reason that nights are cooler than days is because radiation is moving from the surface to the sky which is pretty much at absolute zero temperature. Clouds block this radiation and have a high heat capacity and a temperature which is much higher than the sky, so there is much less radiative heat loss overall, and the atmosphere stays warmer. Water vapour has a much larger greenhouse effect (if you want to call it that) than CO2 and is much more abundant, but seems if anything to cause cooling, which I see as a major objection to the whole description of the atmosphere!


    you will not enjoy the embedded video here
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines