A Technical Study of Relationships in Solar Flux, Water and other Gasses in the upper Atmosphere, Using the August, 2022 NASA & NOAA Data


From the attached report on climate change for August 2022 Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere in 1958? To show this graphically Chart 8a was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up by about 32.0% from 1958 to August of 2022. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature also from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) is almost un-measurable at only .4%.

As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for another Chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2 Shown in the next Chart using a different scale.

This is Chart 8 which is the same as Chart 8a except for the scales. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 50 % on the left and 5% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .40%; while CO2 has increased by 32.0% which is 80 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem?

Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be a bit over 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius.

The NOAA and NASA numbers tell us the True story of the

Changes in the planets Atmosphere

The full 40 page report explains how these charts were developed .

NASA Crashing Into An Asteroid to Save The Earth!


Mr Scientific Published originally on Rumble on August 31, 2022 

NASA is going to crash a probe into an asteroid, Dimorphos, and try to change its orbit. The goal of this mission is to collect data on asteroid collisions so that eventually, they can work on a planetary defense system for Earth.

SpaceX Starship All Engine Static Fire BLASTS Starbase


spaceXcentric Published originally on Rumble on September 9, 2022 

SpaceX Starship 24 static fires all 6 Raptor 2 engines. Starlink continues to swarm planet Earth. Customers around the globe are testing the service at sea. And we finish with today’s Honorable Mention. Ep 344

Electric Air Taxis Coming Soon


Armstrong Economics Blog/Technology Re-Posted Sep 9, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Technological advancements are quite an amazing achievement. Although I never thought I’d see them in my lifetime, electric air taxis may become commonplace in the not-so-distant future. United Airlines announced that they are investing in air taxis from Eve Air Mobility and have already purchased 200 four-seat electric aircrafts. Eve, which was listed on the NYSE in May, will receive an additional $15 million investment from United. Flying taxis or eVTOLs (electric vertical take-off and landing vehicles) are designed for short commuter trips.

United also purchased 100 electric aircrafts from Archer Aviation. They expect the first shipments to arrive in 2026. Airlines Ventures President Michael Leskinen projects that a one-way trip to the airport would cost between $100 to $150, but these air taxis only have a range of 60 miles. This is a workaround to abide by the coming zero carbon emission laws but certainly will not be a replacement for affordable public transportation that many in the working class rely on.

Much is unknown about this new technology. Eve plans to hold a simulation later in the week in Chicago to study how eVTOLs will function in an urban environment. It is always refreshing to see technological advancement as innovation paves the way for opportunity.

A Technical Study of Relationships in Solar Flux, Water and other Gasses in the upper Atmosphere, Using the July, 2022 NASA & NOAA Data


From the attached report on climate change for July 2022 Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere in 1958? To show this graphically Chart 8a was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up by about 32.0% from 1958 to July of 2022. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature also from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) is almost un-measurable at only .4%.

As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for another Chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2 Shown in the next Chart using a different scale.

This is Chart 8 which is the same as Chart 8a except for the scales. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 50 % on the left and 5% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .40%; while CO2 has increased by 32.0% which is 80 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem?

Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be a bit over 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius.

The NOAA and NASA numbers tell us the True story of the Chan ages in planets Atmosphere

The full 40 page report explains how these charts were developed .

A Curious Case of Transferred Battery Technology


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on August 6, 2022 | sundance

Every once in a while, you come across an article that seems like one thing but is actually another thing entirely.  The NPR story of how “The U.S. made a breakthrough battery discovery — then gave the technology to China“, is one such article.

Several people sent this to us for opinion and review; however, the background of the article reveals something quite different. Then again, perhaps that’s exactly why NPR wrote it.

[READ THE STORY HERE]

It is important to read the story as presented by NPR, because it is oddly written as if someone is trying to use the outlet to get out ahead of something else.

The issue surrounds a new product technology called a vanadium redox flow battery.  Essentially the U.S. government funded scientists to develop an advanced battery that could store energy without degrading.  After success, the technology was then sent to China for manufacturing.  China then invested heavily in the product and used the technology to mass manufacture the battery for the global market. The United States is now behind in the product development and manufacture.

As the story is told in NPR, “the Chinese company didn’t steal this technology. It was given to them — by the U.S. Department of Energy. First in 2017, as part of a sublicense, and later, in 2021, as part of a license transfer.”  Except that’s not what happened at all.  There is some major ‘ass-covering’ in that false narrative.

The lead scientist working on the vanadium redox flow battery project was a man named Gary Yang.  Mr. Yang was born in China and emigrated to the U.S. becoming a U.S. citizen.  Yang worked with U.S. scientists to develop the technology and was funded by a multi-million research grant from the Dept of Energy.

After their initial success, according to NPR, “in 2012, Yang applied to the Department of Energy for a license to manufacture and sell the batteries.”  The Dept of Energy license was granted, and Yang launched UniEnergy Technologies as the parent company to develop the commercial application of the product.

It’s 2012 and Gary Yang was now looking for investors and manufacturing in the commercial sector to produce the battery.

Here’s where it gets interesting…. According to Yang, “he couldn’t persuade any U.S. investors to come aboard. “I talked to almost all major investment banks; none of them (wanted to) invest in batteries,” Yang said in an interview, adding that the banks wanted a return on their investments faster than the batteries would turn a profit.” This is Yang’s justification for what he did next.

After he couldn’t find U.S. investors (which I will say up front seems like an excuse), Yang then took the technology to China to have them manufacture the product.

The Chinese embraced the technology, created entire manufacturing eco-systems around it and now corner the market on the technology behind vanadium batteries.  However, giving the technology to China for manufacturing and development is a violation of the license Chang was given.

Yang even admits he knew it was not allowed. “Yang’s original license requires him to sell a certain number of batteries in the U.S., and it says those batteries must be “substantially manufactured” here. In an interview, Yang acknowledged that he did not do that.” Now we start to look a little more skeptically at the claims by Gary Yang, because a whole bunch of stuff just doesn’t add up.

As noted by NPR, five years after getting the license from the Dept of Energy, “in 2017, Yang formalized the relationship and granted Dalian Rongke Power Co. Ltd. an official sublicense, allowing the company to make the batteries in China.”

After China had fully developed the technology, they obviously no longer needed Gary Yang to go global with the product.  As a result of what can only be considered as ‘getting cut out’, Yang -still holding the original DoE license- then turned to Europe.

Gary Yang not only sublicensed Chinese manufacturing, supposedly without DoE notification, in 2021 he sold the license to the Netherlands.

“In 2021, Yang transferred the battery license to a European company based in the Netherlands. The company, Vanadis Power, told NPR it initially planned to continue making the batteries in China and then would set up a factory in Germany, eventually hoping to manufacture in the U.S., said Roelof Platenkamp, the company’s founding partner.

Vanadis Power needed to manufacture batteries in Europe because the European Union has strict rules about where companies manufacture products, Platenkamp said.  “I have to be a European company, certainly a non-Chinese company, in Europe,” Platenkamp said in an interview with NPR.”

Before moving on, let me recap because things are going to start making sense about why this story has some major ramifications.  Also, don’t overlook the timing of events and keep in the back of your mind what you know about Hunter Biden (remember, ‘energy sector’ with no experience) and Biden’s deals with China being made in/around this same timeframe.

♦ 2006 – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory original grant. “It took six years and more than 15 million taxpayer dollars for the scientists to uncover what they believed was the perfect vanadium battery recipe.

♦ 2012 – The lead scientist, Gary Yang, asks the Dept of Energy for a license.  He then creates UniEnergy Tech.

♦ 2013/2014 – Unable to find investors in the U.S., Gary Yang enters a manufacturing and development agreement with China.

♦ 2017 – Gary Yang officially grants a sublicense to Dalian Rongke Power Co. Ltd in China.

♦ 2021 – Gary Yang then sells his license to Vanadis Power in the Netherlands.

Tell me again how this NPR sentence makes sense: “the Chinese company didn’t steal this technology. It was given to them — by the U.S. Department of Energy. First in 2017, as part of a sublicense, and later, in 2021, as part of a license transfer.

Do you see anywhere in this reformatted outline where the U.S. Dept of Energy gave the technology to anyone, except Gary Yang?

The only entity responsible for transferring the technology to China was Gary Yang.

Now, with all that in mind, check out the date on the picture that NPR uses in their article:

2015

Keep the guy on the left, Imre Gyuk, in mind as we move forward.  Note the date of “2015” with Imre Gyuk and Gary Yang. They are standing together.

Remember in the NPR article, the baseline for why Yang took the technology to China was that he couldn’t find investors to manufacture in the United States.

The vanadium battery license in question would have come from Imre Gyuk’s office.  Now, in addition to being the Director of Energy Storage Research in the Office of Electricity, of the Dept of Energy, Gyuk also held another role:  “As part of the program he also supervises the $185M ARRA stimulus funding for Grid Scale Energy Storage
Demonstrations” {Citation}

The ARRA funds referenced were the Obama-era stimulus funds; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds; the shovel ready jobs funds.  Yet, Gary Yang cannot find investors?

Citation from 2014: “It’s not a given that lithium-ion batteries are the best batteries for electric cars, or for electrical grid storage. Other types of batteries today show promise, most of which you’ve never heard of: vanadium redox flow, zinc-based, sodium-aqueous and liquid-metal. Businesses looking to invest in batteries are deciding between these technologies and more. Market players will weigh the different technologies’ cost of manufacture, durability, usefulness.” {Citation} But Gary Yang couldn’t find U.S. investors? 

Citation from 2014: “The forever battery.” A Silicon Valley startup run by old-school technologists has invented an energy storage device that could take an entire neighborhood off the grid. This magic box is called a Vanadium redox flow battery. {CitationBut Gary Yang couldn’t find U.S. investors.

Citation from 2016: “Cost-effective, reliable, and longer-lived energy storage is necessary to truly modernize the grid,” said Dr. Imre Gyuk, energy storage program manager for DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, of UET’s system. “As third-generation vanadium flow batteries gain market share, it is essential to increase our understanding of storage value and optimization to accelerate adoption of integrated storage and renewable energy solutions among utilities.” {CitationBut Gary Yang couldn’t find U.S. investors.  {Here’s another Citation}

Citation from 2018: “On January 23, 2018, the Chinese Academy of Sciences hosted a meeting on energy storage with distinguished guests Dr. Imre Gyuk, director of energy storage research at the United States Department of Energy, and Dr. Gary Yang, CEO of UniEnergy Technologies.  Dr. Gyuk and Dr. Yang were met by China Energy Storage Alliance Chairman and the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Engineering Thermophysics Deputy Director Chen Haisheng, China Energy Storage Alliance Deputy Chairman and Beijing Puneng General Manager Huang Mianyan, and CNESA Standing Council Representative and general manager of State Grid Electric Vehicle Service Company Wang Mingcai.” (image below)

[SOURCE]

This meeting is important because Imre Gyuk and Gary Yang are together, in China in 2018.  The year after the Dept of Energy license given to Gary Yang was unlawfully sublicensed to the Chinese.

NPR is correct in that U.S. taxpayers funded six years of research and development for vanadium redox flow batteries (2006-2012), and once the product was successful the technology was transferred to China (2014-2017) as part of the commercial manufacture.  However, it was Gary Yang who gave it to them, and by all appearances he did so unlawfully.

There is going to be much more to this story…. Much more.  We have only just begun to dig.

[Support CTH Here]

.

A Technical Study of Relationships in Solar Flux, Water and other Gasses in the upper Atmosphere, Using the June, 2022 NASA & NOAA Data


From the attached report on climate change for May 2022 Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere in 1958? To show this graphically Chart 8a was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up by about 32.0% from 1958 to May of 2022. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature also from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) is almost un-measurable at only .4%.

As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for another Chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2 Shown in the next Chart using a different scale.

This is Chart 8 which is the same as Chart 8a except for the scales. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 50 % on the left and 5% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .40%; while CO2 has increased by 32.0% which is 80 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem?

Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be a bit over 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius.

The NOAA and NASA numbers tell us the True story of the Chan ages in planets Atmosphere

The full 40 page report explains how these charts were developed .

The Transition from Fossil Fuel to Wind and Solar


An engineering study on the timing of the proposed change in our form of energy generation. Written on July 3, 2022 by Centinel

With the transition out of fossil fuels into green energy now well underway, there will be an unavoidable lag in available energy. The reason for this is that the solar panel fields being built and the wind turbines installations are both occurring at a rate way too slow to keep up with the reduction of fossil fuel production that is already being implemented. The energy gab is what is driving the price of fuel (gasoline and Diesel) up.

 Approximately, 88% of U.S. energy is from Petroleum, Natural Gas, Coal, and Nuclear and of the remaining 12% is from all other sources, but only 4% of that is Solar and Wind. The other 8% is hydroelectric and biomass; which I’m not sure they really count if you want zero CO2 emissions by 2030.

To reach that goal of zero CO2  means we have to get rid of 88% of the existing US generating capacity and increase the Solar and Wind from 4% to 88% or 22 times the existing solar and wind capacity. The issue is that to keep everything running we need to install the green energy first and then cut out the fossil fuels in proportion to the increase of the green energy; for example look at this approximation below based on The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) June 2022 report for the year 2021 above.

Year   Solar Wind    Coal, Oil, Natural Gas

2022        4%                  88%

2024        25%                66%

2026        46%                44%

2028        67%                22%

2030        88%                0%

If the Coal, oil and natural gas production is removed faster than the Green Solar and Wind capacity is increased than blackouts of increasing duration will result and the economy will shut down. It is basic engineering and not political. The politicians tell us the science is settled on Climate change and this has to be done and if that is true then to get to zero CO2 by 2030 the previous numbers must be followed, the engineering to accomplish that goal is also settled, This issue with politicians is they are not capable of making rational decisions on major projects just like they are also not capable of winning a war i.e. Vietnam under President Johnson and WW II Germany under Hitler. It’s a basic rule in The Art of War that the king or ruler must let the generals run the war. Here in the U.S. the politicians are not letting the engineers run the conversion.

The politicians decided to reduce the U’S’ production of fossil based fuel when they took over and that started the price increase on day one, January 20, 2021, of the Biden Administration. There are two kinds of inflation product supply and excess demand. If supply goes down and demand is constant, the price goes up. On the other side if demand goes up and supply does not then that drives up the price from the demand side.

In the current U.S. case its primarily supply shortages of gasoline and diesel coupled with increased demand as we came out of the COVID economics issues. Since everything moves by truck or rail, the price increases of diesel affects everything.

A Technical Study of Relationships in Solar Flux, Water and other Gasses in the upper Atmosphere, Using the May, 2022 NASA & NOAA Data


From the attached report on climate change for May 2022 Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere in 1958? To show this graphically Chart 8a was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up by about 32.0% from 1958 to May of 2022. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature also from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) is almost un-measurable at only .4%. As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for another Chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2 Shown in the next Chart using a different scale.

This is Chart 8 which is the same as Chart 8a except for the scales. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 50 % on the left and 5% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .40%; while CO2 has increased by 32.0% which is 80 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem?

Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be a bit over 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius.

The NOAA and NASA numbers tell us the True story of the Chan ages in planets Atmosphere

The full 40 page report explains how these charts were developed .

Elon Musk: Starship Passes Cryo Test, Booster Static Fire Just Weeks Away


spaceXcentric  Published originally on Rumble on June 3, 2022

Starship Super Heavy is only a few weeks away from lighting up. Polaris Dawn completes mountain training. Starlink is given a new destination. And we finish with today’s Honorable Mention. Ep 324