It has been three years since global warming killed everyone.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- El Nino To The Rescue
- Bullseye!
- It’s Getting Closer
- Greenland Meltdown Scam
- Greenland Ice Update
- Wyoming Gold
- Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- Arctic Report card Summer 2026
- Elon Pushing Pushing Geoengineering
- Earth, Wind And Fire
- On The Road Again
- Vandalism At The Reflecting Pool
- Fifty Years Ago Today
- Truth Or Consequences
- US Climate Trend Maps
- Declining Spring Snow Cover In Northern New Mexico
- You Can’t Fool Mother Nature
- Cattle And The Climate
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
September 2026 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Recent Comments
- Stuart Hamish on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- Stuart Hamish on Cattle And The Climate
- Stuart Hamish on Cattle And The Climate
- Stuart Hamish on Cattle And The Climate
- Bob G on Bullseye!
- conrad ziefle on Bullseye!
- arn on Greenland Ice Update
- D. Boss on Bullseye!
- D. Boss on Bullseye!
- scott allen on Bullseye!
It’s funny how disconnected a layman can be, or even someone who is supposed to be knowledgeable. I was in the energy conservation business from the 1980’s when I first started to hear all the doom about global climate change. In my head I thought CO2 must be less than 5%, something I should have known way better than that, given, as an engineer, we have dealt with combustion, back of the envelop atmosphere being 80% nitrogen, and roughly 20% oxygen, with a few other trace gases, CO2 being among them. I guess the media got into my head causing me to think CO2 as whole percents rather than fractions of a percent. So I walk into this exhibit at the Scripps Institute where one was greeted by a wall sided chart showing CO2 going front a flat line to a expoential rise, and I thought, how bad is it- and read the scale.
Things rejumbled in my head, and I was amused and pissed. Less than 5/10,000ths of a percent, not 5%.
Well how bad is that, according to the chart, it used to be pretty steady at around 300 ppm. Of course the lie of scale-only show the part you want to show, not the 500 million years before that.
Believing now the graph that geologists put together of temperature and CO2 over the last 500 million years, I think we are just replenishing the atmosphere with CO2 that is needed for the continuation of life on Earth long after our silly species self distructs, maybe through another Fauci-like virus creation (watch Pluribus). If it means no more snow, then continued life depends on that and so be it. The seas didn’t boil 500million years ago, and they won’t when we approach a fraction of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that was here, then. I doubt there is enough fossil fuel to reach 3000 ppm, if we burned it all, and the average Earth temperature will not be higher than it was when the CO2 was 3000 ppm before, which likely will be in the low 70’s and uncorrelated to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
300 million yrs ago it was an Ice Age and CO2 was3300 ppm. We need MORE CO2 not less.
It’s funny how it all hangs together well when you have the right model. 300 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 was roughly 10x today and the seas weren’t boiling, life was thriving ( in an Ice Age, I guess). 500 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 was at 7500 ppm or so, and life was happily moving out of the water on to the land. Since then, CO2 has been in a straight line decline, except for a couple of bobbles. That makes sense, because some organic matter has been sequestered into the geological strata, and clams and corals have been busy turning atmospheric CO2 into limestone. While the limestone pretty much locked away the CO2 forever, the fossil fuels can be used to replenish the atmosphere which keeping us warm and industrious.
I kinda had the same experience,
just without any scientific background.
I always thought that Co2 concentration were much much higher with only 2 (assumed)reference points.
I knew that you should not run your Co2 -emitting car in a garage for a longer period of time if you don’t want to get poisoned – and that therefore a 100 mio cars will release enormous amounts of Co2.Therefore I
assumed the Co2 concentration would scale along Oxygen spheres – and not 4 magnitude below..
And as a huge fan of warming I thought that’s great.
We need more Co2 (still believe that)
The second I heard about the 0. 04% all my warming dreams got crushed and I thought that they could try to sell this shit to someone else .
And that’s when I finally understood an extremely bizarre comment from a documentary about corporate takeover of national water supplies some very rich, skinny, old ratfaced dude in white suite inside a white Limousine(it was really that cliche) said en passant.
“Privatizing water is just another step.Eventually we will make people pay for breathing.”
Only than I understood that this geezer wasn’t crazy.
I was just too stupid to understand.
This also made it easier for me to understand why very smart people like Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russel
had this megalomaniac attitudes about engineering the whole planet and peoples minds.
They knew that the transformational structure, power and money already existed, living in the power center of an empire where the sun never sets.
Way before high tech and on a tiny Island.
Now having the USA as tool(where does the AGW originate from? USA and Thatcher’s UK) things
should be way easier to transform(with 850 military basis and 250 military interventions since 1990 )
Excellent post Conrad. a trace gas is still a trace gas even if you double it. the left has been crying wolf for many decades. some examples would be the population bomb that didn’t blow up, we’re going to run out of topsoil and starve, we’re going to run out of oil but they keep finding more of it, alar was going to kill us, and also the global cooling scare which turned into the warming scare which turned into the climate change scare. who knows what they’ll come up with for the next hoax. I’m a little surprised that the green energy scam didn’t last longer. it’s not even mentioned anymore.
The ‘greenhouse effect’ claims that the Earth radiates to space from the region in the atmosphere at the black body temperature, approximately 5 km altitude. Heat is then somehow conveyed against the temperature gradient to increase the surface temperature. Can anybody see anything wrong with that? So it was quietly revised to recognize the fact that the high surface temperature could only result from adiabatic (zero heat addition) compression of the circulating gas. Pointing a radiometer at a clear sky measures a temperature of about 216 K, which is the tropopause temperature, indicating that it is from 11 km and above that the Earth radiates to space, not the 5km ‘radiative height’. The troposphere temperature distribution is determined entirely by adiabatic compression. Radiative properties of the gases are completely irrelevant to the atmosphere temperature distribution, as is confirmed by the geological record. It is Piltdown Man all over again.
The protagonists of the global warming hoax will point out the fact that although CO2 concentration is low its interaction with infra red is extremely strong., hence thee is nearly 100% absorption at 15 microns through the depth of the atmosphere. The nonsense arises from applying Beer’s Equation to uniformly illuminated atmospheric layers, when it applies to scattering fro lines of sight and has no relevance to the atmosphere temperature istribution. It’s the kind of error which occurs when blinkered specialists with no overlap in expertise try to work together. Just copy the formula out of the text book, with no understanding of its domain of validity. Welcome to the Island of Laputa.
It is only extremely strong when water vapour is excluded from the experiment. There is (of course) little explanation attached to these “physics-based” arguments. Remember the website called “AndThenTheresPhysics”? Something like that. People are fond if citing vague papers about IR absorption while those in opposition cite practical experiments showing no detectable result.
I used to be in contact with energy people at Practical Action (old ITDG) and they were preparing a school education “Climate change kit”. It was aimed at high school students. They told me that they have everything working – demos – except the CO2+IR heating demo which they simply could not get to work, even with 100% CO2. Quelle surprise.
Try as they might, the heating effect they anticipated simply didn’t exist. The attempt to heat a radiative body with radiation that was immediately reradiated was doomed from the start by physics, the same physics they were intent on repudiating. What a hoot.
Ah, but the seas did boil about 4.5 billion years ago when the new earth was cooling from a ball of magma to something a bit more habitable. Perhaps Greta confused 4.5 billion years with 4.5 years? She is quite young you know.
As to CO2, Drs Happer and Wijngaarden have shown that CO2 has a strong effect on the Earth’s temperature particularly at the first 20 ppm when it accounts for increasing temperature by about 2.5C. All told, it accounts for about 30C higher temperature where it is now but at higher levels, the effect gradually lessens. Even a full doubling from where we are now, to 800 ppm, the effect will be 1C or less and beyond that, nil. We are fortunate we have some CO2 to keep us from freezing, to provide us food, and a saturation effect to keep us from “boiling” as the ignorant UN likes to say. It is really a surprisingly useful and self-regulating gas.
I have the greatest respect for William Happer, he is not only a great scientist, but a true gentleman. He has shown, that even accepting the greenhouse effect as valid science, Further addition of CO2 above its current level with have little effect, because the warming effect is saturated at its current level. The warmist counter argument claims that CO2 affects the radiative height, which allegedly increases with increasing concentration, thus increasing surface temperature while maintaining the net atmospheric absorption close to its current value. The reality is the greenhouse effect is itself a post hoc theory contrived to account for the high temperature of Venus, and has become folklore over the past forty years. Even greenhouses do not work by the ‘greenhouse effect’. You cannot claim heat can flow from the radiative height at black body temperature to the surface some 30 degrees warmer unless you have never heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The high surface temperature is a consequence of the compression of the atmospheric gases as they circulate. On the Earth the pressure ratio is about 2:1, on Venus about 400:1 from a tropopause at roughly 200K. Apparently, diesel engines are beneath the dignity of climate scientists. Equivalently, as the gas circulates it exchanges thermal energy (enthalpy) with gravitational potential energy, so that the temperature lapse rate and surface temperature are calculable from the First Law, and fully accounts for the warm surface temperatures of both Erth and Venus. The sole purpose of the ‘greenhouse effect’ is political.
Yeah Venus’s atmosphere is 80% CO2, and the pressure at the planet surface is, I forget, but roughly 1350 psi, or roughly 100x ours. It doesn’t matter what gas their atmosphere is made of, at that pressure it is going to be hot.
I am stumped as to how we evolved??????
An amateur at anything could have reminded Greta of Antifa – whose ancestor was the board member for the Swedish Society For Racial Hygiene Svante Arrhenius – that apocalyptic jeremiads and Appeal to Authority are a bad mix
Wonder what our little Greta is doing and how much money did her parents make when they allowed her to be used?
They had 2 big methane far*ing dogs but got a pass on them.
She was quitting school I know.
Why bother…
I wanted to forward to someone the webpage in the posted link, but it won’t open. A way back machine message says you may not be an actual human and we can’t take the chance. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Can you do anything to make it operable ?
some say we might not have any Atlantic basin hurricanes this year for the first time in 70 years. someone tell Al Gore.https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/will-2026-go-down-with-no-atlantic-hurricanes/1932308
Way back when Michael Crichton was still alive, he wrote a book based on the climate scam and in the forward, he wrote that global warming would be accompanied by less violent weather. Basically, the conflict of cold and hot fronts colliding would be mollified. So maybe… If I could live ten million years, hopefully that would be enough, I would be interested in seeing if the global temperature average would go back to around 73 F, which seems to be roughly the most common average temp over the last 500 million years.
It has been suggested that the Earth is losing atmosphere more quickly than it is being replenished by vulcanism. The pteradactyl, for example, would not be able to fly in our current atmosphere. A general cooling would be expected with more frequent periods of glaciation, despite a hotter Sun. Higher temperatures in the past would be due to increased troposphere depth. We are talking tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years, before the Earth becomes a cold rock, like Mars.
Polar ice disappears at a alarming High rate due to global warming… says a study. but an engineer from Denmark said there’s been no change in sea levels for 50 years. like I said many times before all this melting melting melting melting melting going on and yet the ferry boats in New York City harbor still land at the same spot as they did 100 years ago.
Ice floats because it displaces its own weight of water, so when it melts it becomes the water it would otherwise have displaced. Thank you Archimedes. However, if water accumulates at the poles, as ice, wouldn’t that reduce the moment of inertia of the Earth? Conservation of angular momentum would require the spin rate to increase, resulting in sea level rise at the Equator. So perhaps it is increased freezing we should fear. Just a thought. It wouldn’t be the first time the alarmists got it all arse-backwards.
Why should sea levels rise at the equator?
Wouldn’t a faster spin push water away from the place it spins the fastest?
And wouldn’t an increase in sea levels at the equator slow down the spin as result of more mass and it being further away from the center of gravitty?
In general the spin-speed should increase as result of more pole-ice
and therefore also less greening(= less water and matter stored vertically in biomass) as result of less rain etc.
But I guess the positioning of continents around the globe to have the most impact + the water that is being pushed around by the moon.
The point is that if water were removed as ice deposited at high latitudes, the moment of inertia would reduced and consequently the spin rate would increase. There would be a tendency to re-distribute the remaining mass to the Equator, but as the net mass remaining as liquid water would be reduced, this may or may not be sufficient to compensate (i.e. recover the moment of inertia.) In a major glaciation it almost certainly will not be adequate.
my two cents… sea level is higher at the equator because the Earth bulges at the equator. Earth is wider than it is tall – if you’re looking at a globe. the highest mountain on Earth, if you measure the distance from the center of the Earth, isn’t Mount Everest. it’s a mountain in the Andes of South America. forgot its name.
But with an increase of ice, sea level would fall. During the last glacial optimum a 120m lower. So every seafloor today less than 120m below sea level would become dry land so more greening. I don’t know what it would do to surface pressure and CO2 concentration at sea level.
Thx – my exaggerated thought was that an increase in spin my result in some kind of coriolis effect along the equator( as there is also an additional “force” – the magnetic field divide ) may actually result in a lower sea level there.
(though I don’t even know if a coriolis effect is something that may work in liquids)
Overall I guess , with a diameter of 8000 miles a few dozen vertical meters more at the poles should not make any difference.
It is simple conservation of angular momentum. If the poles melt, as you correctly point out the water will tend to accumulate around the Equator which increases the moment of inertia, so that melting the ice caps should slow down the spin, causing the sea level at the Equator to fall, and not rise. Conversely ice caps concentrate mass close to the axis, reducing the moment of inertia causing an increase in spin rate.
The lowest point in Death Valley is about 300 feet below sea level. So if the sea level dropped 120 meters the pressure would be a little bit more that that which is currently at Death Valley.
here’s the link. https://youtu.be/j34egLkX8S0?si=oRgQ_GzCLjBZ3tuL
Fyi, have a look at the current Arctic Ocean Sea ice coverage. as of today it’s within a whisker of the long-term average!!! somebody tell Al Gore. just Google osi sea ice….. or Google Arctic ice Denmark.
The thing that always tips you off is that they say the current temperature is the highest SINCE 19xx, meaning it has been that high before, usually 50-100 years before. Or, if it is a new high, it is a couple of hundredths of a degree higher, meaning it was, for practical purposes, that high before. The other odd thing, it seems when the summer is hot, the next winter is extremely cold, so for the year, it often balances out, causing Mickey Mann to draw a graph of resonant vibrations and claim that the climate will do that until the world explodes, like a misdesigned suspension bridge.
climate change impacting the twin cities of Minnesota! for several decades the twin cities have held a marathon in early October, to coincide with the fall colorful leaf colors. in the past 15 years or so they’ve had a couple of warm, let’s call them hot early October days, which is difficult on the runners. so somebody decided starting next year, let’s postpone the race for a week and call it due to climate. But apparently the climate changed all on its own again because this sunday’s morning forecast has an expected high temperature of about 60°. of course high temperatures generally occur about 3:00 p.m. and the race starts at about 8:30 a.m. so the temperature will probably be close to 50 at that time. so much for claiming climate change… that’s below average but that’s what happens when you have some warm days…. they are often followed by cool days to return the temperature back to average. https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2026/09/29/twin-cities-marathon-date-change-an-impact-of-climate-change