I start the conversation about climate change
Just had to comment on the coral reef loss--said to be due to global warming or increased CO2 dissolved in oceans with concomitant reduction in pH--well guess what it has come back. The biggest coral reef has the most coral in decades.
From last month's WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-coral-recovery-climate-change/
"Great Barrier Reef has most coral in decades. Global warming could reverse it.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science, a government agency, began monitoring Earth’s largest reef system 36 years ago. Its latest report indicates that the northern and central parts of the reef are on the mend after an “extensive bout” of disturbances over the past decade, said Mike Emslie, a senior research scientist at the institute.
The results of the institute’s annual survey show that the reef “is still vibrant and still resilient, and it can bounce back from disturbances if it gets the chance,” Emslie said in an interview Thursday."
I was fairly quick in calling “the Pandemic” panic largely a created crisis because I’d already been through one of these “trust the “science”” episodes with “climate change”. I’m an earth scientist (geologist in mineral exploration) and had watched in horror as “science” - the real version of which is the quest for truth through scrutiny of data and heated debate - was bastardized and used as a bludgeon to promote a political agenda. Real scientists (some of whom were colleagues) who dared to dispute the narrative were silenced, banished, reputations tarnished by falsehoods, and disappeared from usual publications for being “deniers”. We must not let real science be hijacked by government, agency, and special interest groups. We must fight - and fight hard - to promote vigorous and open debate to preserve our precious discipline!
CO2 is the foundation of all life. The more CO2 the more life (food). Global warming/Climate change was the global boogie man they created back when they rolled out UN Agenda 21 back in 1992 to invoke fear and compliance. They KNEW most people would not go along with the real agenda behind A21 (global communist/depopulation/end of private property etc. etc) so they had to create a boogie man that had global reach in order to scare people (starting with the children in our schools that would grow into the adults of the future) into compliance. It has been a program in the works even long before A21 (A21 formalized it) We also have the UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment Report and The Wildlands Project that most people do not even know exists. I have researched and lectured on this for 20 years and there have been many before me. But the American people were too occupied with football and hollywood. It was bread and circuses that destroyed Rome and it is and will be what destroys us as well. Even today getting people to read an article longer than a paragraph or a video longer than 10 minutes or to attend a city council/county commission/school board meeting is always met with “I don’t have time to read or watch videos or go to meetings” but they always have time to watch a 3 hour football game or a mindless movie. If you want to you will, if you don’t you will make excuses.
and btw, the WaPo notes that starfish are eating up some of the coral:
"News of the recovery in the reef’s northern and central parts was partly offset by the report’s finding that there was a loss of coral cover in the southern region. There, the reef fell prey to an outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish, which feed exclusively on live coral, the scientists said...
Among the 87 reefs surveyed for the latest report, average hard coral cover in the north increased to 36 percent, up from 27 percent in 2021, and to 33 percent in the central Great Barrier Reef from 26 percent last year. Average coral cover in the southern region decreased from 38 percent in 2021 to 34 percent this year."
Considering that so many of the recommendations that are coming from the powers that be involve electric cars which are very high in fossil fuel energy for charging, and cutting down swaths of trees everywhere for increased 5G transmission, among other things, what they say and what they do are two different things. But the masses are easily duped.
“David Rockefeller was there...”, kinda tells us most of what we need to know. File any talk of “austerity is good” under #YouGoFirst. When Rothschilds and Gates and Rockefeller’s live like we do, then we’ll listen.
I just love how the environmental movement was infiltrated by the people creating the most pollution and they pivoted the movement to focus on first climate cooling in the 70’s, then global warming and then the amorphous climate change.
The real grass roots environmental movement was all about cleaning up and stopping industrial pollution, which is as important as ever and we hardly ever hear about it anymore. My understanding is that the sun determines most of our weather not our carbon output. 🌞
Just have to remember the undercover video by Project Veritas of the CNN exec saying that they are going to pivot to climate once C19 train leaves the guilded station. No matter the flavor of the month, it will always taste like opportunity to the cream at the top.
As the Connollys found from analyzing weather balloon data from around the world, the temperature profile of the atmosphere is dependent on the pressure gradient and not on the composition of the atmosphere.
This is most clearly shown in the temperatures at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that are always hotter than at the rim, and this is because of the well-known, well-established lapse rate that is pressure, not CO2, dependent. We know why the bottom of the Grand Canyon is hotter: it's because of the pressure-dependent lapse rate mechanism. It's not because there's more CO2 at the bottom of the Canyon.
Yet climate alarmists say that the lapse rate doesn't really heat anything; greenhouse gases do that. This is contradicted by the evidence of the Grand Canyon, by deep mines that are hot due to 'atmospheric auto-compression' (the lapse rate mechanism) and by such phenomena as Chinook winds, all pressure-related phenomena.
We can see in balloon data that not even water vapor-- the most abundant greenhouse gas-- will heat pockets of the atmosphere when balloons pass from dry air to moister air and then back. Instead, the balloon temperature trajectories follow lapse rate trajectories (for the most part are barring violent weather); there's no extra heating or added energy or back-radiation, which 'back-radiation,' since the atmosphere is colder than the surface, couldn't heat the surface anyhow.
It seems that climate alarmists anticipated the objections that there's no evidence whatsoever of any greenhouse gas upsetting the well-established lapse rate temperature trajectories. So now they say: CO2 congests the upper atmosphere and causes a higher emissions height and then we 'count down' from there using the lapse rate to get a warmer surface.
No, we don't. But notice what they did: the lapse rate can't warm anything except when they need it to save the theory, then it can.
Balloon data has the real truth and should be looked at more closely.
How does the atmosphere warm the surface? Simple. The atmosphere has mass, and this mass exerts a pressure of 14.7 psi at the surface (2117 pounds/square foot.) Anything that has mass can be warmed. When we talk about surface temperature, we're not just talking about the earth but the earth along with the mass of the atmosphere, and pressure derived from gravity ensures that most of this atmospheric heat is concentrated at the surface.
CO2 warming is complete fiction. This is what balloon data tells us, and we're talking about actual temperature measurements, not radiative calculations that don't pan out in the real world.
I understand "Climate Change" will now be renamed "Climate Crisis." Seriously.
If you haven't watched "The Dimming" it is worth your time. Things are happening, just not naturally. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-dimming-full-length-climate-engineering-documentary/
Climate change scam is just a way to control populations (you will eat what we tell you to eat) and to create the appearance of economic growth (retrofitting everything to run on “clean energy”) when in fact populations are decreasing and economic growth is naturally slowing. Modern economies can only run on growth even if it is the fake appearance of growth, like the broken windows fallacy. Like the fact that all the money we spend on so-called healthcare is included in GDP, when it’s really sucking the lifeblood out of us. None of this actually improves peoples’ quality of life. Just the opposite. California is in the news again in that they are banning new gas heaters (including water heaters) starting in 2030. How will this improve the standard of living out there when they can’t even keep the lights on during a heat wave? No more sales of gas powered cars after 2035. How are people supposed to evacuate during extreme events (fires, floods, earthquakes)?
I wish more could write as you do about this issue.
My father was an atmospheric physicist. his comments from way back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFShSlv8eA
The video it came from shows the issues with funding cuts etc - he lost many contracts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9j54rWnmeo Minutes :44-:45.
Video is actually still good in many ways. Funny dramatic approach though.
The whole COVID thing has felt like deja vu with the media frenzy and folks jumping on the bandwagon. Would be so nice to have real debates with both sides on so many issues these days.
Thank you for exploring this!
Propaganda is typically a mixture of disinformation and truth. The frame is constructed intentionally to confuse. It takes pieces of factual information and mixes it with intentional misdirection or obfuscation to increase the acceptability of the message. It builds over time. The more a message is propagated, the more it takes on the perception of received wisdom. Typically, the truth and factual information receives less and less prominence until it is supplanted by the desired interpretation.
What is now called ‘climate change’ is complex and layered, a story built over decades of information and disinformation, and as the framing has evolved, incorporates more and more of an emotional overlay. This contributes greatly to distorted perceptions and biases interpretation of data. To claim that this issue is not affected by the dynamics of propaganda in our world is quite naive. This is not meant to insult anyone.
But just as many have come to understand that the CDC and FDA are not trustworthy, so too, one may come to understand that NASA and NOAA have engaged in misrepresentation of science. Just as with this ‘pandemic’, we must put off the emotional response first and look dispassionately at the record and science.
What I've found most interesting about the debates surrounding climate change, Meryl, is what happens when open-minded non-specialists seek to learn about the various theories and research papers.
Over and over again, the pattern emerges; assertions are made and, when various points of uncertainty, confusion, contention or internal argumentative contradictions come under discussion, the conversation becomes sidetracked with ad hominem and appeals to emotion or authority, which effectively shuts down any meaningful inquiry. Often enough, when derailment seems insufficient, advocates simply withdraw their participation.
We see an example of that right here in your comment section. You opened a conversation and invited others to join in, and your objectivity and intellect were insulted, followed by a refusal to engage and an announcement of departure.
Having always beheld religious devotion with respect, I've tried very hard to embrace the communal comfort of shared belief in trace gas culpability, but my efforts are continually frustrated by the fallacious obscurantism of those that I can only describe as "The Faithful."
It's an unmistakable pattern, and one that I found baffling until I began viewing it through a lens of economic and psychological analyses. Once the unproductive nature of trying to fit religious beliefs into a framework of logic leads to discarding the myriad non-arguments of the faithful, the field of inquiry narrows. At this point, the real debate appears to be concentrated within a very small circle of researchers, with a truly awful signal-to-noise ratio caused mainly by the polemicists and hangers-on.
All that "sound and fury" notwithstanding, all anyone can do about the anthropogenicity question is to keep an open mind and continue learning about the physical properties of trace gases and the manner with which they interact with other systems.
When the distractions imposed by those holding extremist viewpoints seem unhelpful, we just have to remember who, exactly, is being helped by those sowing confusion.
I vote for you to interview James on CHD TV regarding this subject.
Yes, thanks. Also makes you wonder about our entire history with the rise of the self-absorbed industrialists after the Civil War. People like Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller and gang. The win of the federal government paved the way for what we have today.