General Release Form - Lipscomb University: Fill & Download for Free

Of course not. First, there is no Global Warming. One (1) degree total rise in temperature spread out over 140 years does not Global Warming make... that translated to less than 0.007 degrees per year which is NOTHING !Further, Co2 emissions, both natural and human, are not having a climate effect. They are wholly beneficial to the photosynthesis chemical process converting radiant energy to chemical. Co2 is heavier than air and does not hang in the atmosphere for long.The foundation of recent alarmism about potential Co2 global warming is built on sand lacking intellectual rigour pushed forward by left wing political group think from the likes of Al Gore. The low level of debate from the alarmists is embarrassing to intellectuals like Camille Paglia.I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target.Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.https://www.salon.com/2007/10/10...Camille Paglia is a second-wave feminist and an American academic specializing in literature and culture, particularly topics around gender, sex, and sexuality. She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines.The real deniers are the alarmists who deny Mother Nature and natural variability. Piles of peer reviewed papers show the NEGLECTED SUN not trace amounts of vital plant food drives the climate. Denying natural variability and taking too short a view explains why 100% of alarmism fails to happen. Sea levels are not rising much, Arctic ice is expanding, Islands are rising not sinking, winters are not moderate without snow, etc. TEMPERATURES ARE FALLING AROUND THE GLOBE. IT IS GETTING COLDER NOT WARMER!The lack of correlation between Co2 and temperature is strong evidence of no effect. Co2 always lags temperature therefore it is not possible to be causative of temperature.Co2 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE NOT PRECEDE ITLong history from Antarctic Ice Core of Co2 lagging Temperature.Dr. Patrick Moore has presented research showing the C02 in the atmosphere is wholly beneficial and that we are starved at only 400 ppm for photosynthesis. We need more as in the past the average has been > 1000 ppm.The TRUTH about carbon dioxide (C02): Patrick Moore, Sensible Environmentalist‬There is too minute amount of either natural Co2 or our emissions in the atmosphere to validate the so called warming effect using the fake greenhouse metaphor. Our emissions are near zero and no more than a ‘pinch of salt’ in the huge atmosphere.CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates.Think about it this is not 1%, not 0.1 % and not even half of 0.1 %.Climate change happens over thousands of years, but man-mad Co2 is imperceptible in the earth’s temperatures. Earth’s temperature rises in the past have always preceded a rise in CO2 by a few hundred years according to peer reviewed research, not as Al Gore would have you believe, caused it.Easterbrook, 2016“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”In an El Nino year, Water vapour is 4% of the atmosphere can rise to 5% and CO2 from 0.39 to 0.42. Human made CO2 would remain about the same in that year. .Co2 is the air we breath out at 35,000 ppm with every breath. It is necessary for life on the planet through the process of photosynthesis converting radiant energy to chemical.Figure 2.3: Photosynthesis: In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose - or sugar.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minuteepidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2OWater (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.Photosynthesis is the transformation of radiant energy to chemical energy.Plants take in water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight and turn them into glucose and oxygen. Called photosynthesis, one of the results of this process is that carbon dioxide is removed from the air. It is nature's process for returning carbon from the atmosphere to the earth.The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.Radiant to ChemicalFigure A. Graphs of the overall atmospheric concentration and the relative percentages of trace gases such as Co2.The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.The Role of Water VapourWater vapor is, by far, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, absorbing heat across many wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. However, the impact of a greenhouse gas must also consider how long that gas remains in the atmosphere and how much it varies from place to place.From a humid rainforest to an arid desert, the amount of water vapor varies wildly around the world, making up anywhere between zero and four percent of the atmosphere. It also varies over time through seasonal changes and with height. The higher you get in the atmosphere, the drier it can become.For Greenhouse gases water vapour at 95% is major not Co2 that is near zero.Anthropocentric CO2 is Only 0.117% !In my view the answer to this question is very relevant to upsetting the scare mongering from Al Gore and other alarmists about unprecedented global warming. The facts are there are too few Co2 molecules to have any effect on the earth’s climate. The amount of Co2 today at just 400 ppm [parts per million.] Co2 today pales in comparison with the past when there was more than 5000 ppm which is > 10 X as much! [ Remember with every breath out we exhale > 35,000 ppm of Co2 into the atmosphere.]The entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.GREENHOUSE GASES COMPOSITIONHere is a key graph of all Greenhouse gases that shows detailed percentages of where the source of C02 in the atmosphere and human emissions are miniscule at only 0.117%. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from other natural sources it is foolish to think humans make any difference. Even the most costly efforts to limit human Co2 emissions if they succeeded would have a very small-- undetectable-- effect on global climate.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossil...It may be a little hard to picture just how minute the fossil fuel emissions across the globe are. Please take 3 minutes to view this helpful Australian Rice video that helped Australia’s public decide to axe the futile carbon tax.AXE THE TAX AUSTRALIA THE RICE VIDEO 85880 32 CO2 1 HUMAN CO2It is hard to imagine, but essential to realize they have no effect on the climate, just how small the Co2 emissions from fossil fuels are. Co2 so small drawn to scale it is invisible.Even adjusting for unproven heat retention make little difference in the composition of Co2 in the atmosphere.Ibid, page 75"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemisthttp://www.populartechnology.net...The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.A PINCH OF SALTA much more accurate metaphor for Co2 is the well known “a pinch of salt makes everything taste better.” The minute amount of salt like Co2 has a chemical reaction with food making it more sugary and less bitter. But like Co2 a pinch of salt is too small to warm the food or the planet.It helps to gain perspective OF HOW MINUTE CO2 IS with a picture graph.THIS IS THE FAKE GREENHOUSE OF ALARMISM WITH NO PANELS COVERED WITH MINUTE AMOUNTS OF CO2.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has no meaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax - Dr. Ivar Giaever- ‪Published on 12 Jul 2015- ‪Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.‪Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.--Partial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Look, Feel, & Smell your best. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDhttp://www.shtfplan.com/headline..Comment ID: 3716166https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li...July 16, 2017 at 9:20 amDr. S. Fred SingerDr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, is one of the world’s most respected and widely published experts on climate. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL, where he was principal investigator for the Cosmic Dust/Orbital Debris Project (1989-94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981-86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).Dr. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report.Dr. Singer is author, coauthor, or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment (ICS Press, 1992), Hot Talk Cold Science – Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (Independent Institute, 1997, 1999), Climate Policy – From Rio to Kyoto (Hoover Institution, 2000), Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, revised ed. 2008), and three volumes in the NIPCC series: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (Heartland Institute, 2008), Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Heartland Institute, 2009), and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report (Heartland Institute, 2011).Dr. Singer is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, and American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. He was elected to the AAAS Council and served on the Committee on Council Affairs, and as Section Secretary. In 1997, NASA presented Dr. Singer with a commendation and cash award “for important contributions to space research.”Dr. Singer has given hundreds of lectures and seminars on global warming, including to the science faculties at Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley, California Institute of Technology, State University of New York-Stony Brook, University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, University of Connecticut, University of Colorado, Imperial College-London, Copenhagen University, University of Rome, and Tel Aviv University. He has also given invited seminars at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Max Planck Institute for Extra-Terrestrial Physics in Munich, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and (2010) in New Delhi and Singapore.Dr. Singer has been a pioneer in many ways. At the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University, he participated in the first experiments using high-altitude research rockets, measuring the energy spectrum of primary cosmic rays and the distribution of stratospheric ozone; he is generally credited with the discovery of the equatorial electrojet current flowing in the ionosphere. In academic science during the 1950s, he published the first studies on subatomic particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field – radiation belts, later discovered by James Van Allen.Dr. Singer was the first to make the correct calculations for using atomic clocks in orbit, contributing to the verification of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and now essential in the GPS system of satellite navigation. He also designed satellites and instrumentation for remote sensing of the atmosphere and received a White House Presidential Commendation for this work.In 1971, Dr. Singer calculated the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas. He also predicted that methane, once reaching the stratosphere, would transform into water vapor, which could then deplete stratospheric ozone. A few years later, methane levels were indeed found to be rising, and the increase in stratospheric water vapor was confirmed in 1995.Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate,"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."-S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginiahttps://www.nas.org/articles/Est...German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTC© Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindetProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement, and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Here's the interview:NTZ: You were once a believer in the man-made CO2 climate disaster. What changed your mind?FV: I was Environmental Senator of Hamburg until 1998 and had had absolutely no doubts about the AGW hypothesis because global temperatures indeed had been running parallel with CO2 emissions. My first doubts over the IPCC's science arose after the dramatic errors of the 2007 4th Assessment Report came to light. On German public television PIK Director Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by the year 2035. Then as a CEO of Shell Repower Systems, and later RWE Innogy, where I was responsible for the development of renewable energies and discovered that natural factors were impacting our climate. We saw that the wind strength in Northwest Europe had been in decline year after year. Yet, climate scientists had told us just the opposite was supposed to occur, i.e. that wind strength would increase. So I looked at the literature in detail and was able to find there was a relationship with the North Atlantic Oscillation, whose 60-year cycle had entered a weak phase. I wrote articles about this in leading German dailies, and I was immediately branded as a "climate denier" by Stefan Rahmstorf. His reaction led me to look even deeper into the literature. In the end it was Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf who turned me into a skeptic.NTZ: Your climate science critical book Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun) was released early last year in Germany. It remained on the Spiegel bestseller list for 3 weeks. Has it changed the discussion in Germany? Were you surprised by the public's reaction?FV: The leftist, liberal media labeled me an "eco-reactionary" who represented obsolete positions. That was to be expected. What truly surprised me the most was the harsh reaction from German climate scientists who were not even willing to discuss the topics addressed in the book. And the longer our book remained on the bestseller list, and the longer the warming stop became, the more our adversaries' tactics ran aground. First they ignored us and then they tried to isolate us through personal defamation. Die kalte Sonne became the symbol of resistance against a politically indoctrinated science which denied natural processes and spread fear in order to promote a particular energy policy - one that threatened the prosperity and growth of the German industrial base. So to me it was a sort of an accolade when former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt invited me to a personal audience to find out more about Die kalte Sonne. Now I'm permitted to quote him: "Lüning's and Vahrenholt's assertions are plausible". The [former] UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson invited me to London and encouraged me to publish the book in English. Now it is appearing this week as The Neglected Sun. It's the Die kalte Sonne in English, and it's been updated.NTZ: CO2 is supposed to be trapping heat in the atmosphere, yet global atmospheric temperatures haven't risen in 200 months (over 16 years). Where has all the "trapped heat" gone? Some leading scientists are frustrated that they cannot find it. What do you think is happening?FV: It's now obvious that the IPCC models are not correctly reflecting the development of atmospheric temperatures. What's false? Reality or the models? The hackneyed explanation of a deep sea warming below 700 meters hasn't been substantiated up to now. How does atmospheric warming from a climate gas jump 700 meters deep into the ocean? If you consider the uncertainties in the Earth's radiation budget measurements at the top of the atmosphere, and those of the temperature changes at water depths below 700 meters, where we are talking about changes of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over many years, such a "missing heat" cannot be ascertained today. The likelihood is that there is no "missing heat". Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory. Perhaps this is why we've been hearing speculation about the deep ocean. On the other hand, perhaps this discussion tells us that the alarmist faction needs to deal more with oceanic cycles. It is possible that this is a step in recognizing the central impacts of the PDO and AMO on our climate.NTZ: Hans von Storch confirms that 98% of the climate models have been wrong so far. Do you think the directors of world's leading climate research institutes risk damaging the once sterling reputations of their institutes if they do not soon admit there's a problem with climate science?FV: They certainly find themselves in a serious jam. That's why they are now trying to gain time by claiming that the models first become falsified if there has been no warming over a period of 30 years - never mind that the warming of 1977 to 1998 was only 22 years and deemed to be long enough to "prove" the CO2 theory. A few years ago climate scientist Ben Santer said only 17 years were necessary before we could talk about a real climate trend. Now that reality is pulling the rug from under models, some scientists are having misgivings. Some are praying for an El Nino year, which would allow them to beat the drums of fear again. They'll hype up every single weather effect to get attention.NTZ: Some prominent climate experts have been expressing second thoughts about the seriousness of man-made climate change, e.g. Hans von Storch, Lennart Bengtsson. Do you expect more scientists to follow as more data come in?FV: Certainly. That's what's so fascinating about science. It proposes theories. And when they don't fit reality, they get changed. The chaff gets separated from the wheat.NTZ: Spiegel for example has been publishing some articles critical of alarmist climate science. Do you expect the rest of Germany's media to soon follow and to start taking a more critical look?FV: This process is fully under way. But it's going to take a long time because an entire generation has been convinced that CO2 is a climate killer. But the shrill tones have been quieting down.NTZ: What danger does Germany face should it continue down its current path of climate alarmism and rush into renewable energies?FV: Twenty billion euros are being paid out by consumers for renewable energies in Germany each and every year. Currently that amounts to 250 euros per household each year and it will increase to 300 euros next year.Worse, it's a gigantic redistribution from the bottom to top, from the poor who cannot afford a solar system to rich property owners who own buildings with large roof areas. The German Minister of Environment fears a burden of 1000 billion euros by 2040.It is truly outrageous that 1) 40% of the world's photovoltaic capacity is installed in Germany, a country that sees as much sunshine as Alaska, 2) we are converting wheat into biofuel instead of feeding it to the hungry, and 3) we are covering 20% of our agricultural land with corn for biogas plants and thus adversely impacting wildlife. We are even destroying forests and nature in order to make way for industrial wind parks.On windy days we have so much power that wind parks are asked to shut down, yet they get paid for the power they don't even deliver. And when the wind really blows, we "sell" surplus power to neighboring countries at negative prices. And when the wind stops blowing and when there is no sun, we have to get our power from foreign countries. In the end we pay with the loss of high-paying industrial jobs because the high price of power is making us uncompetitive.The agitators in climate science here in Germany have done us no favors. Renewable energies do have a big future, but not like this. It's been a run-away train and it's too expensive. We are putting Germany's industry in jeopardy. In reality there really isn't any urgency because the solar cycles and nature are giving us time to make the transition over to renewable energies in a sensible way.NTZ: Has the weather become more extreme? Why are we getting bombarded by scary reports from the media - even after a normal thunderstorm with hail?FV: Extreme weather is the only card they have left to play. We see that Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2007. At the South Pole sea ice is at the highest extent in a very long time, hurricanes have not become more frequent, the same is true with tornadoes, sea level is rising at 2-3 mm per year and there's been no change in the rate, and global temperature has been stagnant for 15 years. Indeed we are exposed to bad weather. And when one is presented with a simplistic explanation, i.e. it's man's fault, it gladly gets accepted. CO2 does have a warming effect on the planet. However, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. The climate impact of CO2 is less than the half of what the climate alarmists claim. That's why in our book, The Neglected Sun, we are saying there is not going to be any climate catastrophe.NTZ: What do you expect from the soon-to-be-released IPCC 5thAssessment Report?FV: It is truly remarkable that some countries are urging IPCC 5AR authors to address the reasons for the temperature hiatus in the summary for policymakers. Dissatisfaction with the IPCC's tunnel vision is growing. But let's not kid ourselves: In the coming days and weeks the media are not going to be able to refrain from the IPCC catastrophe-hype. However, what will be different from the previous four reports is that the hype will die off much more quickly. Those who ignore nature and its fluctuations will end up on the sidelines soon enough. I think this is going to be the last report of this kind.Professor Dr Fritz Vahrenholt is a German scientist, environmentalist, politician and industrialist. With his initial Doctorate in chemistry, Prof Vahrenholt has researched at the Max Planck Institute for Carbon Research at Mulheim. A former Senator and Deputy Environmental Minister for Hamburg, he has served on the Sustainable Advisory Board successively for Chancellors Gerhard Schroeder and Angela Merkel.I have learned much be reading his text in detail.This book written by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONThis comment on the book is worth reading.Randy A. Stadt5.0 out of 5 starsWith Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017Format: PaperbackThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way.The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty.Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them.And that is immoral.

Because taking action on climate change is futile as we cannot control the climate.Because no one knows what is happening with the climate including the climate scientists and there is a credibility problem with the alarmist politicians like Al Gore making ridiculous and wildly exaggerated claims about rising seas, falling islands and melting polar ice. The media are worse and give credence to the growing concern that they are primarily purveyors of fake news to sell their goods.What is happening to the climate: is it soon getting much hotter as some speculate or much colder as others believe. The chaotic and complex climate has been dominated for millions of years by unstable natural variation with essentially two unpredictable major cycles - either a HOT BOX or an ICE BOX.The best guess about the future seems to be it is going to get much colder based on data over the past 8000 years. This further makes the UN alarmist crowd look like they are crying wolf about catastrophic warming. It also brings into play the possibility that those who are vainly trying to make the climate colder will be excoriated when that is the last thing the world needs!Research shows loss of sunspots has historically preceded a cooling climate like the global Little Ice Age. We do not know as everything we observe cold or hot is just weather and we are easily fooled in the short run of our lives by black swans from such as record snowfall and randomness.James Lovelock is a respected author and science leader.This week for example Australia is experiencing record snowfall.RECORD BREAKING SNOWFALL PROMPTS AUSTRALIA’S RESORTS TO EXTEND THEIR SEASONAUGUST 17, 2018 CAP ALLONAustralia’s ski resorts have been enjoying record-breaking snowfall this winter, prompting an extension to their season.The country’s biggest snow resort, Perisher, is now set to stay open until Sunday October 7, with the natural snow depth hitting 203.9cm.https://electroverse.net/record-breaking-snowfall-prompts-australias-resorts-to-extend-their-season/POLITICS IS TURNING AGAINST TAKING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGEIn Canada an anti Paris Accord provincial government in Ontario trounce the incumbent pro climate change Liberals earlier. Today the Prime Minister of Australia lost his job trying to support the PARIS ACCORD.CLIMATE CHANGE BILL’S FAILURE TOPPLES AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER MALCOLM TURNBULL12:17 PM 08/24/2018Michael Bastasch | ContributorClimate Change Bill’s Failure Topples Australian Prime Minister Malcolm TurnbullAustralia has a new prime minister after the governing coalition refused to support global warming-related legislation pushed by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.Turnbull stepped down Friday as a vote of no confidence loomed. Turnbull has been replaced by Scott Morrison, who helped craft Australia’s strict immigration policy and a more conservative member of Parliament.Former Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton was expected to replace Turnbull, but lost in an upset ballot. Morrison beat Dutton in a 45 to 40 vote Friday.“There was a determined insurgency from a number of people both in the party room and backed by voices, powerful voices, in the media,” Turnbull said Friday, according to CNN.Turnbull’s leadership came into question when his conservative coalition government split over proposed legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to comply with the Paris climate accord. (RELATED: Democrats’ Latest Global Warming Talking Points Are Straight From The Obama Playbook)Turnbull’s so-called National Energy Guarantee would have reduced energy sector emissions 26 percent by 2030 as part of Australia’s Paris accord pledge. But he couldn’t get support from a group of conservative members of Parliament led by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott.Abbott initially led the conservative governing coalition to victory in 2013 on a platform that included getting rid of Australia’s carbon tax. The tax had been imposed by the previous left-wing government, and would eventually morph into a cap-and-trade system.“The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished,” Abbott said shortly after winning the 2013 election.Parliament voted to abolish the carbon tax, but Abbott was ousted from leadership in 2015 by Turnbull. Now, the tables have turned.Turnbull delayed the vote on his climate bill, but it was too late. Turnbull’s ability to lead the government came under fire, and he announced he would resign after a new prime minister had been chosen.However, Turnbull’s departure could cost the current government its one-seat majority in Parliament. Turnbull’s department will lead to a special election or even a general election, potentially leading to more losses.Lawrence Solomon: A global cooling consensusSolar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 yearsIn the 1960s and 1970s, a growing scientific consensus held that the Earth was entering a period of global cooling. The CIA announced that the “Western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of detrimental global climatic change” akin to the Little Ice Age of the 17th and 18th centuries, “an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.” President Jimmy Carter signed theNational Climate Program Act to deal with the coming global cooling crisis. Newsweek magazine published a chilling article entitled “The Cooling World.”In the decades that followed, as temperatures rose, climate skeptics mocked the global cooling hypothesis and a new theory emerged — that Earth was in fact entering a period of global warming.Now an increasing number of scientists are swinging back to the thinking of the 1960s and 1970s. The global cooling hypothesis may have been right after all, they say. Earth may be entering a new Little Ice Age.“Real risk of a Maunder Minimum ‘Little Ice Age,’” announced the BBC this week, in reporting startling findings by Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University. “Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years [raising the risk of a new Little Ice Age] from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%,” explained Paul Hudson, the BBC’s climate correspondent. If Earth is spared a new Little Ice Age, a severe cooling as “occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.”During the Little Ice Age, the Sun became eerily quiet, as measured by a near disappearance of the sunspots that are typically present. Solar scientists around the world today see similar conditions, giving impetus to the widespread view that cold times lie ahead. “When we have had periods where the Sun has been quieter than usual we tend to get these much harsher winters” echoed climatologist Dennis Wheeler from Sunderland University, in a Daily Express article entitled “Now get ready for an ‘Ice Age’ as experts warn of Siberian winter ahead.”Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland back up theories that support the Sun’s importance in determining the climate on Earth. In a paper published this month by the American Meteorological Society, the authors demolish the claims by IPCC scientists that the Sun couldn’t be responsible for major shifts in climate. In a post on her website this month, Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, all-but mocked the IPCC assertions that solar variations don’t matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited: the National Research Council’s recent report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” and NASA, former home of global warming guru James Hansen.As NASA highlighted in a press release in January of this year, in citing the NRC report on solar variations: “There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.” To bolster the argument that solar activity could explain the Little Ice Age as well as lesser changes, NASA then listed some dozen authorities, including Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, whose research on other sun-like stars in the Milky Way suggest that “the Sun’s influence could be overpowering.”In the last two years, the scientific community’s openness to examining the role of the Sun in climate change – as opposed to the role of man – has exploded. Scientists are now rediscovering earlier works by scientists at the Danish National Space Center who as early as the 1990s published peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the Sun’s role in climate change. And by scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory, whose predictions in the last decade that global cooling would start in this decade are looking especially prescient.All will be rediscovering the science of the 1960s and 1970s, which even earlier sounded the alarm on the coming period of global cooling. Those early scientists expected the cooling trend of the 1960s and 1970s to relent for several decades, as it in fact did. “None of us expected uninterrupted continuation of the trend,” explained Columbia University’s George Kukla in 2007, whose 1972 letter to the president triggered the U.S. government’s decision to take immediate action on the threat of global cooling.Global warming always precedes an ice age, Kukla explained. The warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s, in other words, was expected all along, much as the calm before the storm.Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group. [email protected]://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-a-global-cooling-consensus12 New Papers: North Atlantic, Pacific, And Southern Oceans Are Cooling As Glaciers Thicken, Gain MassWHY SUCH DISMAL FAILURE OF ALARMIST PREDICTIONS ?Recent analysis of the work of the IPCC and others concludes that the complete failure of the predictions about rising seas and moderate winters etc. is a function of the failure of climate science to find a climate theory unlike all other physical disciplines.To capture the mathematics of climate science nonlinear equations are essential and thus far this has not happened. We have very imperfect climate models lacking credibility and no climate theory.Unlike all other science disciplines climate change HAS NO differential equations. No calculus. IPCC understood this fundamental challenge yet proceeded to make major predictions about the global climate in the next 100 years.“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “The Scientific Basis,” Climate Change 2001: IPCC Third Assessment Report, 774, http://www.grids.no/climate/ipc_tar/ assessed June 2007.When the IPCC scientists admit it is ‘impossible’ to predict future climate they are admitting there is in fact no theory or equation of the climate unlike other physical science disciplines.Remember climate science as a so called discipline is very recent perhaps for good reason as we have equations for gravity, relativity, thermodynamics, waves, fluids - but none for the weather of climate change. Why?The lack of a climate theory is the heart of the problem of prediction -“In the natural world we are interested not just in the values of some symbols, which we will call variables, that we want to know. We are also interested in how these variables change overtime, space and physical conditions. We are interested in their dynamics. The result is we are no longer concerned about simple relationships between variables. We are interested in a wider class of relationships called “differential equations,” which involve the tools of calculus. The theories of basic science are written in differential equations. In principle, everything about the physical circumstances of our world can be represented in terms of differential equations. We can describe the motions of the planet and the flow of the blood to your viens.A solution of a differential equation is not a number or a few numbers; it is a function. A function is a rule between variables. ..Forecasting the future then means nothing more than seeing where you are now and using the differential equation to tell you about the future through its solutions.It all sounds very nice and straightforward. We will see below why it is not.Climate change is as remote from our experience as the world of atomic movements, and we are just as unable to experience it directly in our daily lives. But that is because climate is too large and slow to see, rather than too small and quick. Instead of 10 million times smaller than a hand, we think about length scales 10 million times larger; and instead of 100 million times shorter in time, we think about time scales 100 million times longer.When you look outside a window, the weather you see is not climate. As with atoms and molecules, you only get some idea of it through indirect means. There may be palm trees outside or there may be snow to give you a clue, but you cannot actually see climate itself with your own eyes. Our knowledge of it and experience of it is fundamentally indirect, accumulated from years of experience, or from prevailing plant life. …It is a hidden world on the grand scale, little known in comparison to the small hidden world of atomic movements. For the small hidden world, we have very great confidence about the rules - what the components of that world of atomic movements are and the rules that govern their behavior. However in that large hidden world we have the barest hints at structures and only the slightest clue as to what the rules would be like.”The climate is non-linear and therefore needs a non-linear differential equation, but “non linear equations have notoriety among those who know about them, because we cannot solve most of them. Furthermore, unlike linear equations, they can and do exhibit a kind of peculiar unpredictability in their solutions, not unlike randomness, known as chaos…. (page 75)…this is the heart of the matter. Climate research is anything but a routine application of classical theories like fluid mechanics, even though some may be tempted to think it is. It has to be regarded as an ‘exotic’ category of scientific problems in part because we are trying to look for scientifically meaningful structure that no one can see or has ever seen…(page 78) Furthermore, experiment and theory have been struggling since the 19the century, literally for generations, with the complicated behavior of fluids called “turbulence.” When a fluid is turbulent (nearly all natural fluids are), not only are we unable to provide solutions of Navier-Stokes to confirm the behavior theoretically, but also we are unable to experimentally measure the conditions in the fluid in such a way that we can fully capture what is going on…in the early 1960s, meteorologist Edward Lorenz experimented with collections of differential equations called “systems.”…(page 81)The computed solutions of the Lorenz equations revealed a remarkable thing. Small things had big consequences after all…Lorenze pointed out that weather forecasts , no matter how carefully prepared from some initial condition , could be thrown off with the flap of a seagull’s wing. Later the metaphor was superseded by the more graceful image of a butterfly’s wing, and the phenomenon came to be called “the butterfuly effect.” (page 83).”Climate Theory versus Models and Metaphors, TAKEN BY STORM, by Essex and M,Kitrick. At pages 75-83. (2007 revised.)The analysis of Essex and McKitrick about the mathematics of climate change has been updated.CLIMATE SCIENCE FAILS MATH - NO DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONSMathematics applied to the climate system: outstanding challenges and recent progressPaul D. Williams,1 Michael J. P. Cullen,2 Michael K. Davey,2,4 and John M. Huthnance2013 May 28; 371(1991): 20120518.doi: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0518Mathematics applied to the climate system: outstanding challenges and recent progressAbstractThe societal need for reliable climate predictions and a proper assessment of their uncertainties is pressing. Uncertainties arise not only from initial conditions and forcing scenarios, but also from model formulation. Here, we identify and document three broad classes of problems, each representing what we regard to be an outstanding challenge in the area of mathematics applied to the climate system. First, there is the problem of the development and evaluation of simple physically based models of the global climate. Second, there is the problem of the development and evaluation of the components of complex models such as general circulation models. Third, there is the problem of the development and evaluation of appropriate statistical frameworks. We discuss these problems in turn, emphasizing the recent progress made by the papers presented in this Theme Issue. Many pressing challenges in climate science require closer collaboration between climate scientists, mathematicians and statisticians. We hope the papers contained in this Theme Issue will act as inspiration for such collaborations and for setting future research directions.Keywords: climate change, applied mathematics, model evaluation, conceptual models, general circulation models, statistical frameworksMathematics applied to the climate system: outstanding challenges and recent progressIt is helpful to look at the mathematics and differential equations of other physical science to better understand how imperfect is the idea of a climate science?“The 17 Equations That Changed The World” by Max Nisen Jul. 10, 2012, is a science article that reminds us the relevance of calculus to science. There is no climate equation. For example a select few famous differential equations help to see what is miss in climate science -Newton's universal law of gravitationImportance: Used techniques of calculus to describe how the world works. Even though it was later supplanted by Einstein's theory of relativity, it is still essential for practical description of how objects interact with each other. We use it to this day to design orbits for satellites and probes.The normal distributionWhat does it mean?: Defines the standard normal distribution, a bell shaped curve in which the probability of observing a point is greatest near the average, and declines rapidly as one moves away.Importance: The equation is the foundation of modern statistics. Science and social science would not exist in their current form without it.Modern use: Used to determine whether drugs are sufficiently effective relative to negative side effects in clinical trials.The Navier-Stokes equationsWhat does it mean?: The left side is the acceleration of a small amount of fluid, the right indicates the forces that act upon it.Importance: Once computers became powerful enough to solve this equation, it opened up a complex and very useful field of physics. It is particularly useful in making vehicles more aerodynamic.Modern use: Among other things, allowed for the development of modern passenger jets.Second law of thermodynamicsWhat does it mean?: Energy and heat dissipate over time.History: Sadi Carnot first posited that nature does not have reversible processes. Mathematician Ludwig Boltzmann extended the law, and William Thomson formally stated it.Importance: Essential to our understanding of energy and the universe via the concept of entropy. It helps us realize the limits on extracting work from heat, and helped lead to a better steam engine.Modern use: Helped prove that matter is made of atoms, which has been somewhat useful.Einstein's theory of relativityWhat does it mean?: Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.History: The less known (among non-physicists) genesis of Einstein's equation was an experiment by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley that proved light did not move in a Newtonian manner in comparison to changing frames of reference. Einstein followed up on this insight with his famous papers on special relativity (1905) and general relativity (1915).Importance: Probably the most famous equation in history. Completely changed our view of matter and reality.Modern use: Helped lead to nuclear weapons, and if GPS didn't account for it, your directions would be off thousands of yards.The Schrödinger equationWhat does it mean?: Models matter as a wave, rather than a particle.History: Louis-Victor de Broglie pinpointed the dual nature of matter in 1924. The equation you see was derived by Erwin Schrodinger in 1927, building off of the work of physicists like Werner Heisenberg.Importance: Revolutionized the view of physics at small scales. The insight that particles at that level exist at a range of probable states was revolutionary.Modern use: Essential to the use of the semiconductor and transistor, and thus, most modern computer technology.Strong evidence of a counter consensus is documented by Dr. Alan Longhurst in his tour de force book, Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science. Dr. Judith Curry endorses and recommends it as the best comprehensive review of the issues with very strong references.I think the following insight by Alan Longhurst unravels the alarmist’s failed predictions, as their models are too simple like a one trick pony in a big complex circus - Longhurst explained what tipped him off to question the alarmist views.I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.”Precisely the very unscientific folly and bias of the climate-change crowd.Free pdf book is available here -https://www.academia.edu/35571845/DOUBT_AND_CERTAINTY_IN_CLIMATE_SCIENCE_https_curryja.files.wordpress.com_2015_09_longhurst-print.pdfPartial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Shave and Grooming Made Simple. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDTESTsays:Comment ID: 3716166July 16, 2017 at 9:20 am“Unfortunately, climate science has become political science…: “It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.”” Award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking to Senate minority staff March 2, 2009.