Climate change

Global cooling??

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“If CO2 is warming the atmosphere since 1900, can someone explain why all raw data (worldwide) show cooling?  It’s cooling in Australia.  And the US too!  If there is warming, why is it that the area of snow cover is stagnant?”

The source

Kevin Loughrey, Independent candidate for Ballina in the NSW State Election on 25 March 2023, in a pre-election advertisement in the Byron Shire Echo (of which Hans Lovejoy, see item above, is Editor).

My take on it

These contra-narrative data won’t be popular amongst the mainstream information peddlars, challenging as they do, one of the primary assumptions on which climate change alarmism and CO2 demonisation are based.

Come to think of it, I was just reading over the weekend about polar bears being on the increase too.

Yes, freedom of belief is one of the primary freedoms.    And when the data don’t all align, it comes back to what you believe, which generally is about whom you believe.

CO2: Australia sequesters some five times as much carbon dioxide as it emits.

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

Australian forests adsorb 940 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum compared to our domestic and industrial emissions of 417 million tonnes. Add to that the absorption of carbon dioxide in continental Australia to the carbon dioxide adsorption of 2,500,000 square kilometres of continental shelf waters and Australia sequesters some five times as much carbon dioxide as it emits. Australia does more than its share of the heavy lifting for global sequestration of carbon dioxide.

The source

Professor Emeritus Ian Plimer, Australia is already at Net Zero, in The Spectator, 24 May 2022

My take on it

This article is for those who are taken in by the concept of Net Zero, in order that they might look at another perspective. (I’d prefer not to give the Net Zero notion any oxygen.)

Net Zero relies on multiple assumptions including that the globe is getting dangerously hotter, and that this is caused to a significant extent through the generation of carbon dioxide by human activity. It’s a narrative that fits the globalist agenda, rather than the truth.

As to the first assumption, please see my next post.

And perhaps a few words on carbon sequestration. Sequestration means a withdrawal into seclusion. Carbon sequestration refers to the removal of carbon from general circulation. Biological carbon sequestration happens naturally through photosynthesis, the process whereby plants use solar energy to combine carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) with water to produce carbohydrate (especially glucose) and oxygen. That carbohydrate is a building block that enables the plant or tree to grow and reproduce. It is also an energy source for that growth, in which case the chemical equation of photosynthesis is reversed to that of respiration, some of the carbohydrate combining with oxygen to yield carbon dioxide and energy. Over time, plants and trees may be cropped, or burned off, or simply die, in which case carbon is released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (or methane) once again. It’s just a matter of time.

ZERO Change in the Rate of Sea Level Rise — for All of Recorded History

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“This is a post which writes itself in a single graph. We will throw other graphs in because we like controversy. Figure 1, from the NOAA, shows CO2 launching upward since 1960 on the left side, with graphs of tide gauge data from multiple stations on the right. The data on the right stays perfectly straight while the data on the left is springing upward, ostensibly causing global energy increases in the ocean in the form of heat.

Referring to the right side above, nobody claims global warming started prior to 1900, although they may have to soon because there is literally zero change in slope. The problem with all of this, however, is that it is the smoking gun proof that global warming is not a major effect. For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2.     …..

In all cases, there is ZERO curvature in the measured data. This is proof that man has NOT impacted sea level in a measurable way. This is important because oceans, like coffee cups, cannot be deeper on one side for any length of time. Liquids self-level. All of humanities coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”

The source

Jeff Id, on https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/02/zero-change-in-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-for-all-of-recorded-history/

(See also https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-sea-level-time-series-and-associated-uncertainty-based-on-tide-gauge-data_fig5_306149061 re some source data for the above article)

For some profile information on Jeff Id, see here: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/

My take on it

‘For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2.’

This article includes a plot of CO2 ‘launching up’ over time, since ~1955.

This article also contains data series of sea level in multiple locations.  These reflect a (very minor) slope, and the slope is constant (ie with no curvature).

The implication?

“All of humanities (sic) coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”

Global cooling: “expect to see a reduction … by up to 1.0°C”

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043.

The source

Valentina Zharkova, Modern Grand Solar Minimum Will lead to terrestrial cooling , in Temperature, 4 August 2020

cooling://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

My take on it

If you had never heard of a Grand Solar Minimum before today, I am not far ahead of you. A colleague kept mentioning it, in the context of energy generation, so I thought I best take a closer look.

Providential perhaps, that in my first browse on the topic I should come across this article, read it, appreciate the evident competence of the author, and glean some of the core information I was seeking.

Valentina Zharkova is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. She obtained her PhD from the Solar Division of the Main Astronomical Observatory, Kyiv, Ukraine and her thesis was in non-LTE radiative transfer entitled “Hydrogen emission in quiescent solar prominences with filamentary structure”. She has been a Lecturer at the University of Bradford, and in 2002 she appointed to a Reader and in 2005 to a Professor in Applied Mathematics. From September 2013 she joined the Northumbria University as a Professor in Mathematics.

My takeways are these:

The sun is the main source of energy for all planets of the solar system.

This energy is delivered to Earth in a form of solar radiation in different wavelengths, called total solar irradiance.

Solar irradiance varies, due to sunspot activity and related magnetic fields.

Zharkova’s analysis reveals the appearance of Grand Solar Cycles of 350–400 years caused by the interference of two magnetic waves. These grand cycles are separated by the grand solar minima, or the periods of very low solar activity.

The previous grand solar minimum was Maunder minimum (1645–1710), and the one before that, Wolf minimum (1270–1350).

In the next 500 years there are two modern grand solar minima approaching in the Sun: the modern one in the 21st century (2020–2053) and the second one in the 24th century (2370–2415)

During the periods of low solar activity, such as the modern grand solar minimum, the Sun will often be devoid of sunspots.

The reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance.

“During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043.”

“The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth.