Sunday, June 28, 2015

Carbon politics is domination geopolitics


Carbon politics is domination geopolitics. The US has already started branding itself as "the clean-energy superpower", including at the G7 parade. Next it will continue to attempt to strangle and extort the energy development of the emerging BRICS global economy, using a combination of green blackmail rhetoric, global carbon-economy monetary instruments, military posturing, covert and direct targeted nation destruction, and sanctions.

(And, of course, the same folks always suffer the destructive consequences of these global economic instruments that purport to be intended to "save the planet": The Carbon Rush documentary film trailer.)

Monday, June 15, 2015

My prediction about climate geopolitics of the near future



Here's my prediction about climate geopolitics of the near future.

The US has already started branding itself as "the clean-energy superpower", including at the G7 parade.

Next it will continue to attempt to strangle and extort the energy development of the emerging BRICS global economy, using a combination of green blackmail rhetoric, global carbon-economy monetary instruments, military posturing, covert and direct targeted nation destruction, and sanctions.

This will backfire before it gets much further off the ground. The US will be the loser superpower of the coming decade(s).

Do US-allies (Canada, France, Germany, UK, Australia, etc.) want to sink along?

Recent email exchange with Joe Postma and John O'Sullivan -- some nasty bad false physics


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: 13 June 2015 at 10:37
Subject: Re: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect
To: John OSullivan <>
Cc: joe postma


One more comment can be made:

Joe's statements that establishment-science calculations use only an average (I/4) irradiance approach is factually wrong.

Only the ultrasimple models (reviewed in the physical-process introductions/reviews of IPCC reports) that seek only the average global temperature use this approach, such as in my calculation:
https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect

Otherwise, in fact, contrary to Joe's baseless assertions, global circulation models (GCMs) use a grid and different local solar irradiance values on the grid points AND they include the diurnal variation of solar irradiation. So, Joe's great discovery that these radiation effects must be included has already been done in hundreds of GCM calculations since the early 1980s.

Here is just one of many many early (here 1984) examples (see page 400):
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07055900.1984.9649208

The point is, the GCMs and the ultrasimple calculations give the SAME answer for the AVERAGE global temperature, as one expects for locally linear responses. So Joe's main concern about a necessary systematic error from taking an average irradiance in order to calculate an average surface temperature does not hold up. It is fiction.

Joe's belief that GCMs don't include spacial and temporal (diurnal) variations in solar irradiation is also complete fiction.

What else can I say? Joe needs to consider a reality check in terms of his misconceptions about these physics calculations. At this stage, it's purely a psychological-barrier problem.

DGR


On 9 June 2015 at 16:54, Denis Rancourt <> wrote:

    Hi John,

    I am familiar with these arguments and read the link also, and found these and many more egregious errors in the Slayers book.

    This is a sad and pathetic situation.

    Joe is correct about the simple calculation taking the average rather than doing kinetics of all the variations that occur with a spinning Earth. However, he has not demonstrated that this will give an incorrect average global surface temperature, or even considered under which physical conditions the calculation would be valid versus invalid to obtain the average global temperature.

    Joe also has demonstrated near-zero understanding of the physical mechanism of resonant absorption of infrared followed by isotropic elastic re-emission (greenhouse molecular mechanism in a gas atmosphere). My sense is that he has no idea what all that means. His 2^n glass-panes statements are pure nonsense -- a gas layer is NOT like a glass filter because the gas re-emits isotropically.

    Clearly, Joe is not about to drop his unusual vision of physics.

    Sorry, Joe's stuff is gibberish. Pure and simple. It does a disservice to the community that is critical of the warmist agenda, but a much greater disservice to himself and to those who repeat his stuff.

    You now have my multiply-considered opinion. Do as you will.

    --denis

   
    On 9 June 2015 at 15:59, John OSullivan <> wrote:

        Hi Denis,
        I passed your comments onto Joe Postma. He recommends you consider his article, shown in the link below.
        Kind regards,

        John O'Sullivan
        CEO: Principia Scientific International  http://principia-scientific.org/

[Removed privacy error notice.]

        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Joe Postma <>
        Date: 7 June 2015 at 22:11
        Subject: RE: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect
        To: John OSullivan <>


        Sure, send him this:

        http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/06/07/energy-flux-density-exposes-climate-pseudoscience/

        
        From: John OSullivan [mailto:johnosullivanpsi@gmail.com] Sent: June-07-15 11:19 AMTo: JoePostmaSubject: Fwd: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect

        Hi Joe,

        Would you like to reply directly to Dr Rancourt on his statements against your post?

        Thanks

        John O'Sullivan

        CEO: Principia Scientific International  http://principia-scientific.org/

[Removed privacy error notice]
       
        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Denis Rancourt <>
        Date: 6 June 2015 at 23:11
        Subject: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect
        To: John OSullivan <>


        Hi John,

        In this article
        http://www.principia-scientific.org/dr-fred-singer-s-position-consistent-with-no-radiative-greenhouse-gas-effect.html

        you state:
        "A climate sensitivity (CS) close to zero flies in the face of not only the alarmist movement, but the generally accepted theory underlying CO2 climate alarm as well – the radiative greenhouse effect."

        Your statement is incorrect. There is BOTH near-zero CO2 sensitivity AND a large net planetary-greenhouse effect on earth. There is no contradiction whatsoever in these two co-existing facts.

        In addition, the view that there cannot be a greenhouse effect in planetary atmospheres is incorrect. Completely incorrect. This false invention does harmful disservice to the denier position.

        Here is how I responded to one such claim recently:
        http://climateguy.blogspot.ca/2015/06/a-little-knowledge-is-dangerous-thing.html

        The whole proposition of an absence of a planetary greenhouse mechanism is gibberish.

        Of course CO2 cools a hot surface by thermal conduction. Of course atmospheric convection cools the surface and thus largely causes the low-altitude lapse rate. These facts do nothing to remove the radiation balance that occurs and that includes the phenomenon of resonant absorption and re-emission of infrared by thus active gases (greenhouse effect).

        Likewise, of course a real greenhouse traps the heated air within the "house", etc. But none of these differences are relevant regarding whether or not resonant absorption and (isotropic) re-emission of infrared plays an important (dominant!) role in increasing mean surface temperature beyond the no-atmosphere value.

        I wanted to tell you my position on that particular claim, which I find extraordinary and unjustified.

        --Denis

Saturday, June 6, 2015

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ...

I want to highlight my recent response to recent comments posted HERE.
--Denis Rancourt

@Doug Cotton:

Doug, on your website (http://www.climate-change-theory.com/) you are simply describing the known phenomenon of "lapse rate" arising from convective atmospheric cooling with a heated surface in a gravitational field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

This in no way disproves the separate known phenomenon of greenhouse warming of a planetary surface. You cannot disprove something by asserting that something else also occurs. (You also confuse atmospheric temperature gradient with mechanisms establishing the earth-surface temperature.)

The correct calculation of earth's mean surface temperature takes both convective cooling (of the surface) and radiation-balance (including greenhouse effect) into account, as here:

https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect

Find a fundamental physics error in the latter calculation, then you will have made a "great discovery".

The small group of deniers that insists that the planetary greenhouse effect mechanism itself does not exist is wrong. Completely wrong. It is the dominant mechanism of earth-surface warming above the no-atmosphere value. There is no doubt about this. The statement of "no warming from a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere" is correctly viewed as crazy and does a disservice to the debate about warming.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

Sunday, May 24, 2015

The science and geopolitics of climate change -- A talk with Denis Rancourt -- Video

Here is the public presentation I gave as part of Cinema Academica, on March 27, 2015, at the University of Ottawa. The videos were produced by flimmaker Peter Biesterfeld, and his team Ken Billings et al.

Note: An accompanying article (with references) is HERE. The physics article referred to for the radiation balance calculations of global mean temperature is THIS ONE.

Part-1:


Part-2:



Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, including in the area of environmental science, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism

Links to his articles and interviews on climate are HERE.


Climate stupidity and human survival


By Denis G. Rancourt [a]

The human animal has an instinct to identify potential dangers and to warn others. It is a built-in survival mechanism of any animal that lives in a group. And it is a strong and constant activity, re-enforced by environmental stressors.

This plays out on several time scales, from the immediate in the case of a potential physical assault, to the weekly in checking the weather forecast, to seasonal in preparing for winter, to life-long in planning for inevitable aging, to leaving good things for our grandchildren...

It is in our fiber to look ahead and to plan ahead, especially in the face of foreseeable or detected dangers.

The whole process can spin out of control when the danger is difficult to perceive yet could be lethal. Think of baboons who are on the lookout for a stalking lion. The slightest shadow movement can make them scream and run for the trees. It's a tense and highly volatile situation.

At this stage in our evolution we are faced with a pathological extension of our collective survival reflex, which is entirely fabricated by our high priests (government funded scientists and talking heads).

If these high priests were not here to tell us that the atmospheric concentration of the minor constituent CO2 is increasing, and that "global mean surface temperature" has increased by some 0.5 C in the last 100 years, then we would never know about these imperceptible causes of our certain eventual collective death as a species.

The priests explain that our certain extinction will occur from a rising sea level and changing regional climates. That these changes will cause mass migrations, ecosystem collapses, agricultural failures, famines, and disease. They also inform us that those who will suffer most are the most vulnerable inhabitants of the planet, as though this were a new feature of the effects of natural disasters.

Therefore, they urge, we must tax carbon emissions, apply cap and trade, and create a global carbon economy to limit CO2 in the atmosphere. And who better to coordinate it all than the World Bank, IMF, and such, given their stellar records in managing equitable development on this little rock. (Or is that economic enforcement of US regime supremacy?)

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

[a] This article accompanies a 2-hour public lecture I gave at the University of Ottawa on March 27, 2015, entitled "The science and geopolitics of climate change": VIDEO-LINK-Part-1, VIDEO-LINK-Part-2. The physics calculations of radiation balance on Earth described in Part-1 of the talk are from this paper: Rancourt, D.G., "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect", archive.org (3 December 2011) - https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Finally! -- The needed politically-driven science will be funded

http://www.tempdatareview.org/

Science needs competition from opposing views. However, politics drives funded establishment science. That is trivially obvious. Government funding predominantly determines the public research of "independant" university researchers.

In "climate science" there is an overwhelming global alignment towards carbon alarmism, driven by the US desire to deepen its control and exploitation of the economies of India and China and other nations via carbon extortion mechanisms.

As a result, dissenting scientific perspectives are atrophied and the needed competition of ideas and interpretations is crippled.

One of the major scams that has been allowed to propagate via a self-serving scientific establishment is the scam related to "extracting" a mean global surface temperature.

The present warming "pause" may well be an artifact of a continuous-warming data-manipulation scam that no longer is able to survive compatibility with the raw data. I propose that the "pause" is due to a partial rollback of enthusiastic fixing of the data. Maybe time will tell.

Anyway, thanks to a relatively small but now organized political opposition to carbon alarmism, apparently mostly based on US and US-aligned unglobalized domestic interests (domestic oil and shale not yet controlled by the energy giants that must follow US geopolitical machinations), there is now sufficient political opposition that some dissenting science can be encouraged.

Such a project worthy of note was recently announced:


This is a needed and brilliantly strategic approach. The coalition of scientists aims to directly examine how their colleagues have been extracting the mean global surface temperature.

As background, the biggest problem is that prestige journals such as Science and Nature and others never require authors to publicly file all their raw data and all their analysis methods. As such, the fundamental premise of scientific verifiability is allowed to be trashed.

The new coalition will attack this fatal flaw in the scientific debate. Let it be transparent!


Links to the climate science essays and articles of the author of this note are HERE.

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, in the areas of spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, and environmental science.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Ottawa event March 27 — The science and geopolitics of climate change - A presentation by Dr. Denis Rancourt



The science and geopolitics of climate change
A presentation by Dr. Denis Rancourt

Friday, March 27, 2015
7 PM (doors open at 6:30 PM)

University of Ottawa
Montpetit building, Room 203 (MNT 203)
 

Denis Rancourt will present a critical analysis about the science and geopolitics of climate change.

This will include descriptive overviews of:
  • the physics of planetary warming
  • planetary processes of carbon fluxes
  • the politics of science funding
  • social and systemic mechanisms of opinion
  • national and UN drivers towards carbon management
  • global and local consequences of carbon management
  • planetary forces of destruction
  • the nature of effective resistance

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, in the areas of spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, and environmental science. He has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

Friday, March 13, 2015

It's about the geopolitics stupid!


By Denis Rancourt

CO2-alarmism is fabricated by the Empire for domestic consumption. Service intellectuals dutifully gobble it up and adopt and project it.

The global legislative instruments of carbon control that are being implemented at breakneck speed in Empire-controlled jurisdictions have nothing to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with global dominance and predation, in the same way that the World Bank has nothing to do with altruist "development".

"Peak oil" theorists and CO2-alarmists tend to disregard that the Earth is a "planet", not a fragile organism in a precarious micro-habitat, but a "planet".

As a recent example, which allows a view of the underlying geopolitical driving forces, THIS ARTICLE (reading between the lines) explains part of the mechanism whereby oil/gas are a viable USA geopolitical weapon against Russia, and China by extension. Briefly, new-era US production capacity allows the Empire to crash oil prices, using subservient Saudi Arabia, in order to bring Russia down, without itself suffering anything much.

Another consequence is that the Empire's ongoing implementation of "carbon economy" global instruments of coercion and control must deal with resistance from a new array of "small" domestic shale-oil producers, until these are monopolized and fully integrated.


Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, in the areas of spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, and environmental science. He has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.