Agreed. Now if only experts on information theory were their developers. I give them top marks for resisting the tyranny of censorship but low marks for organization. Go to their home page and you'll see what I mean. Where's the mission statement AKA 'about' link? And what's with the endless scrolling of apparently random posts? How is that useful? Now try to find my substack under 'music.' Hard to do without a list of music themed substacks. So where's the list? All you get is "Rising in Music" like I'm supposed to care what the most popular music sites are? I have other complaints but I dislike diatribes, so I'll leave it at that.
I'll just conclude by saying it looks to me like the creators stumbled into creating a free speech forum when their original intent was to create a publishing model with a different, more equitable, payment system. I don't think they anticipated what it turned into, which IMO was kind of shortsighted and a good example of the rule of unintended consequences. What did they think would happen with everyone else censoring, shadow banning, demonitizing and just generally interfering with the free flow of ideas?
Final complaint. Try and find their financial statements. As a private company they don't have to publish those, but it would go a long way to establishing their credibility if they did, even if they're still showing large losses, which (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe is still the case. So many platforms have come and gone since the early days of HTTP that I wouldn't be surprised if this one eventually folded as well. I don't want to see that happen obviously, but it's a real possibility. They've taken a lot on and it's not entirely clear if they're up to the task.
S. Ichtiaque Rasool and the late Stephen Schneider (back when he was an acolyte in the "coming ice age" cult) wrote in "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate," Science, 173(3992):138–141, July 9 1971, that the CO2 "doubling sensitivity" of the atmosphere is 0.76°C. They concluded that no matter how much coal we burn, we cannot stop the coming ice age. Schneider later became the High Priest of the Global Warming cult. In an interview with Detroit News he admitted "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Ice cores are actually reasonable proxies for average hemispheric temperatures because most of the water in them was evaporated from the oceans and then carried to the poles by Hadley-cell circulation.
In GISP2 data, 1880 was the coldest year in 8,700 years. It was also about the same time that systematic temperature measurements began being recorded — in the northern hemisphere. They were only recorded at one place in the southern hemisphere — Jakarta. If you start measuring at the minimum, all you can see is increase.
Here's another Feynman quote to add to your collection "No matter how beautiful your theory, if it doesn't agree with reality it's wrong." Unlike Yogi Berra, Feynman never said "I didn't say half the things I said."
Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations allow readers to verify I didn't simply make up stuff.
It's getting so boring to see the same ignorance repeated over and over again.
Once and for all, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas because radiation from Earth's surface can't heat a gas. Any photons absorbed are soon reemitted in another direction, leaving the molecule's temperature unchanged. If a CO2 molecule has no heat, it can't heat anything else. Individual photons aren't heat, they just packets of pure energy. Heat only exists in molecules.
The greenhouse effect is based on a pack of lies confusing radiation with conduction and convection.
Get it straight right now and become a real expert that doesn't babble about CO2 saturation and Antarctic ice cores.
Great article. The climatocatastrophists have believed the bunk out out by the CO2 haters and they just can’t accept that they are wrong and have been duped. The same findings from ice cores in Greenland support the same conclusions. The CO2 Coalition has done great work and it’s getting better! I ❤️CO2, and do do my plants and trees!
Thanks for this interesting article. Simple and easy for us non scientists.
So what's not to understand - the earth balances itself, isn't that wonderful.
Now if it would just recycle, or remove the hysterical loony tunes cults we would be ok. It's akin to living in the dark ages. Pretty soon they'll break out the tar and feathers... or whatever substitute for tar they have today.
Fig 3 tells the whole story. Current atmospheric concentration is some 420 ppm, approximately 140 ppm higher than anything in the ice core record, yet there is ZERO response seen in the the temperature record over the same interval. During each glacial cycle temperature went up and down by 8-10 deg C, while CO2 went up and down by 100 ppm; now we have a 140 ppm increase in CO2 but no observable change in temperature above the 1 deg C that has been recorded since the ending of the Dickensian, Little Ice age. Emissions do not cause warming and therefore cannot cause climate change, and therefore we do not need to end fossil fuel generation of electricity, as China, India and many other 'developing' countries understand. The west needs to wake up.
Fun fact: Riding the Lexington Ave subway in NYC one day, I realized that the stops from 33rd street to 103rd street corresponded to (useable) five-degree temperature conversions from Fahrenheit to Celsius. 33=0, 42=5, 51=10, 59=15, 68=20, 77=25, 86=30, 96=35, 103=40.
Living in NYC, I found it a very helpful mnemonic!
Good post! But isn't it about 100,000 yrs of ice age, followed by 10,000 yrs of "warmth"for the 800,000 yrs? We're due another ice age in the next 1 to 5,000 yrs 😎
Something I would like to see writers present (maybe in their about page) is a short list of authors they feel have had the most impact on their thinking. This would give the reader an idea of what to expect in terms of the writer's foundations, plus a look at what, if any, overlap there is between their favourite authors and one's own.
As an example, here's my short list, in no particular order. You'll notice the basic theme is epistemology, so you can tell that's where my focus is without me having to be explicit about it.
Marshal Mcluhan - All, but esp. Gutenberg Galaxy & Understanding Media
I have been familiar with the work by Happer and others but lack the physics knowledge to evaluate it. I have seen other people apparently in the field say Happer is calculating in the wrong way. Although I'm unable to directly evaluate the competing claims, something like what Happer and Lindzen are saying surely has to be true, otherwise we would have had runaway warming long ago.
Hello Max, I think that is a fair and conservative approach.
My experience in the field of chemistry was that the older generation valued character and rigor above all. A generalization perhaps, but along the lines of the Greatest Generation whom overlapped.
Thank you. The real experts are writing on Substack imo.
Thank you for your comments and ongoing readership. Have a great weekend.
Agreed. Now if only experts on information theory were their developers. I give them top marks for resisting the tyranny of censorship but low marks for organization. Go to their home page and you'll see what I mean. Where's the mission statement AKA 'about' link? And what's with the endless scrolling of apparently random posts? How is that useful? Now try to find my substack under 'music.' Hard to do without a list of music themed substacks. So where's the list? All you get is "Rising in Music" like I'm supposed to care what the most popular music sites are? I have other complaints but I dislike diatribes, so I'll leave it at that.
I'll just conclude by saying it looks to me like the creators stumbled into creating a free speech forum when their original intent was to create a publishing model with a different, more equitable, payment system. I don't think they anticipated what it turned into, which IMO was kind of shortsighted and a good example of the rule of unintended consequences. What did they think would happen with everyone else censoring, shadow banning, demonitizing and just generally interfering with the free flow of ideas?
Final complaint. Try and find their financial statements. As a private company they don't have to publish those, but it would go a long way to establishing their credibility if they did, even if they're still showing large losses, which (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe is still the case. So many platforms have come and gone since the early days of HTTP that I wouldn't be surprised if this one eventually folded as well. I don't want to see that happen obviously, but it's a real possibility. They've taken a lot on and it's not entirely clear if they're up to the task.
#FossilFuelFrenzy
This?
https://smallusefultips.com/how-long-will-u-s-oil-last/
Not sure I understand.
Nice summary.
S. Ichtiaque Rasool and the late Stephen Schneider (back when he was an acolyte in the "coming ice age" cult) wrote in "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate," Science, 173(3992):138–141, July 9 1971, that the CO2 "doubling sensitivity" of the atmosphere is 0.76°C. They concluded that no matter how much coal we burn, we cannot stop the coming ice age. Schneider later became the High Priest of the Global Warming cult. In an interview with Detroit News he admitted "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Ice cores are actually reasonable proxies for average hemispheric temperatures because most of the water in them was evaporated from the oceans and then carried to the poles by Hadley-cell circulation.
In GISP2 data, 1880 was the coldest year in 8,700 years. It was also about the same time that systematic temperature measurements began being recorded — in the northern hemisphere. They were only recorded at one place in the southern hemisphere — Jakarta. If you start measuring at the minimum, all you can see is increase.
Here's another Feynman quote to add to your collection "No matter how beautiful your theory, if it doesn't agree with reality it's wrong." Unlike Yogi Berra, Feynman never said "I didn't say half the things I said."
Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations allow readers to verify I didn't simply make up stuff.
Thanks Van, you speak fluent common sense, an increasingly rare attribute !
Great Feynman quote, I will use that one next.
TC
It's getting so boring to see the same ignorance repeated over and over again.
Once and for all, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas because radiation from Earth's surface can't heat a gas. Any photons absorbed are soon reemitted in another direction, leaving the molecule's temperature unchanged. If a CO2 molecule has no heat, it can't heat anything else. Individual photons aren't heat, they just packets of pure energy. Heat only exists in molecules.
The greenhouse effect is based on a pack of lies confusing radiation with conduction and convection.
Get it straight right now and become a real expert that doesn't babble about CO2 saturation and Antarctic ice cores.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thereisnogreenhouseeffect.html
Please share how you really feel 🙏 😆
Best,
TC
Great article. The climatocatastrophists have believed the bunk out out by the CO2 haters and they just can’t accept that they are wrong and have been duped. The same findings from ice cores in Greenland support the same conclusions. The CO2 Coalition has done great work and it’s getting better! I ❤️CO2, and do do my plants and trees!
Thanks for this interesting article. Simple and easy for us non scientists.
So what's not to understand - the earth balances itself, isn't that wonderful.
Now if it would just recycle, or remove the hysterical loony tunes cults we would be ok. It's akin to living in the dark ages. Pretty soon they'll break out the tar and feathers... or whatever substitute for tar they have today.
Thank you for your ongoing support JF, all free all the time 🇺🇸😎🙏
We can use oil, and we have loads of it!
As always, a succinct description of reality. It is no wonder the climate hysterics hate your analysis. It disproves their claims regularly
Fig 3 tells the whole story. Current atmospheric concentration is some 420 ppm, approximately 140 ppm higher than anything in the ice core record, yet there is ZERO response seen in the the temperature record over the same interval. During each glacial cycle temperature went up and down by 8-10 deg C, while CO2 went up and down by 100 ppm; now we have a 140 ppm increase in CO2 but no observable change in temperature above the 1 deg C that has been recorded since the ending of the Dickensian, Little Ice age. Emissions do not cause warming and therefore cannot cause climate change, and therefore we do not need to end fossil fuel generation of electricity, as China, India and many other 'developing' countries understand. The west needs to wake up.
Well said, TC! And now a word from the “climate change” propagandists: 😱🤬😱 “Denier!”
🤣🤣🤣😱
Fun fact: Riding the Lexington Ave subway in NYC one day, I realized that the stops from 33rd street to 103rd street corresponded to (useable) five-degree temperature conversions from Fahrenheit to Celsius. 33=0, 42=5, 51=10, 59=15, 68=20, 77=25, 86=30, 96=35, 103=40.
Living in NYC, I found it a very helpful mnemonic!
Good post! But isn't it about 100,000 yrs of ice age, followed by 10,000 yrs of "warmth"for the 800,000 yrs? We're due another ice age in the next 1 to 5,000 yrs 😎
Palm trees 🌴 in Greenland coming up.
Isn't that why it is called Greenland?
Better ask a climate scientist at Harvard or at U Penn 😳😆
And let's not forget the classic statistical mantra, "Correlation does not prove causation."
A suggestion:
Something I would like to see writers present (maybe in their about page) is a short list of authors they feel have had the most impact on their thinking. This would give the reader an idea of what to expect in terms of the writer's foundations, plus a look at what, if any, overlap there is between their favourite authors and one's own.
As an example, here's my short list, in no particular order. You'll notice the basic theme is epistemology, so you can tell that's where my focus is without me having to be explicit about it.
Marshal Mcluhan - All, but esp. Gutenberg Galaxy & Understanding Media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
Douglas Hofstadter - Gödel, Escher, Bach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter
Marvin Harris - Cultural Materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Harris
Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
James Grier Miller - Living Systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Grier_Miller
Alfred Korzybski - Science and Sanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski
Stuart Chase - Tyranny of Words
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Chase
Karl Popper - The Open Society and its Enemies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies
Great, great article
I have been familiar with the work by Happer and others but lack the physics knowledge to evaluate it. I have seen other people apparently in the field say Happer is calculating in the wrong way. Although I'm unable to directly evaluate the competing claims, something like what Happer and Lindzen are saying surely has to be true, otherwise we would have had runaway warming long ago.
Take a look at the work of Van Snyder here as well, relatively easy to follow with demonstrsted subject mastery.
Assuming this is the same Van Snyder, apparently I have read (and liked) one of his pieces:
https://vsnyder.substack.com/p/enormous-pile-of-evidence-that-global
Hello Max, I think that is a fair and conservative approach.
My experience in the field of chemistry was that the older generation valued character and rigor above all. A generalization perhaps, but along the lines of the Greatest Generation whom overlapped.
Thank you for the comment.
Love it when reality proves the climate change hysteria is just that…hysteria! Well, that and a whole mountain of lies.
Truly!
Thank you for the comment Howard, TC.