GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
They are already getting what they want, just not in the timeframe and with the power that they want. In many many countries the birth rate has fallen far below replacement and thus these countries will shrink over the next several decades. It appears that the way to get population control is to allow countries to become wealthy And westernized. Many women will forgo motherhood in favor of other life choices.
Thomas Malthus has now been wrong for 220 years yet his miscalculations seem to have eternal life. we don't see zombies physically rise from the grave but zombie ideas seem never to die.
I would be interested in your views on "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. He seems to make a pretty compelling case that global population levels are self regulating.
You had a piece a while back which mentioned population growth estimates. In particular it pointed to the projection of growth in Africa and decline everywhere else. I haven't read the WSJ article so it may also be in there. For me, your previous post was thought provoking.
Population growth decline, and eventually absolute decline will definitely affect economies and energy use.
Humanism (XVIth century), Enlightenment, (XVIII), Republic (XIX), secularization (XX), Human Rights (post WW II): what do these people think and what do they do about it?
Should their utilitarian views (a so-called "carrying capacity" which is a fraud) take precedence over the indisputable value and unconditional respect for every person on Earth?
In the 1970's a certain professor associated with a population control organization advocated for vending machines with poison pills to reduce the population.
The most important factors in producing changes in Earth's environment are increasing human population and increasing human living standards. Climate change produced by fossil fuels is only one of many human-directed effects. How should we humans weigh the positive effects of our activities for humans against the negative effects these activities produce for other environmental aspects, including living things?
Julian Simon chewed the cohones off these Malthusian fools decades ago. Their forecasts, pretty much like those of Mann and Gore and other green hallucinators have proven to be useless. One sad outcome of their pseudo-intellectual twaddle is that those who listen to them just long enough win the proverbial Darwin Award by removing themselves from the gene pool. The developing world should be encouraged to develop as fast as it can and to use any and all forms of energy necessary to do so. To compensate for the carbon impact of that, Mann can walk (he desperately needs the exercise), and Al Gore, Lenny Cappuccino et al can fly economy rather their private jets. The poor would be wealthier and the prats would be irritated. What could be more just and enjoyable?
Birthrates are falling fast, pushing countries to act.
Sources: United Nations; U.S. Centers for Disease Control; national estimates compiled by Jesús Fernández-Villaverde
Rosie Ettenheim/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Fertility is falling virtually everywhere for women across all levels of income, education and labor-force participation. Some estimates now put the number of babies each woman has below the global replacement rate of about 2.2. WSJ’s Greg Ip and Janet Adamy dive into how governments are trying to stop the decline, worried about shrinking workforces, slowing economic growth and underfunded pensions; and the vitality of a society with ever-fewer children. So far, those efforts have barely made a dent.
I took a class in science for non-science majors where one of the units was on reproduction when I was a freshman in college in 1959. We read an essay on "death control" about how modern medicine was keeping world populations alive much longer and as a result there was a fear of over population as a result. The professor had us write a short essay on what should be done to solve the problem. Back then no one even knew about global warming / climate change". I can't remember what I wrote about, but I remember the professor was not impressed with my solution. Probably just as well!
All kinds of people like to wrap their pre-existing druthers in the envelope of climate change to attract more attention, policy oomph, and bucks. Didn't like animal agriculture? Bad for climate. Didn't like people? Bad for climate. Don't like cutting trees? Bad for climate. Many people see right through this.. and in turn don't trust the whole club of climatism. To the extent of becoming unconvinced of anything these people say. In peoples' guts they know this isn't really about climate; it's just the current bandwagon.
I trust for $80 you won't delete my posts.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
You are welcome to comment on climate science, but I do ask that you do so on an appropriate thread
This one is appropriate:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-carbon-dioxide-emissions-change
Thanks for understanding👍🙏
This link is 2 years old??
Anything current??
Pielke Sr has a few pieces in the works
But this is the thread for discussing CO2 and climate
So, I can comment to an empty room.
How ‘bout you just refund my $80.
I will do so
Thanks for stopping by🙏
Done👍
They are already getting what they want, just not in the timeframe and with the power that they want. In many many countries the birth rate has fallen far below replacement and thus these countries will shrink over the next several decades. It appears that the way to get population control is to allow countries to become wealthy And westernized. Many women will forgo motherhood in favor of other life choices.
Hmmm … unexpected decline in population coupled with no mention of vaccines. Since when does 2+2= a conspiracy theory?
I am with your position. With everu stomach you get 2 hands and a brain.
Folks - read Vaclav Smil. In this case “Harvesting the Biosphere”. No we do not need to cull. Yes we do need to work.
Thomas Malthus has now been wrong for 220 years yet his miscalculations seem to have eternal life. we don't see zombies physically rise from the grave but zombie ideas seem never to die.
I would be interested in your views on "The End of the World is Just the Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. He seems to make a pretty compelling case that global population levels are self regulating.
People who are against humanity should never be in positions of authority.
You had a piece a while back which mentioned population growth estimates. In particular it pointed to the projection of growth in Africa and decline everywhere else. I haven't read the WSJ article so it may also be in there. For me, your previous post was thought provoking.
Population growth decline, and eventually absolute decline will definitely affect economies and energy use.
Why don't we dare raise the moral question?
Humanism (XVIth century), Enlightenment, (XVIII), Republic (XIX), secularization (XX), Human Rights (post WW II): what do these people think and what do they do about it?
Should their utilitarian views (a so-called "carrying capacity" which is a fraud) take precedence over the indisputable value and unconditional respect for every person on Earth?
This is eugenics at its worst, full stop.
In the 1970's a certain professor associated with a population control organization advocated for vending machines with poison pills to reduce the population.
So climate catastrophe presumably involves a lot of people dying from global warming?
And the only way to avoid that catastrophe of a lot of people dying from global warming is....for a lot of people to die sooner, by some other means?
Better later than sooner, I always say...
The most important factors in producing changes in Earth's environment are increasing human population and increasing human living standards. Climate change produced by fossil fuels is only one of many human-directed effects. How should we humans weigh the positive effects of our activities for humans against the negative effects these activities produce for other environmental aspects, including living things?
Julian Simon chewed the cohones off these Malthusian fools decades ago. Their forecasts, pretty much like those of Mann and Gore and other green hallucinators have proven to be useless. One sad outcome of their pseudo-intellectual twaddle is that those who listen to them just long enough win the proverbial Darwin Award by removing themselves from the gene pool. The developing world should be encouraged to develop as fast as it can and to use any and all forms of energy necessary to do so. To compensate for the carbon impact of that, Mann can walk (he desperately needs the exercise), and Al Gore, Lenny Cappuccino et al can fly economy rather their private jets. The poor would be wealthier and the prats would be irritated. What could be more just and enjoyable?
Let me add this from the Wall Street Journal:
Birthrates are falling fast, pushing countries to act.
Sources: United Nations; U.S. Centers for Disease Control; national estimates compiled by Jesús Fernández-Villaverde
Rosie Ettenheim/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Fertility is falling virtually everywhere for women across all levels of income, education and labor-force participation. Some estimates now put the number of babies each woman has below the global replacement rate of about 2.2. WSJ’s Greg Ip and Janet Adamy dive into how governments are trying to stop the decline, worried about shrinking workforces, slowing economic growth and underfunded pensions; and the vitality of a society with ever-fewer children. So far, those efforts have barely made a dent.
I took a class in science for non-science majors where one of the units was on reproduction when I was a freshman in college in 1959. We read an essay on "death control" about how modern medicine was keeping world populations alive much longer and as a result there was a fear of over population as a result. The professor had us write a short essay on what should be done to solve the problem. Back then no one even knew about global warming / climate change". I can't remember what I wrote about, but I remember the professor was not impressed with my solution. Probably just as well!
All kinds of people like to wrap their pre-existing druthers in the envelope of climate change to attract more attention, policy oomph, and bucks. Didn't like animal agriculture? Bad for climate. Didn't like people? Bad for climate. Don't like cutting trees? Bad for climate. Many people see right through this.. and in turn don't trust the whole club of climatism. To the extent of becoming unconvinced of anything these people say. In peoples' guts they know this isn't really about climate; it's just the current bandwagon.