Archives par mot-clé : Climate Debate

unclassified

Professor Valentina Zharkova and the Little Ice Age Which Has Already Started

by V. Zharkova, Apr 11, 2024 in FreedomResearch

Astrophysicist Professor Valentina Zharkova explains that instead of CO2, it is the Sun that drives the climate change and because of its decreasing activity we should be ready for a colder period.

“CO2 is not a bad gas,” says Valentina Zharkova, a professor at the Northumbria University in Newcastle, UK. On the contrary, she points out, every garden centre uses it in its greenhouses to make plants lush and green. “We actually have a CO2 deficit in the world, and it’s three to four times less than the plants would like,” she notes, adding that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been at much higher levels throughout our planet’s history than it is now.

In fact, over the last 140 million years, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily decreasing and only now slightly starting to rise. It is currently around 420 parts per million (ppm), or 0.042%. 140 million years ago, it was estimated at 2,500 ppm (0.25%), or about six times higher. And it also meant a greener and more biodiverse world. If CO2 were to fall below 150 ppm (0.015%), it would already mean the extinction of vegetation and all other life. We came close to that during the last glacial maximum when it was at 182 ppm (0.018%).

Zharkova says that the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now increasing is a good thing. “We don’t need to remove CO2 because we would actually need more of it. It’s food for plants to produce oxygen for us. The people who say CO2 is bad are obviously not very well educated at university or wherever they studied. Only uneducated people can come up with such absurd talk that CO2 should be removed from the air,” says Zharkova.

…

…

climate-debate

Origins of climate changes

by A. Préat, Oct 13, 2023 in Science,Climate,Energy

An obvious fact

No one denies that the Earth’s temperature has been rising slightly by around 0.9°C for almost 125 years (see Soon et al., 2023 for details). This recent increase is minimal (0.6°C between 1975 and 1998) and framed by periods of temperature decrease of similar amplitude (1880-1910 and 1940-1975).

Our media, including the IPCC and many scientists, claim that the sole culprit for the current temperature rise is atmospheric CO2 levels, which are linked to human activity. This is a hypothesis, since no link has yet been established between temperature and CO2 content – quite the contrary (Davison, 2023). The climate alarmism (Watts, 2023) that occupies the front pages of our newspapers is not justified, as we shall see.

 

Geological cycles

This increase over more than a century is by no means exceptional; it has occurred many times before with much greater amplitudes, up to 20 times the recent increase, and over equally short periods. For example, in the Pleistocene (2.58 million years or ‘Ma’ to 11,700 years), researchers have counted more than 25 cycles with abrupt increases of +8°C to +16°C in 50 years each time (= ‘Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles’, see Boers, 2018, SCE, 2020 and here). These abrupt increases are to be compared with the recent increase of 0.3°C in 50 years (average 1880-2008). See SCE and SCE. Such cycles also exist in older geological periods, for example in the Jurassic (CNRS ; Boulila et al., 2022).

Several high-level journals (including Nature) have shown that the increase in CO2 follows that of temperature, mainly because of CO2 degassing in the oceans (see references in SCE, 2021). Note also that the current atmospheric CO2 content (0.04% or 400 ppm – ‘parts per million’) is twice what it was during the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, which last between 1,500 and 4,500 years. It’s also worth noting that current atmospheric CO2 levels are the lowest since the Earth’s existence (4.65 billion years ago), apart from a short period of 100 Ma (in the Permian-Carboniferous transitional period) with the same levels as today. For almost 2% of its history, the level of CO2  in the Earth’s atmosphere has thus varied from several thousand ppm to several percent, i.e., from 3 to 25 times higher since the Cambrian, 541 Ma ago (geological scale here), when biodiversity exploded (with metazoans, here), and even much earlier during the Precambrian (Thomas, 2000 ; Préat, 2019 ; Lehmer et al., 2020). CO2 levels were sometimes higher than today’s during ice ages.  Examples of warmer and colder periods are the rule in geology; just think of the Arctic (Svarlbad) at the beginning of the Holocene, around 11,000 years ago, which was +7°C warmer than the present, when CO2 levels were half the current level (Richard, 2020). Continuer la lecture de Origins of climate changes →

better to know...?

Barry Brill: The Climate Emperor Is Now Naked

by B. Brill, Mar 18, 2023 in ClimateRealism

…

 

The survey of 950 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on March 6-8, 2023. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The result (reported here) was breathtaking!An outright majority of those polled agreed that climate change has become a religion which has nothing to do with the climate. Almost half (47%) said they “Strongly Agree” while a further 13% said they “Agree”.

It’s hard to digest the fact that no less than 60% of US voters have now formed the clear view that the endless propaganda we hear daily from our politicians and corporate media actually has nothing to do with science or genuine alarm – it isn’t even about the climate. Instead, it’s all about political power and control.

Nearly half of those polled have strong feelings about this. That seems to suggest that they are a million miles from swallowing the orthodox narrative and are no longer persuadable. Although they weren’t asked, one can assume that they are fed up with the propaganda and want to be treated as adults.

Surprisingly, nearly half of the Democrats polled agreed that climate change has become a religion. But there was still a significant difference between the parties, the breakdown being:

Democrats:             45%

Independents:         60%

Republicans:          79%

There is no reason to believe that adult New Zealanders would feel any different from their American counterparts. And the breakdown between political parties would probably be much the same here as well.

 

…

See also: The Global Warming Doomsday Religion Is A Suicide Pact To Wreck Our Economy

better to know...?, climate-debate

A Theory of the Hack

by S. McIntyre, Nov 1, 2021 in ClimateAudit

Two major new BBC programs, The Trick and the Hack That Changed The World, re-visit 2009 Climategate events on the eve of UK hosting the most recent international climate get-together. I was interviewed by The Hack and mentioned in The Trick as a villain.

In today’s article, I’m going to propose a theory of the Climategate hack that is very different from the grandiose conspiracy of Russian intel services and US fossil fuel corporations that is the prevalent fantasy of the climate “community” and chattering classes. Subsequent to my interview with the Hack That Changed, I’ve re-examined and cross-checked documents and noticed some interesting new connections. I don’t know the identity of the Climategate hacker, but do believe that deductions about his profile (e.g. motivated individual vs paid institutional hacker) can be made more intelligently by carefully examining details of what was exfiltrated and when – as I shall do here.

 

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

A New Year’s Look At WUWT

by  W. Essenbach, Dec 31, 2020 in WUWT

 

Today, as the result of a series of wrong turns and bad choices, I ended up at the Wikipedia entry for Watts Up With That. It says:

Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.  

The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. 

Appalled by the misrepresentations in that, I thought I might comment on them.

First, the blog doesn’t “promote climate change denial”. I always laugh when I read about “denial” because none of the authors of such nonsense ever get around to telling us exactly what we’re supposed to be “denying”. Me, I deny nothing. I disagree with some of the revealed wisdom of those who believe in “consensus science” but that’s a very different thing. And for those who would like a full explanation of why “consensus” has nothing to do with science, let me recommend a wonderful paper entitled AliensCause Global Warming.

The real misunderstanding, however, is that WUWT doesn’t “promote” anything. Instead, it serves a very different purpose. Let me explain what WUWT really is, which will require a bit of a digression. But then if you know me, you’ll know that I’m susceptible to being sidetractored …

…

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Judith Curry: Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

by Charles the moderator, November 15, 2019 in WUWT

As we approach the tenth anniversary of Climategate and are deluged with whitewashing and revisionist history, we will post a few articles, but cannot counter everything.

As far as we are concerned the tenth anniversary is on November 17th, the day I personally received the files.

The following post by Dr. Curry is one of the best historical retrospectives I’ve seen on the topic.~ctm

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later

Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 121 Comments

by Judith Curry

My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.

Last week, an email from Rob Bradley reminded me of my previous blog post The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later. That post was the last in a sequence of posts at Climate Etc. since 2010 on Climategate; for the entire group of posts, see  [link]  Rereading these was quite a blast from the past.

While I still mention Climategate in interviews, the general reaction I get is ‘yawn . . . old hat . . . so 2010 . . . nothingburger . . . the scientists were all exonerated . . . the science has proven to be robust.’ I hadn’t even thought of a ’10 years later’ post until Rob Bradley’s email.

Now I see that, at least in the UK, the 10 year anniversary looks to be rather a big deal. Already we are seeing some analyses published in the mainstream media:

Two starkly different perspectives. While I personally think Delingpole’s article is a superb analysis, it would not surprise me if the ‘establishment’ media in the UK is looking to rewrite history and cement the ‘exoneration,’ especially with this forthcoming one hour BBC special Climategate: Science of a Scandal, set to air November 14.

According to Cliscep  (not sure what the source of this information is), McKitrick and McIntyre were both interviewed for the BBC special, but apparently McKitrick was cut completely. Lets see how they edit McIntyre.

…

…

 

Also:  It’s Officially the Tenth Anniversary of Climategate – and they’ve learned nothing

Also : Climategate: 10 Year Anniversary Reading List

climate-debate

The Real Climate Debate

by Charles the moderator, October 20, 2019 in WUWT

Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog

The real climate debate is not between “believers” and “deniers”.

And not between Republicans and Democrats.

The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed.  Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.

feedback-2466829_960_720

The real rebate is between two groups:

1.   A confident, non-political group that believes technology, informed investments, rational decision making, and the use of the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue. An optimistic group that sees global warming as a technical problem with technical solutions.  I will refer to these folks as the ACT group (Apolitical/Confident/Technical)

2.  A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them. They often distort the truth when it serves their interests.  They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society.  I call these folks the ASP group (Anxious, Social-Justice, Partisan).

There is no better way to see the profound difference between these two groups than to watch a video of the testimony of young activists at the recent House Hearing on Climate Change, which included Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin, Vic Barrett, and Benji Backer.

…