RIP Christopher Booker – Climate Realist Hero
I met Christopher Booker briefly at the Climate Fools Day Event at the UK Houses of Parliament in 2010 and was struck by his humility and keen eye for detail. Having followed his work for a decade, it was very saddening to learn of his death.
A very fine tribute to Booker is written by James Delingpole on Breitbart, an excerpt of which we include below:
“Booker – “Bookers” as I used to call him on our regularly weekly phone chats – would have hated being called the ‘greatest’ but he was, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, he wrote the definitive book on the climate change scam: The Great Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with ‘Climate Change’ Turning Out to be the Most Costly Blunder in History?
Secondly, he was one of very, very few journalists capable of getting climate sceptical arguments prominent coverage in the mainstream media – notably in the hugely influential and widely read Daily Mail and also in his weekly Sunday Telegraph column.
Thirdly, he was a figure of such journalistic eminence, who did his research so thoroughly, that he made it very hard for his many enemies on the green side of the argument simply to dismiss him as an ignorant crank.
Fourthly, unlike more than a few on the sceptic side of argument, Booker did not attempt to cover his rear or make himself seem more reasonable and moderate by billing himself as a ‘lukewarmer’. Booker told it as he saw it and for many years was in no doubt whatsoever that ‘climate change’ was the most expensive, pointless and dishonest scam in the history of the world.
What made Booker so special, apart from the old-fashioned thoroughness and attention to detail he brought to all his investigations, was that he was a man of extraordinary intelligence, experience and breadth of insight.”
Read more at www.breitbart.com
Trackback from your site.
Hans Schreuder
| #
A very sad loss indeed.
Reply
Peter F Gill
| #
I, Philip Foster and Piers Corbyn also performed at the Climate Fools meeting in the HOP with Chris. His talk was by far the most persuasive and important. Whilst the rest of us talked about science Chris concentrated on the effects of a crazy energy policy that became embodied in the Climate Change Act. I met him many times. He was always ready with a penetrating comment. Where are future genuine investigative journalists going to come from as almost all media have gone the way of the BBC. I recently stored away what Chris himself called “A Very Last “Last Word” on 29 March 2019. After that we knew there was little time left. I feel very sad as if I had lost a friend rather than a fellow sceptic.
Reply
Dean M Jackson
| #
The Essence Of The ‘Climate Change’ Fraud Identified: Massive Energy Levels Data Missing For Nitrogen & Oxygen
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies. Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface,* and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation,** leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
I’ve asked NASA twice regarding the energy data discrepancy, but, naturally, there can be no reply, which is what I received…deafening silence.
Scroll down to the May 15 (2019) posting at NASA’s Facebook Climate Change site …
https://www.facebook.com/pg/NASAClimateChange/posts/?ref=page_internal
NASA’s reply to my initial comment:
“Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century”
My last comment, to which no reply is given:
“NASA Climate Change, hello out there! It’s been a week now and no reply! What’s the holdup? We need to know where nitrogen and oxygen obtain the vast bulk of their heat energy in the troposphere. It’s a simple question for NASA who has the answer at the mere tap of a computer key. Why is NASA shy?”
Carbon dioxide is a denser molecule than either nitrogen and oxygen, approximately one-third denser due to approximately one-third less heat energy contained in the CO2 molecule,*** which informs us that carbon dioxide cools the atmosphere by displacing greater heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
See Earth’s Energy Budget diagram: 18.4/358.2 = 5.1%
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
** “Still the net global OLR [outgoing longwave radiation] reduction of oxygen and nitrogen together is with 0.28 Wm -2…”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409
.28/358.2 = .00078 = .078%
*** “Gases are easily compressed. We can see evidence of this in Table 1 in Thermal Expansion of Solids and Liquids, where you will note that gases have the largest coefficients of volume expansion. The large coefficients mean that gases expand and contract very rapidly with temperature changes.”
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/13-3-the-ideal-gas-law/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
The missing energy of nitrogen and oxygen is a result of the inaccuracy of a thermometer in measuring the kinetic energy of a gas. 100 C steam has greater kinetic energy (540 calories/gram) than 100 C water. When energy is added to an unconfined gas (the atmosphere) it expands and there are fewer molecules (less mass) transferring energy to the thermometer. Since a thermometer records the total heat being transferred to it, less mass means inaccurate measurement. The way to determine the kinetic energy of the gases in the atmosphere is by using the universal gas law, which shows the kinetic energy increases with altitude. If you look up my article in PSI “THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE” (use the search function) it will show the real kinetic energy (temperature) of gases at different altitudes and that the source of heat for the Earth is the sun.
Herb
Reply
Dean M Jackson
| #
“The way to determine the kinetic energy of the gases in the atmosphere is by using the universal gas law, which shows the kinetic energy increases with altitude. If you look up my article in PSI “THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE” (use the search function) it will show the real kinetic energy (temperature) of gases at different altitudes and that the source of heat for the Earth is the sun.”
That’s all good and fine, but doesn’t answer the ‘climate change’ fraud that has intentionally left out the energy data for nitrogen and oxygen, as proven by the fact that nitrogen and oxygen absorb, at best, 1% of outgoing longwave radiation, and assuming nitrogen and oxygen absorb 100% of thermal energy emanating from the surface, we’re left with a massive gap in energy quantity for nitrogen and oxygen.
Get the picture now?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
The GHGT, Global warming, Man Made Climate Change, are all without any scientific basis and are a political fraud concocted by the democrats to distract the public from the real problems, created and perpetuated by them. By creating mindless hysteria over a non existent problem politician hope to retain power despite their continuing failures and ineptitude. That is the reality and no argument challenging these theories, no matter their validity, will effect those perpetuating them. The solution will be the coming grand solar minimum where the mindless masses will learn that they have been lied to and manipulated.
Herb
Reply
Dean M Jackson
| #
“The GHGT, Global warming, Man Made Climate Change, are all without any scientific basis and are a political fraud concocted by the democrats to distract the public from the real problems, created and perpetuated by them.”
You’re still not getting the point! Forget ‘climate change’. Now, all sides to the debate agree on the basic mechanism for Earth’s heating, that being Infrared Radiation (IR), but we know that to be false since nitrogen and oxygen can only absorb 1%, at best, of IR, therefore we’ve proven that IR isn’t the mechanism for heating the Earth, thermals is the mechanism.
That informs us that the ‘opposition’ to ‘climate change’ are actually the ‘false opposition’ who go along with the fraudulent IR heating mechanism, instead of alerting us to the real heating mechanism that involves thermals.
Get it now?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean’
Thermals are a means transferring heat not producing heat. Different molecules absorb different wavelengths of radiation and convert that energy into kinetic energy of the molecule. You are able to keep your house warm because even though oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb IR they will absorb energy and transfer kinetic energy as heat. It is all the spectrum of radiation, not just IR, coming from the sun that heats the gases in the atmosphere that then heat the Earth. Thermals are just that heat being equalized in the atmosphere.
Herb
Dean M Jackson
| #
“Thermals are a means transferring heat not producing heat.”
I know, and what has that got to do with my comments’ revelation regarding the missing energy date for nitrogen and oxygen?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
The data you are using for the heat of the gases in the atmosphere is wrong. You cannot use a thermometer to measure the heat/energy of gases because it is calibrated using water. It is designed to have a constant area receiving energy from a constant number of molecules. This does to happen in gases where volume increases when heat is added. The missing energy for nitrogen and oxygen isn’t missing but is because a faulty instrument is used to get that data. If you use the universal gas law to determine the heat of gases in the atmosphere the heat/kinetic energy of all gases increase with altitude. The oxygen and nitrogen in the troposphere are not gaining heat from the surface of the Earth because they are hotter and are transferring more energy to the surface than they are getting from it.
Herb
Dean M Jackson
| #
“The missing energy for nitrogen and oxygen isn’t missing but is because a faulty instrument is used to get that data.”
The energy is missing as proven by the fact that nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb their energy from Infrared Radiation, because they can’t, as we’re constantly told they can’t by NASA and other ‘climate change’ frauds.*
Belying another lie, because nitrogen and oxygen can absorb a very small amount of OLR IR, .078% to be exact.
Dimity
| #
Herb,
In your chart in The Temperature Of The Atmosphere, the calculated temperature at 9,000m is about +40C. If gases are “hotter” near the top of the troposphere, then how come a naked balloonist would freeze to death at these altitudes? The body’s heat (+37C) can only be lost to cooler matter, can it not? So, where’s the body heat going if the gas molecules are hotter?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dimity,
All objects both radiate and absorb energy. In order for an object to lose energy it must transfer more energy to an object than it receives from the object.
Temperature is the kinetic energy of molecules while the heat of an object receives is the total of all the kinetic energy being transferred to it. The balloonist will radiate energy into a large area cooling the source. The energy he receives from the rare molecules striking him will not replenish this heat.
It is important to understand that there is a difference between the total energy of an object and the level of its energy. A 100 C oven and a 100 C pot of water record the same temperature meaning the thermometers are receiving the same total heat. The thermometer in the oven is receiving its heat from a few molecules with high kinetic energy. The thermometer in the water is receiving energy from many more molecules with lower kinetic energy. You can put your hand into the oven because the energy striking it will be dispersed to many molecules in your hand. In the water every molecule will have energy transferred to it and you will be burned.hence food will cook faster in the water than in the oven and the balloonist will radiate more heat then he receives..
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
A car traveling dow a road has kinetic energy. The cars also radiating IR energy. The two are not connected. IR is radiated by the molecules making the car and their energy while the car as a whole has completely different kinetic energy.
The energy radiated and absorbed by molecules depends on the number and size of the chemical bonds that form them. This energy causes vibrations across the bonds that transfers energy to the entire molecule and can eventually break the bond and destroy the molecule. The type of radiation a molecule emits depend on the bonds and size of the molecule and the disturbance the vibration causes in the electromagnetic field. Oxygen molecules absorb UV radiation. This energy can be manifest in the kinetic energy of the oxygen molecule as a whole or as energy being radiated by the vibration of the atoms (probably as UV). CO2 has two bonds forming the molecule so the energy radiated by it is longer than the energy radiated by nitrogen or oxygen.
Herb
Dimity
| #
“The balloonist will radiate energy into a large area cooling the source.” OK, but would the rate at which the balloonist freezes to death be faster or slower at higher altitudes? Or about the same, given the cooling area would be the same?
Dean M Jackson
| #
“A car traveling dow a road has kinetic energy. The cars also radiating IR energy. The two are not connected. IR is radiated by the molecules making the car and their energy while the car as a whole has completely different kinetic energy.
The energy radiated and absorbed by molecules depends on the number and size of the chemical bonds that form them. This energy causes vibrations across the bonds that transfers energy to the entire molecule and can eventually break the bond and destroy the molecule. The type of radiation a molecule emits depend on the bonds and size of the molecule and the disturbance the vibration causes in the electromagnetic field. Oxygen molecules absorb UV radiation. This energy can be manifest in the kinetic energy of the oxygen molecule as a whole or as energy being radiated by the vibration of the atoms (probably as UV). CO2 has two bonds forming the molecule so the energy radiated by it is longer than the energy radiated by nitrogen or oxygen.”
Who are you replying to? It’s not me, since every reply you’ve given has nothing to do with my blockbuster discovery?
Herb
Dimity
| #
Herb or anyone, do you have an answer to my question? : Would the rate at which the balloonist freezes be faster or slower at higher altitudes or about the same, given the cooling area would be the same? Thanks.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dimity,
You make it more complicated by using a balloonist than an object. Humans have their own heat source and heat regulating systems that have developed to deal with the normal condones they encounter. During the summer the skin grows more capillaries to help radiate heat while in winter these capillaries disappear to conserve heat.
An important part of heat regulation is the use of water by sweating and breathing to lose heat. This is why we have wind chill temperatures and temperatures due to humidity. At a higher altitude the evaporation of water would change due to the lower density of the molecules which would increase heat loss so I believe that would cause a faster freeze assuming no wind.
In the troposphere the transfer of heat is primarily done by convection (collisions) not radiation. An object without its own heat source and regulating system would have its heat change similar to a thermometer. The temperature would decrease in the first 1000 ft then remain fairly constant up to 30,000 ft.
Herb
Reply
Dimity
| #
OK, Herb, I’ll keep it simple. Forget about wind speeds, etc., all other things being equal (except gas molecule temperatures, which you say increase with altitude), will a 37C dead balloonist (or a tailor’s dummy or a lump of metal or anything else without it’s own heat source generator) cool down faster or slower with increasing tropospheric altitude.
HerbRose
| #
Hi Dimity,
An inanimate object’s temperature will follow the temperature graph decreasing with altitude in the troposphere. This is a measurement of the total heat being transferred.
The definition of temperature is the mean kinetic energy of the molecules of the medium being measured. The kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the troposphere will increase with altitude but there are fewer of them (less total heat) so you need to decide what you mean by temperature, total heat or kinetic energy. A 100 C oven and a pot. of boiling water have the same temperature but food will cook much faster in the boiling water because it contains more total energy even though the kinetic energy of the molecules in the oven is greater than those in the water.
Herb
Dimity
| #
Thanks, Herb. Just so I’m clear, does this mean that, starting at the same temperature, the inanimate object will cool down (lose its heat and its temperature will fall) faster at higher tropospheric altitudes? I’m having trouble figuring out where the energy is going. If gas molecules are “hotter” higher in the troposphere, the energy can’t be going to them. And if it’s bypassing or bouncing off the hotter gas molecules, why isn’t the rate of cooling the same at higher altitudes, since the volume of space into which the object is radiating is effectively the same? To cool down and lose heat faster at higher altitudes, surely there must be something colder absorbing the energy?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dimity,
All objects above absolute zero radiate energy which decreases with distance. This is a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields in which the object exists. Objects also transmit energy through collisions where kinetic energy is transferred between the objects. An object rising in the atmosphere will radiate energy into the surrounding fields losing energy. It will gain heat from both objects radiating heat and collisions from molecules striking it. Equilibrium is reached when the energy being lost by an object is equal to the energy being absorbed by it. (If you put two glasses of water at different distances from a heat source they will both reach equilibrium absorbing and radiating energy but have different energy levels or temperatures.) When an object is rising in the atmosphere the number of molecules transferring heat to it (by collision and radiation) decreases so the amount of energy it receives decreases. The number of molecules of the object doesn’t decrease so it continues to radiate the same amount of energy. Even though the kinetic energy of the ,molecules striking the object may be greater this does mot compensate for the decreased number and there is a net loss of heat as the area of the fields which are being heated by the object increases.
In the example of the two glasses of water. If the energy from the heat source decreases the point where the energy from the glasses and the source equalizes will shift towards the heat source. The heat from the glasses of water will not increases the heat of the source just be spread over a larger area.
In the atmosphere the density of molecules drops rapidly which means the area heated by a molecule increases rapidly so the volume is not constant as the equilibrium point expands.
In the troposphere water exist as liquid droplets not a gas. Even though the water and gases in the atmosphere may have the same temperture the water will continue to absorb energy from the gas (gas molecules having higher kinetic energy.) This absorbing of energy by water moderates the energy in the troposphere. At the top of the troposphere, where the boiling point of water is exceeded this resulting of energy by water ceases and it becomes like any other gas.
So in the troposphere an object will lose energy as the energy being transferred to it decreases and water absorbs energy (even though it has the same temperature) while the rate of energy being lost by it remains fairly constant
Herb.