A scientist who believed humans would die from the climate crisis has made a U-turn and now believes the issue may have been overblown.
Hannah Ritchie, a data scientist at the University of Oxford, claims that doomsday warnings of floods, widespread famine, and deaths from disasters are overshadowing the progress that has been quietly made in recent years. [emphasis, links added]
She pointed out how emissions per person peaked in 2012 and remained the same since, along with the notion that organic food is not more climate-friendly and that the dreaded 2.7F of warming is not a tipping point into oblivion
Ritchie, who published the book ‘Not the End of the World,’ recently shared the seven key points that led her to change her position on the supposed climate crisis. …
She [explained] that it may do less harm to consider that the total doom is an exaggeration as ‘the exaggeration simply acts as a counterbalance to those who underplay the issue.‘
‘But I’m convinced that there is a better, more optimistic and honest way forward.’ the book continued.
‘It has become common to tell kids that they’re going to die from climate change,’ the first line of the Introduction reads.
1. Small stuff is taking away from the big picture
The overexaggeration is what seems to have led Ritchie to do a 180 on the issue, finding it has distracted us with small issues.
Writing for The Times, the scientist shared that most people are told to recycle, use energy-efficient lightbulbs, and end single-use plastic.
But in the grand scheme of things, such acts are small and only cause stress like forgetting a canvas bag when visiting the grocery store.
‘What they often miss is the big things: installing a heat pump, shifting to a more plant-based diet, reducing food waste, buying clean energy, and driving and flying less,’ Ritchie wrote.
Those changes, she explained, have the largest impact in reducing a person’s carbon footprint, while ditching plastic straws only makes a tiny dent – reports show 0.025 percent of plastic pollution comes directly from straws.
2. Debunking the local and organic food myth
Many restaurants proudly exclaim their menu items are either locally grown or organic – and sometimes both.
The idea behind buying those potions is that they reduce greenhouse gas emissions, due to a reduced shipping distance and that organic crops do not use fossil fuel-based fertilizers.
Ritchie highlighted a survey in 2021, which found six in 10 people worldwide believed eating a locally produced diet, including meat and dairy products, is a better way to reduce an individual’s greenhouse gas emissions.
However, [Ritchie] debunked that idea with the fact that ‘food miles’ accounted for only five percent of global emissions attributed to the food industry.
Ritchie continued to explain that it is not where your food comes from that reduces emissions, it is what the food choice is.
A recent study from Oxford University found that eating just 100g of meat per day – less than a single burger – creates four times more greenhouse gases compared with a vegan diet.
Ritchie noted that hearing organic food is not all it is cracked up to be may be surprising to most people.
The reason this option is not the most climate-friendly is because organic fertilizers also emit greenhouse emissions and contaminate water supplies.
Then there is the fact organic farms need more land, which in turn emits more carbon.
A 2020 study conducted by researchers at Maximilian Pieper of the Technical University of Munich found the production of organic meat has the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as regular meat.
‘Nuclear energy, dense city-living, and processed food can all be good for the environment, despite going against our instincts,’ Ritchie wrote for The Times.
‘If we’re to embrace these solutions, ‘sustainable living‘ needs a rebrand.’
Read rest at Daily Mail
Do remember that photons, each a quantum of energy, are considered the force-carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction.
Going back to dimensional analysis:
We start with…
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] –
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] *
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
[M0 L0 T0]
We are left with nothing on the ‘transmitting’ end… [M0 L0 T0]. In other words, that Energy is used to apply a Force along a Length. It’s obvious then, that if an equal and opposing Force were applied along that Length, no energy can flow… this is just as true radiatively as it is mechanically.
That Force applied along a Length gives us (on the ‘receiving’ end)…
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] *
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
You’ll note that Energy and Work have the same units:
Work: [M1 L2 T-2] = Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
For those who want to put it in terms of Momentum:
Momentum: [M1 L1 T−1] *
Velocity: [M0 L1 T-1] =
Work: [M1 L2 T−2]
That means Energy Expended = Force * Length = Momentum * Velocity = Work
There’s a reason for that. Free Energy is defined as that energy capable of performing work. This is reflected in the equation for Free Energy (represented here as a single object and its environment):
F = U – TS + PV
Where: F = Free Energy; U = internal energy; T = absolute temp; S = final entropy; TS = energy the object can receive from the environment; PV = work done to give the system final volume V at pressure P
If U > TS + PV, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS + PV, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS + PV, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Of course, if we were talking about a system with only two objects with the same physical parameters and nothing else in the system, we could represent the Free Energy as: F = U_1 – U_2.
Which is better represented as internal energy over volume to get energy density (since internal energy is an extensive property), converting the calculation to that of an intensive property and thus allowing us to compare dissimilar-sized objects: F = U_1 /V_1 – U_2 /V_2 = e_1 – e_2
And that’s exactly what the S-B equation does. Remember that temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by the radiation constant (Stefan’s Constant). Remember that I wrote above:
–––––––––––––-*
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c )) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec -1 m -2 , which is W m -2 (1 J sec -1 = 1 W).
W m -2 = (m sec -1 (ΔJ m -3 )) / 4
–––––––––––––-*
One can see that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object (to arrive at the radiation energy density gradient) because Free Energy is all about subtracting the energy density of one object from the energy density of the other object (no matter the form of that energy).
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object radiation energy density (temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object radiation energy density.
Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the radiation energy density gradient.
The problem, however, for the climastrologists is that their take on radiative energy exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the radiation energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation… in other words, they claim that graybody objects emit > 0 K), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their incorrect take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?
The second law states that there exists a state variable called entropy S. The change in entropy (ΔS) is equal to the energy transferred (ΔQ) divided by the temperature (T).
ΔS = ΔQ / T
Only for reversible processes does entropy remain constant. Reversible processes are idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible.
The climastrologists claim that energy can flow from cooler to warmer because they cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle, which states that an object’s radiant exitance is dependent only upon that object’s internal state, and thus they treat real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects via:
q = σ T^4
… thus the climate alarmists claim that all objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K.
In reality, idealized blackbody objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K, whereas graybody objects emit radiation if their temperature is greater than 0 K above the ambient.
But their claim means that in an environment at thermodynamic equilibrium, all objects (and the ambient) would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, but since entropy doesn’t change at thermodynamic equilibrium, the climastrologists must claim that radiative energy transfer is a reversible process. Except radiative energy transfer is an irreversible process, which destroys their claim.
In reality, at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, the system reaches a quiescent state (the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium), which is why entropy doesn’t change. A standing wave is set up by the photons remaining in the intervening space between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, with the standing wave nodes at the surface of the objects by dint of boundary constraints (and being wave nodes, ie: the zero crossing point, anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks, no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects).
Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave, with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density differential, and in the direction toward the cooler object. This is standard cavity theory, applied to objects.
All idealized blackbody objects above absolute zero emit radiation, assume emission to 0 K and don’t actually exist, they’re idealizations.
Real-world graybody objects with a temperature greater than zero degrees above their ambient emit radiation. Graybody objects emit (and absorb) according to the radiation energy density gradient.
It’s right there in the S-B equation, which the climate alarmists fundamentally (intentionally) misunderstand:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
She still does not get it. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is an absolutely required gas for life. More would be better.
Exactly Bud!
I just sent her my paper… if she doesn’t get it after reading that, she’s being deliberately obtuse, as it lays out exactly how the ‘climastrologists’ have misused the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to invent out of thin air their claimed ‘backradiation’, then attempted to utilize pyrgeometers (which use the same misuse of the S-B equation) to ‘corroborate’ their claims by ‘measuring’ this fictive ‘backradiation’, then attempted to ‘adjust’ temperature data to cool the past in order to make the present seem warmer by comparison as further ‘corroboration’ of their claims… there’s been an awful lot of fraud perpetrated, and IMO heads should roll for it.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4 ) A_h
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K) 1 m^2
= σ T^4
The first line above is the form of the S-B equation meant to be used on real-world graybody objects.
The second line above is applying the definitional conditions of an idealized blackbody object.
The third line above is the form of the S-B equation meant to be used on idealized blackbody objects, but which the climastrologists use upon real-world graybody objects (often with emissivity = 1, as they did in the Kiehl-Trenberth ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic, which is the only way they could get 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance).
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = ^4 √(e/(4σ/c))
T = ^4 √(e/a)
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4 )
∴ q = ε σ ((e h / (4σ / c)) – (e c / (4σ / c))) A h
Canceling units, we get J sec -1 m -2 , which is W m -2 (1 J sec -1 = 1 W).
W m -2 = W m -2 K -4 * (Δ(J m -3 / (W m -2 K -4 / m sec -1 )))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c )) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec -1 m -2 , which is W m -2 (1 J sec -1 = 1 W).
W m -2 = (m sec -1 (ΔJ m -3 )) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m -2 .
W m -2 = (W m -2 K -4 / J m -3 K -4 ) * ΔJ m -3
For graybody objects, it is the radiation energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. The climate alarmists place all objects into their own isolated systems so they cannot interact via the ambient EM field energy density gradient, and thus they are forced to calculate for emission to 0 K, and thus they are forced to subtract a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow to get their equations to balance… and that’s the genesis of their ‘backradiation’.
Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower radiation energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The radiation energy density differential between objects manifests a radiation energy density gradient, each surface’s radiation energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
Most people cannot think in terms of energy, energy density and energy density gradient. We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with. Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient, energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient. That’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell. So one tack to take is to ask people if water can ever spontaneously flow uphill. Of course they’ll say, “No, water cannot flow uphill on its own.” Then show them dimensional analysis.
mass (M), length (L), time (T), absolute temperature (K), amount of substance (N), electric charge (Q), luminous intensity (C)
We denote the dimensions like this: [Mx, Lx, Tx, Kx, Nx, Qx, Cx] where x = the number of that dimension. We typically drop dimensions that are not used.
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] /
Area: [M0 L2 T0] =
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Pressure is Force / Area, and that Pressure Gradient is Pressure / Length. Remind them that water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill).
Then introduce energy. Tell them that energy is much like water. It requires an impetus to flow, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow. In the case of radiative energy, that impetus is a radiation energy density gradient, which is analogous to (and in fact, literally is) a radiation pressure gradient.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] /
Volume: [M0 L3 T0] =
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Energy Density is Energy / Volume, and Energy Density Gradient is Energy Density / Length. Highlight the fact that Pressure and Energy Density have the same units (bolded above). Also highlight the fact that Pressure Gradient and Energy Density Gradient have the same units (bolded above).
So we’re talking about the same concept as water only spontaneously flowing down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) when we talk of energy (of any form) only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient. Energy density is pressure, an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
It’s a bit more complicated for gases because they can convert that energy density to a change in volume (1 J m -3 = 1 Pa), for constant-pressure processes, which means the unconstrained volume of a gas will change such that its energy density (in J m -3 ) will tend toward being equal to pressure (in Pa) (which should have made it obvious to even dullard climate ‘scientists’ that atmospheric pressure and solar insolation sets temperature, not any ‘global warming’ gases).
And since a warmer object will have higher radiation energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object (because remember, temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant):
https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
… ‘backradiation’ can do nothing to warm the surface because energy cannot spontaneously radiatively flow from lower to higher radiation energy density, and thus CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam perpetrated to obtain multiple billions of dollars in funding for trough-grubbing line-toeing ‘scientists’ and to push a Marxist One World Government “Build Back Better” agenda.
That paper:
Climate Sanity.pdf
https://ufile.io/d9qijpl5
Feel free to use my writings however you wish… publish it as your own, alter it to make it more easily understood then publish it as your own (preferably without attribution), round-file it, whatever.
Someone admits the truth about this whole Climate Change Scam watch them lose their job over this all they reject this Climate Disasters load of Poppycock now that they have some to their senses