The Four Horseman Of The Climate Non-Apocalypse

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Four Horseman Of The Climate Non-Apocalypse

  1. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    or perhaps the new Fab Four!,
    or maybe the Four Musketeers,
    or how about the new motley crew?

  2. Hivemind says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t recognise them. Who are they, and what have they done?

  3. Steven Fraser says:

    Could be wrong, but thinking (L 2 R):

  4. arn says:

    No tranny,
    no muslim,
    no people of color?
    And not a single one who looks like a hobo
    or a tattooed drug wreck?

    That’s pure evil.

    Are such islamo&trannyphob racist bigot photos even allowed in modern day america?

    • Robertv says:

      There you have it, Climate change deniers are patriot white supremacist freedom and free markets loving machos paid by their white friends in coal and oil and the NRA.

    • Robertv says:

      I suppose none of them has seen the film Black Panther.

      • arn says:

        Not watching the movie maybe racist or would be watching the movie cultural appropriaton?
        I don’t know the official current PC dogma,but i know that no professional reviewer at rotten tomatoe is allowed to give the movie a negative review.

        And btw you are racist too-
        how can you dare to call african big cats of color
        Surplus melanin felidae should be the correct term.

  5. Edmonton Al says:

    A great foursome.
    I wish that the 4 horsemen would ride into the NASA , NOAA offices and eliminate the swamp creatures still there.

  6. Tom Bakert says:

    I apologize because this is completely OT, but I happened across a very good website,, by an organization named Citizens Against Government Waste.

    OK, let the flaming and shaming begin for this OT post…

  7. Dave Jung says:

    I don’t know who they all are, but I want to thank each and every one of them for their integrity and courage. Please don’t stop fighting for honest science.

  8. Mysanthropic Marc says:

    There’s a handsome group of capable men! Charge forward and conquer, my friend!

  9. gregole says:

    Wow – great shot! And keep up the good work fellas! CAGW has entered the zombie condition and needs to be killed! Just keep blasting them with facts. And congrats to Mark Morano on his new book.

  10. I. Lou Minotti says:

    The title could have easily been “The Five Horsemen of Snowmageddon” had Joe Bastardi been in your company. Another truthspeaker like yourselves he is–further evidenced by the attacks of those with a hidden agenda, which always devolves to trying to control the masses through fear. It’s all the Left has left.

    Thank you folks for the education.

  11. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    My collection of five papers on WriterBeat has accumulated over 10,000 views and zero substantive rebuttals, a noteworthy milestone. Here’s an abstract/summary.
    What doesn’t work and why:
    Feynman observed that if experiment and observation don’t support your theory, the theory is wrong.
    1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without is nonsense.
    2) Upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation warming the surface is thermodynamic rubbish.
    3) The radiative greenhouse effect is as incorrect as phlogiston, luminiferous ether and cold fusion.
    After analyzing numerous USCRN data sets, i.e. SOLRAD, AIR and SOIL temperatures for several US locations, I have the following general observations. As the earth rotates below the sun both AIR (1.5 m) and SOIL (5, 10, 20 cm) temperatures increase swiftly and close together. As the sun sets the AIR cools rapidly because of its low thermal mass and becomes cooler than the SOIL. The SOIL, because of its high thermal mass, cools slowly and becomes and remains warmer than the AIR throughout the night until rotating once more into the sun light. I could find no evidence in the physical data that the AIR ever warms the SOIL to any significant degree. I also could find no evidence that the SOIL loses heat rapidly because of the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR. These observations of actual physical evidence contradict RGHE theory.
    What does work and why:
    The earth’s albedo, which exists because of the atmosphere, reflects away 30% of the incoming irradiation COOLING the earth same as that shiny reflective cardboard panel placed behind a car’s windshield.
    The earth’s albedo without an atmosphere would be similar to the moon’s, 0.12. The amount of energy hitting bare regolith would increase by 21%, blazing hot on the lit half and bitter cold on the dark.
    The atmospheric blanket of molecules out to 32 km creates a thermal gradient between the surface and ToA (32 km) same as the insulated walls of a house per the equation Q = U A dT. Above 32 km and no molecules energy can only radiate into space.
    The energy that leaves must equal the energy that enters to maintain any given temperature. If the albedo reflects away more energy, the atmosphere cools. If the albedo reflects away less energy, the atmosphere warms.
    Because of the elliptical orbit, Q at perihelion is 1,415 W/m^2 warmer and at aphelion is 1,323 W/m^2 cooler, a range of 92 W/m^2 or +/- 3%. If Q ranges +/- 3% and dT = 100 C that would be a +/- 3 C variation – just because of the elliptical orbit.
    Because of the tilted axis, the irradiation at any given point on ToA fluctuates 700 W/m^2 from which comes summer and winter. If dT = 100 C that fluctuation would create a 13 C range from summer to winter.
    The relative influence of the GHGs that constitute 0.04% of the atmosphere is essentially zero.
    Now, you can defend RGHE and the three points I dispute above by explaining how they actually really work.
    You can explain where my theory is in error e.g. I used an equation for an over-thruster instead of a flux capacitor.
    Simply saying I’m wrong, unqualified, not a “climate” scientist, not “peer” reviewed, outside the 100-year consensus or various epithets, denier, trouble maker, anti-science, assorted other excuses to dodge the science, etc. ain’t gonna cut it.

  12. GW Smith says:

    Go for it guys!

  13. David A says:

    N.S. how do the oceans come into play in your scenario? I note the plus 90 W per SQ M INCREASE in the SH summer, yet the atmosphere cools. ( Indeed- not GHG related)

    Certainly NH albedo increases with landmass snow coverage increase. Yet the SH oceans likely receive far greater insolation, and that energy recharge is also, albeit temporarily lost to the atmosphere, being BELOW the surface. So, is the earth gaining or losing energy on the SH summer?

    • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

      I’m not quite sure what you mean, but I’ll take a general stab at it.
      “…yet the atmosphere cools…” Clouds? Storms? Latent heat exchanges?
      Whether any location gains or loses net Q energy (and whether dT goes up or down) depends on how much net enters (major factors being albedo, tilt, orbit) and how much leaves, how much is stored, how much outward flow is resisted by factors in the atmosphere, etc.
      The defined system boundary ranges from the core to ToA.
      Energy flows in and out of and between the major thermal reservoirs, the oceans, the soil, the atmosphere, the direction dependent on their relative temperatures per Q = U A dT and heat capacities.
      The albedo plays a major role in the amount of incoming Q at any particular location.
      The oceans absorb energy in the upper layers raising the temperature per its heat capacity(as does the soil), reflects some energy away, all of which influence dT, surface temperature minus ToA temperature.
      Did you review my LinkedIn Power Point slide deck? I’ll post one of the slides showing how energy flows outward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.