Two Separate Studies Confirm No Link Between CO2 And Temps

Carbon dioxide level unprecedented in 15 MY… More evidence it’s not the climate control knob!

I had a really excellent follow-up question come up on my “Real Climate Physics vs. Fake Political Physics” video. I will post the original question and response, and then discuss the follow up below:

Leon Hiebert: Hi Joe. Quick question. You said the TE of earth is correct but if the FS(1-A)/4 is wrong, wouldn’t that mean the TE isn’t -18?

Joe Postma: The TE of the Earth is correct…but…NOT AS THE SOLAR INPUT or forcing from said input. It’s not correct to use TE as the solar input. TE is the earth “output”…and it is way colder than the solar input. This is the fundamental mistake…THE ONE. And it originates in flat earth theory. Great question for generating clarity!

Six months later Leon posted a follow up question:

Leon Hiebert: 6-months later I return to this question. If the output is less than the input, (which I don’t dispute) how is there an energy balance? I know the Trenberth chart is garbage and 163 hitting the surface should be more, and they try to balance it out by inverting output and fudging the 340W but an alarmist will say energy in must match energy out. If there’s an olr deficit, we would overheat. Which I can’t dispute. So how come we don’t overheat when less is going out? Thanks.

Now this is an extremely important question. The total energy in and out is indeed the same in quantity. But the quality of the energy is completely different. It is not a question of quantity, which of course equal, but of quality, and that is not at all equal. It is the quality of the energy that drives the physics.

Above, we used TE for the temperature of the earth output. Temperature is a measure of the quality of energy, not the quantity. The earth output temperature TE is -18C, so quite cool in quality.

The Earth solar input temperature we can denote as TS, and although it’s the same total energy as the output of Earth, the TS is actually +121C.

So you have the same total energies in the output and the input, but one energy is at -18C while the other is at +121C.

Do these energies have the same effect upon matter and in physics? Would they generate the same physical responses in matter? For the same total energies, what effect would -18C energy have on an ice cube vs +121C energy? For the same total energies, what effect would -18C energy have on generating and sustaining our known climate vs. that of +121C energy?

Climate science and its greenhouse effect says that there is no difference. Climate science says that we can use the output -18C energy of the Earth as the solar input of the Earth because there is the same total quantity of +121C solar input; climate science says that we can ignore the difference in the quality of the energy because they have the same total quantity. Climate science then even goes on to state their position that they believe that the Sun does not heat the Earth as I exposed in the video AMS Official: SUN DOES NOT CREATE EARTH’S WEATHER.

So here’s the sequence of events:

1. Climate science pretends that in physics we can ignore the quality (temperature) of energy as long as we have the same quantity of energy.
2. Given 1, climate science then uses Earth’s output energy with a quality of -18C in place of the the solar input energy of +121C to the Earth, since it is the same total energy.
3. Given 2, climate science then states that the solar input cannot heat the Earth above -18C and thus cannot create and sustain Earth’s climate and weather.
4. Given 3, climate science then invents a scheme of heat-recycling and heat-amplification which it calls a “greenhouse effect” even though real greenhouses do not operate by heat recycling or heat-amplification.
5. Given 4, climate science peer-review prevents anyone from pointing out that mistakes have been made, and that real greenhouses demonstrate that the alternative climate science “greenhouse effect” does not exist, and that this is because heat-recycling violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and that we should re-consider the quality of solar energy at +121C as being the force that directly creates and sustains the climate and weather.
6. Given 5, climate science with its pal-protected review process then turns into political theory where it claims that the life-creating molecule of carbon dioxide is the molecule which causes this heat-recycling and that more of it will threaten a “runaway warming” of the planet, with politicians together with the climate scientists then labeling the life-creating molecule of carbon-dioxide as a pollutant that must be taxed and regulated so that we can save the Earth from destruction.

And the final step of this process has been that all along the way, modern academic PhD’s in physics and astronomy and meteorology (weather men!) now completely lack the intelligence and intellectual fortitude to comprehend the difference between quantity and quality and whether such distinctions make a difference to physics and science at all. They cannot even form the question in their minds, let alone begin to answer it. This step is truly the most amazing part of all.

Quantity is not equal to quality, and it is quality, not quantity, which determines what physics occurs. The quality of the energy dictates what type of physics can occur; the quantity dictates how much of that physics can occur.

And when it comes to radiant energy, i.e. the energy in light, its quality is measured by energy flux density, i.e., Watts per meter squared (W/m²).

By Paul Homewood

h/t Mr GrimNasty

From GWPF:

If you live in a Western nation like Canada in the 21st century, you have more freedom, prosperity and peace than most of the rest of the world at most other times in history. Yet these countries have never been at greater risk. The threat is not pandemics, climate change or war but something more insidious.

Modern Western civilization grew out of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. The ascendancy of reason in human affairs produced the scientific method and later the Industrial Revolution. Add in the rule of law, individual liberty, private property and capitalism, and you have the basic recipe that has raised most of humanity out of poverty over two centuries.

New academic doctrines are moving the world, or at least the West, from this triumph to decline. They dismiss science — real science — in favour of political agendas, in which theory trumps facts.

Few people are familiar with Critical Theory and its related doctrines, yet these ideas today drive government policies and shape public attitudes. Capitalism is oppressive. Private property rights cause environmental destruction. Prosperity causes climate change.

The most serious threat to the West is not China or Russia but its visceral disgust with itself. A growing proportion of people — in universities, the media, politics and corporate structures — now reject the premises upon which their own thriving societies are built.

Critical Theory opposes everything that makes the West work. Unlike traditional academic inquiry, which seeks to explain and understand with logic, analysis and the scientific method, these doctrines are less theories than programs. Their purpose is to condemn cultural norms, tear down existing orders and transform society.

It all starts with Marx. Between the two world wars, scholars at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt began to investigate why Marxism was failing to catch on in the West. They broadened Marx’s tight focus on economic oppression of the working class and developed the doctrine known as Critical Theory, which is premised on the ideas that power and oppression define relationships throughout society, that knowledge is socially contingent, and that unjust Western institutions should be collapsedand reconstituted. As Marx wrote, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Critical Theory should not be confused with critical thinking. To think critically is to reason. Critical Theory’s imperatives are ideological assertions not based on scientific data or deduction.

In his seminal 1937 essay, “Traditional and Critical Theory,” Max Horkheimer, sometimes referred to as the father of critical theory, distinguished between the scientific or empirical tradition of enquiry and a critical approach that integrates numerous disciplines and incorporates historical and social influences in the enterprise of enquiry. Unlike the scientific method, which accepts observation as evidence and reproducibility as confirmation of truth, in Critical Theory, knowledge is contingent upon its origins and the social environment from which it comes. While Critical Theory shares Marx’s condemnation of capitalism and the power imbalances that define economic relationships, it rejects Marx’s essential empiricism in favour of melding science, philosophy, sociology and history into a single interdisciplinary enquiry.

Critical Theory is not a singular school of thought but a scholarly umbrella that consists of multiple approaches and variations that defy easy encapsulation. Like Critical Theory, they are activist and political. They lead with their conclusions. Embedded within them is the central tenet of postmodernism, a philosophical movement of the mid- to late 20th century. Postmodernism challenges the premises of Enlightenment reason, particularly the claim that observation and rationality can identify objective truth, whether moral or scientific.

The argument has merit: neither morality nor the scientific premise that what we perceive is real are capable of proof. Postmodernism’s Achilles heel is not its central thesis but its failure to follow it. If there is no truth, then no universal conclusions can be reached, and therefore all questions must be left to individuals.

Postmodernism embraces Critical Theory and vice versa. Progressives are apt to insist that truth is relative and subjective when they encounter facts that they do not like, but otherwise eagerly enforce “truths” that they prefer. There is no truth. […]

Indoctrination works. Hear something often enough from people in authority and you begin to believe it. In the decades following its birth at the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory and its variations made an inexorable march through universities, influencing such disparate disciplines as sociology, literary criticism and linguistics, infiltrating professional schools like teachers’ colleges and law schools, and dominating “grievance studies” such as women’s studies, gender studies and media studies.

The final conquest is now in progress inside science, technology, engineering and medical faculties. Generations of graduates, taught to believe in Critical Theory rather than how to think critically about it, now populate governments, corporate boards, human resource departments, courts, media outlets, teachers’ unions, school boards and classrooms. Critical Theory is embedded in elementary school curricula. Children carry the guilt and resentment of living in a society that they are taught is fundamentally unjust. No coup is more effective than one committed by a people against itself.

Full post

There is also another analogy which I have seen recently – the Cultural Revolution in China, which nearly destroyed the country in the 1960s.

Both concepts, which are closely interlinked, depend upon indoctrination and mindless adherence to dogma. And both rely on the rule of the mob.

Polar Bears and Climate Scares – the Real Truth Behind the Issue

Climate Statistics 101: see the Slide Show AOC Tried, and Failed, to Censor