Climate Science – The Goldilocks Profession

Four years ago, climate scientists explained how global warming causes above normal Antarctic sea ice.

03 Sep 2014, A10 – South Florida Sun Sentinel at

Two years ago, climates scientists blamed low Antarctic sea ice extent on global warming.

Sea ice in Arctic and Antarctic at record lows – CNN

And now, Antarctic sea ice extent is very close to the 1979-1990 mean.  This is also no doubt due to global warming and record hot temperatures.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Global warming is like Goldilocks.  Too hot, too cold, or just right – all caused by a 0.0001 mole fraction increase in a harmless, essential trace gas over the past century.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Climate Science – The Goldilocks Profession

  1. Nick Schroeder, BSME says:

    “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

    ― Richard Feynman

    For the greenhouse theory to operate as advertised, i.e. warm the earth by 33 C, requires a GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop to “trap” energy and “warm” the earth and atmosphere.

    For this GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop to operate as advertised requires forcing energy from an ideal black body, i.e. 1.0 emissivity, LWIR of 396 W/m^2 from the earth’s surface. (K-T diagram)

    The earth’s surface cannot provide that much LWIR because of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, moving over 50% ((17+80)/160) of the surface heat through non-radiative processes, i.e. conduction, convection, latent evaporation/condensation. (K-T diagram)

    Because of these contiguous turbulent non-radiative processes at the air/surface interface the oceans and lands cannot possess an emissivity of 0.97, actual emissivity being 63/396 = 0.16. (K-T diagram)

    No GHG LWIR energy loop & no RGHE means no CO2/man caused climate change and no Gorebal warming.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME (CU ’78), CO PE 22774—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    • Squidly says:

      You left out the part that an object cannot heat itself. Whereby, the warmer surface cannot heat itself by its own “back” LWIR from the cooler atmosphere … the source of that LWIR is .. wait for it .. the surface. Simply reflecting the LWIR back from so-called GHG’s cannot create additional heating. It is impossible and a direct violation of universal physical LAW.

      The so-called “greenhouse” effect cannot coexist within the universe as we understand it. There is no example of any physical process, known in this universe, that can create a so-called “greenhouse effect”. It simply is not possible in our universe, for if it were, our very universe could not exist.

  2. gregole says:

    Reading the article you’ll find it to be a litany of unfounded assertions, unquestioned assumptions, leaps of faith, and vague yet inaccurate statements.

    First paragraph: poetry. I’ve noticed many warmunist writings rely heavily on poetic literary device. I would suppose the trick is to lull the reader into a dream-like state relaxing the reader’s mind for the storytelling to come.

    “…proto-sea ice.. WTF is proto-sea ice?

    Moving on.

    Antarctic sea ice has expanded in recent years despite predictions (by Klimate Klowns) it should shrink. Scientists “struggle”. Skeptics “pounce”. Climate is “complicated”. These “curious observations shouldn’t shake anyone’s confidence”. Because extreme weather, temperature rise, and sea-level rise – incidentally all within historical norms therefore indicative of precisely nothing; so never mind.

    …”Arctic ice is land-locked…” No.

    Westerly winds blow fierce around Antarctica. (Note to self, don’t plan a vacation there…)

    …”Those winds have intensified in recent years because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses…” Data please. Have these winds been carefully and accurately measured for any length of time? How do we know “greenhouse gasses” make them stronger? I’m really curious – does anyone know? Was it predicted some years before that wind strength would increase? CO2, a greenhouse gas, is increasing. How much faster will winds around Antarctica fiercely blow from added CO2? Will they increase without bound? Is this a tipping point? What is the future time-frame that we will achieve sonic wind speed from M@nn-Made CO2. Curious minds want to know.

    Let’s skip to the last sentence, I have things to do today: “In the long run however, scientists expect Antarctica sea-ice to decline everywhere.”

    Really? When? And so what?

    My overall impression is that of a story-teller interpreting a group of shamans. The shamans aren’t doing too well at predicting much of anything with any credibility; but keep the faith. After reading this article I have the sinking feeling we are slowly slipping into a dark-ages.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      “In the long run however, scientists expect Antarctica sea-ice to decline everywhere.”

      I wonder what the time horizon is on that expectation… until the run-up to the end of the interglacial?

      “Westerly winds blow fierce around Antarctica.”

      Yep, around the whole continent. I share your interest in the numeric details of causality. As I recall, the storms off the southern coast of South America are legendary….

  3. GW Smith says:

    It’s the greatest all-purpose excuse ever invented! An all-purpose cleaner. One size-fits all. No job too small, or too large. AGW can handle them all. Just stretch to fit. It’s like magic!

  4. Squidly says:

    all caused by a 0.0001 mole fraction increase in a harmless, essential trace gas over the past century.

    Oh but Tony, it isn’t the 0.0001 mole fraction increase that is the problem, it is the 0.00004 mole fraction that is the human contribution that is the all powerful magic CO2 that causes the runaway feedback loop that will turn the Earth into a burning cinder.

    Have you ever noticed that back in the early days of the whole CO2-AGW scam they used to claim a “runaway greenhouse effect” should we exceed 400ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration? … whatever happened to that?

    Come on AGW believers, where is this “runaway” that was supposed to occur? .. why aren’t we a burning cinder yet? .. and if we can create this “runaway greenhouse effect”, why can’t we utilize that for energy production? .. talk about “renewable” energy!!! .. that would be the holy grail of energy .. free energy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.