When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.
Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.
Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?
I can. It will look something like this.
Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say:
Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.
Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.
And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In other words, nobody is denying that climate changes, nobody is denying that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees C in the last 150 years, while only a handful deny that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) has the power to influence temperatures.
What they are saying in their different ways is that “global warming” – as in the big scare story that the planet is heating up at a catastrophic unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2 emissions – is bunk; or that the methods being used to combat the problem are bunk.
Here – courtesy of Kenneth Richard, who has waded through them all – are some examples of what they say.
It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)
It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation
Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods.
The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity
Climate influenced by natural oscillation (eg El Nino; La Nina)
It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation
According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
Our study demonstrated that floodfrequency and climate changes at centennial-to-millennial time scales in South Korea have been coupled mainly with ENSO activity
Modern climate in phase with natural variability
20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models
Overall, the inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of rainfall and runoff observed in the modern record (Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22% for rainfall, 42% for runoff) is similar to the variability experienced over the last 500 years (CV of 21% for rainfall and 36% for runoff).
Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate
This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.
[M]ore than half of the agricultural crises in the study region can be associated with cooling caused by volcanism.
Greenhouse Effect Not the Main Driver of Climate
This paper demonstrates that globalwarming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory
…No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.
Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change
Climate Models are Unreliable/The Pause is Real
The science publication Nature Climate Change this year published a study demonstrating Earth this century warmed substantially less than computer-generated climate models predict. Unfortunately for public knowledge, such findings don’t appear in the news.
Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers.
We conclude that climate bias-induced uncertainties must be decreased to make accurate coupled atmosphere-carbon cycle projections.
Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus”
Renewable Energy/Climate Policies are Failing
[A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality
While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.
The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.
BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] are designed to obtain more environmental benefits, but the energy consumption and GHG emissions of BEV production are much larger than those of ICEV [Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles] production in China.
Wind Power Harming the Environment
Our resultssuggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.
The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.
Numerous wind farms are planned in a region hosting the only cinereous vulture population in south-eastern Europe […]
[…] Even under the most optimistic scenario whereby authorized proposals will not collectively exceed the national target for wind harnessing in the study area (960 MW), cumulative collision mortality would still be high (17% of current population) and likely lead to population extinction.
In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.
Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming.
CONSENSUS? WHAT CONSENSUS??
All those papers is well and good, but the real problems the dishonest, “green” rent and grant seeker activists are facing is the empirical data collected in the real world. No warming for 6 decades according to previously published, unaltered temperature data (from NOAA etc.) and proxies. In addition, unaltered satellite data shows no warming for 2 decades.
Sea level is not rising, which would suggest Greenland and Antarctica is gaining (ice and snow) mass, which, of course, they are.
Enough with the luke warmers, let’s get down to some real science
By Joseph E. Postma
In the last post we examined the equations conserving energy, defining heat flow, and thermodynamic equilibrium for a power-generating sphere enclosed by a shell. We examined the equations for when the system either existed in an ambient-temperature environment above 0K, or not. The objection by the climate alarmists is to say that the shell serves the system in the exact same way that a universal ambient-temperature environment does, and therefore if the existence of such an environment means that the sphere will attain a higher temperature for a given fixed power production by the sphere, then the shell will make the sphere get to a higher temperature too.
The equation for a given fixed power PspO emitted by the sphere in an ambient temperature environment at TA was
1) PspO = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – TA4)
Equation 1 tells us that if the temperature of the sphere is equal to the temperature of the universal ambient-temperature environment, then the sphere is not producing any power of its own. If it’s not obvious, the equation is derived by taking the power which would be emitted by the sphere without reference to background, 4πRsp2σTsp4, but then subtracting the amount of power that is already present due to the universal ambient-temperature background at the radius of the sphere which is 4πRsp2σTA4.
The climate alarmists believe that the shell is the same thing as a universal ambient-temperature environment, so let us proceed in that manner. The shell’s interior energy flux is σTsh4 if the universal ambient-temperature is 0K (which we will assume for sake of simplicity in the equations), and if the shell is supposed to now provide an ambient-temperature environment for the sphere in a manner as a universal independent ambient temperature, then since the shell provides an energy at the surface of the sphere equal to 4πRsp2σTsh4 the new equation for the fixed power emitted by the sphere is simply
2) PspO = 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – Tsh4)
To do anything more with the equation requires understanding what the temperature of the shell is. What we will not do however is commit a gross violation of the law of conservation of energy by demanding that the larger shell emits at the same temperature and surface flux as the smaller sphere would by itself, as Willis Eschenbach does; rather, the shell must emit outwards the original raw power produced by the sphere PspO, and so
3) Psh = PspO = 4πRsh2σ Tsh4
and the temperature of the shell is
4) Tsh4 = PspO/4πRsh2σ
We can now take equation 4 and put it back into equation 2 in order to simplify terms, which gives
5) Psp0 = 4πσTsp4 * Rsp2Rsh2/(Rsp2 + Rsh2)
for the power emitted by the sphere, and for the temperature of the sphere
6) Tsp4 = (Psp0/4πσ)((Rsp2 + Rsh2)/Rsp2Rsh2)
If we consider the two limits for the shell radius, where Rsh → ∞ and Rsh → Rsp, then the temperature of the sphere goes to that given simply by its own power output over its surface area since the temperature and local flux of the shell goes to zero as from equation 4 when the shell radius is large, whereas the internal power generation of the sphere is half of its total output and its temperature increases by the fourth-root of 2 when the shell radius is near the sphere radius. The latter result is the one the climate alarmists wish to focus on.
We readily grant that the solution to the equations show what they show, when solved in this manner. One must also readily grant that the solution to the equations showed what they showed in the previous post where the sphere didn’t need to increase in temperature.
Two sets of equations claiming to describe the exact same problem, but ending with different results. The one commonality between the solutions is that they are both conserving energy externally: that is, the raw unique power produced by the sphere is conserved by the power emitted outward by the shell.
The specific difference between the two solutions which leads to the different results is that one solution also utilizes the equations for heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium and the formal statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics, while the other solution signally does not use any equations for heat flow or thermodynamic equilibrium or the formal statement of the First Law; the climate alarmist solution is the latter, and is referred to generally as the radiative greenhouse effect.
The climate alarmist replacement for a consideration of heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium is to require that any secondary emission, no matter its source or the nature or characteristics of its source nor the nature of the emission, will add with the energy of the original power source and thus cause the original power source to rise in temperature. This would indeed conserve energy if the energy from the secondary emissions behaved and were conserved this way, and this is what leads to the climate alarmist RGHE solution.
However, if one incorporates into the model the equations for heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium and the formal statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy), then secondary emission from cooler objects which gained their thermal energy from the original power source does not add back with the power source to increase its temperature as this would violate the definition and directionality of heat flow, and it would also be inconsistent with the formal formulation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that an object can only increase in temperature if it receives heat. The climate alarmist solution treats all emission to function as heat, whereas the definition of heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium states that emission can only act as heat if it is flowing from a more intense source to a less intense source, i.e. from warmer to cooler.
The climate alarmist RGHE solution for the sphere-shell problem is thermodynamically incomplete. It doesn’t utilize all of the physics that it should. It conserves energy externally, but in a way that is internally actually inconsistent and contradictory to the 1stLaw of Thermodynamics which is the law that is about conservation of energy. That is, the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us to conserve energy, but to conserve it in a specific dynamic way where heat only flows from hot to cold and where thermodynamic equilibrium is the preferred end-state for any system (powered or not) and where thermodynamic equilibrium has the definition of heat flow having been reduced to zero. The climate alarmist RGHE solution disallows thermal equilibrium to ever exist even conceptually because the inner sphere always emits more total power from its surface (greater than its actually-internally-generated power) than the surface of the shell emits; this conserves the internally generated power from the sphere on the surface of the shell, but it disallows that thermal equilibrium should ever exist between the sphere and the shell. The climate alarmist RGHE solution does not incorporate any statements let alone equations about heat flow anywhere at all, and this is quite unlike any textbook on radiant heat transfer that exists.
The Slayer solution does use the definition of heat flow, does use the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium, and does use the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as formallystated. The climate alarmist RGHE solution signally does not, and hence is ontologically incomplete, and hence does not connect to reality. The climate alarmist solution is wrong, whether the shell radius is extremely large or extremely close to the sphere’s radius…it is wrong, always. The correct solution starting off from the exact same physical scenario but also incorporating the definition of heat flow and the formal statement of the Law of Conservation of Energy is the Slayer solution in the previous post.
Make your choice: the full set of laws and equations of thermodynamics, or just one of the laws incorrectly utilized as it is.