Denis Rancourt and Tony Heller agreeing on climate, by skype on December 20, 2019

TONY HELLER's social-media-account content of critical examination of climate science and politics is on Twitter and YouTube:
https://twitter.com/Tony__Hellerhttps://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1

And Tony is now on BitChute:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/tonyheller/

And this is Tony's web-site:
https://realclimatescience.com/

DENIS RANCOURT mentioned three of his research articles.

One about forest fires:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303446052_Anatomy_of_the_false_link_between_forest_fires_and_anthropogenic_CO2

One about geopolitical propaganda thrusts of early 1990s:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332182416_GEO-ECONOMICS_AND_GEO-POLITICS_DRIVE_SUCCESSIVE_ERAS_OF_PREDATORY_GLOBALIZATION_AND_SOCIAL_ENGINEERING_Historical_emergence_of_climate_change_gender_equity_and_anti-racism_as_State_doctrines

One about radiation-physics calculations of planetary temperature:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336851499_Radiation_physics_constraints_on_global_warming_CO2_increase_has_little_effect

Links to all Denis' climate things are here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2014/02/denis-rancourt-on-climate-science.html

Tony Heller's Incisive 20-minute video unpacking climate-scientist incompetence

Superb recent video by Tony Heller: "Basic Science For Climate Scientists".

Heller is correct to point out that modelers are detached from the real world, and that virtually none of the "climate scientists" know or understand radiation transfer physics.

I reviewed all the statements regarding the radiation physics. Although the language does not use precise technical expressions, all the positions expressed in the video are correct, to my eyes. I find no error of physics.

One statement in the video borders on incorrect: "The upward infra-red is absorbed by greenhouse gases, thus the atmosphere warms and you get the greenhouse effect." That is almost too much of an over-simplification. Actually, resonant absorption and re-mission of the IR photon by a greenhouse-effect-active molecule does not itself warm the atmosphere. There is both resonant re-emission (temperature-independent) and blackbody emission (temperature-dependent) of IR from the atmosphere. But that is technical detail, taken into account in radiation transfer models...

Note: I think portraying Arrhenius as some crank is unjustified. Arrhenius was a brilliant scientist in many areas, and was the first to set down the concept of a planetary atmospheric Greenhouse effect, which was largely correct and very insightful. I have used his "Arrhenius law" of barrier-crossing rates many times in my own fundamental research.

Two recent video interviews of Denis Rancourt, in which the climate topic was unavoidable

There Is No Climate Emergency

Denis Rancourt, PhD
Physicist, Environmental Scientist
Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association
https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=1ChsRsQAAAAJ

Does gravity play a role in planetary surface temperature?

Does gravity play a role (other than confining the atmosphere, driving convection, etc.) in determining the temporal and spatial mean temperature at the surface of Earth?

In other words, does the gravi-thermodynamics of the adiabatic lapse rate make a significant contribution to determining the average planetary surface temperature on earth?

My short answer is "no". Here is a summary of my answer:

The planetary surface temperature is a result of radiation balance at the surface (including also other heat losses at the surface, such as convection and evaporation), irrespective of thermo-gravitational effects in the atmosphere above the surface. All the relevant energy transfers are "at the surface" because the temperature in issue is the surface temperature.

Lapse rate gravi-thermodynamic considerations are vital for calculating the altitude profile of temperature of the atmosphere, however, the exact temperature profile of the atmosphere has little effect on the resulting surface temparature that is constained solely by the energy exchanges AT THE SURFACE (caps for emphasis).

The exchange below was posted as response comments related to THIS VIDEO. The editor of the video had originally inserted a bubble comment critical of my point being made at approximately 26m33s. Then Gerald Sahd commented that the buuble was incorrect and this discussion followed.


 Gerald Sahd
Highlighted comment
Pinned by 1000frolly
8 months ago

The bubble comment at 26:33 is incorrect... do an internet search.

1

DenisRancourt 8 months ago (edited)

Ya, this is a misunderstanding. I would remove the editor's inserted "bubble". The calculation is for "no atmosphere" BUT imposing the same albedo and emissivity as the actual earth with atmosphere. In other words we instantaneously remove the gaseous atmosphere while leaving the ice/water-particulate clouds in place, and without affecting soil and plant humidity, etc. It is a hypothetical calculation. It is a physicist's "thought experiment" meant solely for educational purposes... I did not think it would become an issue. :) My actual paper makes all this very clear::: https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect

4

1000frolly 8 months ago

Denis, I am reading through your paper, and it is very clear. In your abstract; "Also, the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all atmospheric processes (not just greenhouse forcing), without changing anything else (except to add the removed atmosphere) is +18oC, not the incorrect textbook value of +33oC." And on page 8; "With no atmosphere we should use the albedo of the Earth’s present solid surface, in its present state. The latter shortwave albedo <as> has been measured by satellite and is 23/(23+161) = 0.125 ([1]: Fig.1). This gives (eq.3) the significantly higher no-atmosphere mean surface temperature of To = 269.4 K (or –3.7oC), for a total atmosphere warming effect without changing anything else on the present Earth of +18oC, not +33oC. The correct predicted surface temperature of an Earth with no atmosphere but otherwise unchanged is –4oC. ....the relevant question for the present discussion is “What is the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all its processes, without changing anything else?” The answer is +18oC, not +33oC.". Both the abstract and Page 8 agrees with my calculation of 269.8K for the Earth without an atmosphere. It seems that we 100% agree on the 18c for the warming effect of the atmosphere - no?

CLICK "Read more>>" link below, to continue

Classic Corbett (James), vintage 2009

Reminded by this LINK.

Ezra levant is not taking any shit on "the UN global warming garbage"

MUST WATCH

Ezra Levant is an influential Canadian media personality (former politico and lawyer). He has been a tireless and principled campaigner for freedom of speech, and against "the UN global warming garbage".

(I dislike his staunch extreme and radically-biassed Zionism, but to his credit he has been consistently critical of Israel lobby campaigns and positions against freedom of expression.)

Here, Levant makes a merciless and devastating attack against Conservative MPs and their new leader. This is going to hurt the Conservatives unless they decide not to be globalist Liberals, quickly and consistently.

Rand Paul cutting through the climate bullshit like a hot knife through butter (video)

Best evidence that "climate science" is a scam

These days, the phrase "climate science" in-effect means the dominant science-establishment position that an industrial-era CO2-driven global warming is having or will have large negative consequences.

The best evidence that "climate science" is a scam is the full recent congressional deposition of leading catastrophic-warming guru Michael E. Mann, giving his best arguments as to why everyone should take the "97% consensus" seriously.

These are the man's best arguments... There is no substitute for the full video:



Pathetic really. Mann is his own worst enemy.

His errors in logic, not to mention his utter lack of tact and self-restraint, were flagrant.

His argument that science is not just an in-group of careerists since the leading journal Nature looks for new things to report, and since scientists have vigorous debates about commas, is straight out of a land where history does not repeat itself, and where the best world is the one that works best for Mann.

In fact, if Nature was about science, then it would (1) accept papers that refute what it publishes, and even actively seek out such papers, (2) force all authors to publicly disclose all their raw data and treatment algorithms for others to examine, (3) abandon its "popularity among leaders in the field" review practice, and (4) publish rather than block critical reviews of its content. Nature, like many journals, is a for-profit publication that is a parasite on institutional funding.

Scientist like Mann who rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority and who cannot bring themselves to present their strongest evidence in a cogent and respectful manner, do not deserve to be funded, as they provide no useful service to humanity.

Hopefully, there are too many independent thinking scientists (3% or so) in the USA for the government and its agencies to continue this insane and useless careerist exercise of exploiting the collective-fear-mobbing reaction of our human nature.

Repeated false-fear mobbing is costly to a society and has to have rational constraints. An adjustment was in order.

Someday soon, the petro-dollar will crash and there will be no room for the luxury of scam science. There is a dangerous degradation of middle-class USA and that needs to be addressed to avoid a collapse of the empire. The crazy fluff of the urban professional classes cannot be sustained much longer because it causes dangerous brain rot. Just look at the chaos of USA foreign policy and the USA's apparent structural inability to recognize its real long and middle-term vulnerabilities. Students and thinkers are drowning in a sea of stupidity.

Real reason for US establishment enthusiasm for green energy found in Podesta emails

Starting at 15m18s in this Empire Files report:




Quite simply, "pay for play" is a corrupt systemic gateway to all the most lucrative scams that can be dreamed up, with interested support from "science": pharmaceuticals, genetically modified food crops, carbon-economy instruments, green-energy "solutions"...

Must watch: Brilliant 5-minute video by James Corbett -- Climate science as pseudoscience

Judith Curry

Denis Rancourt on the institutional mechanisms and politics of "peer review" -- video

Source and background links:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/05/climate-stupidity-and-human-survival/

Two talks by Dr. Tim Ball -- videos

Two lecture-style talks by Dr. Tim Ball, from 2012 and 2013...

The science and geopolitics of climate change -- A talk with Denis Rancourt -- Video

Here is the public presentation I gave as part of Cinema Academica, on March 27, 2015, at the University of Ottawa. The videos were produced by flimmaker Peter Biesterfeld, and his team Ken Billings et al.

Note: An accompanying article (with references) is HERE. The physics article referred to for the radiation balance calculations of global mean temperature is THIS ONE.

Part-1:


Part-2:



Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, including in the area of environmental science, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. 

Links to his articles and interviews on climate are HERE.

George Carlin on the class basis of environmentalism -- priceless

RT video features a debate about climate science with Patrick Michaels, Denis Rancourt, and Richard Milne

On the Green God of Environmentalism

US Christians have correctly identified that environmentalism is a religion and key aspects of its world view, and they are fighting back this green dragon...

David Evans on the financial driver of AGW

Well said!



Renowned historian David F. Noble made this point most powerfully in his 2007 essay "The Corporate Climate Coup".

Very effective propaganda!