And there you go — Occam’s razor
Hey I don’t understand — Why can’t you have it both ways?
The propagandists running the US government are really pushing their luck with this one. The EPA claims that the past winter wasn’t cold in the US.
The Commerce Department says that contraction of the economy was due to the unusually cold winter, which the EPA says didn’t occur.
The U.S. economy contracted much more than previously thought during the first quarter of this year, revised estimates show. Rather than the 1 percent growth the Commerce Department reported last month, gross domestic product fell by 2.9 percent, the worst performance in five years. That brings total growth down by 3 percent since the government first reported its estimates in April. …. the economy’s woes have been largely blamed on an unusually cold winter
U.S. Economy Contracted Almost 3 Percent in First Quarter – NBC News.com
Nobel Peace Prize winner President Obama has destroyed all credibility…
View original post 7 more words
WOW, maybe the hated ‘flat-earthers’ are right and the “progressive’ believers are wrong … lol
Temperatures in the Arctic Basin have been cold again this summer, and there is little melting occurring. The map below shows ice loss from July 10 to July 11 in red.
There are only a few weeks left to the melt season, which is shaping up to be a complete disaster for people who make their living promoting fear about the Arctic.
The limits that the “believers” want to put on Carbon Dioxide will, if enacted as they envision, could bring down western civilization and usher in a new Dark age. Wind and Solar are just not capable of ever replacing Carbon! There is more than enough for the present which gives us time to come up with a real replacement not dreams like believing in fairies and unconscious.
By Paul Driessen ~
The outstanding presentations at this Ninth International Conference on Climate Change clearly demonstrate that activist climate science is increasingly devoid of evidence … increasingly removed from the scientific method – and yet is increasingly being used to devise, justify and impose policies, laws, and regulations that govern our lives.
Indeed, rules formulated on the basis of “dangerous manmade climate change” allegations control the hydrocarbons that power America and the world, improve and safeguard our lives, lift billions out of abject poverty, and allow us to achieve technologies and dreams never before thought possible.
Put simply, those who control carbon control our lives … our livelihoods, liberties, living standards, and even life spans. It is therefore essential that climate science reflects the utmost in integrity, transparency, and accountability.
Sadly, the opposite is true…
View original post 1,777 more words
By my calculations CO2 accounts for at most 50% of the climate changes over the past century. The rest is a result of natural process that move the planets temperature up and down over a thousand some year cycle. We are current near the peak of the current cycle which bottomed out around 1650. Those of us that do not believe that CO2 is a pollutant do not believe that it has no effect on the Climate, for it does, its just not as much as the IPCC and their minions think!
Re-Post from Breitbart by Robert Wilde 10 Jul 2014
According to The Economist, The Heartland Institute is “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” On Wednesday, several scientists gathered at the institute’s 9th International Conference on Climate change to address a variety of issues including the biological effects of increased CO2 on the planet due to human activity.
Dr. Craig Idso, the founder, former president, and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, provided a plethora of information on exactly how CO2 affects the environment. Global warming alarmists should be comforted that they have a lot more to be happy about and should not be fretting that global catastrophe is knocking at the door.
Idso pointed out that there is a huge body of literature on the biological impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. He emphatically stated that atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant. In fact, increased levels of CO2 reduce the negative effects of a number of plant stresses including: high salinity, low light, high and low temperatures, insufficient water, air pollution, and protects against herbivores i.e. being eaten by animals and insects.
Notably, Dr. Idso emphasized that the increased CO2 levels allow plants to produce the same amount of crop yield with less water. Moreover, plants are able to grow in dry areas where it had been previously too dry to exist. A collateral benefit to this is that the increased vegetation reduces the effects of soil erosion.
Perhaps Idso’s final conclusion should make all those who fear that global warming and increased CO2 is adding to the demise of the planet that everything is going to be OK: he claimed it is far more likely that CO2 proliferation will increase regional biodiversity and will contribute to the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats.
We know for a fact the the dangerous limit that was set of 2 C or 2,000 Gt of carbon, if I remember it correctly, was a pull it out of your butt number according to the climategate leaked emails from Mann. So why should we believe any of this dribble!
This is a key step in the Climate Debate
Determining the ‘exact’ Blackbody temperature of the planet is the first step in determining what the “greenhouse’ effect is; for without that value all else is either speculation or based on an unreliable value. This leads us to a quandary since the plant is a global spinning around a titled axis and with an elliptical orbit around the sun Figure 1 which is the source of virtually all the energy that heats the planet. Clearly with these facts there cannot be one temperature for the planet and so an average can be very misleading and lead to false conclusions.
Traditional calculations of the planets black body temperature ignore the variables which then lead one to assume a steady state situation verses the real dynamic situation that drives climate. To justify this assumption a general statement that the variances are too small to have any meaningful effect are promoted. I some cases with fewer variables this might be true but in this case I think not.
These are the main Variables:
1. The sun has a cycle of about eleven years and that gives a small variation in the suns output of about 1%
2. The planet has an elliptical Orbit that varies by 3.34% or 4,999,849 miles
3. The axial tilt of the planet is 23.4 degrees which causes winter and summer to alternate between Aphelion and Perihelion about every 10,000 years
4. The planet is a sphere so only one side faces the sun at any given moment
5. The sun’s energy reaches the planet on a line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet which only intersects the equator twice a year
6. The energy from the sun is concentrated around this line
7. The planet is a sphere so the suns radiation drops off in all directions from this line by a Cosine factor to zero at the edge 90 degrees from the center line
8. The spin and tilt of the planet means that the center line moves up 23.4 degrees and down 23.4 degrees during the course of one orbit
9. That movement means the distribution of energy also moves
10. The distribution of land and ocean are not uniform on the planet
11. The albedo of the planet is a variable not a constant
12. Energy from the core adds a small amount of energy
13. Tidal forces from the sun and the moon also add some energy
14. Energy is carried North and South from the hot spot centered on the line by the atmosphere and the ocean
15. The Coriolis Effect along with tidal forces drive thermal transfer north and south at an angle and these are then main contributors to the climate
Figure 1, the Earth’s orbit
Figure 2, orbital changes in solar flux
There are three sources of energy that determine the climate on the earth: the radiation from the sun which is said to be 1366 Wm2 The actual value based on the orbital range is from 1414.4 Wm2 in January to 1323.0 Wm2 in July Figure 2 and there is also an eleven year sun spot cycle with a range of 1.37 Wm2. The hot core of the planet adds ~0.087 W/m2 and the gravitational effects of the moon and the sun (tides) adds another ~.00738 Wm2. Of these three the sun’s radiation is by far the most important but considering all three the range during an eleven year solar cycle is from a high of ~1415.3 Wm2 to a low of ~1322.4 Wm2 so a more accurate mean would be 1368.34 Wm2.
The energy emitted by the planet must equal the energy absorbed by the planet and we can calculate this using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Which is the energy flux emitted by a blackbody is related to the fourth power of the body’s absolute temperature. The tidal and core temperatures are added after the albedo adjustment.
E = σT4
σ = 5.67×10-8 Wm2 K sec
A = 30.6% (the planets albedo, this is not a constant)
σTbb4 x (4πRe2) = S πRe2 x (1-A)
σTbb4 = S/4 * (1-A)
σTbb4 = 1368.24/4 Wm2 * (1-A)
σTbb4 = 342.16 Wm2 * (1-A)
σTbb4 = 254.36 Wm2
Earth’s Blackbody temperature Earth’s surface temperature
Tbb = 252.23O K (-20.92O C) low Ts = ~287.75O K (14.6 O C) today
Tbb = 254.36O K (-18.79O C) mean
Tbb = 256.54O K (-16.51O C) high
The difference between the Blackbody and the current temperatures is what we call the ‘greenhouse’ effect that averages 33.36O Celsius (C), today, although the range is from 35.52O C to 31.11O C from variations in the 11 year solar cycle. Despite this variation in incoming solar flux the planet’s temperatures is very stable. Other factors are also important in doing climate work such as the solar energy is concentrated between about +/- 30 degrees of the equator maybe a bit more. And the heat from the core and probably the tides is concentrated where the crust is the thinnest under the oceans and this concentration of energy core heat and tides) combined with Coriolis forces is probably what drives the ocean currents. In my opinion these other important factors are not being considered properly in the climate models.
We also know from geological studies Figure 3 that the planets temperature has been relatively stable over the past 600 million years with a mean of about 17O C or 290O Kelvin (K) and with a range of plus or minus 5O K or C based on the information in Figure 3. During the past 250 million years CO2 concentrations have ranged from a low of ~280 ppm (a historic low)in 1800 to the present low of 400 ppm to a high of over 2,000 ppm probably averaging around 1,500 ppm. There was only one other period in the past 600 million years with CO2 this low. Going back further CO2 was estimated to be as high is 7000 ppm, but we will ignore that for now.
This means that whatever the processes are that relate to determining the thermal balance of the planet they must work within this range to be valid. Although Figure 3 shows a range of 10O C it would be prudent to spend resources to determine these values with as great accuracy as possible. We’ll assume a mean of 16O C with a range from 10O to 22O C as being more reasonable. Also we are now in one of only three cold periods which are very rare in the past 600 million years and if we count that partial dip 150 million years ago that means that there is probably a 150 million year cycle there; maybe one of those first determined my Milutin Milankovic.
Figure 3, Geological temperatures and Carbon Dioxide
Additional discussion as to the so called “greenhouse” effect must start with the important correction that this process is not a true greenhouse effect, since it is not the same process that occurs in a greenhouse used to grow food. The actual process that occurs is based on the structure of the atoms involved and how they interact with the various frequencies of visible and infrared radiation that are in play on the planet. However at this point in time there is no way to correct for the misuse of the words so we are stuck with it and all the complications that therefore arise in trying to properly discuss the issue with lay people and even some with technical knowledge.
The greenhouse effect occurs within the earth’s atmosphere and the main constitutes of wet air, by volume ppmv (parts per million by volume) are listed in the following table. Water vapor is 0.25% over the full atmosphere but locally it can be 0.001% to 5% depending on local conditions. Water and CO2 are mostly near the surface not in the upper atmosphere so the bulk of the greenhouse effect must be close to the surface.
Gas Volume Percentage
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv 78.8842%
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv 20.8924%
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv 0.9316%
Water vapor (H2O) 2,500 ppmv 0.2494%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 400 ppmv 0.0399%
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv 0.001813%
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv 0.000523%
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv 0.000179%
There are only two of these gases that are relevant to determining how that 33O C (today) happens. That is not to say the others do not contribute but that at the present concentrations of Water H2O and Carbon Dioxide CO2 they are the main determinants. And since we know the range of temperatures that have existed geologically then we have set the range which these to gases must interact in, meaning that any set of equations or models or theories that predict values outside this range must be suspect based on geological evidence.
Also it must be kept in mind that the solar flux falls on a spot centered on a line drawn from the center of the earth to the center of the sun and because of the 23.5O axial tilt of the planet this “Hot” spot moves up and down as the planet moves though its orbit. Because of the shape of the planet the intensity falls off quickly as we move north and south and east and west according to a cosine factor so the heat energy is mostly over oceans near the equator where the atmosphere is the densest.
The first image below Figure 4 shows a recent distribution of water across the planet and it is clearly concentrated over the oceans close to the equator and that results in the heat imbalance and therefore movement north and south as shown in the second image Figure 5.
Figure 4, water vapor concentrated near the equator
Figure 5, basic heat flows from the equator north and south
The next two images show how that energy is moved by the water Figure 6 and the atmosphere north and south from the equator Figure 7.
Figure 6, Ocean currents
Figure 7, Atmospheric heat flows
In summary we now know that the Blackbody temperature of the planet is a variable.
Tbbl = 252.23O K (-20.92O C) low at Aphelion
Tbbm = 254.36O K (-18.79O C) and the yearly mean
Tbbh = 256.54O K (-16.51O C) high at Perihelion
Therefore the ‘greenhouse effect must also be a variable.
Ts = ~287.75O K (14.6O C) today
Ghl = Tbbl + Ts = 35.52O C
Ghm = Tbbm + Ts = 32.39O C
Ghh = Tbbh + Ts = 31.11O C
The range in temperature just from orbital changes is therefore 4.41 O C which is significantly more than the warming that the IPCC claims has happened. These are hard numbers based on the solar flux which is known and the orbital parameters of the Earth that are also known. The large variances come from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law; which is the energy flux emitted by a Blackbody is related to the fourth power of the body’s absolute temperature. The fourth power in the equation magnifies the small variation in solar flux significantly.
I knew this was coming — these people are mentally defective.
A national tax on anything that produces carbon emissions — gasoline, airplanes and coal-burning power plants — is the goal of the new Kentucky chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby, an international nonprofit group seeking to curb global warming.
Humans exhale a terrifying 40,000 PPM CO2 – enough to raise current atmospheric CO2 levels by 100X. In order to rescue mankind from global warming, breathing must be stopped through taxation or whatever other means is necessary.
I agree 100% with this as it goes along with my work on the manipulation that NASA does with the temperature data. But the irony to this is no matter how much they play with the numbers they can’t get the temperatures up to where the climate models say they MUST BE …
Thirty-nine percent of USHCN data is now fabricated, meaning that there is now 39% more monthly temperature data reported than measured, compared to less than 5% in 1990.
The fabricated data is warming 7°F/century faster than the measured data since 1990, when the data started disappearing.
In fact, the measured TOBS adjusted data shows no warming since 1990. All US warming since 1990 is due to data fabrication.
I am considered a heretic for excluding imaginary temperature data from my analysis, and simply averaging the thermometer data. It is now considered unacceptable by the orthodoxy to use actual measured data.
What really going on with the Climate?
The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table LOTI, second James E. Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0O Celsius, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated ‘PCM’ and based on a sensitively value of .65O Celsius. To smooth monthly variations a 12 month running average is used in all the plots. This information will be shown in four tables and updated each month as the new data comes in.
The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius shown in red with a black trend line added. There has been a very clear reversal in the upward movement of global temperatures since about 2001 and neither the UN IPCC nor anyone else has an explanation for this. Since CO2 has continued to increase at what could be argued an increasing rate this raises serious doubts about the logic programmed into all the IPCC global climate models.
The next plot UR, also in red, shows the IPCC estimates of what the Global temperature should be, based on Hansen’s Scenario B, with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. Therefore this plot represents a deviation from what the Climate “believers” KNOW what the temperature should be; with a positive value indicating the IPCC values are higher than actual and a negative value indicating the IPCC values are lower than actual. A black trend line is added and we can clearly see that the deviation from expected is increasing at an increasing rate. This makes sense since the IPCC models project increased temperatures based primarily on the increasing level of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, for them, the actual temperatures from NASA are trending down (even as they try to hide the down ward movement with data manipulation) since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 12 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the IPCC climate models, there is obviously something very wrong.
The next plot LL shown in blue is based on the equations in the PCM climate model described in previous papers and posts here and since it is generated by “equations” a trend line is not needed. As can be seen the PCM, LL, and the NASA, UL, trend plots are very similar the reason being that in the PCM model there is a 68.2 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of .30O Celsius (currently negative .0070O Celsius per year); and we are now in the downward portion of that trend which will continue until around 2035. This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Then there is the a long trend, 1052.6 years with an up and down of 1.36O Celsius (currently plus .0029O Celsius per year) also observed in the NASA data. Lastly there is CO2 adding about .005O Celsius per year so they messily wash out which matches the current holding pattern we are in. However with a few years the increasing downward trend of the short cycle will overpower the other tow and we will see drop of about .002O Celsius per year and that will be increasing until till around 2025. After about 2035 the short cycle will turn up and all three will be on the upswing again. These are all round numbers shown here are representative values.
The last plot LR in blue uses the same logic as used in the UR plot, here we use the PCM estimates of what the Global temperature should be with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. A positive value indicates the PCM values are higher than actual and a negative value indicates the PCM values are lower than expected. A black trend line was added and it clearly shows that the PCM model is tracking the NASA actual values very closely. In, fact since 1970 the PCM model has rarely been off by more than +/- .1 degrees Celsius and has an average trend of almost zero error, while the IPCC models are erratic and are now approaching an error rate of +.5O above expected.
The IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO2levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a 20 year period when the real variations in climate move in much longer cycles. Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason. By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO2 the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.
The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected.
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.
If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.
Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 