Here is part of the email discussion by Clintel members who presented at the Climate Conference in Prague on – 12th & 13th November 2024. They have been slightly edited, thanks to Grammarly, as some of the authors are not writing in their mother tongue.
From Václav Procházka – 10th November 2024
Dear colleagues,
Up to now, the most of comments were about some specific questions. However, a summary and synthesis are needed.
The basic question is: What do we know?
Only a short list of the factors influencing climate:
1. Solar irradiance - TSI is decreasing (but not enough to stop warming),
2. Albedo - especially the non-temperature governed changes (decreasing - but the cause is unknown: depletion of condensation nuclei?),
3. The suppression of radiation into space by clouds and greenhouse gases,
4. Occasionally huge magmatic events or asteroid/comet impacts.
These factors are influenced by:
- solar activity, astronomical cycles,
- accumulation of solar energy in the Earth's crust and ocean,
- cosmic rays (influencing clouds), atmospheric circulation,
- geomagnetic field (influencing cosmic radiation), endogenic geological processes,
- land use, emissions of substances which are active optically or in condensation nuclei (SO2 - decreasing, NH3...),
- greenhouse gas emissions (especially the natural ones which are much higher),
- greenhouse gas consumption (affected by: temperature, the productivity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems - dependent on other nutrients etc.,
volcanism and hydrothermal activity, regime of ocean currents; methane oxidation rate is enhanced by some pollutants like NOx...).
Is there anybody who knows all the relevant factors sufficiently?
Of course, we cannot solve it completely in a short time (this is something which the IPCC - with huge personnel - pretends to do in its reports, but not very well).
But we can make a comparison of what is changing, in what way, and what are the uncertainties.
The next step can extend more into the past and make some prognoses which can be tested.
Therefore, scientific outputs for the public should be rather conservative and preferably less than more. Nevertheless, I think we can name publicly some factors which the IPCC severely underestimates.
Unfortunately, there is not much time for an academic debate. The harmful consequences of the IPCC policy are obvious, but maybe most people will need to experience a shock to understand that they cannot lay it down. Is there a "global" topic (like the food crisis in many countries 15 years ago, due to the import of biofuels from the Tropics to the EU)?
Václav
Reply from Ned Nikolov
Dear Václav
I agree with your short list of climate drivers except for #3. There is no suppression (or impedance) of outgoing LW radiation by the so-called "greenhouse gases". Satellite data clearly show this. Also, "heat-trapping" in an open system such as the atmosphere is thermodynamically impossible.
Invisible trace "greenhouse gases" such as CO2 and CH4 have ZERO effect on climate! Hence, human industrial emissions of such gases are inconsequential for Earth's climate.
If this Conference does not come up with a clear message highlighting the above facts, it will go down in history as another time waster with no progress made.
Thank you!
-Ned Nikolov
From Valentina Zharkova – 11th November
Dear Ned, et al,
I finished investigating your paper with K. Zeller from 2024. This is an interesting paper, and some points are extremely valuable like the one stating that the Sun is the source of the current temperature change in Earth.
Although the ways you declare it cause several questions and objections. Here is my list.
1. Let us be clear about your found solution for temperature variation from solving a first-order partial differential equation (PDE) It is well known that a PDE reproduces closely the forced term, imposed by the initial or boundary conditions. We have done a similar continuity equation for the precipitation of high-energy power-law for electrons into flaring atmospheres (see Chapter 3 in my monograph). This initial condition in your case is the so-called albedo which defines completely the outcome of the result. You say it is produced by the Sun, and I can only support this statement. But how it is another issue which I explain below.
2. But like the continuity equation for precipitating electrons, your solution does not explain where this emission which you call albedo came from. In high-energy physics, it took us nearly 30 years to discover that power law distributions of accelerated particles are gained at acceleration in reconnecting current sheets (with the help of myself and my PhD student simulations).
In your case, the emission you call albedo is not the emission reflected from the Earth's surface because the Earth's atmosphere is not transparent. It is the emission which is emitted by the atmosphere upwards interplanetary (IP) space. It has been calculated by several people that in infrared wavelengths the atmosphere can be very opaque and have an optical thickness of 400. This brings us to its radiative transfer (RT) over the whole height of the atmosphere. As the theory of RT shows the emission emitted upward or downwards to the Earth's surface will come from the layers with optical thickness from zero to unity. https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ComputationOfRadiativeTransfer/. Hence the emission emitted towards the IP space and to the Earth's surface should be the same or close. Your paper confirmed this point by stating clearly that this emission is equivalent to the TSI, of 2.72 W/m2 .
Hence, we can safely say that the emission you measure as albedo is the diffusive emission from the terrestrial atmosphere in the LW range from the thin layer close to the top of the atmosphere.
3. This brings us to two points: total solar radiation deposited to the Earth since the Maunder Minimum (3a) and the effects of the oceans and ENSO, in supplying LW emission to the atmosphere (3b).
3a. Solar emission versus terrestrial temperature variations presented in your Figs. 11 and 12 are not correct as we have shown in our paper Zharkova and Vasilieva, 2023 where the TSI is plotted against the terrestrial temperature was shown here where the dots show the TSI calculated for the S-E distances taken from the official NASA ephemeris.
3b. The statement in your paper that ENSO is fully governed by solar activity is not supported by spectral analysis of the ENSO data we have carried out in the paper Zharkova and Vasilieva 2024. We have shown with wavelet analysis that the statistically significant periods in ENSO are 5 and 12 years, with the latter linked with the rotation of Jupiter about the barycentre of the solar system and the effects of Jupiter and the Sun on the underwater volcanic eruptions heating the ocean. While the former is linked to the lunar perigee oscillation, we report in the paper
submitted.
Therefore, I suggest combining our efforts to unify the response that solar radiation is responsible for the current variations of temperature which will continue to grow until 2600 as usual Hallstatt’s cycle of solar inertial motions dictates. Not many people can do on Earth to change it as it occurred hundreds or thousands of times before on Earth.
But by combining your, and other people's efforts we can indeed withstand very rigorously the IPCC resistance and prove to humankind that the only guilty parties in this heating are the Sun and planets of the solar system combined with the atmospheric processes in the terrestrial atmosphere and oceans.
I hope we can start a fruitful discussion in Prague and work towards a joint communique considering the options offered by all participants.
Kind regards
Valentina Zharkova Prof. of Mathematics
MPEE, Northumbria University
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
UK Dear All,
Sorry, we do not know how the solar energy has changed over the last 45 years. See the paper by Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Gregory W. Henry, Nicola Scafetta, and Víctor M. Velasco Herrera (2024). “Multiple new or updated satellite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) composites (1978-2023)”. The Astrophysical Journal, 975 (1), 102.
https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7794
Best regards: Laszlo Szarka
From Ned Nikolov 11th November
Valentina,
The albedo is simply the fraction of incoming shortwave solar insolation (~340 W/m2) that is reflected to Space by clouds, the Earth's surface and air molecules. Most reflection is done by clouds. That fraction does not include any LW radiation, simply because LW is not a part of the solar spectrum. So, in that sense, the statement you made about the nature of albedo is puzzling:
"... we can safely say that the emission you measure as albedo is the diffusive emission from the terrestrial atmosphere in LW range from the thin layer close to the top of the atmosphere."
That's simply not true!
In our paper, we show that the decrease of Earth's albedo since 2000 observed by CERES is sufficient the explain the entire warming during the 21st Century leaving no room for any greenhouse-gas "radiative forcing" claimed by IPCC. We do not discuss the reasons for the albedo decrease, but the fact that GSAT variations generally lag albedo changes, suggests that the cloud albedo is likely affected by cosmic forces.
I hope this clarifies things...
-Ned Nikolov
Minutes later . . .
It is a wish list, Dear Ned…
This idea that albedo radiation can get reflected from the clouds does not solve the question of why these clouds suddenly become so intense in the past 150 years.
The increase of diffusive radiation in infrared emission is caused by the increase of solar radiation and temperature of the ocean that populates more with CO2 terrestrial atmosphere from the ocean via Henry’s effect.
Kind regards
Valentina
On 11/4/2024 1:36 AM, Croll, James wrote:
DearAll. Being neither a climate scientist, geologist, or whatever is required to claim some right for an opinion on climate matters, I have hesitated to become involved in what have been fascinating discussions in advance of the meeting in Prague. But I thought it might be worth adding one little contribution to the discussions on the vexed issue of lag or no lag in the ice core records. It is one of the points I have made in my rather inadequate contribution to the meeting which I have attached.
We now have a very well accepted scientifically based and empirically verified explanation based upon our interaction with our celestial neighbours, for the clear cyclic patterns of temperatures over the past 1Ma. Moreover, how these CrollMilankovic cycles1 controlling the atmospheric temperatures interact with particularly the oceans to release CO2 in response to these cycles is also pretty well accepted.
In contrast, there is, as far as I have been able to find in the literature, no similarly scientifically based and convincing explanation for what could cause CO2 to experience such well-defined and regular cycles. The best I have been able to find is a feedback process whereby the CO2 released by the changes in temperature resulting from the Milankovic cycles give rise to a minor additional change in temperature!
Surely this should be enough to settle the matter?
Kind regards
James Croll
1Cannot resist adding my namesake to this attribution for the pioneering work he did in the mid-19th C.
Reply by Ned Nikolov
James,
What you stated below regarding the effect of Milankovitch cycles on Ice Ages and the role of CO2 in this as feedback is certainly the official position of IPCC and mainstream climate science. However, the problem is that none of this is supported by the available numerical evidence. It's a made-up story that can be traced back to the 1970s.
Consider these facts:
1. There is no meaningful relationship between global temperature variations as inferred from the geological record and any aspects of the Milankovitch (orbital) cycles known by the best orbital models we now have. See this article for details: Dispelling the Milankovitch Myth
2. The idea that a CO2 increase would first be triggered by a temperature rise, but then start acting as a controller of temperature is physically nonsensical. The icecore records clearly show that CO2 lags temperature between 400 to 4000 years throughout the entire series of glacial-interglacial cycles... Furthermore, we now know (and I'll be showing it in my presentation) that CO2 has ZERO effect on Earth's climate!
If we are to make progress in climate science, we need to start freeing ourselves from unsupported myths and stop regurgitating nonsensical concepts proposed decades ago.
Thank you!
-Ned Nikolov
Hello Ned & colleagues.
Given that the purpose of the analysis is to determine the relationship between the dependent variable (in the case of your article, Global Mean Annual near-surface Temperature (GMAT)) and relevant independent variables, it does not make sense to exclude some relevant independent variables at the beginning of the analysis.
It makes even less sense to claim that a relationship established by the use of Dimensional Analysis in which a particular relevant independent variable was
excluded shows that it was not necessary to include the excluded independent variable (s).
This is because had it/they been included a different functional relationship could have been found.
All of this is rather obvious but emphasised in the standard guidance about the use of Dimensional Analysis.
See, for example, Dimensional Analysis (clarkson.edu) (Dimensional Analysis by R. Shankar Subramanian, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Clarkson University), wherein it is stated:
But dimensional analysis is not foolproof – we must be careful in considering all possible parameters that can affect the dependent parameter. If we omit a crucial parameter in making the list of independent parameters, dimensional analysis cannot help us find it. We always need common sense and physical intuition in selecting the lists of parameters in a problem.
This means that the following independent variables should be added to the list in Table 1:
· Luni-solar gravitational field;
· Earth’s magnetic field;
· Earth’s rate of rotation;
· The different bands of the electromagnetic spectrum radiated from the Sun.
There may well be others.
Ockham’s razor is relevant to differentiating between the functional relationships established at the end of the analysis not to the list of independent variables compiled at the start of the analysis.
You also mention that some of the effects of solar spectrum bands on temperature are purely speculative.
This may be so, but the links in my email are to observational studies, not speculative or unvalidated quantitative model studies (like so much of IPCCaligned climate science).
Richard Mackey UNOFFICIAL
On 11/10/2024 3:19 AM, Richard MACKEY wrote: UNOFFICIAL
Two more queries, Ned:
1. There is good evidence that different bands of the electromagnetic spectrum radiated from the Sun affect the global surface temperature in different ways, including impacting the oceans and land masses differently. Would not that make the various bands of the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation additional physical variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature? If so, should not the different bands be added to your list of seven in Table 1? ( See Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Fact Sheet (nasa.gov); Penetration of UV‐visible solar radiation in the global oceans: Insights from ocean color remote sensing - Lee - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library; and The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation - Wong - 2018 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library ).
2. Given that different bands also have different effects depending on the type of Earth's surface material (chiefly the land masses and the oceans, meaning that the surface of the planet is not homogeneous) on which they impact, should you not allow for the different materials (chiefly the land masses and the oceans) of which the surface is composed?
Richard Mackey
From: Ned Nikolov
Sent: Monday, 11 November 2024 2:18 AM
Hi Richard,
If you look at the high accuracy of the final regression curve describing the longterm average surface temperatures of various rocky planets and moons as a function of total atmospheric pressure and mean annual TSI, you'll realize that there is nothing to be gained by adding more variables to the dimensional analysis.
Remember the golden rule in physics: The simplest accurate explanation is likely the correct one. (Occam’s Razor)
Furthermore, some of the effects of solar spectrum bands on temperature are purely speculative. For example, in our 2024 paper, we address the claim by Wong & Minnett (2018) about the existence of a "thermal skin layer" (TSL) over the global ocean. That concept is physically laughable and simply junk.
Thanks, -Ned
From Karl Zeller 11th November
Yes, please please please improve upon our Ts = f(Ps, S) 0.9998 data fit correlation to 0.9999 or better, if you think it’s necessary or the world will applaud when you do and publish that. BTW, in dimensional analysis one is guided to consider the parameters that one has measurements for (at the time) and based on physical reasoning one ‘predicts’ might be controlling the physical process needing study.
Then when one extracts the dimensionless parameters and gets a correlation approaching 1.0 one doesn’t believe it and goes back to review all the data and approach ad infinitum. (Note: Ts discovery was made ~2010 and finally published in 2017).
After that one uses it to make predictions then when the predictions verify it’s time to celebrate because most likely (with rho = 0.9998) a new previously unknown physical law has been discovered. Yes, we are quietly realizing we have discovered a celestial body climate controlling physical law that determines a rocky surfaced (includes liquid surfaced!) planet or moon’s mean global surface
temperature limit (a new and necessary boundary condition for all future global climate models btw.)
Hence adding other parameters is a fun idea BUT for future research not for the present and sorry but suggesting it at this juncture is a trifling nuisance.
OK, OK gravity: consider an integrated gravity component is included in the Ps data as measured by NASA in all the celestial bodies whose data we use and teasing out the individual contributions is akin to trying to determine the sex of the angles on the head of a pin after they’re counted!
Wise-a...,
Karl
From: Richard MACKEY
Subject: RE: New Insights on the Physical etc [SEC=UNOFFICIAL
I have four queries (so far), Ned.
Table 1 has what you claim to be the seven variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature.
Ought not the gravitational force of the Sun and the Moon be added to this list? (See, for example, Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides | PNAS)
Likewise the planet’s magnetic field? (See, for example, Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? - ScienceDirect)
Likewise the planet’s rate of rotation? (See previous references to Lambeck, Lambeck and Cazenave, Siderenkov, Zotov, Pfeffer, Nils-Axel Mörner, etc)
I suggest they should be as they are demonstrably variables of potential relevance to the global surface temperature.
Would not the value of Dimensional Analysis be strengthened by having an exhaustive list of ‘potentially relevant’ variables rather than a bare minimum list?
I should add that I think your paper is a significant contribution to understanding our planet’s climate dynamics.
I am still working through it and have heaps to learn from it!
Richard Mackey
From: Ned Nikolov
Thank you, Richard!
I'm glad that you liked the beginning of our 2017 paper. It gets even more interesting (and intriguing) further down... You are among a few scientists, who have actually been willing to study our new concept by reading the original references, which is commendable. Most people rush to criticize our work without really understanding the topic based on what they "think" it is after reading some uninformed opinions online.
You may also find this 1:18 h video useful, which summarized our method & findings regarding the atmospheric thermal effect with less math and more visuals:
Demystifying the Greenhouse Effect
Here are some other suggestions for the Communique
From Douglas Lightfoot and Terigi Ciccone.
“The CLINTEL two-day conference on climate in Prague closed November 13, 2024, with a message for the people of the World. The group of CLINTEL members used various techniques to show that the rising level of carbon dioxide in
the Earth’s atmosphere does not cause a climate emergency. Carbon dioxide has a warming effect, but it is so tiny it is undetectable. The conference presented information showing that rising carbon dioxide levels have greened the Earth by 30%, and plants are moving into deserts. Thus, food security for the 8 billion residents of Earth is increased.
CLINTEL has about the same number of skilled and experienced scientists and engineers as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has scientists. Thus, the technical qualifications are similar. However, part of the conference's input shows four mistakes the IPCC made, which need to be corrected. These mistakes render some essential conclusions by the IPCC invalid.
Many of the Western World’s elected representatives have unquestioningly accepted the IPCC's mistakes as genuine, compromising their countries' viability. The rest of the world, such as China,Africa, and India, do not accept the IPCC's mistakes and are using fossil fuels to raise their people out of poverty. Russia also does not take the IPCC’s message.
It should come as no surprise that some people at the conference pressed to defund the IPCC. It has lost its usefulness.
CLINTEL has become a leading organization in climate science and has much helpful information on its website: https://clintel.org/”
For more information, please get in touch with the founder, Dr. Guus Berkhout.”
From Terigi –
Communique
1. Contrary to the UN IPCC dogma, CO2, nature-made or human-made does not cause any measurable global warming.
2. Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 green the Earth, and produce more food and habitat for all life on Earth.
3. The concept of net zero and carbon sequestration is futile. Per Henry's Law, the oceans will replenish any CO2 removed from the atmosphere.
4. Green technologies like solar and wind are intermittent, unreliable, and unaffordable and must be backed up by fast-responsive natural gas.
5.Additional research is needed to find an alternate explanation for the causes of climate and climate change. Viable alternate technologies may include: - Thermalization of LWIR photons, - Adiabatic gravitational auto-compression.
-Averification of the application of the Stephan-Boltzmann law applicable to spherical and quasi Black body planets with an atmosphere.