CO2 Exonerated

Posted: June 1, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, opinion
Tags: ,

.
.
Man-made climate alarm? No – nothing to see, move along please.

Science Matters

Vijay Jayaraj makes the case for carbon emissions in relation to the question: Will My Carbon Footprint Benefit or Harm the Environment? May 28, 2019 at Cornwall Alliance. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images. (Follow the title link to the article for many supporting reference links)

My cousin in California is excited about buying a Tesla. “It is environmentally friendly” he says. Maybe you agree. My friends in India, too, are excited about buying electric cars. They think doing so will help them prevent global warming.

But the evidence suggests otherwise.

Almost every environmental policy now makes reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the only way to “go green.” Advocates have even persuaded school children to strike against fossil fuels.

But as a climate scientist, I’ve researched the pros and cons of CO2. What have I found? That our CO2 emissions will actually benefit the planet, not harm…

View original post 567 more words

Comments
  1. stpaulchuck says:

    CAGW is a religion not science. Those of us paying attention and reading science papers on it such as Scafetta’s, and Nikolov and Zeller’s, and a host of others came to the conclusion years ago that AGW and the Santanic Gases are nothing but a huge, epic scam meant only to grab more and more power over the people while emptying their pockets.

    This paper lays it out nice and succinctly. Well done.

  2. tom0mason says:

    It is nice to see the work from honest scientist occasionally gets through …

    From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118301766

    Physica C. Essex, A.A. Tsonis, Model falsifiability and climate slow modes,
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.02.090

    Highlights

    • Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori.
    • Incomplete physics and the finite representation of computers can induce false instabilities.
    • Eliminating instability can lead to computational overstabilization or false stability.
    • Models on ultra-long timescales are dubiously stable. This is referred to as the “climate state.” Is it real?
    • Decadal variability is understandable in terms of a specific class of nonlinear dynamical systems.

    Abstract

    The most advanced climate models are actually modified meteorological models attempting to capture climate in meteorological terms. This seems a straightforward matter of raw computing power applied to large enough sources of current data. Some believe that models have succeeded in capturing climate in this manner. But have they? This paper outlines difficulties with this picture that derive from the finite representation of our computers, and the fundamental unavailability of future data instead. It suggests that alternative windows onto the multi-decadal timescales are necessary in order to overcome the issues raised for practical problems of prediction.

    So the climate models are not a way to verify the actuality.

  3. oldbrew says:

    If they can’t model the present, not much chance of modelling the future. But we’re supposed to believe their faulty claims? Only dummies and schoolchildren fall for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s