This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

500 Climate Scientists Write To UN: There Is No Climate Emergency

Noam Mayraz's picture
Consulting Engineer Future Power, Inc.

Noam Mayraz, PE, is a senior consultant for the power generation industry.  Mr. Mayraz has over forty years of design, engineering, and field services as project manager, IPP projects director,...

  • Member since 2003
  • 217 items added with 162,892 views
  • Sep 30, 2019
  • 13890 views

Climate Scientists Write To UN: There Is No Climate Emergency  TECHNOCRACY NEWS, September 24, 2019 Pam Barker ENVIRONMENTGOVERNMENT 

A group of 500 esteemed scientists and professionals in climate science have officially notified the United Nations that there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on a non-problem is ‘cruel and imprudent’. This letter will not make it into national or global media, nor will it cause the UN to change its ways. If these same scientists understood Technocracy, they would change their battle strategy. ⁃ TN Editor

Your access to Member Features is limited.

ER Editor: The UK’s Independent did pick up this story on September 6 in a hugely politicised hatchet piece titled Hundreds of climate sceptics to mount international campaign to stop net-zero targets being made law. Using phrases like ‘climate change deniers’ and ‘climate sceptics’ as opposed to what they are – climate scientists, the article erroneously shaves off 100 scientists, claiming there to be 400 when the letter below clearly says there are 500, as well as linking some of these signatories to Boris Johnson’s government, Brexit and the fossil fuel industry. No attempt it made to discuss the actual claims being made below, except to cite an expert in – sociology – who calls it a ‘panicked response’.

 

Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Sep 30, 2019

Noam, your list of 14 experts is only 486 short - as might be expected. Though exaggerated lists and right-wing talking points are a welcome sign of an oil industry in its death throes, some may take you seriously. Alerted to moderators. 

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Nov 18, 2019

Bob, from your statement above I am guessing that the is called 'Energy Central' is actually 'Energy Left'. 

how could CO2, which is heavier than air go to to the greenhouse and cause a climate change?

Stating that mankind energy, including CO2, Mathane and others exceeded the sun's equal gases is absurd in my mind, defining gravity and related natural occurrences.  Try googling "Red Berta Spills the Green Beans."

You guys have a leftist agenda. Shame on all y'all.
 

You do not understand power generation, renewable energy and/or the grid reliability and quality nor the climate.  Noam Mayraz, PE. 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Nov 18, 2019

Stating that mankind energy, including CO2, Mathane and others exceeded the sun's equal gases is absurd in my mind

Nobody who is explaining climate change is comparing manmade CO2 gases to the sun's gases or anything like that, just how the manmade CO2 is interacting with the natural rays from the sun to exacerbate their impact. 

Here's a good explainer from Scientific American, for anyone reading who is interested:

Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together make up close to 100 percent of the atmosphere. But all three are invisible to incoming "short-wave" radiation from the sun and outgoing "long-wave" radiation from the Earth's surface. They play no role in regulating the planet's atmospheric temperature.

But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.

So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering  – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.

 

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Nov 25, 2019

Bob, incidentally, have you read the article titled "Red Greta" Spills the Green Beans?  Google that...

https://stpaulresearch.com/2019/10/15/red-greta-spills-the-green-beans/

 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Sep 30, 2019

"'CO2 is plant food': Australian group signs international declaration denying climate science"

I can't stand this argument. If your child reasoned that a little bit of fish foods was good for the fish in his bowl and then took that to the conclusion that he should replace more and more and more of the water with fish food, you would gently educate him that there's a delicate balance of what's needed, not let him assume there's no amount of food in the bowl that's too much (I'm sure someone can come up with a better analogy than this, but it's what I can come up with right away. 

 

In an open letter addressed to the UN secretary general, António Guterres, and the UN’s chief climate negotiator, Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, the group describes the benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions as “imagined”.

One “ambassador” of the group is a Queensland-based coalmining veteran, Viv Forbes. Another is the well-known British peer Christopher Monckton, who once likened the leading Australian economist and climate adviser Prof Ross Garnaut to a Nazi.

Yikes. 

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Oct 1, 2019

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked - Peter James Spielmann, June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Oct 1, 2019

Is the fact that a single source's predictions was overly ambitious in its timeline really proof to you that the underlying science is wrong? The technology in sensors and the understanding of the science has advanced unthinkable amounts since 1989, and so our models are more advanced and accurate now. And lo and behold, they've continued to be proven correct

Let's look at the over-eagerness of that timeline as a fortunate thing, that we've been given a second chance, and let's not waste it away 'debating' the crisis but rather solving it.

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Nov 19, 2019

Matt, I recently completed a 5 yrs long project for a steam supply system in a combined cycle configuration in Sodom, near Gomorrah of the Biblical fame.

Let's do as suggested in the Bible, you claim, verbatim: "The technology in sensors and the understanding of the science has advanced unthinkable amounts since 1989, and so our models are more advanced and accurate now. And lo and behold, they've continued to be proven correct."

I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you could, "And lo and behold, they've continued to be proven correct."  if you show me one (1) case, only one (1) evidence that CO2 causes greenhouse effect deterioration....

Go ahead and make my day:

Excerpt 1

Carbon dioxide, also known by the chemical formula CO2, has a higher density than the other gases found in air, which makes CO2 heavier than the air. Air is composed of approximately 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, and less than 1 percent of other gases.

Density is defines as mass per unit volume of a substance, expressed as kilograms per cubic meter. At standard temperature and pressure, the combined density of air is 1.29 kilograms per cubic meter. By contrast, carbon dioxide has a density of 1.79 kilograms per cubic meter - the highest density of all the constituent gases. Atmospheric mixing keeps the chemicals in air aloft.

Excerpt 2

Air contains 78% nitrogen weighing 14 grams per mole, 21% oxygen weighing 32 g/mol and 0.9% argon weighing 39 g/mol. Carbon dioxide has one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, and a molecular weight of 44 grams per mole. Hence, carbon dioxide has a higher density, or is heavier than air.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Nov 19, 2019

Is the question you're now asking whether or not there is CO2 in the air because of its relative density? 

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Nov 21, 2019

No, Matt, the CO2 is mixed in the air and is part of our life cycle - it is converted into oxygen by a process called photosensithesis.  Smart scientists created the myth in order to drum up research founds for otherwise useless profession.  NOAA recently released an inflammatory statement “July 2019 was the Hottest Month on Record”.  Google that.

Your statement, above “The technology in sensors and the understanding of the science has advanced unthinkable amounts since 1989, and so our models are more advanced and accurate now. And lo and behold, they've continued to be proven correct.”, according to Newton’s 3rd Law reflects on your inability to comprehend the issue – your statement is an oxymoron - Proven to be correct?  You failed to provide any proof....  You merely quote proven lies regarding CO2 rule in our lives.

The so-called “weather scientists”, not all of them, only about 97% (same percentage as fought Galileo at his time), have no clue about their researches.  Those clueless “weather scientists”, merely create bogus scenarios, hypothesises, about the need to investigate, just in case their “models” might be close to the truth – again, an oxymoron.  People like NASA Jim Hansen, who outright lied to the US Senate in June of 1988, could not tell us the truth – it will undercut their life work.

Reagan joked about “WE are from the Government, here to help you”, but you took that seriously.  Just to get an attitude adjustment, google “Red Berta” Spills the Green Beans” – you will see what you, inadvertently, been part of the Greta Thunberg (16) and Hanoi Jane (81) – google that too.  I am just wondering about your choices of company, never mind your political agenda (too far to the left). 

Watch how John Coleman of Weather channel, who passed away January 20, 2018, puts down CNN’s Brian Stelter, on the air…  using the ‘Reliable Sources’ platform, which is a Sunday morning talk show on the cable/satellite news network CNN

 This piece, with the core at 3:08 to 5:08 minutes out of 10:24 minutes - has it all, including what motivates 97% of the climatologists.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhX2KQs3v5w&feature=youtu.be

 Excerpts:

There is no consensus in science, science isn’t a vote, science is about the facts, if you get down to the hard-cold facts, there is no question about it, climate change is not happening. There is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect anything in the future, there’s a whole lot of baloney, and yes it has become a big political point of the Democrat party and part of their platform and I regret it’s become political instead of scientific. 

The government puts out about two and a half billion dollars directly for climate research every year, it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democrat Party of position so they don’t have any choice if you’re going to get the money you’ve got to support their position. 

 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Nov 21, 2019

July 2019 was the Hottest Month on Record

Why is this inflammatory? 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Nov 21, 2019

Noam, at least climate change deniers are consistent.

The earnest young man in youir video fails to provide a link to NASA's study "Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses". When I found it on my own, I saw why. At the very beginning is this disclaimer:

"NOTE: The findings reported here conflict with over a decade of other measurements, including previous NASA studies. However, challenges to existing findings are an integral part of the scientific process and can help clarify and advance understanding. Additional scrutiny and follow-up research will be required before this study can be reconciled with the preponderance of evidence supporting the widely accepted model of a shrinking Antarctic ice sheet."

Easy to accept preliminary evidence, and ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to help confirm one's existing beliefs - it's known as "confirmation bias". The Catholic Church put Galileo in prison for believing the Sun was the center of the solar system - they were pretty damn sure it was the Earth and the Catholics who lived on it.

Now, you can believe Republicans are the center of the universe if you like; Democrats won't put you in prison. But we'll be damned if we'll allow anyone who believes the Earth is the center of any universe - whether they're Republican, Democrat, Girondin, or anything else - to dictate policy. We're too smart for that.

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Nov 22, 2019

Reference from Matt Chester:

July 2019 was the Hottest Month on Record - Why is this inflammatory? 

Matt, in the last 150 years the recorded temperatures were a lot higher.  This July 2019 was not hot at all.  Publishing lies is in my book unnecessary inflammatory.

It started with NASA Jim Hanson infamous presentation to the US Senate on June 23rd, 1988.  Jim failed to present the hottest July around 1913 to 1926 - he cut off the charts, started in later years, so he would look better.  C'et la Vie.  

Google 'jim hanson weather chart'

https://www.google.com/search?q=jim+hanson+weather+chart&rlz=1C1GCEA_enU...

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Nov 22, 2019

Matt, here I found a better chart:

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

Posted on June 23, 2014, by Steven Goddard

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-alt...

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »