Presented without comment. Set your coffee down before watching.
H/T cd-in-wisconsin
Friday Funday: Scientist Rebellion/Extinction Rebellion at AGU
Subscribe
Please login to comment
114 Comments
December 15, 2023 6:07 am
Disgusting! I bet these people use FF every day all their lives, and have NO solar panels on the roof and most drive SUVs. They always want to vilify “big greedy corporations” but I bet if you look at their 401k plans and stock holdings they have plenty. They have a desire to virtue signal in public. A bunch of fakirs.
December 15, 2023 6:23 am
Story tip – Build It (at Great Taxpayer Expense) and They Will (Not) Come – PJ Media
EV charging stations article.
Having comments like this appearing here (and getting up-voted) makes it difficult to refer my friends and relatives to this site for the sceptical arguments.
@mods, this one might not actually violate this site’s code of conduct, but if does, do us all a favour. And if it doesn’t, the code of conduct could use some work.
makes it difficult to refer my friends and relatives to this site
If they don’t understand that ANY place where people gather, online or in person, will have its share of jerks* who should be ignored, they will most likely also have difficulty grasping the skeptical viewpoint.
* I am speaking in general, not about any specific person.
December 15, 2023 7:23 am
Well.. it´s art.. or at least trying to be.
All the yelling and aww performance aside, the valid arguments from both sides seems to be
- cheap energy is the backbone of our economy and we will not do so wel lwithout it
- anthropogennic CO2 contributes to natural desasters as the IPCC report shows
I ma pretty sure I didnt miss much important with these two points.
Unfortunately, only one of the arguments is true!
Especially in the light of Alimonti´s findings that the natural disasters do NOT seem to show an anthropogenic signal (and the IPCC generally uses very careful language when is comes to the attribution of natural disasters).
In a rational level this play seems to make a very clear argument.
I am pretty sure I am getting the meaning of both statements correctly from that clip (and also wrote clearly that only one of them seems to be factually correct).
and also that these two are the only remotely meaningful things to extract from these 5min waste of time.
>> BTW, quote the passages from the IPCC that “shows” the second phony claim.
Here are some examples of the language used in the last IPCC report regarding extreme weather events:
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-6/
However, as I stated above these findings (as well as the video above) does not account for the findings from Alimonti et al., which changes the perspective significantly as the trends in extreme weather events likely seem simply an accounting error.
December 15, 2023 7:41 am
I’d have to say that their performance (although pitiful) still looks more professional less amateurish than anything I’ve seen from the settled science experts.
Out of the 3 pillars of the climate cult I’d put these jokers into the category of either ignorant or deluded as opposed to being fraudulent.
December 15, 2023 7:56 am
As they believe in bad CO2:
Connecting North Atlantic SST Variability to European Heat Events over the Past Decades
Composites of different North Atlantic SST states show that events with a negative tendency of North Atlantic SSTs are often followed by positive European T2m anomalies during summers when the North Atlantic SSTs are persistently low for several months. Enhanced lower–tropospheric baroclinicity in the North Atlantic is followed during these events by a slantwise ascent and an enhanced upper–tropospheric waveguide, promoting a downstream development of an European ridge. A combination of a wave number 3 pattern and regionally confined Rossby wave activity contribute to a trough–ridge pattern in the North Atlantic–European sector. A composite of European heat events further confirms the lagged statistical relationship between cold North Atlantic SSTs with a negative tendency and positive European T2m anomalies. A negative tendency of North Atlantic SSTs precedes 15 of 18 European heat events, and cold North Atlantic SST conditions are present during 14 of 18 European heat events
Heatwaves in Europe because of CO2 ?
No, because of decreasing SST in North Atlantic.
December 15, 2023 8:17 am
This is wonderful. It is unintended self-parody of the highest order. We have already lost, and will never have, people who think this is insightful light theater. For anyone other than a true believer who runs into this amateurish schtick, it’s going to be a clear reason to run the other way.
I had a co-worker who bragged of being a Communist, not a Stalinist. Her husband put on a little play about Castro and Brezhnev that was actually watchable. Nonsense politics, but genuinely funny and entertaining. Also only half an hour or so. These guys could learn a thing or two about entertainment first, propaganda last.
Hello Janice Moore, thank you for remembering!
I posted about it here twice recently on the open thread pages. More work is needed to put it into essay form for submission here at WUWT as a main post.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/29/open-thread-68/#comment-3808636
and then here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/03/open-thread-72/#comment-3824547
Do you happen to have an account on X (fka Twitter)? I posted a video and explanation there.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1722012790368416058
I would most gladly take any comments or suggestions from you on what I am trying to get across from the fundamentals of energy and motion in the atmosphere, from authoritative sources.
I just uploaded the video to Youtube. The full text of the Twitter post is copied there, along with additional background, in the description box. Here is the link.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
(((APPLAUSE!))) Oh, well done! VERY well done! That you achieved the honor of being slapped with the CO2 scammers’ propaganda banner is evidence of your being RIGHT-OVER-THE-TARGET.
Oh, to answer your question, no. I have no Twitter/X account.
When I have time to review your above documents, I will be commenting. Happy to! 😀
Hi, Mr. Dibbell,
Well, I will begin by apologizing for not doing better justice to your painstaking work. The cause of this is twofold: 1) I didn’t take the time necessary do a better job; and 2) I am not knowledgeable enough to do an in-depth analysis/review. I hope that someone like Dr. Patrick Frank (try asking him — he is very kind and might be a lot of help to you — I believe his email is in a slide in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA&t=45s ).
I also want to mention that I am willing to proofread/edit (for clarity and readability) if you need that. Just get a mod to give you my email address. This comment is my permission.
So, finally, here is my little attempt at commenting about your excellent analysis. I am honored that you are interested in anything I might have to say about it.
Re-write/Suggestions
Issue: Is the effect of CO2 on atmospheric energy (or temperature) measurable?
Implication: If not, there is no basis for the conjecture that CO2 (much less human CO2 which is only about 4% of total atmospheric CO2 (cite)) meaningfully affects the energy or temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.
Facts:
1. Climate is simply weather trends over a long enough time to be meaningful (at least 30 years).
2. Weather intensity is determined by energy:
(1) kinetic
(2) potential
(3) internal
(4) latent energy of water vapor
3. Energy Dynamics
(1) Potential and internal energy can change directly into kinetic energy.
(2) Latent energy can change into internal energy which then changes into kinetic energy.
(3) The conversion between kinetic energy and internal+potential
energy is one of the hourly parameters in the ERA5 reanalysis product of the ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts).
[INSERT: formula using the below-defined parameters]
— The parameter, “vertical integral of potential + energy,” is defined here (note the importance of altitude in respect to potential energy): https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162061
— The parameter, “vertical integral of energy conversion” is defined here (units are W/m^2):
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162064
4. Changes of the potential energy P and the internal energy l of
the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional (as shown by hydrostatic approximation), thus, it is proper to regard potential and internal as a single form of energy: Total Potential Energy (Margules, 1903).
5. Kinetic energy dissipates and is then re-generated using potential energy. Potential energy is generated by heating.
6. Energy is “conserved,” i.e., the total amount of energy will remain exactly the same forever.
Equation 7.1 expresses a basic statement of the Law of
Conservation of Energy: “Energy can neither be created nor
destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
(Equation 7.1: Conservation of energy)
(https://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/EP/Duffy_EP_2013_ch07.pdf )
7. Atmospheric circulation drives earth’s energy budget. (Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate at 1, Murry Salby https://books.google.com/books/about/Physics_of_the_Atmosphere_and_Climate.html?id=CeMdwj7J48QC )
8. The conversion of energy (in both directions) between kinetic and internal+potential experienced in the atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of times greater than the ~4 W/m^2 incremental “warming” effect of a doubling of CO2.
9. The effect of increasing the IR (Infrared Radiation) absorbing ability of the clear atmosphere does not result in “warming,” per se, but in expansion (altitude/potential energy) and motion (kinetic energy.)
10. The incremental, logarithmic (i.e., each additional molecule of CO2 has increasingly less and less of an effect), tiny, effect of incremental CO2 cannot be measured reliably enough to attribute any warming trend on land or in the oceans.
Illustration
The plot of the minimum, median, and maximum ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” for just one day for all longitudes at 45N latitude.
Conclusion
The core error of CAGW is: assuming that heat energy (internal) MUST accumulate in the atmosphere and, then, on land and in the oceans from the tiny effect CO2 can possibly have.
December 15, 2023 8:36 am
Talking of funny
JUST STOP OIL’S CAROL SINGERS ESCORTED BY POLICE AWAY FROM STARMER’S FAMILY HOME
Just Stop Oil tried its hand at some festive protesting last night by singing carols outside Keir Starmer’s London house. It wasn’t too long before the handful of them, whingeing about oil and gas licences to a festive tune, were swamped by police and shifted off. It looks like about five police vans turned up…
No awards on the way for whoever wrote the lyrics:
https://order-order.com/2023/12/15/just-stop-oils-carol-singers-escorted-by-police-away-from-starmers-family-home/
If it’s the same rent-a-mob that was arrested outside Rishi Sunak’s Kensington house for disturbing the peace then her name was Louise Harris, a mediocre singer/songwriter at best, merely a source of noise at worst. Given her ‘songs’ I would change their charge from ‘disturbing the peace’ to crimes against humanity.
December 15, 2023 9:22 am
Oh god, it is far worse than we thought. The clowns actually spent time preparing and producing that complete train wreck of a production. Why? For what purpose? Did they rehears to be so hopeless at even that basic task? Producing a street act/demonstration that they needed people to relate to , but who ever could?
Pathetic is too kind a word to describe their performance. That is before we get onto the flawed beliefs they hold.
I thought we have it bad in the UK but clearly the USA is equally troubled with dysfunctional alarmists..
Forget the coffee, time to break out the hard stuff.
December 15, 2023 4:17 pm
On X/Twitter a short while ago, Peter Kalmus thinks a thought that could make sense: “I wonder if my brain just works differently or something.”
Please, sir, seek help.
***************
Peter Kalmus
@ClimateHuman
I think about climate basically all the time. And one thing I wonder is why the Earth getting irreversibly hotter just doesn’t seem all that scary or even urgent to most people. To me it’s truly horrific. I wonder if my brain just works differently or something.
6:50 PM · Dec 15, 2023
*******************
“People who follow a vegetarian lifestyle have around twice as many depressive episodes as those who eat meat, according to the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health.”
Vegans and Vegetarians are far more likely to suffer from anxiety, stress and depression than meat eaters – Peter Kalmus became a vegetarian and then a vegan. I think it’s fair to say that his diet is doing him no favours and, whatever supplements he is on, he should consult his doctor about increasing the dosage.
“I think about climate basically all the time. And one thing I wonder is why the Earth getting irreversibly hotter just doesn’t seem all that scary or even urgent to most people.”
Why do you assume the Earth is getting irreversibly hotter? It’s been hotter in the United States in the 1930’s than it is today. If you had been back in that time,you would be saying you are living on an Earth that is getting irrevesibly hotter and you would have been wrong.
After the 1930’s the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C.
There’s no reason to think the current warm temperatures won’t start to cool off just like they did in the past.
Unfortunately, your wrong-think has you believing that CO2 is the cause of the current warming and more CO2 will go into the atmosphere in the future, thus, you think the warming is irrevesible.
The problem with your thinking is there is no evidence showing CO2 is determining the Earth’s global temperatures, and the real problem with your thinking is this should be obvious to someone who looks at all the data available. All the data available does not show that CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s climate.
Kalmus is basing all his wrong-think on speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about CO2 and none of that is evidence of anything.
I don’t know if your brain works differenly, but I do know you are not looking at things objectively, assuming you can do so.
The evidence is out there. The evidence is: There is no evidence that CO2 is controlling Earth’s temperatures. You can’t produce any evidence showing any such thing. That being the case, don’t you know you are not on solid ground? Aren’t you smart enough to figure this out?
The only thing it can be is you are not able to distinguish real evidence from speculation, assumptions and assertions. You think speculation, assumptions and assertions about CO2 *are* evidence. That’s not science.
December 15, 2023 4:57 pm
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Excerpt:
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
================
Oh yeah, the planet is deeeeeply suffering from being greener and more abundant life growth that is awful Earth is smiling happily for the increased CO2 in the air floating around.
Yes,
They cherry pick only bad things and attribute them to a fake climate crisis while ignoring even more good things.
Booming biosphere/greening planet as you showed, for instance.
Massively increasing crop yields and food for most life. Growing seasons extended in mid/higher latitudes, agriculture expanding.
Less cold and less extreme cold. Fewer deaths from cold, that still kills 10 times more humans than extreme heat and 200 times more life than heat.
Best weather/climate for most life in the past 1,000 years (the last time it was this warm, during the Medieval WARM period).
Slightly LESS global drought, not more.
Less violent tornadoes because of the reduction in the temperature gradient between the higher latitudes that are warming the most and the mid/lower latitudes.
Objective scientists, using the authentic scientific method would ALWAYS provide information that relates to BOTH sides of any scientific discussion.
Always. No acceptations.
Failing to do so, by definition of the scientific method means that THOSE scientists are biased and using ANTI scientific standards.
Completely ignoring the key role that CO2 plays in the indisputable law of photosynthesis is as anti scientific as it gets.
Any source that pretends that’s not relevant is ignoring the building block for all of life……..that’s currently only half the optimal level for plants and much of life, since animals eats plants or something that ate plants.
Ignoring the truth of the past. Life on this planet always did best when the temperature was a bit warmer than it is now and always did worse when the temperature was colder than this.
And this is expected to continue past the end of this century……..based on authentic science/photosynthesis!
Global Green Up Slows Warming
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming
Even deserts are greening up with CO2 making plants more water efficient and heat tolerant as an additional bonus.
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Ironically, the REAL green energy sources have already proven themself worthy of that title via authentic science and photosynthesis using OBSERVATIONS and proven physical laws.
Instead, we call energy sources like wind “green”. Wrecking the planet, killing birds, bats and whales. Destroying landscapes and ecosystems and tearing up the earth for raw materials. To generate diffuse, unreliable and expensive energy.
Wind, solar and batteries are NOT about authentic science or the physical laws of nature, energy or economics.
The fake climate crisis feeds on enrichment schemes using crony capitalism, political/government agendas, corrupt science, dishonest, ratings seeking, sensationalizing media and often sincere but incredibly misinformed environmentalists.
December 17, 2023 6:07 am
1st impression: bad theater, irregardless of the cause. Next thought, frustrated climate cultists looking for grant money to continue their existence without having to actually do manual labor of some sort. Is it time to confront these fools with requests, or demands, that they live the life of being truly divorced from “fossil fuel” products in their existence. As a lesson for all of us, of course. Not that I would like to see any of them buck naked living in thatched huts, but it might be more entertaining than this theater of the absurd. Just sayin’.
December 18, 2023 7:43 am
I managed to watch almost a minute before I started gagging badly.
Idiots versus idiot fakes.
So, a machine spun, woven, stitched, shipped white coats distinguish scientists?
No, the white lab coats are strictly props for foolish pseudo actors and their equally fake opponents pretending knowledge or science they never performed or read.
