Problem: what do we do with the global warming religionists?

Anthropogenic warming WELL BELOW the potentially dangerous range has been reported by Idso (1998), Miskolczi (2007), Paltridge et al. (2009), Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), Lindzen and Choi (2009, 2011), Spencer and Braswell (2010), Clark (2010), Kramm and Dlugi (2011), Lewis and Curry (2014), Skeie et al. (2014), Lewis (2015) and Volokin and ReLlez (2015), among others.

Estimates for CO2 “climate sensitivity” to CO2 in peer-reviewed science papers is declining over the years.

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017

The so-called climate models, except the Russian one, are not producing accurate climate numbers even when known, measured climate facts are substituted for climate variables in the computer programs.

Climate models versus climate observations

 

The volume of ice at the poles is increasing, opposite the doom and gloom melt down scenarios by global warming proponents.

Arctic-sea-ice-volume-sham-predictions-2018

And there is evidence of slight cooling as has been predicted by Russian climate models and a growing number of scientists.

Cold

And there are reasonable theories to explain their cooling forecasts.

Climate Bicentenial component of Solar Irradiance

And we know scientifically and intuitively that warmer is better for humans and most other living things.  Weather-related fatalities are higher in colder weather and longivity is better in warmer climates.  The world is still waiting for the warmth promised more than three decades ago.

Flat temperature

The so-called “social benefits” of increasing CO2 are well known in both science and economics. 

benefits-of-increased-co2

 

Bezdek 2014 p127

The long term CO2 concentration trend has been in decline for millions of years.

CO2decline_FB_SSoAGW_Wrightstone

CO2 in the atmosphere is the only pathway for carbon, the building block for all cellular life on earth, to enter the food chain and since science has discovered that higher total CO2 concentration is making the planet greener, and since the human contribution of CO2 by our use of fossil fuels, concrete production, etc is negligible to the growth rate of  total CO2 concentration, and since real pollution (non-CO2 pollution) from fossil is

Fossil Fuel Impact on Environment

steeply declining as fuels and engines are engineered for cleaner burning, then…

A rational person – even a politician or talking head media thing – would logically conclude that something is wrong with so-called climate scientists and their supporters.  Proponents might conclude that they might be included in the inevitable list of defendants.  But, the there is a problem with the clique of climate scientists and their supporters.

The problem is: what does society do with these hysterical deniers of reality and facts?  What will replace the billions of dollars per year in the economy which has been flowing to these flat-earth religionists and social engineers?  It would be a big hole in the GDP if  these billions of dollars were stopped.

In America at least the two wings of the big government political party have decided to borrow and spend on infrastructure, roads, bridges, powergrid, airports, powerplants, pipelines, that sort of thing, rather than waste it on more failed computer models and modelers and distribution of public weath to their cronies and the so-called sustainable or green projects supported by the UN and the EU and their other co-religionists.

cartoon-green-hoax

Where do citizens sign up to pay our share of engagement fees to class-action plaintiffs attorneys to sue these mendacious religionists and benevolent liars for billions of dollars in damages, triple that amount, due to their fraud?  The infrastructure fixes will take decades.  Meanwhile, some people will have increasing heating bills and will need to recover the money that has been nefariously directed to millionaires and their cronies under false pretenses.

As the Editorial in Investors Business Daily stated it March 29, 2018, titled “The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind the Global Warming Scare,” “Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, bt it has an important job: It measures U.S. temperatures.  Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion.  Its data are fraudulent.”  Then there is the carbon credit fraud.  Then there is the mail fraud solicitation of funds under false pretenses.

Attention and funds have been drained away from real issues by people who proclaimed themselves to be experts and some colluded together to blacklist and threaten those who did not believe in their religion.   And now they are essentially yelling “Fire!” in a theatre with no doors.  What do we do with them?


References:

Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82.

Miskolczi, F. 2007. Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the. Hungarian Meteorological Service 111: 1-40.

Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 98: 351-359.

Gerlich, G. and Tscheuschner, R.D. 2009. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B 23: 275-224.

Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y.S. 2009. On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL039628.

Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y.S. 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47: 377-390.

Spencer, R.W. and Braswell, W.D. 2010. On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: 10.1029/2009JD013371.

Clark, R. 2010. A null hypothesis for CO2. Energy and Environment 21: 171-200.

Kramm, G. and Dlugi, R. 2011. Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact. Natural Science3: 971-988.

Lewis, N. and Curry, J.A. 2014. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates.Climate Dynamics 45: 1009-1023.

Skeie, R.B., Berntsen, T., Aldrin, M., Holdren, M. and Myhre, G. 2014. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics 5: 139-175.

Lewis, N. 2015. Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation. WCRP Grand Challenge Workshop: Earth’s Climate Sensitivities, Rindberg, Germany.

Volokin, D. and ReLlez, L. 2015. Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Advances in Space Research 10.1016/j.asr.2015.08.006.

Salby, Murry L. 2012. Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, 2nd Edition. ISBN-13: 978-0521767187.

 

 

About budbromley

Bud is a retired life sciences executive. Bud's entrepreneurial leadership exceeded three decades. He was the senior business development, marketing and sales executive at four public corporations, each company a supplier of analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software, consumables and service. Prior to those positions, his 19 year career in Hewlett-Packard Company's Analytical Products Group included worldwide sales and marketing responsibility for Bioscience Products, Global Accounts and the International Olympic Committee, as well as international management assignments based in Japan and Latin America. Bud has visited and worked in more than 65 countries and lived and worked in 3 countries.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Problem: what do we do with the global warming religionists?

  1. tildeb says:

    Let’s see if this comment makes it through your see-no-AGW, hear-no-AGW, speak-no-AGW filter. I see my last one has disappeared.

    So Bud (who insists he has no skin in this issue), if the conspiracy you promote is all about public dollars to – what do you them? – “hysterical deniers of reality and facts,” then why does the Society of Actuaries (you know, those professionals who have to cost out real insurance payouts to actual property damage from changing climate patterns) call human caused climate change the “number one for top five emerging risks?”

    You should contact them so they tell their clients, the world’s largest reinsurers of all the other insurance companies, to stop advising that human caused climate change increases risks to physical, technological, regulatory, and national security investments and infrastructure as well as decrease stability in these areas. After all, you know better.

    They should know that you know they’re being duped no matter what actual insurance claims come across their desks. Just because they have identified AGW to be the highest risk factor out of them all doesn’t mean it’s true; after all, you’re here to inform them that Munshi et al and the other Merchants of Doubt insist there must be some other cause than people burning greenhouse gases even though you as well as these ‘esteemed’ climate scientists who disagree with the consensus and push sloppy science to replace it spectacularly fail to produce any other cause or combination of causes that withstands impartial scientific review. Good thing I’m here to get you on this case. Reality doesn’t stand a chance.

    But how does the Society of Actuaries then fit into your climate-scientists-on-the-take conspiracy model?

    Funny, that.

    Like

    • budbromley says:

      Tldeb, insurance actuaries analyze historical trends of damage to properties. Damage to properties is increasing but not due to climate change/global warming. Damage to properties is increasing because relatively more people are building in high risk geographic areas such as sea shores and flood plains which are subject to extreme weather events. Almost all extreme weather events are caused by water vapor and clouds. • Weather is controlled mostly by water vapor and clouds. Water vapor is invisible water molecules in gas form, not clouds. When water vapor condenses, we get clouds, rain, snow, sleet, hail, dew, etc. all features we recognize as weather. But also when water vapor warms it greatly expands in volume which causes that volume of air to rise in altitude, as more dense, cooler air come in underneath. This rapidly rising moist air causes thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical storms and hurricanes. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and represents 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. All of the greenhouse gases combined make up only about 1% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in total is only about 0.04% of the gases in the atmosphere, and human produced carbon dioxide from all sources in only about 0.004% of the gases in the atmosphere. 99% of the gases in the atmosphere are not greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Like wearing a stocking cap on a cold night, water vapor delays the release of earth’s heat to outer space. The stocking cap does not produce any heat itself, it is simply insulation. Without water vapor, the earth would freeze every night and warm every day, similar to the desert. Water vapor in our atmosphere is the great weather regulator.
      • On the other hand, climate is controlled by the sun and earth’s relative position to the sun, and the other planets play a lesser part also. There are overlapping several cycles with different time periods that are important. The earth is tilted on its axis and the axis itself is rotating (precessing) around its center. The earth’s orbit around the sun is elliptical, not circular. The sun has its own weather and climate featuring solar flares, sunspots, circulating changes internally and on the surface which result in changes in the several forms of radiation we receive at the earth. All of these and more occur in repeating overlapping cycles, called Milankovitch cycles, which sometimes align into high radiation and gravitation periods and other times non-alignment resulting in cooler periods. For example, when the earth is at the apogee of its elliptical orbit around the sun, which happens once per year, or furthest point from the sun, the earth receives less solar radiation. When that coincides with the tilt of earth’s axis away from the sun and also with precession of earth’s axis away from the sun, then earth will have cold climate for some years. The time period of earth’s precession is 25,772 years! Earth orbits the sun each year. Earth’s axis is always tilted, but the tilt is slowly precessing the axis.
      • When the sun has its own disturbances, for example a period coinciding very few or no sun spots, then there are fewer solar particles hitting earth’s upper atmosphere (called solar wind) and when this happens earth receives more so-called cosmic “rays” from the universe outside the solar system. Cosmic “rays” are nuclei (90% protons of hydrogen atoms) with no electrons. Cosmic “rays” are moving at nearly light speed. Solar wind shields earth from cosmic rays. (“Ray” is a misnomer that hangs around from old history.) When these particles hit earth’s upper atmosphere, they create showers of ionized gas molecules and these penetrate to the layer of atmosphere near earth’s surface (the troposphere) which contains 90%+ water vapor, these tiny ionized molecules are surfaces creating precipitation of water vapor. And so we get clouds and more precipitation. The period of solar activity is about 11 years from minimum to maximum and back to minimum. So, for example, when these solar minimums coincide with periods where due to tilt of axis and precession and orbital apogee, there will be major snow storms and freezing weather that can be repeated for many decades in which case it would be called a change in climate. But these cycles have maximum and minimum, so there can also be decades-long periods of repeated warm weather, i.e. a change in climate.

      Like

    • budbromley says:

      Tildeb, I don’t publish ad hominem comments or false information or comments unsupported with data or references. Your other comments will not be posted because they are loaded with all of these problems. Also, normally, I also don’t publish comments from anonymous writers. Your comment above is the only one I consider acceptable, and that just barely.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.