Has the British Labor Party reinvented itself?

Did the British Labor Party agree to Brexit, talk of family, nation, and chuck out the anti-semites?

Just when democracy looks dead, comes this.  The British Labour party got savaged in the last election, but they appear to have quietly reinvented themselves.

The new leader, Keir Starmer, “set his sights on the Red Wall seats that Labour had lost.”

Keir Starmer, a true conservative

Maurice Glasman, UnHerd

Brexit was the fault-line that destroyed the Left and created a one-nation Conservatism that would push Labour back to its progressive comfort zone in the big cities, sealing it off from the small towns and working class heartlands forever. The Conservatives would be in power for a generation and when Keir Starmer was elected leader, it sealed the deal. A Remainian lawyer could never heal the wounds.

They [the Tory’s] didn’t notice when he said that the issue of Brexit had been resolved and Labour supported leaving the EU by the end of the year. The biggest issue in British politics had dissolved into a previous era and the Covid response was centre stage. They didn’t notice when Rebecca Long-Bailey was sacked and all links with the […]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

via JoNova


September 27, 2020 at 10:21AM

Claim: Gujarat Solar Park is Failing to Fulfil Mandatory UN Renewable Energy Gender Empowerment Requirements

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to North Michigan Assistant Professor Professor Ryan Stock, despite having a “gender positive” female empowerment programme, Gujarat Solar Park is failing to meet mandatory UN gender targets.

Bright as night: Illuminating the antinomies of ‘gender positive’ solar development

Ryan Stock


  • The Gujarat Solar Park is an archetype of India’s sustainable energy transition.
  • The solar park is mandated to facilitate ‘gender positive’ outcomes and boasts female empowerment.
  • Configurations of labor under the political economy of solar have excluded women from employment opportunities.
  • Corporate social responsibility schemes designed to empower women reproduced caste and class-based social power asymmetries.
  • Solar park development in India represents an antinomy of a nature-society relation.


India is undergoing a rapid transition to renewable energy; the Gujarat Solar Park typifies this transition. In addition to mitigating climate change, the Gujarat Solar Park boasts female empowerment through social development schemes. This manuscript is inspired by the following research question: To what extent are ‘gender positive’ processes and projects associated with solar development in India realized on the ground? Utilizing mixed methods fieldwork and drawing on literature from feminist political ecology, this paper demonstrates how the modalities of solar park development represent an antinomy of a nature-society relation. New configurations of labor under the political economy of solar have produced a gendered surplus population of landless peasants who are not absorbed into wage-labor employment in the solar park. Further, associated social development schemes actually disempower women, despite mandates of ‘gender positive’ outcomes by UN-based climate treaties to which this project is beholden. The opportunity to participate in one such scheme for female empowerment was reserved for only women of middle-to-high class status and those of dominant castes, thereby reproducing class and caste-based social power asymmetries. Female (dis)empowerment eclipses ‘gender positive’ guarantees of the solar park. This study highlights some unintended consequences of sustainable energy transitions in the Global South at the local scale. Designing development interventions related to climate change mitigation that boast ‘gender positive’ outcomes must be careful not to exacerbate gender disparities and economic exclusion in rural areas.

Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X20303235#!

Obviously if you thought solar parks are something to do with renewable energy, you are mistaken; Solar parks are for implementing United Nations gender empowerment programmes.

Like this:

Like Loading…


via Watts Up With That?


September 27, 2020 at 12:24PM

Canada Wildfires At Lowest Level For Years

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ben Vorlich

According to the Met Office, global warming is leading to record breaking fires in North America.

Canada, of course, is a large part of North America, so surely fires should be getting worse there too.

In fact wildfires this year are running at just 8% of the 10-year average:



All provinces are well below average:


This suggests that meteorological conditions have been responsible for both the glut of fires in the US west and the dearth in Canada.

More significant though is the long term trend in Canada:



1994, 1995 and 1998 recorded the biggest wildfire acreages. But over the full period, there is no obvious trend at all.

Which all rather makes of a nonsense of the Met Office’s claim that hot dry weather conditions promoting wildfires are becoming more severe and widespread due to climate change.



September 27, 2020 at 12:09PM

Half a meter of snow in France and Italy – Video

Cabin owners say they are used to such landscapes only near Christmas.

Several roads are already closed, and the others cannot be used unless cars are properly equipped.


Thanks to Alex Tanase in Romania for this link

The post Half a meter of snow in France and Italy – Video appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 27, 2020 at 11:25AM

Bureau of Met reads tea leaves and finds warming at Horn Island that no thermometer can see

Ken Stewart has been looking at the mysterious pattern of temperatures on Horn Island — right at the top of Cape York Australia. It’s almost as far north as things get in Australia. There was no thermometer there before 1995, so the Bureau of Meteorology has rattled the nearest tea-leaves to find out how warm it was.

The towns listed on the map are its nearest neighbours. “Near”, in the Australian sense, meaning loosely within  500 kilometers.

Horn Island and it’s nearest neighbours

This, below,  is the way 70 years of temperature dregs lays at all those sites.

This is what the Bureau of Meteorology sees (not the scale has changed on the temp axis). That’s two degrees of warming in far north Queensland.

So the average minimum temperature now looks half a degree cooler in 1960 than what your lying eyeballs suggest.

Ken goes into much more detail and deserves our thanks for bothering to try to unpack the mysterious merging of thermometer records in at the BoM department of Tasseomancy.

Visit his site:  Garbage In, Garbage Out- Horn Island

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes […]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

via JoNova


September 27, 2020 at 11:47AM

Many record-breaking freezes in Australia

Much of southern Queensland has woken up to a very chilly start.

Applethorpe fell to -3.8C (25F) this morning, the coldest temperature recorded in all of Queensland this late in spring since 1984.

Oakey also plunged into freezing territory, -2.1C (28F), its coldest temperature this late in spring in 36 years. Likewise, Warwick hit -2.1C (28F), its coldest late spring temperature in 26 years of records.

The Gold Coast recorded its coldest late spring temperature in 28 years of records and its 2nd coldest of all springs on record, dropping down to 8.0 degrees. Brisbane Airport followed suit, dropping to a brisk 7.0 degrees, its coldest temperature this late in spring in 26 years.



Thanks to Laurel ina Australia and Stephan Meijer in New Zealand for these links

The post Many record-breaking freezes in Australia appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 27, 2020 at 11:11AM

Parts of Switzerland, Austria and Germany surprised by unseasonably early snowfall – Record early snowfall

Two Swiss towns set new records.

The Swiss meteorological agency said Saturday that the town of Montana, in the southern canton (state) of Valais, experienced 25 centimeters (almost 10 inches) of snowfall — a new record for this time of year.

In parts of Austria, snowfall was recorded as low as 550 meters (1,805 feet) above sea level.

Areas 1800+ altitude have seen 50-60cm (2 ft) which is unusual for this time of year!

See photos:


Thanks to Laurel for this link

“I laugh when I read of the high alps being surprised….by snowfalls,” says Laurel.

The post Parts of Switzerland, Austria and Germany surprised by unseasonably early snowfall – Record early snowfall appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 27, 2020 at 10:57AM

Wind turbines generate mountains of waste

“Turbine disposal costs are upwards of $400,000 apiece.”
– Duggan Flanakin

Almost half a million dollars! Per blade!


“A week ago, my CFACT colleague Duggan Flanakin wrote about the mountains of waste that solar panels will be generating in the coming years.”

“This week, he tackles the equally eye-popping topic of wind turbine waste,” says Paul Driessen. “As he notes, with some 8,000 blades a year already being removed from service just in the United States, that is 32,000 truckloads over the next four years – most of them destined for landfills. And in a few more years, the numbers could be five times higher. Over the next 20 years, the U.S. could have to dispose of 720,000 tons of waste blade material, even though its landfill capacity is predicted to drop 15% by 2021. Our already serious waste disposal problems are about to become monumentally worse, thanks to clean, green energy.”


Wind turbines generate mountains of waste

Blade waste, other factors prove wind is no more green than solar

Duggan Flanakin

Environmentalists and wind energy opportunists (entrepreneurs who take advantage of overly generous tax credits and multiple other subsidies) want you to believe wind energy is as pure “green” as newly driven snow is white, and as cheap as Taco Bell.

They never tell you about the costs – or the environmental destruction – that they have hidden from you for decades. But neither do most governments, news media or social media.

Ars Technica science editor John Timmer says wind hardware prices are dropping, even as new turbine designs are increasing the typical power generated by each turbine. Timmer did admit that “wind is even cheaper at the moment because of a tax credit given to renewable energy generation” [emphasis added]. He cautioned that phasing out the many existing incentives could surely create uncertainties regarding wind’s future cost and dominance. But that’s about it.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2018 Wind Technologies Market Report glowingly stated: “With the support of federal tax incentives, both wind and solar power purchase agreement (PPA) prices are now below the projected cost of burning natural gas in existing gas-fired combined cycle units.”

This is despite the fact that the DOE’s own data show wind’s “capacity factor” (percent of time actually generating electricity at full capability) is only 35%, compared to 57% for natural gas plants and 92% for nuclear. In many locations, huge industrial wind facilities actually generate power well below 30% of the year. On the hottest and coldest days, it’s often close to zero. That’s why nuclear power plants actually produced 20% of U.S. electricity in 2019, despite having only 9% of the nation’s generation capacity.

In addition to being weather-dependent, intermittent and unreliable, wind turbines cover vast areas of land; affect scenic views and local wind flow, temperature and moisture; kill bats and birds of prey, with no penalties under migratory bird or endangered species laws; have relatively short life spans and require massive amounts of raw materials, especially for ocean turbines, compared to coal, gas, hydroelectric or nuclear plants; involve enormous air and water pollution in faraway countries where a lot of the mining, processing and manufacturing are done, before turbine parts are shipped to America; and more.

All this is just ignored. Similarly, you might also be surprised to learn that not a single page of that massive DOE report mentions the term “wind turbine waste.” Nor does the DOE’s Fact Sheet, “Advancing the Growth of the U.S. Wind Industry: Federal Incentives, Funding and Partnership Opportunities.” It’s as if wind turbines never die and never leave anything behind.

Typically, when turbines reach end-of-life, the project owner replaces the old turbines and blades with newer models; only a few companies have chosen total decommissioning and removal. Some states (most recently Texas and North Carolina) and localities have their own standards. But the only federal standards (overseen by the Bureau of Land Management) are for facilities on federal lands.

The DOE fact sheet provides information on four tax credit programs, three loan and grant programs, four sources for R&D grants and cooperative agreements, and five sources for technology deployment grants – plus a number of partnership opportunities with DOE national laboratories.

But it is silent on wind turbine waste, including huge concrete and rebar foundations, and blades that are up to 107 meters (351 feet) long. So are most politicians, wind advocates and wind energy publications. In fact, turbine foundations and blades are generally not recyclable, economically or otherwise.

The volume of wind turbine waste is projected to soar in years to come, with mining and manufacturing waste, service waste, and end-of-life waste the major sources. It is estimate there will be 43 million metric tons just of blade waste worldwide by 2050. China is projected to be responsible for generating 40% of the waste, followed by Europe (25%) and the USA (19%).

London-based Principia Scientific International calls turbine blades “a toxic amalgam of unique composites, fiberglass, epoxy, polyvinyl chloride foam, polyethylene terephthalate foam, balsa wood, and polyurethane coatings. Basically, there is just too much plastic-composite-epoxy crapola that isn’t worth recycling.” Until better methods are found, about landfills are one of the few options.

In the European Union, used blades are cut up and burned in kilns or power plants. But not in the USA.

A separate tractor-trailer is needed to haul each blade to a landfill, and cutting them up requires powerful specialized equipment. With some 8,000 blades a year already being removed from service just in the United States, that’s 32,000 truckloads over the next four years; in a few years, the numbers will be five times higher.

Some wind energy companies cut the huge blades into short sections before sending them to landfills, because most landfills lack cutting tools. Today’s turbine blades are 20% longer and their towers up to 200 feet taller than most of those currently being landfilled.

Turbine disposal costs are upwards of $400,000 apieceThat means $24 billion to dispose of the 60,000 turbines currently in use in the U.S. The cost and the toll on existing landfills will rise as more, longer, heavier blades reach their end of life.

Over the next 20 years, the U.S. alone could have to dispose of 720,000 tons of waste blade material. Yet a 2018 report predicted a 15% drop in U.S. landfill capacity by 2021, with only some 15 years’ capacity remaining. We will have to permit entirely new landfills simply to handle wind turbine waste – on top of mountains of solar and battery waste.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The Locke Foundation cites University of Kansas studies confirming that wind farms create unsafe flying conditions. The rotational force of wind turbines can create extreme turbulence that makes flying dangerous and landing close by nearly impossible. Indeed, a Michigan county bars air ambulances from rescuing citizens living near wind farms, due to safety concerns.

Moreover, generating just today’s U.S. electricity output with wind power could warm continental USA surface temperatures by 0.24o C (0.43o F), with the warming effect strongest at night. This is only a tenth of the warming generated by solar photovoltaic systems, but not insignificant – and the larger the wind farm, the greater the localized warming.

Back in 2013, when turbines were smaller than today, Lafarge North America said it took about 750 cubic yards (2,500,000 pounds) of concrete (plus rebar) to anchor just one wind turbine; Nextera wind admitted to using over 800 metric tons of concrete per smaller turbine. (These figures do not include the significant concrete and asphalt needed to upgrade rural roads to handle heavy turbine components.)

Furthermore, manufacturing concrete is already the third largest emitter of (shudder!) carbon dioxide – after burning coal, oil and natural gas. It also requires nearly a tenth of the world’s industrial water use.

To sum up, wind farms require a lot of carbon dioxide-emitting concrete, steel, aluminum, plastics, rare earths and other materials. They disturb natural air flows. They decimate bird and bat populations, and cause infrasound and light-flicker that impair human health, while generating relatively little electricity at low capacity and high cost. Dead turbine blades overwhelm landfills.

Yet, advocates would have you believe wind is cheap, clean, green, renewable and sustainable. The Green New Deal joke would be funny, if it weren’t so economically and ecologically expensive.

Duggan Flanakin is director of policy research for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)

The post Wind turbines generate mountains of waste appeared first on Ice Age Now.

via Ice Age Now


September 27, 2020 at 10:42AM

Plenty Of Physics Flaws Accumulate Into A Huge GHE Hoax: The Dark Secret Behind Surface Emissivity

By Erich Schaffer

Magic is all about illusion, and so is “climate science”. Nothing about the GHE is as it seems and so far the “critical” side has failed to see through it. No longer!

Examining the key question of surface emissivity, usually downplayed as a non-issue, reveals highly significant insights relativizing the common narrative and revealing another profound flaw in the theory. Eventually this will lead to a totally disruptive Eureka moment.

Did you know that even the moon has a GHE? If we adapt our “GHE formula” to the circumstances on the moon, we can easily calculate the maximum temperature it should yield at the equator (with the sun at the zenith). All we need to do is to allow for the specific albedo (~0.12) and the amount of solar radiation, which is about 1368W/m2.

(1368 * ((1-0.12) / 1)  / 5.67e-8) ^0.25 = 381.7°K

Since the albedo is a bit uncertain (in the 0.11 to 0.13 range), let us just say 382°K straight. So the moon, at the equator, should theoretically yield a temperature of up to 382°K. The observed (average) maximum temperature however is about 394°K [1][2][3][4], 12°K hotter than it should be. The same formula that tells us Earth had a GHE of 33°K, suggests 12°K of GHE on the moon. Houston, there is a problem! By the way, if the albedo was 0.3, like that of Earth, the formula would give us 360.5°K in this case, with a GHE of 33.5°K. Sounds strangely familiar, right?

Of course we know there is NO GHE on the moon, since it does not hold an atmosphere. Instead there must be something wrong with our theoretical approach, the formula itself. And if the very formula that determines the GHE of Earth is wrong, as just demonstrated, it might be about time to ring the alarm bells.

What went wrong?

There are two ways to get to the correct result with regard to the moon. First we could simply ignore the albedo, or set it to zero respectively, and then the formula gives the correct result of 394°K. This is pretty odd, since we know the albedo is real and ignoring it is wrong, and yet it seems to work. That is why the second approach makes way more sense. Next to including an albedo of 0.12, giving us an absorptivity of 0.88, we also assume an emissivity of 0.88, so that the two cancel each other out. Then again the result is 394°°K and everything is fine. In fact, an emissivity of 0.88 is the only value consistent with an albedo of 0.12 and an observed temperature of 394°K.

The mistake we initially made is easy to identify. We started with assuming an emissivity of 1, while in reality it is far lower. Such a mistake will always give you a calculative temperature which is too low, and thus an erroneous “GHE”. Bearing that potentially fatal mistake in mind, how do leading climate experts around the globe account for it? They say emissivity is 1, or so close to 1 that it is negligible, and certainly there was no reason to question it any further.

This unawareness carries well into the “critical” arena, where the question would usually be resolved by looking up text books. It turns out, this is totally insufficient since a) text books are mostly wrong and b) it does not help understanding the nature of the problem. It is pretty odd, given that what I am going to reveal is really  climate science 101.If you don’t know that, you know nothing! And it seems no one knows.

So what is the surface emissivity?

It should be easy to answer since NASA is operating some research projects on the subject, with satellites “measuring” surface emissivity. Measuring may be a bit too much, since the actual data need interpretation in the context of models and so on. Anyhow, those measurements show a quite significant deviation from 1, especially with arid regions.[5]:

Now we would only need to calculate a weighted average of these data and we would finally have a definite answer on what surface emissivity of Earth is, right? WRONG!

Regrettably it is far more complicated, and, spoiler alert, ironically much simpler eventually in the end (we’ll get to that shortly).

Inadequate global surface emissivity data

There are two huge issues with these data. First, quite obviously, water has been completely exempt and since it covers 71% of the planet, we can not ignore it. Second, the sensors usually top out at 15 µm (or less) and that leaves around 50% of the emissions spectrum at 288°K unchecked, as the chart below shows (black being the uncovered range).

The satellite data thus only cover 50% of 29%, or about 15% of global surface emissivity, giving zero information on the remaining 85%. This is totally insufficient, like predicting the US presidential election by only polling California. However, the problems we encounter ironically also lead the way to a solution.

A sunset over water is a beautiful sight. You see the sun over the horizon, and a strong reflection of the sun in the water. It would never look anything like it if the sun was higher up in the sky. Of course there is a reason for it, a law of physics, and that is exactly what we are after.

Fresnel equations allow us to determine precisely how much light is getting reflected on the surface of water, depending on the angle of incidence. I will not try to explore the formulas themselves, as they look quite complicated. Thank God they are not so hard to apply. All you need to know is the refractive index of water with regard to visible light (N = 1.33)[6][7], that of air (N=1) and then you get two results for s- and p- polarized light. Then you just take the average of those two curves and you get the final result.

A chart tells us more than a thousand words:

With the sun at the zenith, or anything near to it, water reflects only 2% of sunlight. But if the sun is close to the horizon, shining onto the water at a flat angle, most of sun light gets reflected, which is one of the reasons why sun sets look so beautiful.

Physically speaking sunlight is nothing but electromagnet radiation, just like LWIR, and thus the same physics apply. We only have to adapt the formula slightly to show how well water emits LWIR. First we need to know the appropriate refractive index in the LW range (N=1.27)[9] and then we just invert the result, since we do not search for radiation reflected, but rather what is being emitted.

As we can see water is an excellent vertical emitter, with an emissivity of 0.986. This number so close to 1 that you could say the difference was indeed negligible. But that is only part of the truth. With flatter angles the picture changes dramatically and finally turns to 0 emissivity towards the horizon.

Satellites do not measure water emissivity

At this point it should become clear why satellites do not measure water emissivity. To minimize atmospheric disturbance, satellites need to look straight down onto the surface, which in this case is kind of pointless. The more interesting data could only be gathered by looking “sideways”, which satellites are very bad in. Even then, water is a very homogeneous surface type, which renders global observation obsolete, while on the other side we a have a solid theoretic approach. As far as empirical testing is concerned, 10 years ago “scienceofdoom” made a nice summary of research on the subject.[10]

If you google “emissivity of water” you will get all kinds of results. Given the complexity of the subject (including the political aspect) it is quite understandable. Regrettably this means you will have to figure it out yourself, which is mainly a mathematical challenge. The Fresnel equation tells us how water emits at a certain angle, but to get the hemispheric emissivity (we live in a 3 dimensional world) you will need to weight every gradient accordingly and also include Lambert’s cosine law. If I do all that, the result is 0.944.

Is this the final answer? I am not so certain! Anyone good in physics, or mathematics is invited to assist. One of the causes of doubt is, that German wikipedia [11], with reference to a noble German text book[12], has it at 0.91. Maybe I made a mistake after all. Then, just recently, I stumbled over an article stating “the emissivity of far-IR by the oceans is only about 89% of the 100% “efficiency” of emission/absorption of a true blackbody”[13], thereby suggesting a relatively larger refractive index in the far-IR (15-100µm). So I started again and with the help from a very useful site[14] calculated the average refractive index for the whole LWIR spectrum, which turned out to be N = 1.33, exactly the same as with SW radiation. With N = 1.33 my result for hemispheric emissivity drops to 0.934. By the way, I get 0.9 or 90% for the 15-100µm of far IR range, still relatively consistent with the 89% quoted above.

Kiehl/Trenberth fake science

All this may sound rather complicated and in the end there is still this sour taste of uncertainty. We know for sure however, that surface emissivity, especially with regard to water, is significantly lower than 1. With an emissivity of 0.94 a surface at 288°K emits 367W/m2, not 390. This alone shoves off 23W/m2 from the GHE at least and exposes the infamous “Kiehl, Trenberth diagram”, where they claim 390W/m2 of surface emission (396W/m2 in later editions), as fake science. That’s it!

Did I forget something?

Oh yes, the big revelation. At this point we achieved more than we ever imagined, we just have not realized it yet. If we wind back to our Fresnel charts, there is an opportunity we missed. I did show reflectivity of water with regard to solar radiation and if we invert the chart, we get the result for absorptivity.

In the logical next step, we can directly compare absorptivity with emissivity and, as we can see, they are almost identical. That is if we assume N = 1.27 for LWIR, which is in line with experimental observations which exclude far-IR. As named before, including far-IR would move N likely up to 1.33, with absorptivity and emissivity then being perfectly identical.

What is the temperature of a body when absorptivity and emissivity are equal at given solar radiation?

(342 * (x / x)  / 5.67e-8) ^0.25 = 278.7°K

GHE only 10°K

In other words, if there was no atmosphere, just the surface as it is (excluding any dynamic changes, ceteris paribus), the surface of Earth would take on the temperature of 278.7K. If we allow for N = 1.27, thus the little asymmetry between the curves, the temperature would drop straight by 0.7°K to 278°K . Without an atmosphere, Earth would be 10°K colder.

Or, alternatively spoken, the GHE is 10°K in size!

It is a revelation you may want to let sink, or protest respectively, but it is true. Just like with the initial example of the moon, the surface of Earth absorptivity and emissivity largely cancel each other out. This is not a law of physics, as Kirchhoff’s law only applies to identical wave lengths. But as much as there is variation in both absorptivity and emissivity with different wave lengths, the general tendency is for both of them to be more or less equal, especially with regard to wide spectra.[15]

Plenty of flaws – huge GHE hoax

The 33°K GHE narrative by comparison is build on a few “imprecisions”, so it seems. There is the surface emissivity = 1 mistake, there is the formal impossibility of counting cloud albedo to the “surface”, while at the same time denying the sheer existence of clouds in terms of emissivity. And then there are also plenty of flaws in the quantification of radiative effects, especially with regard to the CRE, that I have dealt with deeply in the previous article. All these “imprecisions” point in the same direction, certainly not accidentally so, and all together they accumulate to a huge GHE hoax.

It is a hoax as far as the apologetic side of “global warming” is concerned, but for the “critical” side it is an appalling failure. I have absolutely no understanding for how you can deal with the fiddliest questions of the science, polar bear populations, or Greta Thunberg’s pigtails, but totally miss out on the core blunder.

Difference between GHGE and GHE

To be accurate, the GHGE (greenhouse gas effect) needs to be distinguished from the GHE itself. The 278°K are true for the surface alone, and the 10°K GHE is what the atmosphere does as a whole. Of course it is perfectly thinkable there are components within the atmosphere which reduce the temperature of Earth, and then you can attribute more than just 10°K of GHE to GHGs.

If for instance clouds would cool the planet by 5°K, then we would arguably need 15°K of GHGE to get us back up to 288°K in the end. The global warming narrative thus interestingly takes relatively little harm, and can still prevail. The only precondition it needs is a significant net negative CRE. That of course is another story.

See previous article here.


[1] https://lunarpedia.org/w/Lunar_Temperature

[2] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/203096main_TEC%20Splinter-Thermal%20control.pdf

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869

[4] Actual maximum temperatures can reach over 400K, which is due to some craters serving as a kind of parabolic reflectors

[5] https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/7/1027/htm

[6] https://pixabay.com/de/photos/hamilton-island-australia-sun-set-585659/

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices

[8] https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale

[9] N=1.27 is consistent with measurements on the subject. These measurements yet exclude the far long wave range. A total weighted spectral average according to the data here (https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale), would rather elevate N to 1.33, meaning identical Ns for LW and SW radiation.

[10] https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/

[11] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissionsgrad

[12] H. D. Baehr, K. Stephan: Wärme- und Stoffübertragung. 4. Auflage. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2004, ISBN 3-540-40130-X (Kap. 5: Wärmestrahlung)

[13] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-huge-false-physical.html

[14] https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=H2O&page=Hale

[15] Ironically NASA fully acknowledges this. NASA does not really measure the surface temperature of the moon, rather they measure radiation emitted with a satellite. To determine the actual temperature, they need to assume a certain emissivity. Essentially they simply reverse the formula I used above. The only way they can get to 394°K is by assuming absorptivity = emissivity. And they need to do this in order to get reasonable scientific results. When it comes to “climate science” however, they forget about science and stick rather to the emissivity = 1 myth.

Donate – choose an amount

via NoTricksZone


September 27, 2020 at 10:14AM

Has the British Labor Party reinvented itself?

Did the British Labor Party agree to Brexit, talk of family, nation, and chuck out the anti-semites?

Just when democracy looks dead, comes this.  The British Labour party got savaged in the last election, but they appear to have quietly reinvented themselves.

The new leader, Keir Starmer, “set his sights on the Red Wall seats that Labour had lost.”

Keir Starmer, a true conservative

Maurice Glasman, UnHerd

Brexit was the fault-line that destroyed the Left and created a one-nation Conservatism that would push Labour back to its progressive comfort zone in the big cities, sealing it off from the small towns and working class heartlands forever. The Conservatives would be in power for a generation and when Keir Starmer was elected leader, it sealed the deal. A Remainian lawyer could never heal the wounds.

They [the Tory’s] didn’t notice when he said that the issue of Brexit had been resolved and Labour supported leaving the EU by the end of the year. The biggest issue in British politics had dissolved into a previous era and the Covid response was centre stage. They didn’t notice when Rebecca Long-Bailey was sacked and all links with the […]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

via JoNova


September 27, 2020 at 10:21AM