My reply:
[[Researchers at Princeton University and the University of Miami reported that newer models with a high “climate sensitivity” — meaning they predict much greater global warming from the same levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide as other models — do not provide a plausible scenario of Earth’s future climate.]]
Duh, the best computer climate modelos are those with a climate sensitivity of ZERO. The Sun's 5500C photons alone heat the Earth, and CO2's weak puny -80C photons do nothing. How sad that even Princeton U. falls for the CO2 global warming hoax, even when the evidence is right in front of their eyes.
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-the-Suns-radiation-when-it-gets-the-Earth-s-atmosphere/answer/TL-Winslow
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/02/pielke-jr-on-the-biden-administrations-social-cost-of-carbon/
Reply:
How many USG scenarios?
We're used to hearing that an entire generation of so-called climate scientists has to go, but I'm beginning to think the same thing about so-called climate realists like Pielke Jr. who give any credit to the IPCC CO2 global warming fake physics hoax and its fake "climate sensitivity" numbers.
Nobody seems to 'get' that the entire CO2 warming debate is over, finished, kaput. Why? Because CO's weak puny 15 micron photons have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C and can't melt an ice cube, much less cause global warming, heat waves, etc. CO2 radiation can't raise global averages temperatures even 1 millionth of 1C, much less several degrees C. There's just no heat in -80C.
The game, set, and match is to wake the public up to CO2's 15 micron -80C problem and let the IPCC that pushes it fall apart along with its plans to destroy Western capitalism by wasting hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The killer equation for CO2 global warming is so simple, but sadly few possess the background in radiative/thermal physics to deeply understand it and answer all IPCC objections. Only I provide a free online course patiently explaining the physics step-by-step, a better course than all of academia can come up with, if they weren't under the control of the IPCC anyway. Study it or fall behind:
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
My reply:
Imagine how CO2 emissions from the U.K. are able to raise global temperatures by a whopping 2.7C (5F), when CO2's weak puny 15 micron photons have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C and can't melt an ice cube. Never mind the record cold spells. The pesky CO2 likes to hide during the winter in a big hole in the ground. In summer it comes back out and radiates deathly -80C photons to the ground, causing record heat waves and droughts along with wildfires and hurricanes. :)
CO2 global warming is and has always been a fake physics hoax by the global Marxists at the U.N. IPCC that relies on mass ignorance of thermal/radiative physics. Too bad for them, you can still take my free online course and get smart and fight back:
https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow
Surprise, they're doing it for money and power. The IPCC octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians have long hijacked science to make useful idiots who will pony up hundreds of trillions for massive redistribution of wealth for social-racial justice under the label Great Reset, thinking they're rescuing the world from CO2-driven global warming, when actually they're impoverishing themselves and their children and handing all their freedoms to global Marxism, which will never give it back. After 150 trillion or so is wasted and the predicted warming doesn't happen, will you feel like you got your money's worth, or realize that you've been had after it's too late? If you don't learn physics they can't lose.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-that-the-arguments-about-climate-change-are-politically-motivated/answer/TL-Winslow
https://www.quora.com/q/newrealclimatescience/Why-are-some-people-confused-about-global-warming-climate-change-as-it-relates-to-extreme-winter-weather-2
Knowledge is power. Follow my space on Quora and arm your mind to fight the evil IPCC:
https://www.quora.com/q/newrealclimatescience
It's too bad the current brouhaha about CO2 is so narrowly focused. So what if a higher concentration in the atmosphere raises global average temps? If higher temps were accompanied by increased atmospheric moisture, it would even out around the world and turn it into a paradise planet, greening the deserts so that the teeming billions could be fed. Cold temperatures are inimical to life, not a goal of life.
Too bad, it might take a lot more CO2 than you think to really change the global weather, but not because it has any control over Earth's surface temperatures. In fact atmospheric CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its 15 micron main radiation wavelength that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice (-78.5C).
Why do they call CO2 greenhouse gas? Because plants breathe it, and they pump it into greenhouses to help them grow and thrive. Polar regions and deserts look good in postcards, but who wants to live there. Meanwhile global pop. is zooming, so obviously the real answer is to pump more CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere to turn the Earth into a greenhouse, turning deserts both hot and cold into lush green crop-growing regions like 35 million years ago when the avg. global temp was 88F and the CO2 level was 1K parts per million (vs. 415 PPM today). So what if we lose some desert polar regions and even some yummy coastline, the adjustments will be inconvenient but temporary, but I prefer shirt-sleeve weather to Frosty the Snowman. How many arctic animals can't adapt to a warmer climate? What animal needs to live in ice and snow and wouldn't like a vacation to Tahiti? They can lose the fat, hair or feathers.
The real question is can we make and keep the global CO2/H20 levels high enough, and for how long? Sooner or later mass global starvation will become unstoppable if world pop. keeps climbing, and this is the way to forestall it, if we act soon enough. Don't give me them Malthusian objections, give me some CO2/H20 solutions. I like a paradise Earth in the possibility window.
So, while the world is debating the horrors, extent or lack thereof of global warming caused by CO2, let's engineer the CO2/H20 solution to making the Earth a warm temperate planet from pole to pole with no deserts or ice wastelands, allowing vastly more food to be grown and turning poor nations rich. I DON'T mean a planet with wild swings between super-hot summers and super-cold winters, but one that is warmer than now everywhere, but moister and greener, with a giant network of plant life helping to avoid extremes. Since CO2 and water vapor are the keys, and the paltry amounts in the atmosphere need to be increased as soon as possible to turn deserts green and get the warming process off to a good start, but the new levels have to be maintained permanently, I'm looking to remote Antarctica (which is really a sea) as the most promising source for unlimited CO2 and water vapor generation, given that noxious emissions (sulfur dioxide, etc.) can be controlled.
This blog is for posting news on the world climate situation, scientific and political, along with my own articles. I'm sure it will start out with hardly any interest or followers, but I'm hoping that it will attract the smartest people eventually and in the end I hope for a global consensus that if it can be done it must be done.
So what is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project? My working idea is that an international effort to reactivate as many volcanoes in Antarctica as possible in an ideal location for distributing the CO2/H20 will produce the best and most cost-effective results. Sorry, one-worlders, it won't give you a license to override and control any country's economy, but if your country is suffering from lack of food you will be too busy expanding farming to care. Hence until I think of or hear about a better way to increase world CO2/H20 levels, this is my pet project. If you are a scientist, please climb aboard my AVP Express and let's make it happen.
It Would Be Funny If It Were's So Sad
It would be funny it weren't so sad, but when the scientists say "greenhouse gas" they are using a malaprop. It should be greenhouse GLASS, because that's why a greenhouse stays warm, by glass walls stopping convection of air and trapping heat. Yes, CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, but not for heating purposes, only to help plants BREATHE. So the whole sucker's game of "greenhouse gas" must truly be for the purpose of stopping more vegetation from growing and feeding the teeming billions. Is that their true goal? Another blip on the horizon is the promise of melting permafrost releasing gigantic amounts of CO2 from the Arctic not Antarctic sector. Let's hope we at least get some more good CO2 that way.
Jan. 14, 2011. Good article on CO2 levels and global temps 30-40 million years ago
Aug. 31, 2011. Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
May 31, 2013. Scientists find that higher CO2 levels green arid regions
Mar. 30, 2015. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels causing boom in vegetation
Aug. 2015. 'Unprecedented' volcanic eruption released enough water vapor to heat Earth: report
Aug. 15, 2017. Scientists find 91 new volcanoes miles beneath Antarctica's thick ice sheet
How Much CO2 Do Volcanoes Emit?
Will a major volcanic eruption fix climate change? - James Matkin
Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet
Did any volcanoes erupt in 2020?
T.L. Winslow (TLW, the Historyscoper (tm)
