This year’s summer months were characterized by cold outdoor pools that eagerly welcomed guests, concrete that scorched the soles of bare feet, and popsicles that melted in the relentless, blazing heat. [emphasis, links added]
In August, the European Commission’s Copernicus report found that the global average temperature had reached record highs in the past 12 months, an increase of 1.51 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
Similarly, using satellite data, Roy Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville determined that the average temperature in August was 0.88 degrees Celsius higher than the 30-year average from 1991–2020.
“Extreme heat is not just an environmental crisis, it’s a serious threat to our public health—and communities across the country are struggling to respond,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a news release.
“What we’re facing today wasn’t what we were experiencing 30 or 40 years ago. This is a different world we are in.”
On Aug. 14, President Joe Biden released the National Heat Strategy for 2024–2030, fulfilling a July promise to take additional action to address increasing temperatures, which the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states is primarily caused by human-induced increases in carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas.
“Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net zero CO2 emissions,” Panmao Zhai, a Chinese climatologist, and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group I, stated in a press release.
“Limiting other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, especially methane, could have benefits both for health and the climate.”
Ned Nikolov, a physical scientist and researcher affiliated with Colorado State University, told The Epoch Times the IPCC is incorrect regarding CO2.
“The greenhouse theory claims that atmospheric composition is important,” Nikolov said. “They are arguing that tiny increases of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause global warming and that we must stop burning fossil fuel to avoid dangerous climate change.
“That is completely wrong.”
On Aug. 20, Nikolov and Karl Zeller, a retired U.S. Forest Service meteorologist, published their study that found that recent warming is not the result of increasing CO2.
Instead, after analyzing satellite data, the two researchers concluded that the Earth has warmed because it’s been absorbing more sunlight due to reduced global cloud cover.
Albedo and Climate
According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth’s atmosphere is constantly working to balance the planet’s “energy budget”—the amount of energy entering and leaving it.
After the Sun’s shortwave radiation—sunshine—reaches the Earth, the energy flows back into space as thermal radiation.
If this balance is disrupted, and more sunlight is absorbed or not enough heat escapes to space, Earth’s temperature will rise.
An imbalance in the energy budget is known as radiative forcing, with the incoming radiation being shortwave and the outgoing radiation being longwave (or thermal).
Additionally, Earth’s albedo, the fraction of sunlight reflected back into space, impacts the amount of radiation that reaches the surface.
In its Sixth Assessment Report, the IPCC states that, due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration from human greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s energy budget is out of balance—more thermal energy is being trapped, resulting in elevated temperatures and warmer oceans.
It also notes regarding the Earth’s albedo that, between 1950 and 1980 there was “evidence for a widespread decline of surface solar radiation (or dimming),” followed by “a partial recovery (brightening) at many observational sites thereafter.”
As to the cause, the IPCC states, “Multi-decadal variation in anthropogenic [human-caused] aerosol emissions are thought to be a major contributor (medium confidence), but multi-decadal variability in cloudiness may also have played a role.”
In addition, the IPCC said some studies show that “cloudiness” can play a role in “dimming” and “brightening.”
However, the contribution of aerosols and clouds to dimming and brightening is still debated, and “the origin of these trends is not fully understood.”
That, according to Nikolov, is where his study comes in.
Challenging the IPCC
“Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space. These quantities—together with their differences—define Earth’s radiation budget,” NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) website states.
Since March 2000, the NASA team has been collecting satellite data to examine the energy exchange between the Earth and space.
Using those measurements and a “novel climate-sensitivity model derived from independent NASA planetary data,” Nikolov and Zeller evaluated how Earth’s decreasing albedo impacted global temperature during the 21st century.
“CO2 is an invisible trace gas that does not interfere with sunlight. It’s believed to trap thermal radiation coming from the surface, but that’s a misconception because the absorption of longwave radiation by CO2 and heat-trapping are completely different physical processes. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat-trapping is impossible in an open system such as the atmosphere,” Nikolov said.
He added that while water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, it becomes visible when it condenses and forms clouds. And because clouds “reflect solar radiation back to space,” their impact on the climate is “measurable and significant.”
“Cloud formation is partially controlled by cosmic forces. When clouds decrease, the planetary albedo drops, and more radiation reaches the surface, causing warmer temperatures.”
“In our paper, we show, using the best available observations from the [Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System] platform, that the warming of the last 24 years was entirely caused by the observed decrease of Earth’s albedo and not by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations as claimed by the IPCC.”
Nikolov said that, in the greenhouse theory, atmospheric composition is “very important” for a planet’s global surface temperature.
By applying dimensional analysis to NASA’s data describing the environments of different planets and moons in the solar system—including Earth—Nikolov and Zeller discovered a new universal relationship across planetary bodies.
This revealed that the atmosphere warms the surface not through longwave radiation emitted by greenhouse gases but through total pressure—adiabatically, without the loss or gain of heat—and that atmospheric composition does not affect global temperature.
Adiabatic heating (a.k.a. compression heating) is a well-known thermodynamic process. This revolutionary discovery about the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect (currently known as greenhouse effect) was published in [our] peer-reviewed literature in 2017,” Nikolov said.
“This is why when you get up in elevation, it gets cooler—either in the mountains or when you’re flying on an airplane—because the pressure drops with height.”
He compared the Moon’s surface temperature, as measured by NASA, compared to Earth’s global temperature to evaluate the thermal effect of the atmosphere.
“The data shows that the Moon is a perfect, airless equivalent of Earth because it orbits the Sun at the same distance as Earth but has no atmosphere. So, the temperature difference between Earth and the Moon gives us the net thermal effect of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Nikolov found that the Moon was about 88 degrees Kelvin cooler on average than the Earth. That’s significant, he said.
“Currently, the greenhouse theory claims that without an atmosphere, the Earth would only be about 33 degrees colder than it is now. Some estimates even say only 18 degrees cooler.
“So, the present theory grossly underestimates the actual thermal effect of our atmosphere. However, this 88-degree thermal enhancement is due to total pressure.
“And that’s one of the fundamental differences between the greenhouse theory and our new climate concept.”
Through analyzing the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI), “calculated as a difference between absorbed shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere,” Nikolov and Zeller discovered that the scientific community had misinterpreted it.
“EEI is not caused by ‘heat-trapping’ resulting from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gasses as currently claimed, but ‘arises from adiabatic dissipation of thermal energy in ascending air parcels in the troposphere due to a decreasing atmospheric pressure with height,’ ” Nikolov said.
Specifically, using mathematics, Nikolov and Zeller showed that EEI is an “apparent phenomenon” rather than a “real imbalance,” which they said necessarily implies no long-term heat storage in the Earth system by increasing greenhouse gases and no “warming in the pipeline,” as claimed by the latest report by the IPCC.
Where Are the Clouds?
Nikolov said Earth’s reduced cloud cover could have several causes, including galactic cosmic rays, solar wind, and interactions between the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields.
“We have hypotheses about what’s driving the cloud cover changes, but we don’t have an exact mechanism or a conclusive theory,” Nikolov said. “This is why we cannot mathematically describe it yet in a model to make predictions.”
He called for “large-scale interdisciplinary research into the physical mechanisms controlling the Earth’s albedo and cloud physics,” as they are “the real drivers of climate on multi-decadal time scales.”
“The current climate science acknowledges that the clouds have been declining, and the Earth’s albedo has been decreasing, but they attribute it to internal climate variability. This is incorrect!
“Changes in cloud cover and albedo are externally forced. Identifying this external forcing is where future research has to focus instead of studying carbon emissions and [greenhouse gas] radiative forcing,” Nikolov said.
If rising global temperature was due to greenhouse gasses, there should have been more warming than observed, he said.
Read rest at Epoch Times
Net Zero Policies Will Have a Trivial Effect on Temperature, But Disastrous Effects on People Worldwide.
Oct. 13, 2024.
References.
(1)“Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase”: by Drs. R. Lindzen, W. Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, Dated June 11, 20
(2) Methane and Climate by Drs. W. A. van Wijngaarden and W, Happer.
(3) co2 coalition: Expert Opinion prepared for The Foundation of: “The Environment and Man” The Court of Appeals, The Hague, Netherlands.
(4) Nearly 140 Scientific Papers Detail The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature. By Kenneth Richard on 13. January 2022.
(5) Hurricane Climatology. Wikipedia: There are three main components critical to the formation of a hurricane. They are warm water, moist warm air and light upper winds. A hurricane begins when large masses of warm water and moist warm air come in contact with cooler air. This collision prompts the warm water vapor to cool down very fast and condense, eventually forming dense storm clouds and emptying out as heavy rain. The annual number of tropical cyclones worldwide remains about 87 ± 10.
About the Authors.
Dr. Richard Lindzen Professor of Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. He is a specialist in modern optics, optical radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei.
Dr. W. A. Van Wijngaarden is a full professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York. His research specialties are: high-precision laser spectroscopy, laser cooling and atom trapping, ultracold atoms, Bose-Einstein condensation. pollutant monitoring, and climate change.
Dr. Steven Koonin, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute
at Stanford. Before joining Hoover in 2024, he was a professor at New York University, with appointments in the Stern School of Business, the Tandon School of Engineering, and the Department of Physics. He founded NYU’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, which focuses research and education on the acquisition, integration, and analysis of big data for big cities.
Approximately 140 Independent Scientific Teams (Sponsored by the NO TRICKS ZONE BLOG) – Detailing The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature. An update of a previous paper: “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity”.by Pierre Gosselin. Associate Degree in Civil Engineering. Vermont Technical College and a BS Degree in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
Nota Bene. This paper is based on the scientific analyses of References (1), (2 and (3)) and distributed to ensure Governments and Citizens are fully informed of this important information and its consequences.
The Issue. The issue is the assumption that climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by humans. This however is contradicted by the “scientific method” and only supported by the unscientific methods of government opinions, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data. Mainly by the UN.
Carbon dioxide’s ability to warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat, which decreases rapidly as CO2’s concentration in the atmosphere increases. This scientific fact about CO2 changes everything about the common view of CO2 and climate change. It means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the “main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
Currently, carbon dioxide is a weak Greenhouse Gas. At today’s concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 420 parts per million, additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future, the ability of future increases to warm the planet will be will be even smaller. Thus, to repeat, the common assumption that carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change” is scientifically false.
In short, more carbon dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather. Neither can greenhouse gases of methane or nitrous oxide, the levels of which are so small that they are Irrelevant to climate.
In addition, referring to additional atmospheric CO2 as “carbon pollution” is complete nonsense. Quite the contrary it does two beneficial things for humanity .(1) it provides a slight increase in temperature, much less than natural fluctuations. (2) it creates more food for people worldwide.
What Does All This Mean?
First – Net Zero Efforts Will Have a Trivial Effect on Temperature. More of the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 will increase temperature, but only slightly. How changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases affect radiation transfer are described by precise physical equations that have never failed to describe observations of the real world. Application of these formulas to the massive efforts by the US and worldwide to reduce CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 are contained in a paper that is recommend to those with a technical background. They show that all efforts to achieve Net Zero emissions of carbon dioxide, if fully implemented, will have a trivial effect on temperature.
For North America, it only avoids a temperature increase of 0.02 deg. F with no positive feedback and only 0.06 deg. F with positive feedback of 4 that is typically built into the models of the United Nations international Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Worldwide, it only avoids a temperature increase of 0.13 deg. F or 0.50 deg. F with a factor of 4 positive feedback.
Second – Net Zero Policies will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide. In Canada, the United States and worldwide, Net Zero regulations and subsidies will have disastrous effects. Chief among them would be the proposed elimination of fossil fuels which would mean doing away with internal combustion engines for transportation and other uses, the power plants that provide most of the world’s electricity, gas space heaters, furnaces, cooking stoves and the feedstocks for nitrogen fertilizers that enable the feeding of nearly half the global population. The resulting economic devastation would include massive job losses, which already has occurred in places where Net Zero subsidies and regulations have diverted capital away from investments into productive assets and into ineffective technologies such as wind and solar energy as has already been indicated by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Those hostile to fossil fuels ignore overwhelming evidence that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from their combustion has significantly greened the Earth and boosted crop production.
In addition, various countries will require electric vehicles (EV’s). heat pumps and electric appliances be purchased. They will require companies to report information on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, since more carbon dioxide causes trivial and beneficial warming, this data is immaterial, misleading and very expensive in managerial time and dollars. It should not be required.
Third- More CO2 Means More Food. Contrary to common reporting, more carbon dioxide increases the amount of food available to people worldwide, and is particularly helpful in drought-stricken areas. Doubling carbon dioxide to 800 ppm for example will increase global food supplies by approximately 60%.
Thus, carbon dioxide emissions should not be reduced, but increased to provide more food worldwide. Moreover, there is no risk of catastrophic global warming or extreme weather because carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce the amount of food available to people worldwide and produce no benefit to the climate.
Fourth – Fossil fuels must not be eliminated. Net Zero requires that fossil fuels be eliminated because they account for 90% of human-induced CO2 emissions. However, the elimination of fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate since carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas. The use of fossil fuels must not be eliminated. Rather it should be expanded because they (1) provide more carbon dioxide which makes more food (2) are used to make nitrogen fertilizer that enables the feeding of about half of the world’s population, and (3) provide reliable and inexpensive energy for people everywhere, especially for the two-thirds of the world’s population without access to electricity.
Conclusion – All Net Zero carbon dioxide regulations and subsidies in the United States, Canada and worldwide must be stopped immediately to avoid disastrous effects on North Americans and people throughout the world especially in developing countries.
Alastair Allan, Former Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Government, Science and Engineering, Military Procurement (Retired).
Two of the biggest lies we get from the Eco-Freaks is The Earth id Fragile and the Delicate Balance of Nature
For decades now I’ve been suggesting that variations in cloud density may be the biggest driver of climate variation. When we’re considering about 1.2 degC change over a couple of hundred years, it wouldn’t take much cloud change to cause this.
I’m not saying that it’s clous rather than CO2, but both are still theories, yet to be substantiated.
Very amusing and informative video on cloud uncertainty. Two of my favorite bits, handheld calculators match super-computer models at 12:28, and climate model uncertainty (error bars) at 24:25.
Higher nighttime temperatures are a product of UHI. One study found that UHI causes increases of as much as 21F in temperatures at night. The effect caused by clouds is approximately 114 greater than the signal the climate cultists are attempting to detect. Go home warmists, you’re drunk!
“… approximately 114 TIMES greater than…” We need an edit function…
Yet another CO2 Does Nothing BS “study”:
Most of the warming after 1975 was at night, which is exactly what was expected from a stronger greenhouse effect
Changes in sunlight reaching Earth’s surface affect daytime temperatures.
If the reduction of cloudiness did allow more sunlight to reach earth’s surface, fewer clouds at night would have REDUCED night warming … which actually increased.
THE PERCENTAGE OF CLOUINESS IS A VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE THAT IS AN INACCURATE PROXY FOR THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT BLOCKED BY CLOUDS. Solar energy blocked by clouds depends on types of clouds, height of clouds and the timing of clouds. Those data do not exist.
Another BS posting from Greene.
Bunton thinks five word insults refute everything.