Trigger warning: if your household companions include a cat, dog, canary, goldfish or turtle, this article is not a safe space. I’m writing about Harvard’s distinguished agnatologist Professor Naomi Oreskes (above) and her 2014 warning that global warming would kill your pets in 2023. The warning is in her acclaimed but glum book The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future. Given margins of error in climate science, the pet die-off might be this year instead. Oreskes wrote,

The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners , but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal . … A shadow of ignorance and denial had fallen over people who considered themselves children of the Enlightenment (p9).

Smarter climate alarmists don’t make short-term predictions. They choose a date like 2050 for when the oceans will boil. They’ll be senile or dead by then and can’t be humiliated if the oceans stay chilly.

Top environmentalist Paul Ehrlich forecast in 1971that by 2000 the UK “will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”[1] His 1968 book, Population Bomb, predicted starvation would shrink the US population to 23 million by 1999. Strangely, Oreskes in her book hails Ehrlich as a vindicated futurist. (p3-4 and 56).

The only good news from Naomi is that the IPCC becomes [more] discredited and is disbanded. She replaces it with such alphabet soups as the UNCCEP’s ICCEP which launches IAICEP, which she says is pronounced “ay-yi-yi-sep” (p27).The mission of ay-yi-yi-sep is to sprinkle enough fairy dust aka sulphates in the air to make an anti-sun umbrella and save the planet by 2079.

In September 2014 she was interviewed on the ABC’s Science Show by Dr (honoris causa) Robyn Williams, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, about the pet-deaths. One reader, she explained,

…started crying when the pets die, so I didn’t mean to upset people too much … I was just trying to come up with something that I thought people wouldn’t forget about, and I thought, ‘Well, Americans spend billions of dollars every year taking care of their pets’, and I thought if people’s dogs started dying, maybe then they would sit up and take notice.

 Interviewer Dr Williams[2] was delighted with Oreskes’ pet-panic strategy. He chimed in,

Yes, not only because it’s an animal but it’s local. You see, one criticism of the scientists is they’re always talking about global things…And so if you are looking at your village, your animals, your fields, your park, your kids, and the scientists are talking about a small world that you know, then it makes a greater impact, doesn’t it.

Oreskes: Well, exactly. It was about bringing it literally home, literally into your home, your family, your pet, the dog or cat that you love who is your faithful and trusted companion.

As I type this, I look down fondly at Natasha, our doomed spaniel, although she is neither faithful nor trustworthy.

Oreskes began her Science Show appearance by reading from her book in sepulchrul tones:

Then, in the northern hemisphere summer of 2041, unprecedented heatwaves scorched the planet [and] led to widespread outbreaks of typhus, cholera, dengue fever, yellow fever, and viral and retroviral agents never seen before.

Naomi’s actually playing down her future horrors, she omits to tell him about the arrival of the Black Death:

Dislocation contributed to the Second Black Death, as a new strain of the bacterium Yersinia pestis emerged in Europe and spread to Asia and North America. In the Middle Ages, the Black Death killed as much as half the population of some parts of Europe; this second Black Death had similar effects. (p30).

Australians will wonder: does Medicare charge extra premiums to cover bubonic plague?

Williams, instead of asking Oreskes what she’s smoking, merely observed that all of the above is “fairly shocking”. He further wondered why it is only Western civilization that collapses, leaving the Chinese in charge. One reason, says Oreskes, is that Chinese civilisation is more durable, and two, that authoritarian regimes are better able to deal with hypothesised climate apocalypses.

Looking back from the future, Oreskes viewed China in the early 2000s as a beacon of carbon enlightenment. China, she said,

…took steps to control its population and convert its economy to non – carbon – based energy sources. These efforts were little noticed and less emulated in the West, in part because Westerners viewed Chinese population control efforts as immoral, and in part because the country’s exceptionally fast economic expansion led to a dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions, masking the impact of renewable energy. By 2050 , this impact became clear as China’s emissions began to fall rapidly. Had other nations followed China’s lead, the [grim future] history recounted here might have been very different. (p6).[3]

Another interviewer — a friendly one, actually — played the devil’s advocate:

Interviewer: Just how much do you hate the American way of life? What gives you the intellectual chutzpah to make these kinds of projections?

Oreskes: Our story is a call to protect the American way of life before it’s too late.

I identify with Oreskes, who grew up in New York, because as a lass she was a geologist working on Western Mining Corp’s Olympic project in central Australia. I phoned WMC’s retired boss Hugh Morgan but he couldn’t give me any piquant anecdotes about young Naomi.

Her sojourn Down Under must have been unhappy because she’s forecast that the climate emergency will kill off every Australian man woman and child (all 26 million of us). “The human populations of Australia and Africa, of course, were wiped out.” (p33). As a resident of Australia’s pagan state of Victoria, I don’t believe in the afterlife, although I am bringing a change of underwear. (Witticism courtesy Woody Allen).

Oreskes dropped geology to co-write that Merchants of Doubt book, painting “climate deniers” as the evil twins of those denying that smoking causes cancer. The book in 2021 was set to music by composer Yvette Jackson, who sees climate doubt as having the

… low, somber insistence of the bass clarinet, skittering flute that cranks up anxiety, sonorous cello to hold things together, and the deep, doubting rumble of double bass.

Listen to that anxious, sonorous cello and more here (fourth video down).

At 65, Naomi’s job title is Harvard Professor of the History of Science — but don’t call, she’s on leave. She co-wrote her civilisational-collapse book with fellow alarmist Erik Conway. Her other collaborators include Pope Francis: she did the intro for his Laudato si’ encyclical in 2015.

 Wikipedia lists only 30 of her honours, including the Stephen H. Schneider Award in 2016 for communicating “extraordinary scientific contributions” to a broad public in a clear and compelling fashion. Schneider (1945-2010) was a top IPCC climate scientist. He urged colleagues there to strike a balance between scaring the pants off the public and being honest about how weak the CO2 evidence really is. Oreskes also scored the 2019 Mary Rabbit Award from the US Geological Society. Her lifetime of bashing denialists is surely worth a million-dollar Nobel.

 The Collapse book is about Western civilisation’s ruin while China saves the planet with its enlightened anti-CO2 measures. She is writing from the future in 2393 when she will be aged 435. Oreskes (as at 2393) is cross because we have refused to build enough windmills to stop at 11degC warming (p32) and eight-metre sea rises (p30). We should not have eaten so many fillet steaks[4] and, personally, I should not have tooled around in my reasonably priced, petrol-powered Hyundai i30 when Teslas were available at $80,000.

Oreskes was talking about Collapse at a Sydney Writers’ Festival when someone in the audience piped up, “Will you write fiction next?” She doesn’t of course view Collapse as fiction: “Speculative? Of course, but the book is extremely fact-based” (p79). And she elaborated to the ABC’s Dr Williams,“Well, it’s all based on solid science. Everything in this book is based on the scientific projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. All we did was to add to the social and human aspects to it and to ask the question; what does this really mean in terms of what its potential impacts would be on people and its potential impacts on our institutions of governance?”

Her “science based” technical projection involved an angry summer in 2023 continuing year-round, “taking 500,000 lives worldwide and costing nearly $ 500 billion in losses due to fires , crop failure , and the deaths of livestock and companion animals” (p8) In 2014, how was Naomi (no-one’s perfect) to know that current agricultural output and yields continue smashing records?

The book’s “fact-based” projections have drought and desert ravaging the US in the 2050s:

The US government declared martial law to prevent food riots and looting [similar to 2020s’ mostly-peaceful burning and robbing]. A few years later, the United States announced plans with Canada for the two nations to begin negotiations … to develop an orderly plan for resource-sharing and northward population relocation (p26). 

The talks led to the combined United States of North America. I imagine Texans started adding “eh” to their sentences, as in Why do Canadians say “eh?”? It’s so silly right? Because we want to, eh.

Even at the age of 435 in 2393, Oreskes remains really sore about the Climategate email scandal of 2009 (IPCC climate scientists conspiring to fudge data). She blames Climategate on a “massive campaign” that was “funded primarily by fossil fuel corporations” (p8) — this alleged largesse must have by-passed sceptic bloggers, who still rely on their tip jars. Oreskes remains vigilant to smite deniers:

It will also be crucial not to allow new forms of denial to take hold. We are already seeing examples, such as the false claim that off-shore wind kills whales and that restrictions on gas stoves are the latest excuse by liberals to control our lives and deny our freedom. Scientists will have to work with climate activists to block the spread of such misleading narratives.

She finished her interview with the ABC’s Dr Williams by claiming, improbably, that some readers of  Collapse wished her 80-page book to be longer. She explained,

We didn’t want it to be too depressing, we didn’t want to go on and on and on, like 300 pages of misery, that really wouldn’t be any fun. So we are sort of hoping that the book, despite the fact that it’s a depressing topic, it’s actually we think kind of a fun read.

Apart from our dead kittens, that is.

Tony Thomas’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95 from Connor Court here

[1] Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971. Link broken.

[2] The ABC Ombudsman told me it’s fine for people with honorary doctorates to be called “Dr” in any context.

“The ABC style guide does not form part of the editorial standards and we consider there is nothing materially inaccurate in referring to Ms O’Donoghue as Dr O’Donoghue.” Email from James, Investigations Officer, ABC Ombudsman’s Office, Feb 14, 2024. (The late Ms Donoghue’s Doctorates are honorary).

[3] On the ABC iview’s posting of the Oreskes/Williams interview, the ABC claimed the planet was warming at the top of the IPCC models’ forecasting. I wrote to my friend Kirsten McLiesh, who runs Audience & Consumer Affairs (i.e. the complaints department) pointing out that actual warming was at the bottom of the IPCC models’ range. In those days (2014) the ABC had some integrity and Kirsten wrote back,

“Having been alerted to your complaint, the program acknowledges that the sentence read on the website as an incontrovertible fact and have undertaken to remove it. An Editor’s Note has been added to the page.”

[4] Oreskes, Twitter May 4, 2023: “I’m often asked “What can I do to stop climate change.” That’s a hard question because so much of the change we need is structural, but this new study proves one thing: EAT LESS BEEF. (And now, drum roll, here come the beef industry trolls.)”

Print

Show your support

Donate Now

  • terenc5Brazen liars, both her and Williams.Log in to Reply
  • STJOHNOFGRAFTONOnce upon a time this type of pathological doom and gloomer would have had their digs courtesy the governer’s pleasure at Callan Park. Now, said person is integrated into a straight-jacketed society where she is free to inflict us with her madness. Ironically, Callan Park is now a conservation area and has friends not inmates.Log in to Reply
  • DaffyFaced with a bill for a pet’s ultrasound of over $1000, I’m all for pet deaths. I was tempted to ask the vet how much to end the gold-digger’s life, but wife was too near.Log in to Reply
    • DaffyAnd, on smoking, it seems OK to take it up…as death for almost all looms. In fact, as elderliness tangles itself about my knees, I must check with the Cancer Council. Surely they know the age at which taking up cigar smoking will have no statistical effect on life expectancy.Log in to Reply
      • norsaintGood luck to you Daffy if you can afford the occasional lardy-da (apologies to Arfur Daly) these days.
        The ludicrous harpy and our former Attorney General, Nicola Roxon, has put that harmless pleasure beyond the means of most, with her outrageous, never-ending duty increases. The last time I checked, a run of the mill cigar cost $80.
        The egregious feminists don’t like anything which men might find enjoyable.
        It reminds me of the old gag of why woman make love with their eyes closed. (punch line available upon request)Log in to Reply
        • norsaintThat of course should read why “women” make love with their eyes closed.Log in to Reply
  • Twyford HallHow amazing that questioning anthropogenic global warming has been set to (alleged) music by a composer. I would bet my superannuation that the composer’s remuneration is taxpayer funded.Log in to Reply
  • petroalbionSellers of dog meat in Korea were told by the government to give up the trade. They said OK, we will release all 2 million of the dogs we currently own tomorrow. Government lostLog in to Reply
  • David IsaacThanks for digging out another failed prediction of climate doom. Paul Ehrlich’s prognosis for Britain may just’ve been delayed by a few decades but on demographic grounds. Given the repression of its native people and the demise of its native population in its largest cities including London and Birmingham it’s arguable whether England has long ceased to exist. Nominally American, Dr Oreske is a New York Jewess, whose father was also an academic, her mother a school teacher and mother of four. The odds of her politics being left radical based on this information alone are very high. Her brother Michael is a disgraced journalist and executive for leftist outfits, NYT, AP and latterly NPR, who was pinged for sexually harassing junior colleagues in 2017. It comes as no surprise that she views ‘science’ as just another vehicle for radical activism rather than as a sacred quest for truth.Log in to Reply
  • norsaintAnd another thing. One could hardly say the “”Prof”” is easy on the eye.Log in to Reply

9 Comments

  1. Great find Tony! The great pet die off was in 2023. Who knew? Well, I suppose I could’ve known or remembered. I bought a Kindle copy when it came out so I could write an Amazon review. I skipped the pet die off, because it was being so thoroughly ridiculed elsewhere. That’s one book that’s not aging well.

    Like

  4. O NaOmi, Oreskes,

    DOn”t you knOw, like SOcrates said, that in Our cOmplex interacting wOrld, we can Only ” knOw ” that we dO nOt “knOw?

    Experts from way-back have put forth opinions about the world,  from Ptolemy to Copernicus, Newton to Einstein, only to have them refuted or revised at a later date.

    Newton’s theory was said to be the last word, Alexander Pope wrote that

    “Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night:

    God said Let Newton be! and all was light!”

    Always mOre evidence and testing in Our trial and errOr scientific methOdOlOgy…

    O NaOmi how can yOu say that the science is settled?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Oh BeTHTHeserf of the double TH, pray do not mock THose afflicted with THe larger O, it ill becomes THou. Tend THy turnips in your antipodean fields in preference.🙏

    Also remember Newton sought to transmogrify base metals into gold.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. In my Amazon review, I wrote:

    “Their sea level rise scenario has Antarctica’s and Greenland’s ice yielding respective 5 and 2 meter rises in 20 years, which is over a foot a year (sea level is currently rising at about a foot a century). If the situation is really this bad, is cutting CO2 going to stop or significantly slow it?”

    I just checked my Kindle copy and she has this happening from 2073 to 2093. She has a footnote with these two links:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120312003232.htm

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.0803838105

    I can’t find anything that can be construed as this happening in 20 years. Here’s a quote from the first link about Greenland’s ice sheet:

    “This would result in one fifth of the ice sheet melting within 500 years and a complete loss in 2000 years, according to the study.”

    I asked James Hansen on Twitter (X):

    He responded that “5 meters in a century has happened before”. I’ve asked him for a reference:

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Alan,

    THose out-in-all-weaTHer, – gaTHerer – of – THe -turnip – serfs THink

    THat  sooTH-sayer auTHoritarian catastrophists like Naomi Orekes

    should be laughed at. You might say it’s a serf THing.

    Like

  9. Oreskes studied geology. Rocks. The woman knows rocks, and she somehow thinks she’s knowledgeable about a loosely-coupled, non-linear, multi-variate and chaotic system like the sun | planet | ocean | space system of Earth.

    Of course, she’s wrong. Her short-term predictions just make it easier for us to dismiss her as the laughingstock she’s made of herself sooner.

    The reality?

    The planet’s surface can be analogized to the evaporator section of an AC system. Space can be analogized to the condenser section of that AC system. The atmosphere can be analogized to the working fluid in that AC system.

    In an AC system, a refrigerant with many DOF (Degrees of Freedom) is used, because that more closely thermodynamically couples evaporator and condenser by more efficiently transiting energy.

    Thus we can see that in the atmosphere, it is those molecular species with higher DOF which more effectively transit energy from the surface and radiatively emit it to space… the polyatomics (CO2, H2O).

    In fact, far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle‘ sense) below the tropopause:

    The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [AC system]:

    A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an AC compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that AC compressor], and the cycle repeats.

    That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K km–1) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K km–1).

    The astute observer will quickly suss that the higher dry adiabatic lapse rate is due primarily to the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2), because we’ve removed in this instance the predominant polyatomic (H2O) which reduces temperature differential with altitude by convectively carrying energy from surface up into the atmosphere, and radiatively cooling the atmosphere as fast as or faster than it is convectively warming it. IOW, H2O more closely couples the evaporator | heat source | surface and the condenser | heat sink | space.

    In fact, water vapor is the most prevalent net atmospheric radiative coolant below the tropopause, and CO2 is the most prevalent net atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause (it falls to second place behind water vapor below the tropopause).

    “Well, if the polyatomics aren’t the ‘global warming’ gases as the climatologists claim, which ones are?“, some may ask. The monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics.

    Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net electric dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero electric dipole is perturbed via collision.

    In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics (ie: no polyatomic radiative molecules), the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection of energy from the greenhouse proper.

    For homonuclear diatomics, there would be some collisional perturbation and thus some emission in the atmosphere, but by and large the atmosphere could not effectively emit (especially at higher altitudes, because the chance of collision decreases exponentially with altitude).

    Thus the surface would have to radiatively emit that ~76.2% of all surface energy which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation (and subsequently radiatively emitted to space by the atmosphere)… and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.

    “How did the climatologists manage to flip thermodynamics on its head?“, some may ask. By misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

    https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif

    Note from the graphic above that there are two forms of the S-B equation.

    Idealized Blackbody Object (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):

    qbb = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah

    = 1 σ (Th4 – 0 K) 1 m2

    = σ T4

    Graybody Object (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):

    qgb = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah

    The ‘Ah‘ term is merely a multiplier, used if one is calculating for an area larger than unity [for instance: >1 m2], which converts the result from radiant exitance (W m-2, radiant flux per unit area) to radiant flux (W).

    The climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This has the effect of isolating each calculated-upon object into its own isolated system so the objects cannot interact via the background EM field, which forces the climatologists to assume emission to 0 K.

    That interaction via the ambient EM field, through radiation pressure, determines radiant exitance of each object. So while the climate alarmists claim that there’s no way a photon could possibly ‘know’ the temperature of an object within the photon’s path, it absolutely does ‘know’ because that photon must pass through the EM field (the photon being nothing but a quantum of EM energy; per QFT, a persistent perturbation of the EM field above the average field energy density) between objects, and thus the radiation energy density gradient between objects… and if the EM field energy density gradient is such that the chemical potential of the EM field due to that radiation energy density gradient becomes higher than the chemical potential of the photon from a cooler object, that photon likely won’t even be emitted by the cooler object, and if a photon which is emitted by a cooler object happens to be in the path of a moving, warmer object, it won’t even reach the warmer object… it will be subsumed into the background EM field (there is no law of conservation for photon number).

    Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end to get the equation to balance, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate alarmists to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).

    The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object radiation energy density (temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object radiation energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the radiation energy density gradient.

    “Ok, that’s nice and all, but where’s your proof?“, some may ask. Glad you asked, because the answer completely disproves the AGW / CAGW hypothesis.

    ————————-

    Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law.

    e = T^4 a
    a = 4σ/c
    e = T^4 4σ/c
    T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
    T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
    T = 4^√(e/a)
    where:
    a = 4σ/c = 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4
    where:
    σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4) / (15 h^3 c^2) = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4
    where:
    σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
    k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J K−1)
    h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e−34 J Hz−1)
    c = light speed (299792458 m sec-1)

    σ / a = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W J-1 m (W m-2 / J m-3)

    ————————-

    The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
    q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)

    [1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))

    [2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4

    One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.

    [3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe)

    Canceling units, we get W m-2.
    W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3)

    You will note that σ = (a * c) / 4… the S-B Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua divided by 4.

    [4] ∴ q = (ε_h * ((a * c) / a) * Δe) / 4 = (ε_h * c * Δe) / 4

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = (m sec-1 * ΔJ m-3) / 4

    ————————-

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
    σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2

    σ / a = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W m-2 / J m-3.

    Well, what do you know… that’s the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!

    It’s almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?

    Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:

    σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]

    σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]

    … it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

    ————————-

    Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:

    … so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation, as described above.

    The above completely destroys AGW and CAGW, because they are predicated upon the existence of “backradiation” (radiation spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) as the causative agent for the climatologists’ claimed “greenhouse effect”.

    ————————-

    The CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis has been disproved… it does not reflect reality.

    CAGW Is Nothing More Than A Complex Mathematical Scam… The Proof
    https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711

    The takeaways:
    1) The climatologists have conflated their purported “greenhouse effect” with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).

    2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported “greenhouse effect” to be “backradiation”.

    3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect’s causative agent is, of course, gravity.

    4) “Backradiation” is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

    5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported “backradiation”. It is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.

    6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “global warming” gases. Far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle‘ sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.