![]() |
Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Thursday, June 19. 2025Thursday morning links What If The Foundation Of The Climate Scare Was A Calculated Lie? ‘More Babies and Beef Tallow, Less Blue Hair and Birth Control’ Young white men feel the need to ‘walk on eggshells’ and censor themselves at work — here’s why Doctor Fired for Trans Surgery Comments Receives $1.6 Million Settlement Thousands of UK University Students Caught Using AI to Cheat Dear Democrats: I Won't Let You Exhaust Me With Your Diaper-Filling Tantrums Are the Good Iranian People About to Have a Moment? Iranians Chant for Shah’s Return As Terrorist Regime Collapses Checkmate! Israel’s brilliant war against Iran Near Total Internet Blackout In Iran As Israel Has Control Of Skies Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
QUOTE: What If The Foundation Of The Climate Scare Was A Calculated Lie? Quite the conspiracy, especially considering that the scientific basis of the atmospheric greenhouse effect dates to the 19th century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. Indeed, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface temperature would average a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. The possibility that CO2 could cause warming does go back to Arrhenius. But the belief in catastrophic warming rests in large part with James Hansen and his first models. These models used classical thermodynamics based models for evaporation which models assume that drying causes evaporation which then leads to runaway warming.
But Hansen's models are wrong. Drying alone only allows evaporation, it does not force it. https://waterphonons.blog/2025/03/24/an-accidental-catastrophe/ There is no catastrophic warming from co2. Arrhenius on greenhouse effect is as out of date as Darwin and TENS. The consensus of these two "science" narratives is collapsing.
nh4kx3: But the belief in catastrophic warming rests in large part with James Hansen and his first models.
The relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor (climate sensitivity) was established more than a century ago. Arrhenius calculated (1906) climate sensitivity at about 4°C per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which was not too far from the modern value of 2-4°C. Furthermore, positing a climate sensitivity much below 1.5°C is contradicted by paleoclimatology; in particular, the oscillation of the Earth from icy periods to ice-free periods. nh4kx3: Drying alone only allows evaporation, it does not force it. Assume you are referring to when CO2 increases, the atmosphere can hold additional water vapor. You seem to forget that the Earth is a watery world, so the amount of atmospheric water vapor is largely determined by ambient temperature, not the availability of water (unlike an ordinary human domicile where, as the temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air remains constant, so the relative humidity decreases). On the other hand, increase the surface temperature of the Earth, and atmospheric water vapor will increase (and conversely). So, yes. An increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause an increase of atmospheric water vapor. But you might say, that is just a hypothesis—which is why scientists have built and launched satellites to make observations of atmospheric water vapor. These observations show that the Earth's atmosphere is moistening, a sign and degree (+7% per +1°C) consistent with the hypothesis, and contradictory to your position. And, again, positing a climate sensitivity much below 1.5°C is contradicted by paleoclimatology. QUOTE: Arrhenius calculated (1906) climate sensitivity at about 4°C per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which was not too far from the modern value of 2-4°C." Actually, in 1906, Arrhenius calculated climate sensitivity at 5-6 degrees C, not 4. Didn't you read Worlds in the Making? But hey, lowering that to 4 made your point stronger so I can see why you did it. "A doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 5 to 6 degrees Celsius." — Svante Arrhenius, Worlds in the Making (1906) Thank you for the long comment.
Zachriel: So, yes. An increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause an increase of atmospheric water vapor. I agree partly. Water is a green house gas, and the Clausius-Clapeyron equation describes the equilibrium vapor pressure versus temperature. The question is, can warmer air alone cause increased evaporation. I say it cannot since increased evaporation will reduce surface temperature, and that sea surface temperature is the variable that controls column water. I say evaporation is controlled by the sea surface temperature, not by the vapor phase. Since ultimately all evaporation comes back to earth, increasing air temperature can change where the water ends up. https://waterphonons.blog/2025/01/08/167/ nh4kx3: The question is, can warmer air alone cause increased evaporation. I say it cannot since increased evaporation will reduce surface temperature, and that sea surface temperature is the variable that controls column water.
Yes, evaporation absorbs heat as the system seeks equilibrium, but the equilibrium will be at a higher temperature. Observation trumps every time. The surface, including the ocean surface, is warming and the atmosphere is moistening consistent with predictions. The climate data that is used in an attempt to show AGW is fake data. Much does not exist and that which does exist is manipulated.
https://borepatch.blogspot.com/2025/05/made-up-climate-data-update.html Implausibly extreme scenarios of the future and no intellectual or political accountability of those scenarios. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/constructing-climate-catastrophism A critical reassessment of the anthropogenic CO2-global warming hypothesis: Empirical evidence contradicts IPCC models and solar forcing assumptions. https://www.malone.news/p/the-climate-scam-is-over
#1.3.2.1.1
indyjonesouthere
on
2025-06-19 17:37
(Reply)
re Iranians Chant for Shah’s Return As Terrorist Regime Collapses
This strikes me as a best case scenario. I think it might add a degree of stability to a change in government and The Shah's family was pro-West. A friendly Iran would be a game changer in the Middle East. But will it happen? which is true?
I saw both these polls yesterday. Only 16% Of Americans, 19% Of Trump Voters Want US To Join Israel's War On Iran https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/only-16-americans-19-trump-voters-want-us-join-israels-war-iran Trafalgar Poll | 74 percent of all voters support Trump on Iran. https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/iran-opinion-0617/ "I've got Cancer" -vs- "I'm 99% Cancer-free"
The response in a Poll is very frequently based on exactly how the question is posed. I hold both of those ideas at the same time. Maybe it comes down to how you define joining the war. Iran must be prevented from having nuclear weapons. At the same time, I don't want us providing American warriors to the fight. Israel appears to be willing and able to take care of this. We should commit to helping them to complete the mission. This could include information, financing, weapons sales, mid-air fueling, propaganda, and more. It should also include assisting Iran in recovery if the current regime collapses.
I think that's about right. Most Americans are rooting against Iran and don't mind the US providing some assistance. But most Americans are disillusioned about the difference between what our last 6-10 wars promised and what they accomplished, what they were supposed to cost and what they ended up costing.
The FED is openly fighting against America. Just as the left has weaponized the courts they are weaponizing the FED to cause the economy to crash. Their only purpose in life is now to get a Democrat elected as president by tarnishing Trumps term. They don't care how much harm it causes Americans and the economy. Wake up. The Democrat party has been taken over by communists and intends to destroy the country if that is the only way that they can rule over it.
|