Christopher Booker on the latest Arctic scare:
Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.
But last week we were brought back to earth by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), as charted by our friend Paul Homewood on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, with the news that ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.
This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
Warmth is good, not bad, but unfortunately we have absolutely no control over our climate. CO2 does NOT warm the earth to any extent. Even if it did, a single volcanic eruption produces more CO2 in one day than the entire mankind does in a year.
Not reported on the BBC:
http://www.thegwpf.com/data-analyses-show-rapid-global-surface-cooling-growing-arctic-ice-thickness/
Climate change for dummies.
CO2 ”traps” heat.
Me] Heat ?. …. what type of heat ?.
Energy, ”traps” energy.
Me} Energy ?………….what kind of energy ?.
Thermal.
Me] Thermal ?. …But thermal energy is spontaneously created as a higher quality energy enhances the frequency a lower grade energy, i.e. thermal flow hot to cold.
CO2 ”traps” radiation.
Me] Radiation ?, you mean daylight ?. .. invisible daylight infra-red Long wave radiation or sunlight shortwave radiation.
Its all energy and co2 traps it.
Me} If co2 trapped radiation there would be no heat, heat is spontaneously created via friction between high frequency molecules and lower frequency molecules in a temperature gradient, i.e. hot flows to cold, no energy ””flow”” no mechanical heat created, and no thermal flow.
To finish in the vein above would take considerable time, so i am just going to throw the thermo straight in there.
Fact our atmosphere gets progressively colder the higher up you go, 1c ever 500 metres.
Fact the warmest part of our climatic system is the part we stand on.
Fact the Sun heats what we stand on, what we stand on heats the air around us by convection.
Fact heat created at the earths surface travels only one way, up, it never stops travelling up, as above it is progressively colder, energy/radiation cannot reverse from cold back down the gas column into hot and create ”heat” as only a higher quality/frequency energy can create the work that creates mechanical heat..
In even easier laymans terms, where you stand is the warmest place in our system, only a higher quality energy/frequency of energy can increase the work and mechanical heat created in it, i.e. sunlights shortwave higher frequency pristine quality energy.
Only the highest frequency energy creates heat in a molecule/surface, when under different qualities of energetic flux’s. i.e. longwave is simply deflected by the earths surface when the earths surface is under a full shortwave flux, which it is 24/7.
The density of molecules compressed by gravity into mainly the first 5km of of our atmosphere determines the rate/speed at which heat travels/flows up.
Greenhouse effect theory, is the ultimate in post modern progressive scientific fucknuttery.
If co2 trapped heat, or slowed its flow, house’s would be cavity sealed and co2 gas filled, double glazing would be co2 gas filled, and a million other simple thermal applications would enhance our daily lives.
Sorry but i have to make it even easier to understand everyone knows hot flows to cold, even progressives.
Atmospheric gas’s radiating at temps of between minus -20c and minus -160c depending on layer/height, absorb and re-emit infa-red radiation, they emit at the frequency of their skin temperature, thats dry ice crystals emitting frequencies anywhere between minus -20c and minus -160c, these frequencies of light are simply deflected/reflected by a molecule or surface beneath them, otherwise that would be cold making warm even warmer still.
Bare in mind -20c is warm compared to minus -100c above..our surface where we stand is hot at +15c average over its entirety..
To simplify the “True Cause” for Common Consumption, you could say that Nitrogen is the main Greenhouse Gas, followed by Oxygen. Because the finding that Venus at the altitude that has identical pressure to that on the Earths surface is 1.176 times the Earths average surface temperature. The radiating temperature of Venus is 1.176 times that of the Earth, and a temperature reversal in planetary atmospheres at about 100 millibars, were the influence of Thermal Inertia starts for Planetary atmospheres lead to the production of the (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) which shows that the average surface temperature divided by the grey body temperature gives you the magnitude of the Thermal inertia which resembles the response of the temperature/potential temperature ratio to the altitudinal changes of pressure described by the Poisson formula, with predictions matching evidence for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan, Triton and the Moon, to prove that the physical nature of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement or Thermal Inertia which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition. Mercury and the Moon are used to prove that the Grey body temperature and the average surface temperature are equal when there is no Atmosphere.
Also not mentioned is that absorption lines indicate radiation that is not there, therefore according to the Arrhenius Theory the Carbon Dioxide can only generate heat from the assumed reflected radiation from the Ground.
So the “post modern progressive scientific fucknuttery” is much worse than you indicate.
If you need to know about light, seek out an Astrophysicist who specialises in light.
Thermal flows are part of every day life in the hard sciences.
I question Joseph regularly.
https://climateofsophistry.com/
They are all NASA guys, engineers etc. …… the guys that build big stuff you notice, especial when their stuff lands on far off planets.
I would love to see a televised debate between Mann et al and Geo-Physicists from the hard sciences, debating thermal flows.
Thanks Richard
In Astronomy we have “Bond Albedo”, which is all of the spectrum of radiation, therefore more important for the answers. And “Geometric Albedo” for looking at visible objects in the sky.
I would ask about Earth pointing satellites looking at changes to the Earths “Bond Albedo” over time. Changes to the Earths “Bond Albedo” caused by changes to the level of Cloudiness, is the real cause of Climate Change. I found out they are even able to eventually produce a record of Cloud albedo for low level and high level Clouds, so resolving the differences between Piers Corbyn and Henrik Svensmark.
As a scientist (but, definitely no climatologist), what I find particularly annoying about the way the THEORY of global warming due to human activity is reported, is that any form of scientific debate on it is completely, categorically ruled out. To question the current dogma is to be ridiculed as a ‘denier’, e.g. an unbeliever, a heretic.
That goes against every principle of science. Science is never static, every theory and every ‘law’ can be, indeed should be, rationally questioned and tested with impartial logic. It is only by questioning, and exploring, other worker’s hypotheses that science can progress, whether the end result is to: prove, disprove, or improve, previously held ideas. The torch of science moves from hand to hand, it doesn’t stay in the possession of the person who came up with a particular theory.
If you remove the aspect of free debate from science you’re left with a religion, which basically consists of a conviction that some idea, or set of ideas, are unquestionably correct without any need of physical testing and proof, indeed that these ideas ‘set in stone’ are eternal truths, which can never be improved upon and are beyond the ability of others to question.
Personally, I’ve got nothing against religion in general, but religion and science are two opposite poles, one requires unquestioning belief and acceptance of sometimes implausible seeming ‘miracles’, the other constantly queries and investigates, seeking the cold, hard, logical ‘truth’, however unpalatable.
What it basically comes down to is that what many call a ‘science’, has in fact been converted into a ‘religion’, so drop the ‘science’ bit, and call it what it is the ‘cult of man made climate change’.
I still think it’s a very good idea to reduce the amount of pollution we produce as much as physically possible, and that we should be concerned about changes in climate and the environment, but let’s keep the debate open hey? Might just be we’re (by which I mean the MSM media mostly) missing some very good, useful science, by denying the ‘doubters’ their say on this subject, and not listening with an open mind to what they have to say.
Agree with you entirely Big Brother. I am a biological scientist by profession too, but retired into a domestic engineer role. After reading these posts, now feeling somewhat silly for having taught the simplistic theory of global warming which is/was on the syllabus – only did it cos I had to, honest guv!
My thoughts are that this is what happens when government, politics (£££$$$) and SJWs like Greenpeace get involved.
Thank god there are people like Mark Steyn who speak out so eloquently about it. I’m sure the left libtards are digging around for something with which to ‘bring him down’.
El Nino? Now where have I heard that name before? Oh Yes, I remember, it was about the turn of the Millennia. Weren’t we told that instead of the event occurring every five to seven years they would recur ever more frequently and would keep increasing massively in their severity causing ever more devastation due to, what was it again? Yes you’ve guessed it, Runaway Global Warming. Well, I’m still waiting patiently for it to happen.
The bBBC gleefully announced today that the Arctic Ice was disappearing at a far greater rate than the so-called “Experts” had previously warned. Well, what else were they predicting prior to the turn of the Millennia when they were issuing dire warnings of Doom and Gloom regarding El Nino? Wasn’t it something about the Arctic being ice free within a couple of decades? Well the two decades are up and the ice is still there much the same as it was when the predictions were made. What are the odds that in twenty years time they will still be claiming it will still be twenty years from disappearing.
Ah, and then, naturally, there was Trump. There is a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of all the countries bordering the Arctic so the bBBC dragged in somebody to claim that Trump was the Arctic Bogeyman. Dollars came before the poor Polar Bears and the destruction of the Arctic and destroying the earth with fossil fuels by focusing on short term greed instead of long term prevention of the demon Global Warming.
They also hinted, without actually saying, about his supposed links with Putin by throwing in that any changes would allow exploitation by Russia of all the oil and gas reserves in their section of the Arctic. They just can’t resist pushing the pro-Clinton/Obama line that Trump and Putin are joined at the hip and can’t be separated.
Their spin would have made Joseph Goebbels proud.