On August 1, 2018
the New York Times Magazine
had a digital special edition,
with photographs and videos, titled:
“Losing Earth: The Decade
We Almost Stopped Climate Change.”
The special edition did not
teach any climate science,
so I will:
Laboratory experiments
show all atmospheric gases
affect the flow of radiant energy
from the sun to earth,
(warming, during the day)
and from earth to space
(cooling, mainly at night).
Those gases that slow
the flow of infrared radiation,
from the earth to space,
are called greenhouse gases
-- they slow cooling,
particularly at night.
Slower cooling at night
is hidden in the
daily average temperature,
and usually described
as "global warming".
Water vapor is, by far,
the most important
greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide
is a minor
greenhouse gas.
A graph showing the
estimated effects of CO2,
versus concentration
of CO2, is highly logarithmic,
becoming almost horizontal
at current CO2 levels.
But never mind the
very limited real science
supporting modern
climate "science",
that I just summarized.
You now know more
real climate science
than Al Gore.
However, Gore claims
he invented the internet,
which we all know
runs on Al Gore Rhythms,
so we can trust him ?
runs on Al Gore Rhythms,
so we can trust him ?
Modern climate "science"
is not real science
-- it is mainly
wrong wild guesses
of the future climate,
using computer games !
The NY Times
shows pictures
of melting ice,
destroyed homes
and flooded homes,
interspaced with
black screens
showing the
following captions:
Thirty years ago,
we had a chance to save the planet.
The science of climate change was settled.
The world was ready to act.
The NY Times discusses
the fact that industrialization
increased CO2 concentrations.
Then the science fiction begins:
The Times ignores laboratory evidence
that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
Instead, it highlights
Charney Report participants,
especially modeler Jim Hansen.
But the 1979 Charney Report
ignored observational data
and real evidence.
Charney presented
speculation
from climate models,
whose predictions
we now know are WRONG:
-- 97% of their predictions
were for 2.5x to 3x
the warming that
actually happened !
The NYT narrative
then goes into politics
and turns fascist:
Anyone who disagrees
is sabotaging “true science.”
The "history" stops in 1989.
That avoids the March 1990
publication of a paper
by Roy Spencer
and John Christy, titled:
“Precise Monitoring
of Global Temperature
Trends from Satellites.”
Spencer and Christy
received honors, at first.
Then government bureaucrats
with science degrees
realized there was a problem.
The greenhouse effect
is in the troposphere.
Troposphere temperatures,
should reflect much more
warming than Earth's surface,
But actual troposphere
temperature measurements,
from weather satellites,
contradicted climate models
in the Charney Report,
( which had been adopted by the IPCC ).
Spencer and Christy
were soon shunned,
and their work
was “discredited”.
Small errors
in weather satellite
orbit calculations
were found,
because the satellites
had no thrusters
to maintain
precise orbits.
These small errors
were acknowledged,
and corrected.
But journals,
such as Science,
soon declared
they would
no longer
accept articles
that questioned
established "science"
( built on speculation,
not hard evidence ).
The New York Times'
'history of climate science'
is really about unproven
climate model speculation,
supported only by
a logical fallacy:
Appeal to Authority.
It is pure speculation, not facts,
similar to the history of astronomy
before the telescope was invented !