Posted on 07/23/2025 8:09:11 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The climate alarmists regularly seize on weather events they believe will help them exploit their narrative. Naturally, they ignore contradictory information. So we see it as our duty to fill in the gaps from time to time. Following are a few examples that show why the global warming story is less scientific theory than conjecture in the service of a political agenda.
- Let’s begin in the West Arctic, where the Northwest Passage is experiencing its third-highest level of sea ice extent in the last two decades. In 2009, Al Gore said, with his usual galling listen-to-me certainty, the Arctic polar ice cap could be gone during summer within five to seven years.
- There has been “marked cooling since the early 2010s … which is likely linked to a documented slowdown in Greenland’s warming and ice loss,” say a pair of South Korean researchers.
- Efforts to attribute the deadly Texas flood, in which the Guadalupe River rose by 37.5 feet, to human carbon dioxide emissions have been debunked (as has every other attempt to tie man’s CO2 to harsh weather). Our friend Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com points out that “much worse flooding had occurred more than a century earlier in July when the Guadalupe River had risen by a whopping 42.3 feet.”
- Summer heat is always blamed on man’s fossil fuel use. This year, more than 160 million people in the Midwest, the South, and on the East Coast endured temperatures around the 100-degree mark. But nothing has happened to indicate that man is responsible. Have a look at the data.
- Last month, H. Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute noted that polar ice has refused to follow the climate crisis narrative. “Having examined the data and history, I knew Antarctica has not been following the climate crisis script since the alarm was first raised with James Hansen’s theatrically staged 1988 congressional testimony in which he claimed the Earth was dangerously warming due to human activity.”
- Last month, a Tampa, Fla., meteorologist blamed “climate change,” and we don’t assume he’s talking about natural variations that have always existed, for 90-degree days having doubled in the city. He was fact-checked by the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow: “Tampa does not represent the rest of Florida. The average number of days reaching 95°F (35°C) or higher in Florida has not increased since 1895,” according to federal data. “Tampa’s temperature data has been contaminated with urban heat island effects, which have led to an artificial rise in the number of extremely hot days.”
- The New York Times wants readers to believe that the June Air India crash that killed 241 is a curtain-raiser for future air crashes caused by climate change. Milloy had the best response: “No other plane crashed because of global warming. Just that one.”
If the climate tale were undeniably true, the activists in and out of the media would not have to exaggerate, disinform, and make connections that don’t exist. The fact that they feel they have to provides a clear insight into their duplicitous nature.
The left deceives people with hoaxes. Not just “climate Change”. Their lips are moving.
The left loves to say weather isn’t the same as climate when winters are long and cold, but they’ll always use a hot day to say the Earth is warming.
Hot weather is climate, cold weather is just weather. Everybody knows that. 🤡
Just back up a bit and take a peek at their basic assumptions. 1st, higher CO2 explodes food harvest yields in our most common food groups. This will end world hungerwhen level approaches 1200ppm
2nd, CO2 impact upon environment levels off past 400ppm. Can’t get any warmer ‘cause of CO2. Lab tests have shown this.
The caca about impact upon bad weather is just that, caca.
So, glow bull warming caused the pilot to shut off the fuel?
I’m not a gardener. But I know that I live in “Plant Hardiness Zone” 5b here in MA. I don’t think I can grow coconuts or oranges in a 5b zone.
I’d like to know if Plant Hardiness Zones have really shifted in the past 40 or 50 years. Is Wisconsin a big wine growing state these days? Do they grow Mangoes in Nebraska?
I don’t think climate has really changed at all.
For those curious about a little physics and math:
CO2 only absorbs infrared light aka heat in three very narrow bands of wavelengths (think “colors”) of heat. See CO2 Absorption Spectrum - There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming. (“Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM).”) This article also has some other good insights.
In those narrow bands, CO2 is almost completely opaque. Outside of those narrow bands, CO2 is almost completely transparent.
CO2 is only about 0.04% of our atmosphere. Why so low? Well CO2 is what plants, plankton, etc. need to “breathe.” They suck up all available CO2 and return O2. This is called the carbon cycle and is the basis for all of us carbon based life forms (i.e., pretty much everything alive on Earth).
Even at only 0.04% of our atmosphere, CO2 absorbs almost all infrared light in those bands within at most 10km. Think about it like this: You have 10,000 sheets of very thin semi-opaque paper. Each sheet absorbs 0.04% of light passing through it. That means those 10,000 sheets will absorb almost all of the light passing through them.
Note: the math is a little complicated. The first sheet absorbs 0.04% of the light leaving 99.96%. The next sheet absorbs 0.04% of the remaining 99.96% leaving about 99.92%. Next sheet absorbs about 99.96% of that, leaving 99.88% left. After about 10,000 sheets, only about 1.83% of the light is left. Basically, all the light has been absorbed (and likely converted into vibrational as opposed to radiant heat).
Consider those sheets to be about 1 meter thick. That is a gross overestimation -- it's probably more like 10 cm thick for CO2 but I am erring on the side of a ridiculously conservative estimate. That means your 10,000 sheets are a combined 10km thick. The atmosphere is about 10,000km thick. Hence, all infrared light that can be absorbed is absorbed in the first 1/1,000 (0.1%) or so of the atmosphere.
So what happens if you double the amount of CO2? Then all infrared light (heat) that can be absorbed is instead absorbed in the first 1/500 (0.2%) of the atmosphere. Net change in heat absorbed: ABSOLUTELY NONE. Net benefit: More CO2 for plants equals more plants and more O2 for us.
This is REALLY simplified but think Feepers will get the point.
Also see https://twitter.com/Haosou1/status/1775138580777611585. Two key lines: “No one has yet shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, and if they did, they'd also have to show that the natural emissions—and that's 97% of the total—don't drive global warming“ (emphasis added) and “But what we did have is six major ice ages, and there is no correlation over geological time between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature.”
Short version: manmade aka CO2 caused climate change is not just a hoax, it is not even a very good hoax for those who know basic physics. Unfortunately, the level of basic physics education in this nation is essentially nil except for real engineers, physicists, and scientists. Thanks NEA and the modern state of the “education” aka leftist indoctrination system.
PS To those who want to elaborate on the above or correct me, feel free. Please be kind and respectful. This is after all a work in progress. Just trying to make some of the physics/math understandable. I will adopt any re-writes or valid corrections if you give me permission to do so.
The climate is supposed to change here in central KS tonight, 70% chance of rain. Then, it’s going to change again for a few days and get hot.
Is there not a large blank space in the middle? Have you ever seen a story which fills in this area? Have you ever read a story that uses words like sun and ocean, which are the two enormous engines determining temperature? Cannot the stories that you have seen be inserted into one or the other circles?
I will submit there is no evidence of man-made global warming because no adherent to the popular mythology will acknowledge the existence of the sun and oceans. All I have ever seen are fraudulent to accurate comments on weather events or physical phenomenon involving temperature followed by an assertion man-made global warming is the cause.
In the hard sciences of Math and Physics, the earth’s climate is known as an open system, meaning all influencers are probabilistic and not deterministic. Any assertions must be less than certain, but we are always treated to infallibility statements like those for the boiling point of water. Popular reasoning requires a complete disconnect between events and conclusions and is no more rigorous than Middle Age alchemy.
I have yet to find any article which attempts to measure the influence of the sun and ocean and then ascribe an increment to human activity. It was only since the late 70’s that it was possible to attempt to confirm changes in the sun’s radiance independent of earth. Without a rigorous solution involving those two enormous engines, models created provide outcomes no more elegant than what is left behind when a brand new puppy is turned loose in a house decorated with white carpets and white furniture.
Now that’s an informative post thank you
Thanks for posting this. I’m old enough to remember when they taught about how important CO2 was in biology class.
They don’t need no stinking facts
CO2 is only about 0.04% of our atmosphere. Why so low? Well CO2 is what plants, plankton, etc. need to “breathe.” They suck up all available CO2 and return O2. This is called the carbon cycle and is the basis for all of us carbon based life forms (i.e., pretty much everything alive on Earth).
If there is too much co2, the very efficient pathway kicks in and the c02 gets sucked up like a vacuum and turned into plant growth. That is why we used to add c02 to greenhouses.
the current co2 level is a limiting growth factor.
I could never understand why the plant science people didn’t step up with information.
since the 70s when everything was about pollution, acid rain, EPA supersites, etc. we decided to clean things up and stop intentional pollution allowing people to sue polluters etc. they found that the ubiquitous term of anthropogenic climate change would sustain a money producing scam instead of just keeping pollution under control
"The current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere traps almost all of the light radiation in three wavelengths. Other wavelengths are of no importance as CO2 does not trap heat in the other wavelengths. In short, additional CO2 will have little effect except for abundant plant growth. "
In the past we had CO2 levels 10 times or more than today. Extinction level is 150 ppm. Today we are 400 ppm. In reality we are in a CO2 drought. I would not mind CO2 levels in the low thousands ppm. Life would flourish.
If one wonders why our universities keep pouring out scientific crap about CO2, the answer is simple. The government will fund these studies but not studies that show a different result. You get what you want when you are paying for it.
“I could nevere understand why the plant science people didn’t step up with information.”
They did at first, then lost their job or theor funding.
Oregon Governor Kulingoski “fired” the state climatologist for disagreeing with him.
Well said on all points. And thank you for the “Good post.”
With your permission will add “The current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere traps almost all of the light radiation in three wavelengths. Other wavelengths are of no importance as CO2 does not trap heat in the other wavelengths. In short, additional CO2 will have little effect except for abundant plant growth.” as an intro summary to this thing I post every now and then.
Note: my comment is copyrighted by operation of law. By posting here per the Terms of Service, Mr. Robinson and Free Republic have complete rights to that copyright. I’ll add: I hereby grant a worldwide royalty free perpetual license to everyone to copy/post/etc. my comment as long as my words are not edited in derogation of my clear intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.