I would like to make very deterministic science point re climate – and energy if I can do it fast and hard enough. My point is simple. We now know the facts that science did not when all this presumptive science was asserted by those paid for it by Maurice Strong at the UN IPCC in the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, when it was based purely on assertion with political objectives, and nobody could prove the causes of climate change either way. Now we have the facts and we know the models are wrong by the 40 year failure of their predictions. Also that what we observe is neither excessive nor abnormal in history. Natural change.
Q: So why are we even debating the predicted fictions of models and renewable energy when we have the facts?
A: Because that’s where the money is at and scientists are not good thinkers outside their boxes or grant criteria. There is no money in showing climate change is natural and renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuel use on the physics. Only nuclear can do that. And if nuclear will get you though the winter when its dark and the wind doesn’t blow, you don’t need renewables and the climate change protection racket is blown.
As an engineer and physicist I prefer such basic physics and the facts of observations to the theories of activists and politicians who cannot prove their assertions so attack the questioner.
Because “If the theory doesn’t match the observations, its wrong”. Feynman.
Even though we have the observations that overtly disprove the predictions, and thus the causal science regarding CO2, academics who disagree with CO2 as significantly causal still argue about models when confirmatory and independently verifiable observations are the only absolute test of reality. So those most able to argue the reality are lead into and comply with the antagonists agenda and have entirely the wrong argument, about things that cannot be proven. If you have direct evidence you use it, circumstantial evidence is a distant second.
e.g. It ain’t happening as claimed, so its wrong.
Also the measures taken to claim to change the non problem are pointless waste of money on the engineering facts, imposed by bogus law based on disproven science. The climate change protection racket.
The observations of the last two decades on tree rings, cosmogenic partickles and ice cores clearly show the range of climate change in the current interglacial as cyclic with a range of roughly 2 deg every 1Ka. There are a number of such papers, but the general conclusion from the data is the same. This is GISP2 from Greenland, with my markups.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1n7oivlcpylkh4/Interglacial_Temperature_Observations_BRL_CATT.jpg?dl=0
The recent temperature rise since 1870, measured directly, but poorly early on, added to the end of the GISP2 ice age cores, which become unreliable after 1850, is close to the peak of this current warming phase, already turning towards zero as its rate of rise diminishes.. The “hiatus” is simply the next turning point. maximum. Downwards. Forget the statistical guesswork that is wrong on the facts of measurement. The actual temperature now is also known to be well inside this well studied range. So why are some scientists claiming otherwise, when this is untrue on the know facts? Could it be the money?
No models are required. What we measure now is cooler than other warm peaks this interglacial, 4 degrees cooler than the last interglacial. Measured, not modelled using guesswork about how the ocean and atmosphere work.
We know from written history that the Vikings could farm Greenland. It is currently permafrost. So there is no high temperature record now this appears the coolest warm peak in the entire interglacial series of warm peaks. Its also normal in rate and scale of variability, on the observations. Proven by those observation, so the models are wrong in fact.
Wrong because they assume an unproven effect from CO2 in the Troposphere is amplified by the much stronger presumed effect of water vapour to absorb and re emit infra red radiation at characteristic frequencies, this raising the surface temperature. Another unproven guess that doesn’t actually happen when we measure it with satellites since 1979 (Prof Christy). Because that model is wrong, again.
In fact the way the atmosphere insulates our planet from space, as with other planets, is as a smart gas lagging held onto the planet under pressure by gravity, This creates a thermal gradient to space that also retains solar heat in the atmosphere and thus creates a thermal gradient to space. THat raises the surface temperature above the black body temperature that would apply if there were no atmosphere through Wien’s Law. But there is.
Sothis atmospheric lagging is not mysterious at all. We also now know this effect is similar across the solar system regardless of gas, the height the transition to warming from cooling starts wherever 0.1 Bar occurs. So the lapse rate to space is mainly a function of gas pressure which determines the lapse rate (gradient) any such process will naturally have. Our surface temperature is not mysterious. It’s warmer because our atmosphere insulates us, held onto the planet by the gravity which also pressurises it. Simples!
The paper linked here might be of interest.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ayvamq0h5bg7ei/Greenhouse_Effect_at_work.pdf?dl=0
So NASA also know this. But are not shouting about it very loudly. The problem here is that the CO2 ist narrative, and all the easy money flowing in its name to fund an easy money by law snake oil cure, depends on theories created to support the political ideology designed to end energy fuelled progress – by blaming the natural CO2 combustions produces for the actually natural observed warming, and writing models to prove that theory, not to test it.
When they wrote the models they failed, because they got it wrong and underestimated or ignored natural effects so under predicted the past, so the cure was to turn CO2 up to 11 to make models track reality in the past. But that was wrong, and meant their predictions became hopelessly wrong …. but only in fact. As Christy and the natural record of the past have both shown.
Climate Change = AGW = CO2 theories have been proven comprehensively wrong by observation in the last twenty years. It’s just nobody seems to see that arguing about models when we know the facts is plain stupid, the GCM models are partial and wrong in their assumptions on the facts, so FAIL the most basic test of science. The facts.
Remember the Attorney’s rule. If you have evidence use it. If you don’t have hard evidence use circumstantial evidence. If you have no evidence, attack the witness who has. That is where climate science of change by CO2 has now got to. The prosecution should be using the hard evidence, not making up its own circumstantial evidence, leave the defence to rely on attacking the character of the witness. We don’t need no stinking statistics!
I would love to give this talk somewhere. In fact I did. To the U3A though. All the fats are in it. People get it. So why don’t those who understand present this most basic science of the record versus the predictions?
THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SCAM: As for energy, intermittent renewables capture weak/diffuse and intermittent energy from weak sources that we abandoned to become developed, with wood then coal fired steam. Not enough energy in renewable sources. And they must necessarily use far more resources per unit of weak energy when available than is necessary to collect intense fossil energy on demand, that itself uses much more per unit energy than much more intense nuclear, etc.
Renewables are a mediaeval energy source and a known , demonstrably expensive and ultimately inadequate way to create the levels of energy needed by a developed economy, because of the lack of energy sources and their unpredictable intermittency, the amount of material and land required, plus the expensive modifications to the grid required to support a very unreliable and sensitive source of electricity vis a vis steam turbines.
INERTIA is another problem, the stabilising force of thousands of tonnes of spinning steam turbines the grid has must first slow by the drag of its load that reduces the key control of frequency under load, which historically gives time to spin up generation reserves when failures occur. Renewables don’t have inertia or robust resilience to transients, they trip after one dodgy cycle, 20mS. But that’s another story.
Blackouts! Coming soon to a grid near you. The more the renewable % of supply, the closer they get.
As well as being more expensive than fossil or nuclear 24/7 supply by virtue of their source characteristics, renewables depend on clean efficient gas generation for up to 100% backup when not working. Being all renewable is not realistic, but if it was, without fossil support, over producing what is weak, feeble and unreliable, and storing the diffuse electrical energy produced in batteries or pumped storage for when it isn’t working, makes it roughly ten times more expensive, if a week’s storage is required, assuming a 1/3 duty cycle, using best prices and life cycles for Li-Ion or Lead acid. Easy maths, not a model.
In reality renewables depend on 100% reliable and controllable fossil on the grid, mainly clean CCGT, to push off for their subsidies when working, making the cycled CCGT which could have supplied all the energy anyway more expensive. You can’t make it up. That’s government’s job. And the UN.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3274611
As our electrical energy needs rise with development, and ultimately heat and transport need to transition to electricity as fossil reserves become more expensive, tripling the electrical enrgy damand, ONLY nuclear energy can only replace intense fossil energy sources with its much more intense so more sustainable energy, and no CO2 – if that mattered.
Not a cure activists like because it is a progressive solution, not sending us back to feudal Malthusian/limits to growth economic dogmas the UN and ER plan to impose that are simply not grounded in the facts we observe . The same goes for GM crops as an answer to reducing pesticides. Progressive solutions don’t match the elite’s ideology or deliver easy money to insiders, so are VERY inconvenient solutions. But very real, and the lowest cost and risk on the facts. Best for those using the energy and eating the food in fact. But offering those who would control us and slow human development no easy money and control from imposing the climate rackets by creating and exploiting fraudulent fear of a catastrophe that clearly isn’t happening in observed fact.
“If you can get though the winter on nuclear, you don’t need renewables.” I will let SirDavid MacKay explain this very fundamental physics, 10 days before he died.
As a globally respected Cambridge physicist and author on energy futures, this Cambridge Professor of physics and Chief Scientist to the UK DECC from 2008-2014 was comprehensively ignored by politicians in favour of an Eng Lit degree FoE activist, Bryony Worthington, who drafted the unachievable and economically ruinous to even attempt Climate Change Act, based entirely on what MacKay named an “Appalling Delusion” – the absolute physics denial that the UK economy could be powered by renewables, from a physicist grounded in the hard science who had done the maths..
SUMMARY: Forget the statistics and models! Debate the reality we observe, not what we believe or what models claim when the observed reality says NO.
We should end the overtly fraudulent imposition of very expensive technically undeliverable non-solutions to the non-problem of CO2 claimed to be causing unusual climate change that isn’t happening. This is already costing nearly 1$Trillion pa globally in the name of solving a non problem, robbing the public by law for no technically measurable benefit, either in energy supply or “Climate Change”.
As above, we know from observation the change we observe is probably all normal and natural, changing as we have measured in the past, certainly not significantly changed by humans in the last 50 years.
We know it is cooler now than earlier warm periods this already cool interglacial, and versus earlier interglacials. There is no unusual warming to respond to, if we could. So the calims and predictions are wrong in fact.
By the time the natural cooling phase b is clearly established, on the 30 year moving average, the snake oil salesmen like Gore and the political Malthusians at the UN will have retired clutching their easy money, and the mug public who believed the sales pitch will be wondering why they believed it and paying the price in damaged economies and personal energy poverty, which the developing countries leapfrog us, continuing to burn as much fossil fuel as it will take. China currently has 3 times more coal fired power stations than the rest of the World put together, and plans 260GW more. Not even trying to slow their development, because they need the energy to make everyone’s stuff and dominate the World as de facto leader.
WHY??HOW?: Because the lumpen conformist and innumerate public were too stupid and lazy minded to validate rather than believe, so easy to fool, and be forced by the media to conform to the herd belief of carefully contrived lies, self evidently disproven by the facts these same people could have checked. Lies from corrupted activist scientists with larger egos than abilities trying to “save the planet” they can have no real effect upon, and greedy renewable capitalists cynically exploiting the fraud for a fast renewable energy buck by law, laws that the politicians involved were also well rewarded for passing into law. With well paid untesting board level jobs after office, or businesses consulting on how to profit from the laws they helped create and/or pass into law. Huhne, Gummer, Hendry, Yeo are blatant examples in the UK . Legalised corruption is designed into the British political system, set up by the elite and fronted by a veneer of elected democracy with little real power and a short term of office, to legalise the corruption the rich could get away with in their own right, directly, when the poor had no rights and the aristos were above the law that applied to the common people. The rich get richer and the compliant veneer pass the laws to keep m poor poor for the profit of the elites they join after office, if not members before.
AND, to my opening point, because those who knew the truth and had a voice allowed the climate change protection racket to control the agenda by arguing about flawed models instead of the observations that proved the models wrong, for 20 years too long, instead of attacking fictional models with factual reality of what science can prove is happening and what will probably happen, using the deterministic physics of the real World.
Definitely not by arguing statistical pseudo science.
COVID gave us a more real taste of dodgy statistical models made from guesses and presented as hard science, when they are just guesswork, that was wrong. Nut in that case the dodgy scientists couldn’t hide the bodies so easily. Epidemiology is statistics, not science. Like the climate models. . Only proven deterministic science is absolute, relatively. Like physics.
There is only one beneficiary from the claims and laws that state that climate science = CO2 = renewable energy, which the facts disprove. Those who befit personally and fiscally from the impositions made in its name.
Follow the money. Ours, that they created these carefully constructed lies to take.
We now know the facts on both energy and climate change very well. So why do people prefer to argue about proven wrong guesses still falsely promoted as if facts? Why not argue the facts we observe?
Brian RL Catt age 77 1/2 CEng, CPhys, MBA
