I should think that when enough time has passed, the current leaders of the free world – but especially the scientists who advise them – will be remembered in the history books as rather deceitful. That after a few hundred years of a period of Enlightenment there was a transition back to a period of ignorance. This must especially be the case when it comes to how they explain that energy moves in the atmosphere, especially heat.
It doesn’t matter whether I am referring to the right or left of politics, they are choosing to be political rather than thoughtful. Of course there are always exceptions, and I have particularly enjoyed recent email exchanges with Christopher Game.
It doesn’t matter whether they are referring to convection or some other method of energy transfer, the modern scientist, especially the consensus scientist, but also for example, Peter Ridd, usually insist on referring to it as heat.
After Will Happer visited Australia last year and gave his lectures about ‘integrity in science and attacks on carbon dioxide’ at the invitation of the Institute of Public Affairs, I was curious to know where he sourced the key charts that he showed, specifically charts about expected radiant energy loss from Earth at different wavelengths. There was no attribution, and Happer was vague when I emailed him. For sure the charts had been redrawn, but from where was he sourcing the essence of this narrative and these numbers.
Eventually I found versions of key charts in a book by one of his colleagues from Princeton University, S. George Philander.
There is a chart on page 113 of this same book (Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming) that Happer didn’t show in his presentation that purports to show ‘heat that Earth radiates to space’ as relatively constant never mind the latitude.
I have been thinking about this issue of where most radiant energy is lost, from which latitudes and how.
It is my understanding that an altitude of about 5 kilometres the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that ‘heat’ can be radiated freely to space irrespective of the latitude.
I also understand that at this altitude the temperature is rather cold, that it will be well below zero degrees Celsius, which begs the question of why it is referred to as heat loss at all. I guess all of this is in keeping with the underlying paradigm that is about average temperatures and overheating.
Don Gaddes says
How is there an ‘average’ temperature or precipitation assessed when the Dry Cycles – (and the default, Wet/Normal periods between them,) only repeat once every 81 years?
This, along with the also cyclical and orbital rise and fall of volcanic activity?
There can be no valid temperature or precipitation ‘averages,’ with all the variable climatic influences in play at any one time, on the land, in the oceans and in the atmosphere.
The BoM spouting constant ‘record’ heat warnings, without any valid data base, is blatant Misinformation/Disinformation – and a con-job.
Mike Burston says
I’m told the CO2 molecule doesn’t know if its radiating heat “up or down”. Energy will be lost from the top of the atmosphere regardless.
Herman A (Alex) Pope says
Much more “knowledge” about climate change is written and talked about than is actually known.
Karen Klemp says
“The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), founded in 1943, describes itself as “an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.”1
The IPA has campaigned heavily against Australia’s carbon price legislation. IPA researchers and associates have a high media presence and appear daily as guests on both public and commercial radio and television in Australia. IPA staff also write regular columns for Australian newspapers and online media.
In 2018, DeSmog confirmed mining magnate and climate change denier Gina Rinehart was a key funder of the IPA, giving significant donations through her company Hancock Prospecting Proprietary Ltd (HPPL).2
The think tank has been one of the largest promoters of climate science denial in Australia, sponsoring a number of speaking tours and books, while its fellows have challenged the legitmacy of climate change science and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
https://www.desmog.com/institute-public-affairs/
Herman A (Alex) Pope says
Water, in all of is changing states is abundant. CO2 is a trace.
Water, in all of its self-correcting states and the abundance of water and how water is influenced by the solar energy and lack of solar energy, water is the dominant influence in weather and climate.
Climate is the long term change in weather, weather reports and forecasts are all about water, that means climate change is real, and climate change is all about changes in water distribution, including water on the surface, water vapor, water drops, ice, rain and snow and hail, etc., sequestered ice on land, ice thawing and reflecting.
Climate change is about water change!
Herman A (Alex) Pope says
Water is the dominant influence in modulating the solar energy, weather and climate.
Herman A (Alex) Pope says
The solar energy from the sun follows the same patterns with some small relative changes.
What happens in our weather depends on the abundance and states of water.
What happens in climate change depends on the changes in the abundance of water and changes in the states of water.
Herman A (Alex) Pope says
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/sector.php?sat=G16§or=sp
Look at the GOES data, measuring energy radiated out. There is one chart for CO2 and many charts for H2O.
There is even a chart for Lightning, I suspect that might even be significant.
Herman A (Alex) Pope says
It is a reasonable idea to calculate the energy radiated away from Earth using GOES data. I suspect they have tried that and found it did not support their agendas. Just a guess on my part.
jennifer says
Thanks Karen.
And I’ve been concerned through Scott Hargreaves recent promotion of nuclear, and his puff pieces lauding ARC who promote Bjorn Lomborg suggesting we all subscribe to climate change being ‘manmade’, that the IPA could be moving away from this core job of carrying the torch when it comes to climate change research.
My work through the IPA is entirely funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation, including my many papers on the opportunity to use AI for better seasonal rainfall forecasts. Then there are my blog pieces explaining how important an historically accurate historical temperature reconstruction is for these forecasts.
AI works because the natural cycles exist and dominate, and can be modelled. It is important to not input remodelled data.
It is indeed important that the IPA’s new ED not be dragged off course but continue to allow myself and others to speak truth to power when it comes to climate science.
Herman A (Alex) Pope says
This was written:
I should think that when enough time has passed, the current leaders of the free world – but especially the scientists who advise them – will be remembered in the history books as rather deceitful.
That will depend a lot on who controls the Media. The winners control the history books and sometimes the evil people are in control. The free world is not currently free.
Barbara Sheppard says
Karen Klemp seems to be concerned that Gina Rhinehart, a great philanthropic Australian, supports IPA research into climate change. Why?? Surely all research is useful. I suspect some people just won’t accept the “consensus science” is still unproven.
Christopher Game says
Hi, Karen Klemp. Referring to your post in which you write: “The IPA has campaigned heavily against Australia’s carbon price legislation.”
Yes the IPA does a great job, trying to alert Australians that man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming is a scam that does great damage to our economy and welfare. The scam is perhaps the most effective and harmful piece of agitprop that has ever been perpetrated. It is largely the work the Marxist world government WEF, using the UN and its IPCC as agents.
Christopher Game says
Hi, Barbara Sheppard. Referring to your comment of 15 October 2024 at 9:33 am in which you write “the “consensus science” is still unproven.”
It is good that you are sceptical. But I would say that you are too even-handed. I think that that the reasoning presented by Will Happer (as for example in the above YouTube) definitely disproves the narrative of harmful or even detectable man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming. It’s no longer “unproven”.