I admire The Guardian’s honesty. If the sun drives climate change and a foreign unaudited UN committee is grossly exaggerating, at least we know that The Guardian will be the last commercial news outlet on Earth to report it.
The Guardian helpfully puts this message on all the pages we read — just in case we forget for a moment and think it might be pursuing actual journalism and full fearless investigations.
….
The Guardian’s pledge is to pursue “Guardian journalism” whatever that is. Apparently the editors are experts in radiative atmospheric physics, even moreso than Prof Richard Lindzen. Why does the government bother to fund more scientific research — The Guardian already knows all the answers.
For the third time this year, they are broadcasting their approved mangled language for use in climate news. Presumably they are hoping their version of Climglish will catch on.
The Guardian Guide to mangling language:
It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters
A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment
In addition to providing updated guidelines on which images our editors should use to illustrate the climate emergency, we have updated our style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper:
They want to be scientifically precise which is why they will stop using partial ambiguous hyperbole, and opt for pure hyperbole instead:
1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”.
Apparently when fewer people die from natural disasters, less wildfires occur, more rain falls, and more food is produced, “it’s an emergency”.
As for climate breakdown, it sounds like the climate is disaggregrating into lots of little pieces, or perhaps Earth’s run out of gas and has stopped by the side of the orbit? How accurate is that…
Petty namecalling — the first resort of losers when they’ve run out of reasons
Climate denier is a religious term of pure denigration and insult. You have the brain of a lizard, your opinion is worthless. That means The Guardian does not have to ask deniers opinion. It helps to scare off “journalists” from interviewing half the population lest they hear something they can’t un-hear, which is important when your religion is paper-thin glass bubble of nonsense. The last thing the politbureau wants is journalists being exposed to ‘dangerous” information.
In making this a blanket advisory, The Guardian is effectively claiming there are no climate sceptics left on Earth — the term is to be replaced. They don’t offer examples where “skeptic” can be used. Everyone who isn’t an XR wing commander is practically a denier.
It’s a lame projection of their own religious certainty. But in reality, the only people who have already arrived at a definitive predetermined conclusion are the believers — and the only people seeking the truth are the “deniers”.
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.
Dear “The Guardian” — just name that overwhelming scientific evidence skeptics deny, and then skeptics’ll explain what scientific evidence is and how it doesn’t come from a simulation. As for scientific accuracy, go on, name that person who thinks there is no climate, or that climate science does not exist.
Climate, Science and Denier are all simple words with well defined meanings in English. It’s pretty obvious what they should mean, and pretty obvious that there is nothing scientific about this definition.
Next, The Guardian can explain what accuracy means — now that it’s no longer something exact, precise or correct.
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.
How is heating “more scientifically accurate” than warming? The atmospheric blanket the Guardian mentions is “an insulator” not a heater. Thus, if scientific accuracy mattered, The Guardian would be talking about increasing global insulation. Greenhouse gases don’t add heat, they add insulation, eh? But obviously heating sounds so much more scary than warmth.
And once again The Guardian chooses PR — not news, not evidence and not accuracy. It’s just the Greens Left Weekly, but on a daily basis.
The only deniers are those that deny the uncertainty.
310
Consider the following recording made about 50 years ago. It fits today as well as it did 1970.
The Anti Industrial Revolution
As always, the more things change the more they stay the same. That is if you ignore context and billions of particular details. They were ignored 50 years ago and are being ignored today.
60
Had a listen to part of this recording.
Talk of getting rid of plastic bags…Sound familiar?
What is happening concerning emissions from vehicle engine
(making them more restrictive)in Europe means that they
are trying to get rid of the Internal Combustion Engine.
Hence going to mass public transport.
The dumbing down of kids with poor education.
It’s happening folks….The kids are being primed..
60
If the guardian claims:
it is illiterate with regards to both English and thermodynamics. If greenhouse gases “stop the sun’s heat [from] escaping back to space,” solar accumulated heat within the earth/earth-atmosphere system must forever reside within the earth/earth-atmosphere system. This logically implies (1) if the sun stopped providing heat to the earth, the earth would retain whatever heat it had accumulated up to the cessation of solar input–with the result that the earth’s temperature would not decrease, and (2) as long as the sun supplies heat to the earth, the heat content of the earth will increase–with the result that the earth’s temperature would increase without bound. Neither (1) nor (2) is “scientifically” correct much less “scientifically precise.”
So much for the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, comment: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue.” She wouldn’t know “scientific precision” if it bit her on the a$$.
490
We must realise that all members of the UN Church of Climatology must believe the sayings of the IPCC regardless. Scientific truth does not enter their belief system and hence we see all the stupidity being spouted by the cult followers, truth and real world observations play no part in how they ‘see’ the truth – it is only an emotional feeling for them.
200
While the IPCC is wrong in important ways, it in no way supports the Guardian’s semantic nonsense. They are getting this garbage from Greenville, not the IPCC.
240
2 legs bad, 4 legs good……
The Guardian….of what?
Newspeak?
170
There really are no surprises here. The neo-Marxist MSM peddling corporatist globalism have long jettisoned any pretence.
It is way past time we did the same and stopped talking about their unscientific, ideologically driven idiocy, which is after all a hand waving preoccupation Alinsky endeavoured to foster, while pursuing their real goal. As Christiana Figueres (former Sec. UNFCCC) clearly and unambiguously stated, dispense yourself of the notion that this has anything whatsoever to do with the environment. The sole intent was always to take a socialist wrecking ball to prosperity and wealth creation of the West.
So, let’s please properly and in the spirit of comedic dismissal refer to The Guardian (implying the guardian of truth, which it clearly is not) by its perjorative nickname, The Grauniard.
100
A Pedant Writes:
The Manchester Guardian, the paper’s original name, was printed – strangely enough – in Manchester and shipped to London by rail.
Proof-reading of the London edition was thus somewhat superficial. Consequently, it contained a large number of type-setting errors.
Private Eye – the satirical magazine always referred the paper as The Grauniad, long before the term “Domain Name” was coined.
40
Without reference, from recollection the wickedpedo refers to the typesetting process (lead/Pb) itself led to many typographical errors.
There is a certain relevance to reference of a more modern appendage, the domain name. Disappearing into incomprehension around old-school and arcane will likely lose most readers born after 1970.
00
Epistle to the ‘Guardian’ Newspaper.
===================================
No one elected you ‘Guardian’
of the peoples’ values-tuition,
the only ‘Guardian’ per se
you as New/Media have the right to be
is ferreter ‘n presenter of the news
events of the day, week, year…
truth to data, your only pursuit,
truth-to-data w/out fear and favour.
00
An insulator cannot increase the heat of an object, it can only reduce the heat transfer to the surrounding if the surroundings are cooler than the object. So you can cook a chook by wrapping it in tinfoil and leaving it?
150
That’s why you put a heat source on the chook side of the tinfoil. And heat from the sun shining on the earth surface side of the water vapor, WV being a ghg and all.
40
This is true, but strictly speaking, aluminium foil is a very poor insulator. It conducts heat very well as do most metals
32
You occasionally sat things which are true in order to confuse us Fitzroy
But 99% of your comments are
Tripe &
Hogwash !
90
“aluminium foil is a very poor insulator“
As is CO2.
But unlike CO2, aluminium film blocks air movement, which is by far and away the biggest energy mover in the atmosphere.
So large that it makes any possible effect of increased CO2 immeasurable and totally insignificant.
—
And PF, if you don’t know what “totally insignificant” means….
…. Look at yourself in one of those mirrors you preen yourself in front of.
“Total insignificance” will be looking back at you.
100
Yep. I’ve been wrestling with this lately and the 2nd law thermodynamics and GHG back radiation. Why you may ask?
A patient arrived with a forward looking infra red camera (FLIR). He took a picture that captured a portion of the sky, which was devastatingly cold (the clouds not so).
It got me thinking and revisiting various posts as well as Roy Spencer comments on the infallibility of GHG back radiation, and of course the debate about cold objects warming hot objects, or in general, the increasing entropy of a system.
For the moment I’ll run with Lindzen’s assessment. The most significant players in OLWR are water vapour and high cirrus.
00
Moderator. My comment of 21 October at 3:55 am (comment # 2.3.2.2.1) seems to be lost in moderation. Why is that?
00
Okay. Note, however, that my comment was an attempt to help Latus Dextro (see comment #2.3.2.2.1 of this thread) where Latus Dextro got thinking about revisiting various posts as well as Roy Spencer comments on the infallibility of GHG back radiation, and of course the debate about cold objects warming hot objects, or in general, the increasing entropy of a system.
00
HAHA the laugh is on me , I was in rush, before I went out I meant to put insulator, not metal 😉
20
Joanne,
First, I found the URL [the third yellow bullet at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/16/the-guardians-climate-pledge-2019%5D where the Guardian wrote: “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on the urgency of this issue;” but to be fair, I’m not sure that quote can be attributed directly to Katharine Viner.
Second, can you give me the URL where the Guardian wrote: “‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.”?
40
Sorry, this is the story ‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters
Weds 16th October, 2019
A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment
Added to the post. Thanks.
110
Thank you.
40
Reed, perhaps that’s because what she sits on is the shape it is.
Cooling is already starting to be noticeable. Of course, the Guardian can’t possibly make that observation, being scientifically precise. So it’s going to become highly entertaining watching them struggle to explain the coming changes to the climate. Even “cyclic” will a word forbidden from their lexicon. Climates can’t possibly have cycles! There are no pedals!
I can see “f-f-f-freezing” being presented as “Business as Usual” 😛
90
See( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY ) for radiosonde evidence that the atmosphere obeys ideal gas law and no greenhouse effect is present. The Connollys have analyzed about 20 million radiosonde data sets covering the last 70 years and have concluded that “this work shows categorically that there is no greenhouse effect in our atmosphere, increasing greenhouse gasses increases absorption and emission equally causing no warming, the IPCC were wrong to assume recent warming was due to greenhouse gasses,and current climate model temperature projections are worthless.”
I guess the Guardian won’t be following up on this new analysis but it should be front and center for all us deniers.
200
Dr. Ronan Connolly has said the greenhouse effect is measurable. It’s even visible from space. The point he makes is that the greenhouse effect is not what it is commonly assumed to be. It does very little warming. Yes, “greenhouse” gases absorb or take up IR radiation but it does little warming. A forcing is a pathway for energy transfer through a gas but gases don’t warm things, let alone each other. It does not cause much heating!
IR meeting a solid object like the bitumen on a road surface or threads in a blanket converts to heat. But an ideal gas just transfers energy from molecule to molecule.
An Australian Junque marketing company makes good use of that fact for advertising its electric Radiant Heater for use indoors and outdoors for barbecue and other outdoor fanatics. You are warmed by its IR output. The atmosphere the IR passes through doesn’t heat up much if at all. Otherwise all those marvellous wondrous fantastical claims wouldn’t stack up and the advertising watchdogs would be right down their throats with big boots on.
But Wait! There’s More! IR warms or heats solid objects. There’s a lot of space between gas molecules so not much IR is absorbed! Buy one and get one free! This offer is not available in stores! Just add extra postage and handling.
Yeah, that company.
Spot on about the IPCC blunder/boo-boo. Because they fell into the trap about “greenhouse gas forcing” they didn’t notice the warming was caused by reducing cloud cover.
90
Yes they fell for that, ‘ It’s even visible from space.’ Sure, that is only telling you what the constituent gases are in the atmosphere, nothing to do with any GHG. Same as measuring the emission spectrum of any body.
40
Can you expand and reference that please?
Experience dictates that the time when cloud cover occurs is critical. No cloud cover at night = frosty morning in temperate climes. All ground heats radiated into space. Sun comes up and a typically warm day presents.
Only, at dawn, clouds form and block the sunlight. The day becomes a very, very cloud dismal day, with the majority of visible light and the 50% LWIR reflected back from above the clouds, and frost persists all day.
Clouds may affect cooling or warming. It depends (among many things) upon the time of day and pre-existing conditions.
00
“Climate breakdown” must be occurring because according to many news reports every country, mountain range and polar region is warming at twice the normal rate for the planet. This means that there must be some place which is not Antarctica or Greenland which is becoming very, very cold.
170
I thought climate breakdown was the truck that comes out to give you a tow when your EV runs out of charge. (They’re not all equipped with diesel powered car chargers yet).
230
No, no no – you misunderstand.
‘Everywhere in the world is warming twice as fast as everywhere else.’
& only the Ralph Wiggim’s of the world could claim that was ‘unpossible’.
121
There’s only one possible place: above the Karman Line.
(see Karman Line if you are not familiar with the Karman Line.)
In Brief: it’s the dividing line between aeronautics and astronautics, ie a human-defined boundary between atmosphere and space at 100km above mean sea level, or 62miles or 330,000 feet (if you drive a plane for the USAF) …)
70
Then one asks the questions ‘what is the temperature of space’ 😉
30
… most places it’s in the vicinity of 3 kelvins …
which is way below 0° C
40
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.
It must be an electric blanket.
140
No, it’s the water vapor; and it made the planet warm enough and all that water in the oceans made the temperature stable enough for life as we know it to evolve.
90
Oh dear. The Tripe for the Gullibles. Strongly suggest you read https://globalwarmingsolved.com, Eddie.
30
The proponents of “global warming” do not recognize the vastly different heat transfer mechanisms at work during the two major periods of the day which we call Daytime and Nighttime.
They avoid this because it covers up the failure of atmospheric CO2 to trap “heat” at nighttime and a simple observation of day and night temperature shifts might cause people to think that the Sun controlled our atmosphere.
Just imagine the temperature drop after sunset.
Just imagine if the Sun didn’t rise on the following day.
Without that next sunrise we would all be frozen solid within a day or two.
KK
270
And it’s always nighttime somewhere- you forgot that.
415
Yeah but most importantly CO2 doesn’t create an ‘atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.’ Its a myth.
On the other hand water vapour, the biggest greenhouse gas, is a destabilising influence but the engineers reckon they can’t stop global cooling. Adaptation is the only solution.
171
Ah – love this one.
you put a blanket over your body and it warms up, now how does that happen?
(a) Is it because the blanket traps heat?
If the heat is trapped, then it can not be used to warm you up now can it.
Or
(b) Is it because the blanket radiates of heat captured from you body to warm you up?
That is what the analogy is referring to. And it must be a good one because everyone understands it
115
Peter Fitz:
You silly sausage. If the blanket traps heat then eventually it will catch fire. If it radiates heat then why does it only radiate towards your body? In practice the blanket insulates your heat producing body from the colder surrounds.
190
So where did i say that the blanket was not an insulator? Does not the blanket warm up? Does the effect mean that the environment enclosed by the blanket gets warmer, but because the blanket is not a perfect insulator (ie it does not re radiate 100% back into the enclosed space), it will reach an equilibrium between the heat inside the blanket, the heat in the blanket, and the heat in the external environment.
Now can the blanket get above 37c and catch fire? Only in your dreams
213
‘ … it does not re radiate 100% back into the enclosed space …’
Its a sensitivity issue.
80
“Does not the blanket warm up?”
By conduction and blocking heat loss by convection and air movement and evaporation.
CO2 does none of these things and only absorbs a tiny weak frequency sliver of radiation. It acts as just another energy transfer mechanism.
170
Maybe Graeme No.3, you need to fill your blanket with CO2 and really feel the warmth. 🙂
70
Methane is supposed to be at least six times more effective/efficient/puissant/potent/powerful than CO2 … Some claim even more like 25 times or even 87 times. Must be dependent on the lack of sulphides/sulphites/sulphates. So whatever you do, don’t smoke while so enwrapped … 😛
40
Don’t usually respond to PF but the blanket is an insulator. It prevents heat loss to the Cold and perhaps drafty Atmosphere.
130
Insulator = heat trap
111
Sh£ncter = £rap trap.
70
I’ll put this up again in case you missed it.
https://i.imgur.com/dltEbVa.png
Undeniable proof that CO2 is not a blanket.
80
It has been shown using experiments with double glazing ,
that because of its radiative properties …
CO2 is a WORSE INSULATOR than air.
130
el g – could you elucidate?
15
Peter Fitzroy,
And CO2 can not be an insulator as insulators do not interact with their surrounding environment — they are insular from it.
As CO2 is said to interact with radiant energy from the sun and ground so it can not be an an atmospheric insulator.
90
‘ … could you elucidate?’
The gap between AGW theory and observation is going to widen, better you join the lukewarm fan club.
70
There is a thermal gradient though the thickness of the blanket. Thicker blanket better heat insolation, use a sheet and shiver.
Unfortunately your body is a heat engine. It uses Oxygen to function. Water vapor and CO2 are bye products of this process. I suspect you are not expelling as much CO2 as others in an attempt to reduce the global warming. This increased CO2 has addled your brain.
50
How about this CO2 (and other GHG’s) prevent heat loss to Cold and perhaps drafty
Atmosphere.space112
Try to type coherently, and with some semblance to rational thought process PF.
You failed on both counts with that post.
110
Weatherzone is running the story of heat escaping into space.
‘Large swathes of NSW awoke to a frigid morning on Saturday with temperatures dropping three-to-six degrees below average.
‘Clear skies and light winds over much of NSW allowed for the daytime heat to escape, with overnight temperatures plunging well below the October average.’
90
Peter Fitzroy,
If like most of the scientific community believe that ‘space’ is a vacuum then it can not be cold!
40
Tom – The temperature in outer space is 2.73 Kelvin. This is actually the temperature of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is spread throughout the entire universe. ie it does have a temperature, but it is also very close to absolute zero. This is because radiation can be converted to heat.
36
Peter Fitzroy,
As always you are confused.
For radiant energy to have any heating effect it must interact with matter. As space is said to be a vacuum there is no matter and no heat, no temperature. Radiant energy passes through space (as a vacuum) without causing any heating or cooling.
Please look up what that 2.73 Kelvin means! As you totally misunderstand what it says.
The energy from the initial big bang when red shifted gives an effective (not an actual temperature) energy level that equates to 2.73K.
Big Bang-created Universe there must have been a cosmic infrared background (CIB) – different from the cosmic microwave background – that can account for the formation and evolution of stars and galaxies.
Space Has No Temperature as shown HERE
100
The IR radiated heat from the earth has a very broad Spectrum. Lets say its a mile wide, the CO2 active region is the width of a human hair to the same scale.
So if we double CO2 that the equivalent of TWO human hairs causing enormous effect upon a mile wide object!
Do you have a better analogy PF?
50
did you not read the first paragraph of your link, just like space is not a complete vacuum, it has a temperature.
12
Poor PF,
one day you will get passed the first paragraph..
But actually comprehend????
Nope !!!
30
PF, read my comment above..#2.3
60
LOL !! A blanket that COOLS you when you get warm.
Because that is what the atmosphere does.
It really is a moronic anti-science meme,
and is based on a complete NON-understanding of anything to do with the atmosphere.
/ie. a PF meme. !!
80
Peter Fitzroy,
CO2 does not form ‘a blanket’
QED all the rest of your sophistry amounts to nothing.
70
I did not say it was a blanket, but I did say “That is what the analogy is referring to”, do you not know the word analogy?
/QED all the rest of your comment amounts to nothing.
19
Yes Peter,
what could you possibly mean by this mangle of words?
As always your blather has no scientific basis, and so you (like The Guardian) run to dumb analogies because real science is well beyond you both. Your (and the Guardian’s) arguments are as unconvincing as ever.
Scientific observational evidence does not show any major effect from increased atmospheric CO2, certainly there is no evidence of CO2 warming (or should that now be heating). No ill effects what so ever, nothing but the beneficial greening of the planet.
110
“That is what the analogy”
And its a totally moronic anti-science analogy.
ie a PF analogy !!
60
Poor pf… NONE your comments amount to anything.
Just meaningless anti-science blather.
60
You got a link to that that second paragraph, one that is science I mean, not something Andy might type. The word beneficial – do you have a single reason why greening the plant might be beneficial?
29
Peter Fitzroy,
“The word beneficial – do you have a single reason why greening the plant might be beneficial?”
As your education appears to be remiss on this topic please start HERE, and try and retain as much information as possible.
Anymore silliness from you and you’ll be in detention 🙂
71
Tom – ha ha,
So you have nothing to answer my question.
As is typical here, the most egregious statements, statements without anything behind them are presented as irrefutable facts. but when pressed…
/not science
37
“So you have nothing to answer my question.”
Poor PF, absolutely ZERO evidence of any warming by atmospheric CO2
Unable to produce any actual SCIENCE at all.
Atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial and is currently at low levels
There has been a PROVEN, MEASURED greening of the planet.
Crop yields are PROVEN to increase and have done so.
Your comments are vapid and juvenile, showing zero comprehension of the world around you, PF
81
Tell us PF, what has CO2 ever done for you except provide FOOD for you and every other animal on the planet.
WHY DO YOU HATE CO2 SO MUCH !!!
50
“one that is science I mean”
You have NEVER produced any actual science, have you PF.
Just links to models and propaganda pap.
It all you have.
/ZERO SCIENCE from PF
51
this thread has been hilariously funny 😛
PF just can’t be invented!
51
The CO2 Mol that is rising in the atmosphere, because it is hot faces several challenges as it rises. Firstly it is very soluble in water and it is surrounded by water, in the form of vapor that will readily assist it in its journey upwards. It requires quite a few Mol of water vapor to carry the lone CO2 Mol aloft. The energy they carry therefore vastly exceeds that of the lone CO2 Mol. Providing that this Water Vapor Mol group do not get shed as rain or snow then after they reach the tropo-pause the water vapor that is carrying our CO2 Mol begins to heat, (Sun Radiance PF). At some point it reaches boiling point at some pressure/temperature and becomes a gas where upon it cannot hold on to our CO2 Mol which now finds itself at a height that its pressure/ temperature cannot be supported so it begins to fall back under the force of gravity. It is now subjected to going the wrong way in a crowded street. It either Gains some energy (heat) to counter the sinking or re-combines with a water vapor group and is either held in suspension, or carried further aloft.
No CO2 mol or water Vapor Mol is injured in this process, it is natural and self regulating, and what goes up must eventually come back down. The tropo-sphere is a violent place for any Mol that is not able to keep its place and down drafts happen at least twice a day!
40
Thanks Slithers.
30
Slithers, news flash – IR does not relate to temperature, nor does it relate to where any particular CO2 molecule might be in the atmosphere. Do you not understand the difference?
24
Poor PF
Just keeps showing us his ignorance..
So sad !!
So funny ! 🙂
21
PF let me be totally clear on one simple point.
A molecule of a gas or WV group rise in the atmosphere because they are HOT, well warmer than the surrounding population of AIR. The Ideal Gas Law has proven this basic concept for a century or so.
If that object be it WV or Gas sheds some heat in ANY way then it cannot rise as fast or even continue to rise.
Heat in gives Lift, heat out removes lift.
A CO2 Mol at 0.04% of our atmosphere can only exchange its excess heat ONCE before it sinks or swims! It may regain some heat if it is re-dissolved in a WV group, but they have to share their heat with it.
This system tries very, very hard to stay in equilibrium, up currents, down currents. WV groups carrying CO2 will eventually boil at some point above the tropo-sphere thus shedding CO2 The CO2 will sink due to gravity unless it is re-dissolving it before it returns below the tropo-sphere.
There are theories that suggest that any CO2 Mol way, way up there above the tropo-pause stays up there as long as 4 years. During that time it will have exchanged its excess heat that it started with at ground level JUST once!
It will have shed heat many times, but that heat has to come from the WV that it HAS to interact with just to stay up there. The heat that the WV has way, way up there is exceedingly large compared to that in the CO2 Mol population.
40
Returning deserts to their former state: more land available for grazing and agriculture?
40
Indeed KK, you only have to do a Simpson Desert crossing to realise that the Sun is the main driver. In July the temp varies between 30c durung the day to -3 during the night. The temperature drops the instant the Sun sets. If the warmists were correct then the CO2 in the air would trap the daytime heat.
150
Jo has just been in the desert.
Jo can you tell us what the temperature got down to during the night?
60
From experience I can tell you it gets cold enough for a frost most mornings .
50
Even documented in Spike Milligan’s war history
30
Another important aspect of general common sense observation.
Here on the coast our temperatures are moderated by the ocean as previously mentioned. Thirty kilometers inland in winter it is possible for water pipes to freeze up.
Here on the coast that never happens.
It’s a combination of oceans being a huge thermal reservoir at about 16°C and the higher water content of the coastal atmosphere.
Low moisture content inland provides no barrier to temperatures just moving down overnight.
KK
100
That it cools faster and farther on dry, cloudless desert nights than it does on clear nights where it is humid especially when there is no dew or frost is a well-known observation which demonstrates that water vapor is IR active at earth temperatures (i.e. a ghg), that there is a GHE and that WV is at least a substantial contributor to it.
80
Careful Dan, KK will get upset, it’s only the sun
/you are right, and I am waiting for the red thumb brigade to target you as well.
212
Poor PF, still ZERO comprehension.
WV is an internal issue, the controlling factors are the Sun’s energy, and Gravity
These are the ONLY sources apart from minor amounts from volcanic activity.
WV is only in the atmosphere because it has done its cooling job.
How do you think it gets there, twerp.
/PF is CLUELESS. !!
80
that water vapor is IR active at earth temperatures
26
that water vapor is IR active at earth temperatures? what has temp to do with IR?
15
Off you trot little PF.
Go and do some learning for once.
/PF admits his ignorance
50
H20 has several states, it is rarely PURE out side of a container.
Ice, the frozen version, Water that we sometime drink with our whiskey, and a Gas.
There is a pseudo version, sub microscopic water vapor, droplets that are very small and can born aloft by heat energy. They don’t like being alone and can often be seen forming clouds.
Transformations between these states are driven by temperature and pressure.
Of these states Ice and Gas cannot easily merge with other substances.H2O as a gas is very rare at the surface of the earth.
50
Thanks again, useful perspective about the water droplets.
20
Have The Guardian learnt nothing from XR?
As an information carriage service and dictating from a high position will only end in a big fall dragged down by the denying masses.
140
Don’t you mean and advertising carriage service? The news information and commentary is just a way of distinguishing it from a brochure.
28
Gruniad = FAKE information
The type PF swallows whole, then regurgitates.!!
100
I have sent a response to The Guardian.
I will defend to the death your right to ‘Publish and be Damned’!
Wonder if they will get the implied irony?
40
Thanks Jo.
How one can read the nonsense day after day is a feat beyond me.
Your road trip appears to have been good for you.
Cheers.
170
The Guardian, the official record of the worst apocalypse. Ever.
If there really was a climate apocalypse, why would you need more money?
120
Semantic nonsense goes way beyond the Guardian. I asked Google for the dictionary definition of “global warming” and what I got said it was caused by humans. Natural warming is excluded by definition! I found a similar definition on NASA’s website. I frequently see this usage, where agreeing there is global warming implies agreeing to human causation. Sometimes it even implies dangerous human causation, which is yet another definition.
One reason it is hard to talk to alarmists is that the words they use have green meanings. They speak what is called a private language. No wonder there is do much confusion.
280
David, the Left redefine words to control language and meaning thus controlling thoughts.
As such, its a form of thought policing.
Such a thing however cant exist in isolayion, thus the laws that promote morally corrupt PC exist….
120
That’s what I find most objectionable. I’m not as skeptical as a lot of you guys, but I find the left wing language policing and attempted thought control to be a real turn off.
00
Climate change, n., 1. A state bestowed by God upon the ignorant as a reward for their credulity; or on the wicked for their destitution of conscience, concupiscence, conspicuous consumption, lack of guilt about the size of their carbon footprint, etc.
2. The alleged cause of any natural or unnatural phenomenon for which no other cause is known, esp. one that is or will be bad for someone somewhere; syn., Devil, dangerous anthropogenic global warming, etc.
3. Logic: an argument by default of the form: “we do not know what is causing the climate to change, therefore it must be our fault.”….
10. A deliberately vague expression that can mean whatever you want it to mean, if anything.
The Devil’s Dictionary of Climate Change (George Lexicon, Athena Books, 2018)
110
After you read this, the Guardian should lose all credibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change
150
Help for the Guardian – if they read beyond their bubble
“Climate ‘limits’ and timelines”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/18/climate-limits-and-timelines/
100
Variants on that theory are so potty I thought the whole theory had sunk. At one time the Black Death was blamed for the end of the Med Warm Period. The CO2 button was released and the climate chilled! (Never mind that the cooling of Europe started long before.)
Can only be the result of raising a generation with joysticks instead of cricket bats.
The thing that goes missing in all this dogma and priestcraft is the actual study of actual climate change. I recently boned up on the fast rise and eclipse of the Chaco culture in the US Southwest, a mini Empire or confederacy of pueblos which has left behind some superb masonry and pottery. In line with the theory that the Med Warm was rough on the SW, the pueblos were abandoned by the middle of the 12th century. Twenty years ago researchers could chat freely about this sort of thing. Now they tread on pins and eggshells. Just barbarous.
170
Reid Bryson was saying much the same thing in the 1960’s.
60
Headline: ‘Humans emerging from forest helped cause climate change’
Or ‘The original sin’.
100
I dont need to read the main body the text of the headline is enough to realize it is hokus pokus.
30
Another classic example of classic Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”
More importantly, does anyone with an IQ above room temperature actually read The Guardian??
170
“does anyone with an IQ above room temperature actually read The Guardian”
And you are talking Celcius. !!
30
… had to be! 😛
30
The Guardian should aim to be the world’s longest and most repetitive begging letter. It could meet that pledge.
Well, I decided to try an experiment since it’s a very cold morning here on the midcoast. I’m going to look for the heat control on my linen waffle-blanket (never knew it had that!) and turn it to full. (Silly moi, I thought blankets were just for insulation.)
Should this experiment fail I shall deny any skepticism…or rather, I’ll refuse to deny skepticism…I mean, I won’t deny being skeptical but…Help me, Grauniad style guide!
160
Begging Letter?
Every time I read a Guardian article (almost always because some one here has linked to it), they ask for a donation!
Let them build a pay wall. That should send their circulation down to near Zero.
220
One side believes primarily that climate that has undergone natural cyclical changes up and down in terms of temperature and CO 2 for many Millenia , whilst the other believes that a minor ( total) increase in plant food ( CO 2) has in a sliver of history transformed this wonderful global thermostat that maintains , sustains and nourishes life itself into suddenly becoming this out of control oven that threatens to bake every human being alive.
Which side is the denier?
180
They say NASA supports them, there is too much CO2 and its all our fault.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
80
That NASA graph is total BS! Also atmospheric CO2 couldnt be measured until 1930!. Im sure the so called increase is total baloney, due to the ‘half life’ of CO2 due to ocean absorption, which cant tell the difference between that CO2 from humans and nature. THta graph seems fake Im sure it is.
20
Actually, it could be measured using chemistry procedures.
Here is a graph of time vs CO2 measurements
The ones in circles are the ones “chosen” by Callendar to show CO2 was lower during pre-industrial times
50
A song for every occasion. Trump uses Satisfaction. So, here’s the Rolling Stones theme song for the climate crew, and their ’19th nervous breakdown’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo1sJGcXbg
When you were a child
You were treated kind
But never brought up right
You were always spoiled with a thousand toys
But still you cried all night
51
Whoops. Trump uses ‘You can’t always get what you want’.
Stormy reckons he is good on satisfaction.
61
The ABC also have a pledge about what they report and how they go about it , unfortunately they just blindly follow the Guardian and make stuff up .
150
It’s part of the ABC Charter that all staff have to believe in climate change, sorry – climate emergency.
70
“climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
I find the inference repugnant, denialati is a far better choice.
60
Camps are next for those who “deny”… Just watch.
70
They can try..they might get a very rude shock….
50
So phrases should I use?
Faux science. Climate liars. Global gibberish. Political Climate Science.
Armageddon tired of this nonsense.
Climate pushers. Climate dealers. Climate druids.
Climatebaggers. Doomsday Climate. Reason Extinction.
Climate Con. Warming wonderland. Faux scientists say.
Hockey shtick hawkers. Hockey Stickers. Carbon crazies.
Climate bashers.
It would be funny if it was a joke but some people at the Guardian are serious.
I prefer to think they have given up on any science argument because There is none.
190
Climate Cretins.
140
I really like climatebaggers, but then I am in the U.S. South, very near where Stonewall Jackson made military history.
190
Climate Clowns…..
100
Snake oil science
90
The ways climate scientists explain their predictions about the impact of global warming can either promote or limit their persuasiveness, reports ScienceDaily.
– – –
The more specific climate scientists are about the uncertainties of global warming, the more the American public trusts their predictions, according to new research by Stanford scholars.
But scientists may want to tread carefully when talking about their predictions, the researchers say, because that trust falters when scientists acknowledge that other unknown factors could come into play.
In a new study published in Nature Climate Change, researchers examined how Americans respond to climate scientists’ predictions about sea level rise.https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
70
In rule one they declare the words “climate change” are no longer to be used.
In explaining rule two they use “climate change”.
Not even up to rule three and they have already farced up their own pledge.
130
I go to the Guardian Australia site every day and that notice is popping up now. The other one says that its business model is not to have subscribers, rather it begs for money. As I only do the online crossword, I ignore the ragged urchin’s entreaties because I know it isn’t a beggar, it is a con artist.
170
Begging can be a lucrative strategy. I have heard a number of stories about beggars who make more money than people with conventional jobs.
https://bakerstreet.fandom.com/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Twisted_Lip
60
He who controls the news wins over many gullible people.
George understands this.
101
I wonder what the people of the Little Ice Age which ended only in 1870 would have made of this, people moaning about the vanishing of the ice on the Thames? The increase in crops, the greening of the planet, the longer growing seasons and the vastly higher crop yields.
What would they think of our ability to detect a change of tiny, tiny 1 degree in a century and the absolute arrogance to announce that this was the end of the world, the extinction of mankind, the end of all things. They would think we had gone mad with our thermometers.
The only thing which has not changed is the ability of some people to make money out of predicting misfortune, even if there is not a single thing demonstrably wrong with the weather or sea levels in that same hundred years. These are Monckton’s Profiteers of Doom.
They are even coordinating the language for maximum impact, in case the message of imminent woe and disaster is not consistent enough.
130
The last Thames Ice Fair was in 1814. The Thames really froze over only one in ten years generally.
“During the Great Frost of 1683–84, the severest frost recorded in England, the Thames was completely frozen for two months, with the ice reaching a thickness of 11 inches (28 cm) in London.
Solid ice was reported extending for miles off the coasts of the southern North Sea (England, France and the Low Countries), causing severe problems for shipping and preventing the use of many harbours.”
Of course they were better days, before the curse of industrialization. People were happier then without electricity, toilets, antibiotics, cars, trucks and the internet and holidays and a basic wage and health care. Oh for the happy days of ice floating off the coast of England, when everything was perfect. And “Life expectancy between 1850 and 1880 ranged between 38.3 and 44.0 years for both sexes combined.”
The little ice age caused drought and starvation too, as with the food riots which led to the French Revolution. It’s odd that people now associate drought with heat, when it is cold which is the problem. Warmer weather means more evaporation, more rain. It was the cooling of North Africa which stopped the monsoons and led to the Sahara and drove the Egyptians into the Nile valley.
Still if you can write your own science, you can write your own history. And dictate the language most calculated to frighten people because that is it’s sole purpose.
160
And the Little Ice Age only ended after the US Civil War and the Crimean war. Airbrushed out of history by faux climate scientists like Michael Mann, the man who failed to prove he belonged in Penn State and not the State Pen.
180
Can anyone provide a comparison for current “permafrost defrosting” – say Western v Eastern hemisphere ?
30
An interesting comparison is the Tasman and Fox glaciers in NZ. When Cook sailed past, 1760s, they were clearly visible flowing out to sea. One hundred years later they had receded right back, not as far as present but quite a long way. So this recession was due to the British and Americans flogging horses producing excess Methane? Which brought an end to the LIA 😉
50
Correction, in case Kiwis were wondering, should be Franz and Fox glaciers not Tasman.
20
New Zealand climate scientist, the late Dr. Vincent Gray in this brilliant article in 2009, exposed the highly successful UNIPCC Doublespeak tactic and its hypocrisy.
https://www.climatescience.org.nz/blog/the%20triumph%20of%20doublespeak%20-%20how%20unipcc%20fools%20most%20of%20the%20people%20all%20of%20the%20time
80
The Framework Convention on Climate Change which was signed by so many nations, including our own, started the whole thing off with this definition of “Climate Change”, from Article 1 as follows :
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”
‘They have suddenly changed the meaning of “climate change” which had previously not involved any particular cause, to one restricted only to its being ”attributed” to direct or indirect human changes in atmospheric composition. This means that they do not have to prove that all changes in climate have this cause. All they need to do is to get people to use the term “climate change”, and they will suddenly discover that by saying these words they support the IPCC “attribution” whether they know it or not.’
Clevah framing from the Framework Convention… Therefore changing climate when we move from glacial to interglacial climate or vice versa, or into a Medieval Warming Period or experience a Little Ice Age,- well that’s not climate change!
160
“Our editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner”
More Vinerisms!
60
David Viner, the academic who said ‘there will be no more snow’.
20
These people are insane.
60
I wonder what will happen when the truth comes out about how without coal fired power there will be no power, and that wind and solar power are not as good as they say they are.
The Grauniad won’t be able to print it.
Tony.
190
Unfortunately, I think that this reality is already starting to become evident, even for the alarmists. The calls for use of demand management are the first signs and there are also calls to rapidly reduce all consumption, including this classic Guardian derangement drivel to reduce work to just 9 hours a week – which is probably 9 hours longer than their readers actually do work or wish to work.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/22/working-fewer-hours-could-help-tackle-climate-crisis-study
But perhaps this realisation of RE has been well understood from out outset because it fits in well with the left wing ideoology of deindustrialising and moving society to a socialist totalitarian state based on primative subsistance agriculture but without any meat protein or stored water resources. Even at the sporadic times when RE power was available, it would be totally unaffordable and there is no way the intermittent and expensive energy could support any industry of scale, including agriculture. But this is the point at which organisations such as the Guardian have evolved.
120
I wonder how much of 18000MW minimum they can ‘demand manage’?
Tony.
170
Do you really need to ask that question ? 🙂
60
There is also the mythical magic of energy efficiency, which also turns out to mean doing less, not using less to do what needs done.
Green energy efficiency is asceticism disguised as engineering.
50
Serge,
“…times when RE power was available,…” Those times would be limited to the 15 to 20 years it took for the panels and turbines to expire. They couldn’t produce the power to replace themselves; nevermind, power for other purposes.
40
That’s where you’re wrong. If you’ve been following them you’ll find the lack of power is due to the presence of coal power, not the lack.
20
Help for them here?
“Grieving environmental scientists need support”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/18/grieving-environmental-scientists-need-support/
(The end note –
“Full *cough cough* article here.”)
50
Guardian’s “independence”:
2 Oct 2018: Guardian: Philanthropic partnerships at the Guardian
The Guardian, like many news organisations around the world, is working to find new ways to fund our journalism to ensure we can continue to produce quality, independent journalism in the public interest.
Increasing philanthropic support for our independent journalism helps fund impactful Guardian reporting on important topics such as modern-day slavery, women’s rights, climate change, migration and inequality.
INCLUDES:
The Ford Foundation, which supports reporting on inequality in the US, including inequality for disabled people, and a series on the global consequences of our dependence on plastic.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which supports the Guardian’s global development site.
The Rockefeller Foundation, which supports Guardian Cities: a forum to foster the exchange of ideas and encourage debate about the future of cities around the globe, focusing on core issues of resilience, the environment, sustainability and poverty.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which supports documentary films about poverty in the UK, which seek to reframe the issue and engage a wide, mainstream audience “beyond the choir”
In 2017 we announced the launch of theguardian.org, a nonprofit organisation set up by the Scott Trust to support quality independent journalism about some of the most pressing issues of our time. The organisation raises funds from individuals and foundations, and directs them towards projects that advance public discourse and citizen participation on issues such as climate change, human rights, global development and inequality...
Support for Guardian editorial projects via theguardian.org includes the following:
INCLUDES:
Animals Farmed – funded in part with a grant from the Open Philanthropy Project
Antiracism and America
Broken Capitalism
Environment and climate change reporting – funded in part with a grant from the Energy Foundation…
Guns and lies in America – funded in part with a grant from the California Wellness Foundation
Health and inequality reporting, including contributions to Toxic America and Cancer Town, USA – funded in part with a grant from the Broad Reach Fund…
This Land is Your Land – funded in part with a grant from the Fund for Environmental Journalism (a grant-making programme of the Society of Environmental Journalists)…
Seascape: the state of our oceans – funded in part with a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation…
Guardian Civic Journalism Trust – a partnership between Guardian Australia and the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism
***In March 2018, the Guardian Civic Journalism Trust was established with the Centre for Advancing Journalism in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne to provide funding towards journalism projects that advance public discourse and citizen participation in areas such as the environment, indigenous affairs, human rights, inequality and governance and accountability. All projects have an educational component to equip the future generation of Australian journalists with skills through capacity-building programmes with the Centre for Advancing Journalism, including student internships, a cadet mentoring scheme, guest lectures and student workshops.
2. Philanthropic support that is broadly intended to build the capacity for a particular area of Guardian journalism – for instance environment reporting – but which is not directly attributed to a specific project or reporting series, is listed below:
European Climate Foundation, which has supported our environment coverage.
The Energy Foundation, which has supported the Guardian to increase our capacity to report on energy, climate and the environment in the US…ETC
https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/oct/02/philanthropic-partnerships-at-the-guardian
50
See https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/energy-foundation/
A big player in opaque left wing money flow.
30
The problem with the Left is that they treat Orwell’s 1984 as an instruction manual, not a warning.
190
6 May: Thinknum: Vice goes on hiring spree after $250 million debt infusion
by Joshua Fruhlinger
This hiring spree comes on the heels of a $250 million debt investment from George Soros and other investors intended to help Vice turn itself around. From the looks of things, the first move for the company is to bring in some new talent who will do what Vice needs to do most: develop new, compelling, on-brand content that gets the media company back into circulation.
The new job listings include searches for a Politics Editors and reporters, a sign that Vice intends to improve its news profile leading into the 2020 elections. The company is also looking for an ***Authoritarianism Reporter and Breaking News Editor…
https://media.thinknum.com/articles/vice-goes-on-hiring-spree-with-250-million-debt-infusion/
3 Oct: Financial Times: Vice buys Refinery29 to create $4bn digital publishing group
Leading lights of new media generation join forces as sector struggles for ad revenues
by Anna Nicolaou in New York
Vice Media has agreed to buy Refinery29 in a mostly stock transaction that people familiar with the matter say values the online publishers at a combined $4bn…
The deal between Vice, which is known for its edgy reporting and has a majority male audience, and Refinery29, an online publisher catering to millennial women, unites two of the biggest names from the early years of “new media”. The companies are among a generation of start-ups that pulled in venture capital funding only for growth to stall as the advertising climate collapsed.
Many analysts see further consolidation in the sector as inevitable. The agreement follows Vox’s acquisition last week of New York Media, the company behind the flagship magazine as well as sites including Vulture and The Cut…
The acquisition comes as digital publishers such as Vice, BuzzFeed and Vox fight for revenue as Facebook and Google swallow up online advertising spending…
Investors such as Walt Disney and TPG poured money into the group, with TPG’s 2017 investment valuing it at $5.7bn.But Vice has not been immune to the sector’s woes. The company missed its revenue targets in 2017 and Disney has repeatedly written down the value of its $400m investment.Ms Dubuc, an experienced television executive, has quickly put her stamp on the company. In February she cut about 250 jobs, 10 per cent of Vice’s workforce, and trimmed its stable of websites.
A few months later Vice raised $250m in debt, including from ***George Soros’s investment fund…
https://www.ft.com/content/4adccda4-e518-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc
40
No power on Earth can explain,
The climate-deranged-syndrome brain,
Which believes in the goal,
That they can control,
World sea-levels,temps.,wind and rain.
130
It is true that “climate change” is a meaningless word. It is like saying, “there is lots of weather out there”.
91
Are you learning something GA?
20
no. Hence the Guardian is being more accurate with what it is writing rather than using ambiguous terms. not sure why there are hundreds of comments complaining about it.
01
I heard a blogger describe Greta as “a human shield”. That is so true: We can’t get at the crazies behind Greta without “killing” her first. A classic human shield.
61
Two points.
First, does anyone know if the Guardian is charged a “fixed fee” or a “rake” (like in a casino-run poker game) for every donation made to the Guardian via its “donation link?” If so, what is the fixed-fee or “rake.” If it’s a fixed fee/rake and the fee/rake is greater than one cent, then I recommend everyone donate $0.01 to the Guardian. Just trying to help.
Second, the Guardian wrote [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/16/the-guardians-climate-pledge-2019]: “The Guardian will achieve net zero emissions by 2030. We are developing a detailed plan for how to achieve this, involving a full audit of our emissions. Our priority will be to reduce our carbon footprint meaningfully and permanently.” The most expeditious way for the Guardian to achieve this goal is to go out of business before 2030. Let’s hope the Guardian takes this path.
90
The Guardian is a beneficiary of the of the Scott Trust Limited along with The Observer.
The trust would have to be plundered of all capital for the Grauniad to go out of business.
70
sophocles,
Note that the Scott Trust Limited is not the same entity as the original ‘Scott Trust’ that owned The Guardian, that was a registered charitable organization.
The Scott Trust Limited (along with GMG Ventures LP) will give to charity (like any other business) but it is just a limited liability business registered in the UK.
I wonder if they and GMG Ventures LP, still put their money through the many off-shore bank accounts they hold abroad? Was the money they got from selling the magazine ‘Auto-trader’ ever fully reconciled with their UK bank accounts?
For many years The Guardian looked like a vanity publishing outlet for Alan Rusbridger, that position appears to been taken over by Katharine Viner.
40
Oops, some links …
see https://www.economist.com/blighty/2014/01/21/one-guardian-gone
and
https://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/
for evidence of the hypocrisy that runs through the Guardian.
20
Yes I am aware of that.
20
I have a recollection that Private-eye exposed The Guardian as having interests in an online gambling consortium some years back but have not been able to substantiate it…
20
🙂
10
If you control how people talk, you control how people think. George Orwell was right.
Cheers,
Mike
50
So the guardian has the cojones to publish their style guide. Every news outlet has their own version of this document. For example with Andrew Bolt, the word ‘snowflake’ must be used to identify protestors, or the alternative ‘warmist’.
28
Poiter you have to look no further than a mirror to find the true definition of the word snowflake !
60
” or the alternative ‘warmist’”
Or gullible, brain-washed, anti-science fool.
ie … you.
10
The Murdocracy has a blatant centre right bias and the commentators choose what is newsworthy to their base.
The Guardian is also biased, its their prerogative to accept the dogma and crowd fund.
“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”.
Once again its all about the sin of omission, what stories are avoided to produce a one sided viewpoint.
30
I disagree, the Murdoch press in Australia runs news websites with clear left bias, this started some five years. You can see it in the frequent sneering at US President Trump as reported by the US mainstream media, every derogatory comment is reported however fake, and the cackling over the slow progress that UK prime minister Johnson is making to throw off EU control of the UK.
20
And there is bias at the ABC, the organisation should be reporting the truth.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6324
30
Ode to The Guardian of The Noble Pledge.
Propagating alarmist memes,
replaying the ol’ leftist games,
of stoking the fires,
because it asspires
to keeping the populace
duly alarm/ed and hence
clamouring for U Know who*
proffering a costly defence.
Take yer pick:
* Big Bro’ U.N.
*Guru puppeteer, George Soros.
*Medja Guardians of the Noble Lie.
*Sundry Fellow Travellers.
60
begins with all the XR fans, including joint statement by partisan pollies, journos, celebs etc; includes a letter from Dr. Keith Flett, London Socialist Historians Group, but eventually there is some calling out of the Guardian’s own hypocrisy:
19 Oct: Guardian Letters: Extinction Rebellion’s right to protest must be respected
Campaigners and MPs condemn the ban of Extinction Rebellion across London, while Keith Flett writes that historically protest has always included disruptive elements. Plus letters from Marilyn Mason, Richard Terry, Declan O’Neill, Jackie Ambrose and Peter B Baker…
• The Guardian’s editor-in-chief states “We believe the climate crisis is the most urgent issue of our times” and that “today the Guardian is making a pledge to our readers that we will play our part, both in our journalism and in our own organisation, to address the climate emergency” (Editor’s letter, 17 October). All highly commendable. Unfortunately on the same day you print two full-page adverts for companies offering global sea cruises, which are now recognised as being one of the major players in contributing to CO2 emissions and climate change. One of them offers trips to view the sea-ice of Antartica (see it while it still exists).
Richard Terry
Stirling
• It is great to see that the Guardian has recognised that the “escalating climate crisis is the defining issue of our lifetimes” and that you intend to “cover issues across food, travel and lifestyle in order to help readers live sustainably”. A pity then that Guardian Holidays continues to send contradictory messages. Why does your Scottish Highland Railways tour, for example, include return flights (G2, 16 October)? Are there no trains to Scotland? Living sustainably? I think not.
Declan O’Neill
Oldham, Greater Manchester
• Tucked away on page 25, after all the Brexit mayhem, the most troubling article of the day was on the 2,000 tonnes of plastic waste created solely by Halloween merchandise (A real Halloween horror, 18 October). It was even sadder to see the list of some of the offending large retailers omitted Morrisons, for which there were two Halloween adverts on the preceding pages.
Jackie Ambrose
Watford, Hertfordshire
• Happy to stand bail for George Monbiot following his arrest on Wednesday (Mothers in Google climate action as protesters defy ban, 17 October).
Dr Peter B Baker
Prestwood, Buckinghamshire
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/18/extinction-rebellions-right-to-protest-must-be-respected
30
Trend of measured water vapor exceeds by 64% that calculated from feedback from UAH temperatures (27% if from HadCRUT4 temperatures) proving WV not CO2 contributes to average global temperature https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHLxE8aUcAE2p5H?format=jpg&name=small
50
Dan I was watching a US senate inquiry into “climate change” the other day and I can’t remember the scientists name but when asked about CO2 his response was enlightening.
Basically he said the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that was there from humans had that many zeros in front of it as to make it zero and he said even if you double it you still end up with zero .
70
Human Origin CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant.
50
And that’s assuming that there’s a problem with CO2.
50
April 28, 2017 at 10:51 am
Some time ago there was a post which indicated that several studies showed that human origin CO2 had a life span of about four and a half years in the atmosphere with a maximum residence time of 7 years.
The whole CO2 thing is a scientific nonsense and can be disposed of in several ways.
As I have outlined previously, the relative activity of water and CO2 in the proposed mechanism for global warming means that water far outstrips human origin CO2 as a potential participant in the climate greenhouse fantasy.
The quantification aspect removes CO2 from any blame in global warming.
In making these statements I have qualified them with the big IF, and by that I have meant that IF the mechanism is true, then human origin CO2 is still irrelevant from a quantitative point of view.
The main problem for CAGW is that as many real scientists know, the proposed mechanism of inbound high energy UV hitting the surface and converting/degrading to low energy outbound IR that is “trapped” by CO2 is a nonsense.
It is my understanding that CO2 helps to cool the Earth by sending energy to deep space. The reverse of the CAGW scam.
There has been far too little assessment of the mechanism that has been attributed to CO2 because it just doesn’t help the concept of Man Made Global Warming.
Truth in science?????
KK
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/12/midweek-unthreaded-52/#comment-2083678
50
Hi Keith, I am desparetly trying to understand this CO2 thing;
Referring to your link from your previous blog where you explain how a lonely little molecule of CO2 gets in the way of some infrared radiation ie outgoing heat (my words) At this point the CO2 mol gets heated up, say instantaneously, and being surrounded by thousands of atoms / mols of oxygen and nitrogen (air) this heat is transferred by conduction to the air. This warmed air will then rise up through the atmosphere where it’s heat will be transferred into space. This last bit is my problem; I believe heat can only leave the planet by radiation, not by conduction nor radiation.
Can you elucidate for me if I am not too stupid.
Best regards GeoffW
40
‘conduction nor radiation’ meant to be ‘conduction nor convection’
GeoffW
30
“CO2 mol gets heated up”
No, it doesn’t actually heat up.
The CO2 molecule gains in inner vibration, energy that is unrelated to actual temperature.
This energy can be dissipated in a couple of ways, collision with other molecules or re-emittance
Collisions haven several magnitudes more often than re-emittance in the lower atmosphere.
The energy becomes heat energy, and is dealt with by the actions of conduction convection, wind and pervection and other mass transport mechanisms that CONTROL the way the atmosphere works.
CO2 has no effect on these CONTROL mechanisms within the atmosphere.
Because of its changes of state within the atmosphere, requiring latent and other energy transfers Water Vapour does affect the control mechanisms of the atmosphere.
CO2 DOES NOTHING !!.
71
Typo fix “Collisions
havenhappen….30
What is heat, but energy at a particular wavelength? What is IR, but a waveband close to visible light. Do both use photons? Yes
02
If you don’t know the difference between energy and heat, nobody can educate you.
/PF, dumb as an ox !
20
Andy, if a mol or an atom increases its inner vibration then surely that is a measure of its increase in temperature. I assume that by inner vibration you are referring to the particles KE. I follow the rest of your logic but on this point I do not . .
GeoffW
00
” its inner vibration then surely that is a measure of its increase in temperature
No, its not. Energy and temperature are different things.
Think of drawing a long bow (as in bow and arrow), there is then a whole lot of stored energy in the bow, and only a tiny amount is converted to heat.
00
A strong El Nino will expel a lot of warm air into space.
30
I hope not! We would soon lose all our atmosphere.
30
‘El Ninos occur when the system needs to cool and the effect is a warming of the atmosphere.
‘La Ninas occur when the system needs to warm and the effect is a cooling of the atmosphere.’
Stephen Wilde (Climate Etc)
20
Odd, El Ninos seem to create a lot of hot air from the climate glitterati. 🙂
40
Hi Geoff,
One of the heat loss mechanisms at altitude is associated with the mechanism by which gaseous water vapour becomes less energised and condenses to water: rain. The energy given up can only go to the lower temperature area near it: deep space.
Must admit to not being all that conversant with the mechanisms of the atmosphere but
Will J. once mentioned that at a temperature of 243°K the devil gas CO2 will give up energy which likewise can only move down the energy gradient, away from Earth.
243 corresponds to about minus 30°C which exists at an altitude in excess of 4,000 metres.
When parcels of atmosphere give up energy at altitude they condense and fall down through the less dense surrounds making wind.
In answer, my understanding is that gases at altitude give up energy via radiation loss. Can anybody confirm this. Andy?
KK
30
Thanks for the reply Keith. I am still unsure of the mechanism by which the CO2 particles heat up the atmosphere, if indeed they do. My understading is that the earth orbiting and rotating in space is heated up by suns irradiation energy. This heating up process involves the atmosphere, the land, and the oceans, and all by mutiple mechanisms ie wind, rain and weather etc. So that the earth reaches a certain temperature after some ‘lag time’ and at that point re-emits the same amount of energy back thro the atmosphere and into space. It is the earths atmosphere of greenhouse gases that gives rise this point of thermal equilibrium.(I liken this process to holding one’s hands up to a wood fire on a cold day. Getting the right distance means warm hands without burning) Not quite an exact annalagy I realise. But back to the earth’s warming mechanism; The earth has been heated up or warmed to a steady level but the irradiation leaving the earth is the same as that received from the sun. So it seems to me that a fixed amount of heat energy is retained by the earth. Are then, changes in the greenhouse gases responsible for changes in the retained heat and a consequential increase in earths temperature?
… Phew that was difficult and I realise now how little I understand the greenhouse gas science. I am somewhat confused but trying to comprehend. Appreciate any comments.
GeoffW
20
Hi Geoff, there’s no balance between incoming and outgoing in the sense that they are equal.
Outgoing is always going to be less because energy is “used” in various ways.
The turnaround of incoming UV to outgoing IR itself involves a loss and much energy is absorbed by plants and Earth bound microorganisms to support their growth.
Then there’s energy degradation via long term storage in rock and oceans plus energy expended in expanding atmospheric gases to create wind.
The high energy solar radiation coming at the Earth is constantly degraded in intensity and this “loss of virtue” is seen in the weak IR that tries to make it back out to space after dark.
If only CO2 could trap some of that pw IR we might have a better chance of surviving here on Earth.
KK
00
Most CO2 in the upper atmosphere is absorbed by water Vapor and transported aloft as very weak carbonic Acid. One Mol of CO2 to many WV Mol, science is unclear as to how many Mol.
Remember the WV has to transport a heavier by far CO2 Mol so there may be as many at 1000 WV Mol to every CO2 Mol.
30
Thanks Slithers,
Can you explain that further.
Is there enough Water Vapour in the upper atmosphere to absorb Co2 emmissions?
Maybe, but at what altitiude are you referring to?
30
The CO2 as it rises in the atmosphere just a few feet is at the mercy of being dissolved. It can then be bought back in the form as rain or transported to the tropo-pause as an ever cooler mixture. It gets released when the WV that it is in suspension gets to boiling point at that pressure and temperature (from memory about 150K) this obviously varies according approximately to the ideal gas law, but no one has actual data to support this theory!
Free CO2 at ground level is plentiful if you can call 0.04% concentrations that. There are NO measurements that I know of that can even measure the percentage of free CO2 at altitudes above any cloud. The method’s used to detect CO2 use the concentration of Carbonic acid that is produced by pumping fixed quantities of AIR through distilled water, so dissolved CO2 is counted as free CO2.
Consider the chances of CO2 Mol’s not being dissolved by all that WV. It is after all how acid rain is formed.
20
Some numbers,
The calculation.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/#comment-1762105
KK
30
That was one of the key points made in Martin Durkin’s 2007 Channel 4 production of The Great Global Warming Swindle linked to on this site a couple of threads ago; it doesn’t matter how often the climate deluded are refuted they just keep bouncing back with the same sacred dogma about the danger of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
40
what public trust? nothing to read…it’s by an LSE prof:
19 Oct: Guardian: The London ban on Extinction Rebellion risks a perilous erosion of public trust
by Tim Newburn
(Tim Newburn is professor of criminology and social policy at the London School of Economics)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/18/london-ban-extinction-rebellion-erosion-trust-protesting
***note the condescension in the sub-heading alone.
plus no evidence whatsoever provided for claiming XR “has so far enjoyed huge reserves of goodwill from the millions broadly sympathetic to its cause”.
not worth reading. of course, Gaby would conclude Tories no good, over to Labour:
18 Oct: Guardian: Extinction Rebellion has built up so much goodwill. It mustn’t throw that away
***The incident at Canning Town station exposes the movement’s lack of empathy with society’s ***least well-off people
by Gaby Hinsliff
(Hinsliff is married to James Clark, former director of news and press secretary to Des Browne, Defence Secretary in the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – Wikipedia)
But the ugly standoff at Canning Town station is a wake-up call, illustrating the risks to a fledgling movement that has so far enjoyed huge reserves of goodwill from the millions broadly sympathetic to its cause. It should go without saying that mob violence is never justified; that anger and frustration should not be expressed with fists. But if you’re on a zero-hours contract, knowing that being even a few minutes late means your shift will be cancelled today, then it doesn’t really matter what political point is being made by the guy stopping your train leaving or your bus getting across the bridge. What matters is that you’re ***scared…
A Conservative government that barely even acknowledged climate chaos in this week’s Queen’s speech has obviously failed to rise to the moment. So now it’s for Labour…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/17/extinction-rebellion-canning-town-well-off-people
30
XR god-father gets his wish:
VIDEO: 1min45sec: 17 Oct: Guardian: George Monbiot arrested for defying climate protest ban – video
The Guardian columnist and environmental activist George Monbiot was arrested on Wednesday for defying a London-wide police ban on Extinction Rebellion protests.
LINKS: Today, I aim to get arrested. It is the only real power climate protesters have | George Monbiot
Extinction Rebellion lawyers apply for judicial review over protest ban
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/oct/16/george-monbiot-arrested-for-defying-climate-protest-ban-video
80
Pathetic claim , he could vote for Corbyn as a protest .
40
“It is the only real power”
ie NO POWER AT ALL
Getting arrested.. SO WHAT,
Enjoy your night in the cells with Big Bruth, little Georgie.
40
Whilst the Guardian is to be deplored for such a stupid anti science platform, don’t forget that the real villains here are the BOM, NASA, IPCC and other govt agencies who put out fake science on “climate change” and claim to be representing the truth.
When this whole thing eventually implodes, as it will, then these are the people who need to be held to account.
120
The Guardian’s explanation that “Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space” is hardly, as they put it, scientifically accurate. Basically there is a radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere between energy from the sun and the re-radiation to space of infrared radiation as a function of reflection and the Earth’s heating. There are a lot more variables influencing this other than greenhouse gas partial pressures. The most significant being variation in the suns output, changes to the Earth’s albedo from cloud cover, aerosols both natural and man made (including the very understated effect of aircraft), land clearing/city heat island effects and so on. So the radiative balance is far more complex and difficult to model than simple greenhouse gas effects. The bottom line is that since the Earth’s black body temperature is -23 Celsius I am really, really grateful for the greenhouse gas effect.
50
Yeah but look at DMA’s post at #2.6; there’s no greenhouse gas effect for which to be grateful.
40
Then what is making the planet warmer?
20
Here’s the formula: https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/
20
‘Holmes used the derived pressure/density/mass numbers for each planetary body. ‘ Yes good for planets with relatively constant atmospheres without water vapour. Earth has thermal heat transfer by water vapour which makes it vary more that if it had no water.
of course its ONLY dependent on the gas laws as he has shown.
30
More precisely you mean what makes the climate warm and cool over geologic time scales..
20
Seems I think that’s a reference to the “hot spot” which is predicted by the models if the theories and the models are to be believed , but so far none have been found .
30
Thanks serp,
DMA said:
Unfortunately the link is to a long YouTube video of over an hour so I have not watched it yet.
Does the atmosphere obey the Idea Gas Laws? I would say not from my observations of the BOM radiosonde online data.
40
I strongly suggest you watch the video, Peter C, its a very interesting analysis of the data.
(strong coffee suggested, the accent can make it difficult at times)
50
Peter
Their data an resulting papers are at
http://www.oprj.net. It is an open peer review journal they set up because they had too much data and conclusions to but in one or even several papers. This is explained at 1 min 27 sec into the talk. I found it very interesting. Remember these guys have worked on several previous papers with Willie Soon and late in this video Michael states they are working with him on several papers on this data analysis.
10
Overwhelming evidence that there is a huge gulf between “social” science and “objective” science.
We should never have let them into the tent with their political modelling – it was NEVER science.
Wonder when the Guardians of this universe will start to call themselves God?
80
If someone gets an idea from this the Guardian might be another example
“Trump campaign to sue CNN over pro-impeachment bias, demands ‘substantial payment’ ”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-campaign-to-sue-cnn-over-pro-impeachment-bias-demands-substantial-payment
(Via Tip of the Spear)
50
The Guardian is a low-circulation North London newspaper. Why take it so seriously?
30
Who reads the gardien .
I would guard against their agenda they promote on the internet .
20
I don’t read the Guardian — thankfully — so I will suppose, just for the sake of being charitable, that there’s some redeeming virtue in there somewhere that keeps their readers going back for more. But I don’t see it. Everything from the Guardian that I’ve ever seen gives me reason to say thankfully I don’t read it. This attempt to define and dictate journalism’s lexicon on climate change shows the world an arrogant self righteous partisanship that I have never seen before.
What are they the guardian of anyway? Seems like nothing more than their own off the wall opinion. And if I want off the wall opinions I can find them in any public men’s room. I don’t need the guardian.
50
🙂 🙂
20
Journospeak update double plus good.
00
Jo
Given that the world is running out of usable sand, wouldn’t ‘Greta the Great’ be better served whinging about that?- source: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/world-running-out-sand-resources-concrete-2018-6?r=US&IR=T
But one thing that our new ‘saviour’ is missing: when the fossil fuel industry is shut down, what will happen with roads made of asphalt as they fall into disrepair and turn into rutted tracks? The Messiah won’t be able to whinge if she has to be rushed to hospital during one of her anxiety attacks in a horse and cart.
Also if the saviour has a mobile phone, then what about the slave children in Africa? Is it not a case of who stole whose childhood ? Answer: Thunberg wept!
20
As someone who leans somewhat to the left (but has currently divorced my long time comrades) – I once enjoyed the Guardian. But in the last two years they have moved from reasonable critique on a wide range of issues oft neglected by the mainstream, to a shrieking, virtue signalling pile of almost completely unadulterated shite. So I wrote them a letter telling them they have lost my support forever. I particularly find their denial of skepticism to be the single worst editorial decision I have ever witnessed. Journalism is supposed to be skeptical ALWAYS.
30
There’s a good expose of Greenpeace around, and they have spent close to half their funds on the climate change campaign since 2000 – close to half a billion dollars. Many MSM outlets now post paid news – likely Greenpeace has bought space in the Grauniad.
10
Wow, someone got a big chunk of cash-for-comment.
Pay-to-play is a helluva drug.
00
Words are important. Stop talking about fossil fuels. They are natural hydrocarbons. I use natural oil in my diesel car but using natural oil could be possible if I install a duel-fuel package.
00
Mineral oil.
00
From the same stable ?
10
‘Older generations can’t understand’: XR Youth on being heard – Guardian
“In a letter to the company, they demanded that YouTube changes what the group claims is its disproportionate platforming of climate denial”
“It’s something that older generations will never be able to understand”
I thought anti-white bigotry was the only kind allowed in the Guardian
10
https://archive.md/ePhD7
Guardian
“To accurately reflect the disruption caused by the crisis, we have to disrupt our normal forms of reporting.”
00