scratch-mark

Global Warming Hysteria Has Always Been Bullshit Because CO2 Is Not Nuclear Fission

I don’t blog about this much and never did. Yet, my finger has always been on the pulse, periodically. I’ve alway checked in with these folks principally, going as far back as be be counted:

That last one gets me all the choir music I need, just to know what the choir sings.

It all kinda reminds me of our iron fortification gig that’s just got to be ridiculous.

Do you remember the Ancel Keys deal, and how if you include way more data, there’s no obvious correlation?

murder

Oh, sorry. I got mixed up in which cluster digram to post. That one’s actually gun ownership and murder rates. “More or less guns, more or less crime.” I don’t necessarily buy that other hypothesis (‘more guns less crime’), either. It’s a solid hypothesis, though, worthy of further study.

Question is, are you of a rigorous, messy, scientific mind…where you are never really truly certain but little clues and the rare breakthroughs makes you soldier on? Or, do you like “Settled,” “The Debate is Over,” stuff, where what you’re dealing with is still the same Grant Whores as it’s always been, since recollected history?

…Back before Warren Meyer even started Climate Skeptic (2007), he blogged at Coyote Blog and still does. Not sure how far the search archives go, but I’ve dropped stuff about Warren here & there since early 00s. Warren is a Princeton undergrad, Harvard grad, and went on as some executive somewhere, now retired and doing entrepreneurial stuff. Pretty libertarian. Smart fucker. And I’m a sucker for smart fuckers.

Prior to Warren, I was more of the mind to deny global warming than to accept it, but for a reason. I didn’t see how human activity could be measurably contributing to it given the history of earth with well known warm and cold periods. Plus, I was in airplanes a lot, where you see how truly puny human population is.

Warren reconciled all that for me by making distinctions. Maybe warming is happening, but maybe it’s not anthropogenic. Maybe warming is happening, but it’s natural.

But here was the big kicker, something that has been solid for me for 10 years: CO2 cannot possibly do what the models predict. There is no “Hockey Stick,” never will be.

What the Hockey Stick predicts is a kinda tipping point where CO2 gives rise to more, which gives rise to more, etc. This is positive feedback. We know it from fires and nuclear explosions. In a fire, heat makes fuel more oxidizable, and when powerful enough, even creates its own wind to fuel the fire with the needed oxidant and a positive-feedback-loop chain-reaction sets in. This is why forrest fires are a bitch. Basically, you have to run them out of either heat, fuel, or oxidant. When you get a grip on either one, you begin to have control.

But forrest fires are a microcosm of Earth’s ecosystem, just like volcanic explosions, earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes and twisters. All of these have positive-feedback components that make them so formidable. But, even though we can’t do anything about any of them, they eventually meet a BIG NEGATIVE feedback that shuts them down. It’s how earth nature is dominated, dummies.

Nature is dominated by negative feedback, where the very uppity always gets shut down. BTW, did you understand the negative feedback in an earthquake, so the whole earth doesn’t shake itself to death? Pressure relief. Ever seen a pressure relief valve? Negative feedback is also engineered in a lot of stuff you take for granted.

So you see, I’ve never had to rub even two bran cells together to wonder abut whether there’s global warming or not, and I dismissed the move to “climate change” as simply a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ move for a few billion Usual Suckers.

No way that in this earth ecosystem of CO2 producers and Co2 eaters, it’s ever going to get to chain-reaction, unbridled positive feedback. No way.

So let’s get to something new.

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

He’s blogging his stuff here, for now.

Take note that he may be crazy, though. He thinks that the principle cause of warming might be the sun. So, chalk him up as a potential moron who, in spite of a number of degrees in mathematics, may be unable to see the subtile nuances—because in spite of how big and powerful the sun is, it’s no match for the satanic greed  of quasi-capitalism that drives human productivity.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

20 Comments

  1. Steven on October 10, 2015 at 21:03

    If the science is settled why are we still spending billions on research?

  2. Bret on October 10, 2015 at 21:22

    So, chalk him up as a potential moron who, in spite of a number of degrees in mathematics, may be unable to see the subtile nuances—because in spite of how big and powerful the sun is, it’s no match for the satanic greed of quasi-capitalism that drives human productivity.

    Right. The cited suggestion that he “may change” the debate made me chuckle. The GW acolytes can ignore him just as easily as they ignore any other relevant (inconvenient) information.

    Even if AGW was proven and a done deal (it isn’t, by a long shot), the solution most often proposed–empower national governments to interfere in markets to “control” it–is even more laughable than the aforementioned idea of Evans influencing the climate debate. Such an action would indisputably result in concentration of huge amounts of wealth and power in the hands of a few, while repressing and impoverishing literally billions of others.

    It would work exactly like the Soviet Union’s plan to equalize wealth and status among all people.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 11, 2015 at 07:48

      I doubt he was the first to say it, but I heard it there first, a Rush Limbaugh episode, back in early 90s when communism was crumbling. You watch, the green movement is where they’ll all migrate to.

  3. Ian Weeks on October 11, 2015 at 03:50

    Have followed you for years, Richard, and love your “in your face”, “take it or fuck off” attitude. And I agree that natural systems (in our bodies and in the environment) always self-correct, one way or another. I do feel, however, that the “self correction” the world system eventually applies to the 6 billion human parasites eating into it’s guts and making it sick will probably involve the destruction of many of those 6 billion or so parasites, and most of the “civilisation”(if you can call it that) that those parasites have created over the last few centuries. The question is, should we or can we use our brains and intelligence to minimise the damage?

    • Bret on October 11, 2015 at 11:06

      Ian, not that you asked me, but I’ll weigh in anyway, because I am obnoxious and intrusive.

      Should we? Sure.

      Can we? Absolutely not…at least not in the way most people envision, which is a bundle of repressive government mandates, which will only redistribute wealth.

      Folks want to conserve resources and restrain pollution? Get the west’s governments out of the Middle East and halt subsidies of all kinds. Make everyone responsible for the costs of what they use, and you’ll be surprised how conservationist people will become. Promote entrepreneurialism by removing regulations. Again in the spirit of economic conservation, people will innovate impressively under market incentives.

      Just my $0.02. Trying to enforce some kind of collective conservation is only going to put a lot of people in poverty. Got to prioritize smart solutions over wishful thinking and arrogance, however well intended they might be.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 11, 2015 at 12:10

      Ian:

      Conservation is nothing more than increasing efficiencies on all levels, doing the same or more with less. It’s also contextual. Virtually all industry and all products are more conservationist than their predecessors, going all the way back to the industrial revolution. You don’t get a “clean” car or “clean” factory smoke stack before having relatively dirty ones.

      It’s just what markets do, both because conservation is a value people will pay for and because competition naturally leads to conservation, because by doing more with less, a firm is able to increase profit per unit sold.

      Micro-economics 101.

      The big lie almost everyone falls for as Usual Suckers, is that the State’s regulatory schemes are the primary diver of this economic phenomenon. In fact, it happens in spite of the state and in spite of the tens and probably hundreds of trillions added to the cost of goods—and the cost of regulatory schemes born of taxation—since the advent of state regulation.

  4. Anand Srivastava on October 11, 2015 at 08:38

    About Climate Change. I am not too worried about CO2 emissions. CO2 is ok, its not very poisonous either. But I am worried about a lot of other chemicals that we keep on releasing and the plastics that are being created from the petrochemicals. We are polluting the whole world as if it is a garbage dump. We are probably damaging the ecosystem a lot. How long it will take for the world to become damaged irrecoverably, is not predictable I think.

  5. LeonRover on October 12, 2015 at 01:23

    Richard,

    “the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought”

    Errors in parameter estimation bedevil all macro-modelling.

    This sceptical article on Nobel Prize in Economics is apt.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster

    Sláinte

  6. Phil on October 12, 2015 at 18:26

    CO2 is excessively demonized, in part due to global warming concerns. Prof. Chris Masterjohn reported on how serum CO2 is an important co-factor for the fat soluble vitamins A, D and K
    (http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/abcs-of-nutrition/nutritional-adjuncts-to-the-fat-soluble-vitamins).

    Unfortunately, hardly anyone will take the health benefits of CO2 seriously. The topic is drowned out by global warming.

    “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is essential for plant growth. The carbon from CO2 is one of the essential building blocks of life, and the photosynthesis process uses carbon dioxide to produce sugars, for energy and cell construction. Carbon dioxide also plays a significant part in animal physiology. As well as exhaling CO2 as part of our respiratory cycle, we need some carbon dioxide present in the air around us to trigger the breathing response.” .

  7. tw on October 12, 2015 at 15:46

    Who gets to decide what the right temperature is or should be? Who decides what the appropriate level of CO2 is for the atmosphere?

    If no one knows what the “right” level is, how do these guys know what the solution is going to be if there is one?

  8. edster on October 12, 2015 at 21:33

    Good interview with Matt Ridley on Econtalk recently. Interesting to hear his journey to becoming a “lukewarmer” and how climate change can also have positive effects. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/06/matt_ridley_on.html

  9. FrenchFry on October 13, 2015 at 13:58

    Lord Christopher Monckton ends the Global Warming Debate and proves its a Hoax (from 2012 already) :

  10. Bb on October 13, 2015 at 08:24

    Speaking of nuclear fission, do you have some poop test results yet?

    • Richard Nikoley on October 13, 2015 at 08:44

      No, from what I gather it takes weeks. So far, 4 of 6 ubiomes have been sent in and received, and 2 of three amgut. Probiotic course is over about a week ago so I’ll be doing another ubiome today, then a final ubiome and amgut in a week.

  11. Eric on October 13, 2015 at 12:10

    ‘Maybe warming is happening, but maybe it’s not anthropogenic. Maybe warming is happening, but it’s natural.” It’s pretty clear that Earth’s temperature has fluctuated considerably over time long before humans came into existence, no big revelation there. The climatic system of this planet is extremely complex and we can’t be sure what effects which human activities will have and what secondary feedback effects will be triggered and so on. I’m sure the best thing is to just not fuck with it but that’s not really possible any more now that we need to support so many wonderful people in the world who need to keep multiplying so their owners can harvest more and more labor because too much is never enough.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 13, 2015 at 14:31

      “…that’s not really possible any more now that we need to support so many wonderful people in the world who need to keep multiplying so their owners can harvest more and more labor because too much is never enough.”

      The very proven phenomenon in terms of human reproduction is that poor people see children as assets (a quasi-slave deal: we’ll raise you, but you have to work) whereas, rich people see them on some spectrum from liability to long-term liability with potential capital appreciation. In short, poor people have more children than well-offs for clear economic reasons.

      In other, other words, poor humans reproduce as nature evolved it. A long term passing of the guard to ensure survival. This was just barely enough in the wild. Agriculture made it a far more sure proposition, but also had a silver lining in that some children could be spared from too much labor in order to go off and study to become rich people and maybe save and lift the whole family from poverty.

      Sure, it was a lottery, but what poor folk don’t waste their money on crazy long shots? It’s baked into the cake.

      I don’t see anything that can be done about it except step aside and watch as people choose their own values as they see fit. We’re part of the ecosystem to and “the planet” has no “rights” superior to any individual.

  12. Dave on October 14, 2015 at 18:46

    Richard,

    Just starting to red Dr Evans’ posts on his breaking down of the climate change model. Absolutely fascinating stuff and thanks so much for sharing.

    This comment stands out:
    “The conventional basic climate model is superficially compelling. It is at the heart of the belief that carbon dioxide poses a dangerous threat. It must be compelling—otherwise why else would many sensible scientists still support the theory in the face of ample confounding evidence? They are convinced the basic physics is correct, so they know the something must be wrong with data that appears to contradict it.”

    Substitute “carbon dioxide” with “cholesterol” or “saturated fat” and the arguments sound eerily familiar…

  13. hackberry on October 15, 2015 at 11:28

    “Climate change” is a hostile takeover and homogenisation of the diverse environmental movements that began as soon as modernity kicked off. It’s the elite’s measure to bring it all within their tightly controlled expert domain. And as is obvious, science can be used to show whatever – climate this or that – which means that there is only one real parameter at play: power: those with the cash to facilitate, fund, follow-up and fabricate messages to circulate in corporate media will win.

    Who really needs PPM and whatever algorithms to smell that something’s rotten in an industrial factory? Or that displacing entire villages to mine for minerals is not a nice thing to do? Or building dams and flooding valleys can be problematic?

    Shifting the socio-environmental inequalities and problems of the world to an expert panel of scientists in the UN (or wherever) is the perfect recipe for nothing-will-happen-really. Status quo prevails.

    And, flippin’ hell, what oxymoronic shite: “climate change” – ?!?!

    Climate *IS* change. Bloody newspeak.

    And, then, yea, I might agree that there are forces at play far beyond human activity, but that doesn’t mean, in any way whatsoever, that the filthy practices of the industrial classes should just be disregarded – but that’s thet very point of “climate change”: it shift all debate and action to the field of science, an abstract discussion where we can disagree ’till the cows come home” and nothing changes, unless the puppetteers pull the strings.

    For or against something meaningless is a meaningless discussion.

  14. Geoff on January 2, 2016 at 14:12
    • Richard Nikoley on January 2, 2016 at 15:01

      You can read to this point:

      “So whether their nonsense is upside down or not I don’t know,”

      That’s passive-aggesive signaling of confirmation bias.

      He did that in order to keep his biased confirmed fans reading.

      I’m done with that sort of approach, both sides.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780