Annual Activity Report - University Of Alaska Southeast: Fill & Download for Free

ALL OF THEM. But not hysterically as the Amazon rainforest is very resilient with evidence of increasing rainfall; global warming is not happening as the earth is cooling and the coronavirus is very bad but not yet devastating as shown by the fact it peaked in China with less than 4000 deaths from 80,000 cases and 65,000 recoveries. If this trend follows in the US with far smaller population the loss of life will not exceed 10–00. The massive precatory shut down of most public gatherings etc. around the world should bring the China experience in play.But natural forces beyond our understanding or control dominate these three problems. We are relevant but not in control so the most important response if to stay resilient and not take foolish action that makes us more vulnerable.“If there is something in nature you don't understand, odds are it makes sense in a deeper way that is beyond your understanding. So there is a logic to natural things that is much superior to our own. Just as there is a dichotomy in law: 'innocent until proven guilty' as opposed to 'guilty until proven innocent', let me express my rule as follows: what Mother Nature does is rigorous until proven otherwise; what humans and science do is flawed until proven otherwise.”― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain from DisorderAMAZON RAINFORESTBrazil’s Rainfall Remains Healthy: Susceptible to Natural Climatic Events, Not Anthropogenic Global WarmingGuest Blogger / October 9, 2019by Vijay JayarajBrazil has been in the midst of controversy for not acting on climate change. Greta Thunberg and other children have named Brazil as one of the five countries in a lawsuit for climate inaction. Brazil’s President Bolsonaro has also been under heavy fire for being skeptical towards the climate crisis movement.The biggest news in recent times was the fires in the Amazon rainforest. 60 percent of the rainforest is situated within Brazil’s borders. Rainfall is an important component for the forests within Brazil’s borders and also for Brazil’s highly populated cities.Proponents of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) insist that human greenhouse gas emissions have worsened climate change. Some of them say that the CAGW has caused an increase in extreme rainfall events like floods and droughts.Here we shall take a look at the rainfall pattern in Brazil—both regional and national level—to determine if there are significant negative imprints of anthropogenic global warming and whether the CAGW proponents’ claims are true.Just as with any big country, Brazil’s geography is diverse, and the rainfall patterns are different in different regions. Nevertheless, some studies analyze the national-level changes in rainfall.Detailed research in 2014 tried analyzing the annual maximum daily rainfall trends in the Midwest, southeast, and southern Brazil for 71 years. It concluded that “there is a positive trend in the annual maximum daily rainfall data series.”Figures: Decennial means and reference series for Midwest, Southeast, and South regions; Maximum daily rainfall for the Midwest, Southeast, and South regionsFigure Source: Annual maximum daily rainfall trends in the Midwest, southeast and southern Brazil in the last 71 yearsA 2017 study on the “Historical analysis of interannual rainfall variability and trends in south-eastern Brazil” explained that the rainfall patterns have been largely influenced by weather phenomena in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, not by CAGW.Rainfall patterns were highly sensitive to the coupled impact of three major ocean-atmosphere climate variabilities: the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).For Southeast Brazil, the precipitation was below normal during the first cold AMO phase (1888–1930) and above normal throughout the second cold AMO phase (1964–1994). During the AMO warm phase, drought periods were extremely severe. Precipitation also seems to follow PDO index trends and El Nino years brought wetter years.It has also been understood that the climatic changes in Northern Hemisphere such as the Little Ice Age (between approximately 1500 and 1850) and the Medieval Climate Anomaly (between 900 and 1100, also called the Medieval Warm Period), have had a influence on South American rainfall patterns, including Brazil.The Amazon rainforest (including the 40 percent outside Brazil) has displayed a similar ENSO-influenced positive rainfall trend.The World Bank’s climate knowledge portal says the Amazon experienced a 5 percent increase in rainfall over the past three decades, and the three most recent droughts (2005, 2010, 2015/16) were due to ENSO weather phenomenon, not CAGW.A 2010 research report published in the Geophysical Research Letters measured the change in greenness of the Amazon using NASA MODIS satellite data. The study explicitly stated that “Amazon rain forests were remarkably unaffected in the face of once-in-a-century drought in 2005, neither dying nor thriving, contrary to a previously published report and claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”A newer study in 2015 analyzed the seasonal rainfall variations in the Northern Amazon between 1979 and 2011 and concluded that there has been a significant increase in rainfall over the Northern Amazon region.Conclusion: It is very evident that the rainfall patterns over Brazil and the entire Amazon are sensitive to the changes in weather patterns over the ocean. However, the rainfall patterns have not been significantly disrupted or impacted by the supposed CAGW in recent decades. All major droughts in the past two decades were due to periodic ENSO weather patterns, and there has been an overall increase in Amazon rainfall levels.Vijay Jayaraj (http://M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.Brazil’s Rainfall Remains Healthy: Susceptible to Natural Climatic Events, Not Anthropogenic Global WarmingGLOBAL WARMINGThere is no climate crisis to worry about from so called global warming because temperatures have not been rising and brutal colder winters with massive snowfall contradict alarmist predictions.Observations Show No Warming Trend, Mostly Stable Glaciers In The Himalayas…Contradicting IPCC’s ‘Fake News’By Kenneth Richard on23. February 2017IPCC Intentionally Uses CatastrophicNon-Science To Incite Policy Action“The most striking feature of the present reconstruction is the absence of any warming trend in the 20th century” — Yadav et al., 1997Bhattacharyya and Chaudhary, 2003In 2007, IPCC Claimed The Himalayan Region Has Been Warming So Rapidly Its Glaciers Would ‘Disappear’ By 2035IPCC (2007)“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”IPCC’s Fake Glacier Melt Claim Came From Activists, Intentionally Put In To Spur Policymakers To ActionDavid Rose, UK Daily Mail“The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine [phone] interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental [activist] group WWF. It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.”88% Of Himalayan Glaciers Are Stable Or Advancing — With Overall Negligible Change (0.2%) Since 2000Bahuguna et al., 2014 (Himalayan Glaciers)“Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored [between 2000-2010]. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2%.”Only 4 Gt Per Year Of ‘High Mountain Asia’ Glacier Loss For 2003-2010Jacob et al., 2012 (‘High Mountains of Asia’)“The GIC [global glaciers and ice caps excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets] rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period. The high mountains of Asia [Himalayan Region], in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1in previously published estimates.”[A 4 Gt mass loss per year is the sea level rise equivalent of 0.01 mm per year, or about one tenth of one centimeter per century.]Contrary To IPCC Claims, There Has Been No Recent Himalayan WarmingThapa et al., 2015 (Nepal Himalaya)“[T]emperature in Central Asia and northern Hemisphere revert back towards cooling trends in the late twentieth century. Thus looking at all the records we observed that our present study is following patterns of temperature variations observed in surrounding regions.”Krusic et al., 2015 (Himalaya, Bhutan)“At multidecadal to multicentennial timescales, summer temperatures during much of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries were below the calibration period average, containing deep [cooling] departures that coincide with minima in solar energy output [Usoskin et al., 2002, 2003]. The warmest period occurs within the most recent decade, 2004–2013 C.E.; however, this period is not statistically unprecedented compared with earlier warm periods, e.g., in the 1650s and late fourteenth century.”Yadav, 2009 (Western Himalaya)“The decreasing temperature trend in late 20th century is consistent with trends noted in Nepal (Cook et al. 2003), Tibet (Briffa et al. 2001) and Central Asia (Briffa et al. 2001). The cooling trend in late 20th century mean temperature has been found to be due to cooling trend noted in minimum temperature during the second half of the 20th century in semi-arid western Himalaya.”Zafar et al., 2016 (Pakistan, Karakorum-Himalaya)Sano et al., 2005 (Nepal)“March–September temperature was reconstructed for the past 249 years, which shows a warming trend from 1750s until approximately 1790, followed by cooling until 1810, then by a gradual warming trend extending to 1950, and a notable cold period continuing up to the present. No evidence of a consistent warming trend over the last century or two commonly appearing in higher latitudes was found in the present reconstruction”Li et al., 2011 (Southwest China)Fan et al, 2009 (Hengduan Mountains, South China)Yadav and Singh, 2002 (Western Himalaya)“The 1945–1974 period was the warmest 30-yr mean period of the 20th century. However, this warming, in the context of the past four centuries, appears well within the range of normal limits. The 30-yr mean temperature anomaly for 1662–1691 (0.19°C) exceeds in magnitude (although not significantly, p = 0.23) the 1945–1974 mean (0.05°C).”Himalayan Region 1-2°C Warmer During Medieval Warm Period“[T]he Caucasus Mountains are technically considered to be a continuation of the Himalayas”Solomina et al., 2016 (Caucasus Mountains)“The climate was warmer and glaciers were likely receding in the beginning of the past millennium CE (the “Arkhyz break in glaciation”). … In this pass, remains of wood radiocarbon dated to 700 ± 80 BP (1180–1420 CE) were buried in a 1.5-m-thick layer of alluvium (Kaplin et al., 1971; Kotlyakov et al., 1973). Currently, the upper tree limit is located 800–900 m below this elevation. … According to indirect estimates based on pollen analyses, the upper tree limit in the “Arkhyz” period was 200–300 m higher than today (Tushinsky, Turmanina, 1979). The remains of ancient buildings and roads were also found in the Klukhorsky pass at an elevation of 2781 a.s.l. [above sea level] (Tushinsky et al., 1966), and the glacier was still present at this elevation in the mid 20th century. … [I]n Central and East Transcaucasia, there are artificial terraces at elevations where agriculture is not currently possible and that there are remnants of forests in places where forests have not grown since the 16th century CE.”“Turmanina (1988), based on pollen analysis, suggested that, in the Elbrus area, the climate during the “Arkhyz” time was dryer and warmer than in the late 20th century by 1–2 °C. … Solomina et al. (2014) determined the Medieval warming in the Caucasus to be approximately 1 °C warmer than the mean of the past 4500 years. According to the Karakyol palynological and geochemical reconstructions, the warm period was long and lasted for five centuries. Considering the suggestion of Turmanina (1988) that it was also less humid, the likelihood that many glaciers, especially those located at relatively low elevation, disappeared is very high. … The maximum glacier extent in the past millennium was reached before 1598 CE. The advance of the 17th century CE, roughly corresponding to the Maunder Minimum, is recorded at Tsey Glacier. … General glacier retreat started in the late 1840s CE and four to five minor readvances occurred in the 1860s–1880s CE. In the 20th century CE, the continued retreat was interrupted by small readvances in the 1910s, 1920s and 1970s–1980s.”Observations Show No Warming Trend, Mostly Stable Glaciers In The Himalayas…Contradicting IPCC’s ‘Fake News’It is far from too hot and the reason is spelled out in this Italian petition of 90 leading scientists who hold that the sun as the dominant role in the climate.Italian petition90 leading Italian Scientists have just issued a petition with details confirming no climate crisis from human industrialization and exposing the computer modeling errors of alarmists that deny the dominant role of the sun in the climate and natural variability. The petition says -Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…PROMOTING COMMITTEE:1.Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.2.Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.3.Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.4.Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.5.Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.6.Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.7.Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.8.Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.SIGNATORIESHere is a partial list of science and other economic organizations who are on record with their doubts.“Skeptical Scientific Organizations:American Association of Petroleum Geologists(31,000+ Members)“The Climate Scientists' Register“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."Click on country name in the following list to see endorsers from that nation: Algéria (1 endorser), Australia (8), Bulgaria (1), Canada (17), Denmark (1), Estonia (1), Finland(1), France (1),Germany (4), Greece (1), India (3), Italy (3), Luxembourg (1),Mexico (1), New Zealand (6), Norway (5), Poland (3), Russia (5), South Africa (1), Sweden(8), United Kingdom (6), United States of America (64).Complete Endorser List:Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, RussiaSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South AfricaBjarne Andresen, Dr. Scient., physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, Niels Bohr Institute (areas of specialization: fundamental physics and chemistry, in particular thermodynamics),University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DenmarkTimothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaRomuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation withDepartment of Hydrology and Geological Museum,University of Lodz, Lodz, PolandColin Barton, http://B.Sc., PhD (Earth Science), Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaFranco Battaglia, PhD (Chemical Physics), Professor of Environmental Chemistry (climate specialties:environmental chemistry), University of Modena, ItalyDavid Bellamy, OBE, PhD, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, CentralQueensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and ContinuingEducation, University of Durham, United NationsEnvironment Program Global 500 Award Winner, DutchOrder of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County,Durham, United KingdomRichard Becherer, BS (Physics, Boston College), MS (Physics, University of Illinois), PhD (Optics, University of Rochester), former Member of the Technical Staff - MIT Lincoln Laboratory, former Adjunct Professor - University of Connecticut, Areas of Specialization: optical radiation physics, coauthor - standard reference book Optical Radiation Measurements: Radiometry, Millis, MA, U.S.A.Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biology (University of Freiburg), biologist (area of specialization: CO2 record in the last 150 years – see paper “Accurate estimation of CO2 background level from near ground measurements at non-mixed environments”), see http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/ for more from Mr. Beck, Biesheim, FranceEdwin Berry, PhD (Atmospheric Physics, Nevada), MA (Physics, Dartmouth), BS (Engineering, Caltech),President, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, MT, U.S.A.Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept.of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multiscience.co.uk), Hull, United KingdomM. I. Bhat, PhD, formerly Scientist at the Wadia institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra, currently Professor & Head,Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir (areas of specialization: Geochemistry, Himalayan and global tectonics & tectonics and climate (Prof Bhat: “Arguing for deepening the climate frontiers by considering interaction between solar flares and core-mantle boundary processes. Clue possibly lies in exploring the tectonics of regions that underlies high and low pressure cells of the three global oscillations (SO, NAO, NPO)”), Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, IndiaAhmed Boucenna, PhD, Professor of Physics, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Ferhat Abbas University,Setif, Algéria. Author of The Great Season ClimaticOscillation, I. RE. PHY. 1(2007) 53, The Great SeasonClimatic Oscillation and the Global Warming, GlobalConference On Global Warming, July 6-10, 2008, Istanbul, Turkey and Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier (PREA) and the Mean Earth's Ground Temperature, arXiv:0811.0357(November 2008)Antonio Brambati, PhD, Emeritus Professor (sedimentology), Department of Geological, Environmental and Marine Sciences (DiSGAM), University of Trieste (specialization:climate change as determined by Antarctic marine sediments), Trieste, ItalyStephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent,Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.Mark Lawrence Campbell, PhD (chemical physics; gas-phase kinetic research involving greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide)), Professor, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, AustraliaArthur Chadwick, PhD (Molecular Biology), Research Professor, Department of Biology and Geology, Southwestern Adventist University, Climate Specialties: dendrochronology (determination of past climate states by tree ring analysis), palynology (same but using pollen as a climate proxy), paleobotany and botany; Keene, Texas, U.S.A.George V. Chilingar, PhD, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.Antonis Christofides, Dipl. Civil Engineering, MSc Computing Science, Climate Specialties: co-author of relevant papers:here and here, author of http://hk-climate.org/, Athens, GreecePetr Chylek, PhD, Laboratory Fellow, Remote Sensing Team Leader, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University ofOttawa, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaPaul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus,Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, CanadaCornelia Codreanova, Diploma in Geography, Researcher (Areas of Specialization: formation of glacial lakes) atLiberec University, Czech Republic, Zwenkau, GermanyMichael Coffman, PhD (Ecosystems Analysis and Climate Influences), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)),ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United KingdomRichard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United KingdomJoseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin),Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP(International Climate and Environmental ChangeAssessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor,College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma,Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.James E Dent; http://B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Groupon Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England, UnitedKingdomChris R. de Freitas, PhD, climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New ZealandWillem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences,The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New ZealandGeoff Duffy, DEng (Dr of Engineering), PhD (Chemical Engineering), BSc, ASTCDip., FRSNZ (first chemical engineer to be a Fellow of the Royal Society in NZ), FIChemE, wide experience in radiant heat transfer and drying, chemical equilibria, etc. Has reviewed, analysed, and written brief reports and papers on climate change,Auckland, New ZealandRobert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona StateClimatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.Willis Eschenbach, Independent Climate Researcher, Climate Specialties: Tropical tropospheric amplification, constructal theories of climate, See sample of scientific writings in Nature here, Occidental, CA, U.S.A.Christopher Essex, PhD, professor of applied mathematics, and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, Former Director, Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Former NSERC postdoc at the Canadian Climate Centre's Numerical Modelling Division(GCM), London, Ontario, CanadaPer Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author - The Climate, Science and Politics (2009)Terrence F. Flower, PhD, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, St. Catherine University, studied and taught physics of climate (focus on Arctic and Antarctic), took students to study physics of climate change in the Antarctic and Costa Rica, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.Stewart Franks, BSci. (Hons, Environmental Science), PhD (Landsurface-atmosphere interactions), AssociateProfessor and Dean of Students, University of Newcastle,Climate Specialties: hydro-climatology, flood/drought risk, Newcastle, AustraliaLars Franzén, PhD (Physical Geography), Professor, Physical Geography at Earth Sciences Centre, University of Gothenburg, Areas of Specialization: Palaeoclimate from global peatland and Chinese loess studies - see related scientific paper by Franzén et al, Gothenburg, VastraGotaland, SwedenGordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.Robert. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor (retired), Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Hawaii, U.S.A.Katya Georgieva, MSc (Physics of the Earth, Atmosphere, and Space, specialty Meteorology), PhD (Solar-Terrestrial Physics - PhD thesis on solar influences on global climate changes), Associate Professor, Head of group "Solar dynamics and global climate change" in the SolarTerrestrial Influences Laboratory at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, head of project "Solar activity influences of weather and climate" of the scientific plan of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, member of the "Climate changes" council of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Regional coordinator of the Balkan, Black sea and Caspian sea countries and member of the European Steering Committee for the International Heliophysical Year 20072008, deputy editor-in-chief of the international scientific journal "Sun and Geosphere", BulgariaLee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds),Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, TechnischeUniversität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig,Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of TheAtmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The FrameOf Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTHInternational Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst(NIPCC), Lidingö, SwedenStanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior ResearchScientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey ofCanada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaThomas B. Gray, MS (Meteorology, California Institute of Technology and Florida State University), 23 years as Meteorologist with the U.S. Army and Air Force (retired) and 15 years experience with NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories. Assignments include Chief,Analysis and Forecast Division, Global Weather Center,Omaha, Nebraska and Chief, Solar Forecast Center, Boulder Colorado, maintains active interest in paleoclimate and atmospheric physics, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion:A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New ZealandWilliam M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.Kenneth P. Green, Doctor of Environmental Science and Engineering (UCLA, 1994), Resident Scholar, Interim Director, Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C., U.S.A.Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), climaterelated specialties: applied mathematics, modeling & simulation, software & systems engineering, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Management, University ofDallas; Assistant Professor, North Texas State University (Dr. Hammons found many serious flaws during a detailed study of the software, associated control files plus related email traffic of the Climate Research Unit temperature and other records and “adjustments” carried out in support of IPCC conclusions), Coyle, OK, U.S.A.William Happer, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Pueblo West, Colorado, U.S.A.Warren T. Hinds, B.S. (Engineering), M.S. (Atmospheric Sciences), PhD (Physical Ecology, U. Washington,Seattle), Sr. Scientist at Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory; consultant for USA EPA research on Global Climate Change Program, Specialist for Defense Programs, Department of Energy, Climate Specialties: atmospheric physics and quantitative empirical analyses regarding climatological, meteorological, and ecological responses to environmental stresses, Gainesville, Georgia, U.S.A.Art Horn, Meteorologist (honors, Lyndon State College, Lyndonville, Vermont), operator, The Art of Weather, U.S.A.Douglas Hoyt, B.S. (Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), M.S. (Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado), co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in climate Change, previously senior scientist at Raytheon (MODIS instrument development), with earlier employment at NOAA, NCAR,World Radiation Center and the Sacramento PeakObservatory, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, U.S.A.Warwick Hughes, MSc Hons (Geology), Founder of the "Errors in IPCC Climate Science" Blog -http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/, Areas of Specialization: Jones et al temperature data, Canberra, AustraliaOle Humlum, PhD, Professor of Physical Geography, Department of Physical Geography, Institute ofGeosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, NorwayCraig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.Larry Irons, BS (Geology), MS (Geology), Sr. Geophysicist at FairfieldNodal (Areas of Specialization: Paleoclimate), Lakewood, Colorado, U.S.A.Terri Jackson, MSc (plasma physics), MPhil (energy economics), Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the energy/climate group at the Institute of Physics, London),United KingdomAlbert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, CanadaZbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences,Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, PolandBill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology),Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, VicePresident/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept.of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, EstoniaMadhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorolgist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "ClimateResearch” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "NaturalHazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, CanadaLeonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’sNational Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, AustraliaGerhard Kramm, Dr. rer. nat. (Theoretical Meteorology), Research Associate Professor, Geophysical Institute,Associate Faculty, College of Natural Science and Mathematics, University of Alaska Fairbanks, (climate specialties: Atmospheric energetics, physics of the atmospheric boundary layer, physical climatology - seeinteresting paper by Kramm et al), Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.Leif Kullman, PhD (Physical geography, plant ecology, landscape ecology), Professor, Physical geography, Department of Ecology and Environmental science, Umeå University, Areas of Specialization: Paleoclimate (Holocene to the present), glaciology, vegetation history, impact of modern climate on the living landscape, Umeå, SwedenDouglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaJay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.Edward Liebsch, B.A. (Earth Science, St. Cloud State University); M.S. (Meteorology, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity), former Associate Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; former Adjunct Professor of Meteorology, St. Cloud State University, Environmental Consultant/Air Quality Scientist (Areas of Specialization:micrometeorology, greenhouse gas emissions), MapleGrove, Minnesota, U.S.A.Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.William Lindqvist, PhD (Applied Geology), Independent Geologic Consultant, Areas of Specialization: Climate Variation in the recent geologic past, Tiburon, California, U.S.A.Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geolpaleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.Qing-Bin Lu, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, cross-appointed to Departments of Biology and Chemistry, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator, University of Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaHorst Malberg, PhD, Professor (emeritus) for Meteorology and Climatology and former director of the Institute forMeteorology at the Free University of Berlin, GermanyBjörn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology,Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, SwedenOliver Manuel, BS (Chem), MS (Geo-Chem), PhD (Nuclear Chem), Post-Doc (Space Physics), Fulbright Scholar(Astrophysics), NSF Post-Doc Fellow (UC-Berkeley),Associate - Climate & Solar Science Institute, Professor(now Emeritus)/Dept Chair, College of Arts & SciencesUniversity of Missouri-Rolla, Fulbright Scholar (TataInstitute- Mumbai), previously Research Scientist (USGeological Survey-Denver) and NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo, Climate Specialties: Earth's heat source, sample of relevant papers: "Earth's heat source - the Sun", Energy and Environment 20 131-144 (2009); “The sun: a magnetic plasma diffuser that controls earth's climate”, paper presented at the V. InternationalConference on Non-accelerator New Physics, Dubna,Russia, 20 June 2005; "Super-fluidity in the solar interior:Implications for solar eruptions and climate", Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002), Cape Girardeau, Missouri, U.S.A.David Manuta, Ph.D. (Inorganic/Physical Chemistry, SUNY Binghamton), FAIC, Climate Specialties: Gas PhaseInfrared Studies, Thermodynamics of Small MoleculeFormation (e.g., CO2, HF, and H2O), President, ManutaChemical Consulting, Inc., Chairman of the Board, TheAmerican Institute of Chemists, Past Positions includeAdjunct Professor of Physics, Ohio University-Chillicothe,Ohio, Assistant Professor of Chemistry and PhysicalScience at Shawnee State University, Ohio, AssistantProfessor of Chemistry and Physical Science at UpperIowa University and US Enrichment Corp. (nuclear), Waverly, Ohio, USAFrancis Massen, PhD, Physics Lab and meteoLCD, Lycée Classique de Diekirch, 32 av. de la gare L-9233, (see interesting scientific paper by Massen et al), Diekirch,LuxembourgIrina Melnikova, PhD (Physics & Mathematics), Head of the Laboratory for Physics of the Atmosphere INENCO RAN, specialization: radiative regime of the cloudy atmosphere - see interesting paper on this topic by Dr. Melnikova, St.Petersburg, RussiaPatrick J. Michaels, A.B., S.M., Ph.D. (ecological climatology, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, CATO Institute,Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy,George Mason University, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, past program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the AmericanMeteorological Society, past research professor ofEnvironmental Sciences at University of Virginia,contributing author and reviewer of the UN IPCC, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, CarletonUniversity (article by Dr. Michel: “Climatic hubris: The Ellesmere Island ice shelves have been disappearing since they were first mapped in 1906”, January 16, 2007, National Post), Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaFerenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, (in his 2010 paper, Dr. Miskolczi writes, "The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed."), Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, NorwayNils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics,Stockholm University, Stockholm, SwedenNasif Nahle, BSc (Biology), C-1L on Scientific Research, climatology and meteorology, physics, and paleobiology, Director of Scientific Research at Biology Cabinet (Areas ofSpecialization: Climatology and Meteorology (certification),San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, MexicoDavid Nowell, http://M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal MeteorologicalSociety, former chairman of the NATO MeteorologicalGroup, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaJames J. O'Brien, PhD., Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New ZealandCliff Ollier, http://D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment - see his Copenhagen Climate Challenge sea level article here), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., AustraliaR. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences(paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaAlfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Deptartment, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.Stanley Penkala, BS (Chemical Engineering, Univ. of PA), PhD (Chemical Engineering, Univ. of PA.), Asst. Prof. AirEngineering and Industrial Hygiene, University of PittsburghGSPH (1970-1973), Environmental Scientist, DeNardo &McFarland Weather Services (1973-1980), Air ScienceConsultants, Inc. (VP 1980-1995, President 1995-Present),Areas of Specialization: Air Dispersion Modeling, Anthropogenic Sources of Global CO2, Quality Assurance in Air Pollution Measurements, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, TheUniversity of Melbourne, AustraliaOleg M. Pokrovsky, BS, MS, PhD (mathematics and atmospheric physics - St. Petersburg State University, 1970), Dr. in Phys. and Math Sciences (1985), Professor in Geophysics (1995), principal scientist, Main Geophysical Observatory (RosHydroMet), St. Petersburg, Russia. Note: Dr. Pokrovsky carried out comprehensive analysis of many available long climate time series and cam e to conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 impact is not main contributor in climate change as declared by IPCC.Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University ofIllinois, Urbana-Champaign);Meteorological/Oceanographic Data Analyst for the National Data Buoy Center, formerly Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, Urbana, U.S.A.Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan (see Professor Pratt's article for a summary of his views), Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaTom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil (physics), MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Areas ofSpecialization: Methane, Decadal Oscillations, Isotopes, Victoria, AustraliaVijay Kumar Raina, Ex. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, author of 2010 MoEF Discussion Paper,“Himalayan Glaciers - State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change”, the first comprehensive study on the region. Mr. Raina’s field activities covered extensive research on the geology and the glaciers of the Himalayas, Andaman Islands that included research on the volcanoes in the Bay of Bengal. He led two Indian Scientific Expeditions to Antarctica that earned him the National Mineral Award and the Antarctica Award. He has authored over 100 scientific papers and three books: ‘Glacier Atlas of India’ dealing with various aspects of glacier studies under taken in the Himalayas; ‘Glaciers, the rivers of ice’ and ‘Images Antarctica,Reminiscences’, Chandigarh, IndiaDenis Rancourt, http://B.Sc., http://M.Sc., Ph.D. (Physics), Former physics professor, University of Ottawa (then funded by NSERC in both physics and environmental science), Climate Specialties: global carbon cycle and environmental nanoparticles science, statistical physics, as well as the politics, sociology and psychology of the climate debate, current research includes radiative effects andphenomena (albedo, greenhouse effect), Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaOleg Raspopov, Doctor of Science and Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Professor - Geophysics, SeniorScientist, St. Petersburg Filial (Branch) of N.V.PushkovInstitute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere andRadiowaves Propagetion of RAS (climate specialty: climate in the past, particularly the influence of solar variability), Editor-in-Chief of journal "Geomagnetism and Aeronomy" (published by Russian Academy of Sciences), St. Petersburg, RussiaS. Jeevananda Reddy, http://M.Sc. (Geophysics), Post Graduate Diploma (Applied Statistics, Andhra University),PhD (Agricultural Meteorology, Australian University,Canberra), Formerly Chief Technical Advisor -- UnitedNations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) &Expert-Food and Agriculture Organization (UN), Convenor - Forum for a Sustainable Environment, author of 500 scientific articles and several books - here is one: "ClimateChange - Myths & Realities", Hyderabad, IndiaGeorge A. Reilly, PhD (Geology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), areas of specialization: Geological aspects of paleoclimatology, Retired, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.Nicola Scafetta, PhD (Physics, 2001, University of NorthTexas), Laurea (Dottore in Physics, 1997, Universita’ diPisa, Italy), Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Experiment (ACRIM), Climate Specialties: solar and astronomical causes of climate change, see intresting paper by Scafetta on this), Research Scientist - Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, U.S.A.Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), PrincipalConsultant - Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, CanadaTom V. Segalstad, PhD (Geology/Geochemistry), secondaryWeb page here, Head of the Geological Museum, NaturalHistory Museum and Associate Professor of Resource andEnvironmental Geology, University of Oslo, NorwayGary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (applied optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2005-2008); Argonne National Laboratory (1988-1992); Bell Telephone labs (1966-73), National Bureau of Standards (1975-83), Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.Jan-Erik Solheim, MSc (Astrophysics), Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Tromso, Norway (1971-2002),Professor (emeritus), Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, Norway (1965-1970, 2002- present), climate specialties: sun and periodic climate variations, scientific paper by Professor Solheim "Solen varsler et kaldere tiår", Baerum, NorwayRoy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.H. Leighton Steward, Master of Science (Geology), Areas of Specialization: paleoclimates and empirical evidence that indicates CO2 is not a significant driver of climate change, Chairman, PlantsNeedCO2.org and CO2IsGreen.org,Chairman of the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man (geology, archeology & anthropology) at SMU in Dallas, Texas, Boerne, TX, U.S.A.Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability", International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden Edward (Ted) R. Swart, http://D.Sc. (physical chemistry, University of Pretoria), http://B.Sc. (chem eng.) and Ph.D.(math/computer science, University of Witwatersrand).Dean of the Faculty of Science, Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Science, University of Rhodesia and past President of the Rhodesia Scientific Association. Set up the first radiocarbon dating laboratory in Africa with funds from the Gulbenkian Foundation. Professor in the Department of Combinatorics and Optimization at theUniversity of Waterloo and Chair of Computing andInformation Science and Acting Dean at the University ofGuelph, Ontario, Canada. Now retired in Kelowna, British Columbia, CanadaRoger Tanner, PhD (Analytical Chemistry, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana), 40-yr career in atmospheric chemistry and air quality measurement science at Tennessee Valley Authority, Desert Research Institute, Reno, andBrookhaven National Lab, Climate Specialties: atmospheric chemistry and air quality measurement science, Florence, Alabama, U.S.A.George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified ConsultingMeteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, FormerState Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates,LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Coauthor of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009Göran Tullberg, Civilingenjör i Kemi (equivalent to Masters of Chemical Engineering), Co-author - The Climate, Science and Politics (2009) (see here for a review), formerly instructor of Organic Chemistry (specialization in “Climate chemistry”), Environmental Control and Environmental Protection Engineering at University in Växjö; Falsterbo,SwedenBrian Gregory Valentine, PhD, Adjunct professor of engineering (aero and fluid dynamics specialization) at theUniversity of Maryland, Technical manager at US Department of Energy, for large-scale modeling of atmospheric pollution, Technical referee for the US Department of Energy's Office of Science programs in climate and atmospheric modeling conducted at American Universities and National Labs, Washington, DC, U.S.A.Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New ZealandA.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (QuaternaryGeologyspecialism: Glacial Geology), Adam MickiewiczUniversity, Poznan, Poland; former President of theEuropean Association of Science EditorsMichael G. Vershovsky, Ph.D. in meteorology(macrometeorology, long-term forecasts, climatology),Senior Researcher, Russian State Hydrometeorological University, works with, as he writes, “Atmospheric Centers of Action (cyclons and anticyclones, such as Icelandic depression, the South Pacific subtropical anticyclone, etc.). Changes in key parameters of these centers strongly indicate that the global temperature is influenced by these natural factors (not exclusively but nevertheless)”, St. Petersburg, RussiaGösta Walin, Professor, i oceanografi, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, SwedenHelen Warn, PhD (Meteorology, specialized in atmospheric fluid dynamics at McGill University), Vancouver, BC, CanadaAnthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather, Founder, surfacestations.org, Watts Up With That, Chico, California, U.S.A.Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of theAmerican Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FinlandDavid E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member - Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program, EPA-sponsored peerreviewed research on carbon sequestration in coniferous forests -- mostly in relation to climate history and quality of climate predictive models), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSUCollege of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., ProgramManager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.American Association ofState Climatologists” http://www.climatescienceinterna...American Geological InstituteAmerican Institute of Professional GeologistsGeological Sciences of the Polish Academy of SciencesJapan Society of Energy and Resources (1791 Members) Russian Academy of Sciences http://www.populartechnology.net...THE SCIENCE IS FAR FROM SETTLED -And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know. Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled. – Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climatechange-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttleCORONAVIRUSMost coronavirus patients recover, still anxiety, fear loomBy CARLA K. JOHNSON and VICTORIA MILKOMarch 12, 20201 of 3This Feb. 24, 2020 photo provided by Greg and Rose Yerex shows them in a hospital in Nagoya, Japan. Former passengers of the cruise ship Diamond Princess, they both tested positive for the coronavirus. Rose has since tested negative for the virus but decided to stay with Greg until he is cleared to leave. The couple said they're happy to have each other, but that living in isolation has been difficult. "I just want to go home and be normal," Greg said. (Greg Yerex via AP)SEATTLE (AP) — Amid all the fears, quarantines and stockpiling of food, it has been easy to ignore the fact that more than 60,000 people have recovered from the coronavirus spreading around the globe.The disease can cause varying degrees of illness and is especially troublesome for older adults and people with existing health problems, who are at risk of severe effects, including pneumonia. But for most of those affected, coronavirus creates only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, with the vast majority recovering from the virus.According to the World Health Organization, people with mild illness recover in about two weeks, while those with more severe ailments may take three to six weeks to rebound. In mainland China, where the virus first exploded, more than 80,000 people have been diagnosed, but more than 60,000 already have recovered.Because the difference in impact can be so great, global health authorities have the difficult task of alerting the public to the virus’ dangers without creating panic.Already, the widespread consequences of the virus have been staggering, sending shock waves through the world’s financial markets. Global oil prices sustained their worst percentage losses since the the Gulf War in 1991, and new restrictions were imposed in Italy and in Israel as the Holy Week approached.But even some of the most vulnerable patients can fight their way through the disease.Charlie Campbell’s father, 89-year-old Eugene Campbell, has been diagnosed with the coronavirus and is hospitalized in Edmonds, Washington. Charlie Campbell said his father’s doctor is cautiously optimistic, adding, “Under normal circumstances, he would discharge my dad, but these aren’t normal circumstances.”Eugene Campbell came to the hospital from Life Care Center, a nursing home in Kirkland that has been linked to a large share of the state’s coronavirus deaths.“We went and saw him yesterday and he looked pretty good,” Campbell said, noting that his father is breathing normally and his vital signs and heart rate are good. “He may be the oldest person to recover from coronavirus.”In China, Tan Shiyun, a postgraduate student at a university in Wuhan, had traveled to her family home in Yichang over 180 miles away when she began to experience minor symptoms from the virus.She went to the hospital, where she was given common cold medicine and sent home. It was only after her symptoms persisted and she visited the hospital a second time for an outpatient CT scan and received a call asking her to come back did she understand her symptoms came from something other than the common flu.After many days and a number of tests, doctors eventually told her that the infection had spread to both of her lungs.“After that, I felt a heavy head while walking, unable to breathe, and nauseous,” Tan said in a video blog post. But after over two weeks in the hospital, a CT scan showed her infection was disappearing and she was discharged.For some who’ve been quarantined, anxiety and dread that they will become stigmatized by friends, neighbors and co-workers have equaled their concerns about their physical health. A few patients with the virus who were interviewed by The Associated Press — all of them passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship that ended up quarantined off Japan — described symptoms that were no stronger than a regular cold or flu.For some who’ve been quarantined, anxiety and dread that they will become stigmatized by friends, neighbors and co-workers have made them reluctant to acknowledge even the most modest health impact. A few patients with the virus who were interviewed by The Associated Press — all of them passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship that ended up quarantined off Japan — described symptoms that were no stronger than a regular cold or flu.“It’s been a 2 on a scale of 10,” said Carl Goldman, hospitalized in Omaha, Nebraska, since Feb. 17, after developing a 103-degree fever on a chartered flight from Japan to the U.S.Goldman is staying hydrated with Gatorade. He said he continued coughing more than two weeks after he first got sick, but would probably only have missed one day of work if he had been diagnosed with the cold or flu. He stays active by pacing in his room, trying to match his pre-sickness routine of 10,000 daily steps on the pedometer.“I totally get this is where I need to be and I need to be cleared of this before I’m released,” he said.American Greg Yerex, who was diagnosed along with his wife, Rose Yerex, on the Diamond Princess, said he had no symptoms and felt as healthy as he did on any other normal day.“If I was home, I would be out doing everything I normally do,” he said in an interview conducted via Facebook calls when the couple were still hospitalized in Nagoya, Japan. Rose Yerex tested negative when she got to the hospital.For Greg Yerex, it was the couple’s mental health that faced the biggest threat as they they spent days in quarantine, isolated from friends and family and deprived of any direct human contact.Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak“It’s like being a prisoner,” he said. “You pace, you worry, you fret, you imagine all sorts of things. You have no control.”Greg Yerex said that he and his wife, who have since been released from the hospital, plan to go to counseling to work through the mental stress they experienced.Fellow cruise passenger Rebecca Frasure knows how they feel.“I don’t get to speak with anyone,” she said in a Facebook call while still hospitalized in Nagoya. “I have a little window in my room, but cannot leave. The only contact I have is through Facebook messenger. I would never wish this on anyone.”Frasure said one of the things she found most frustrating was waiting for her test results to come back. Patients who have been diagnosed with the virus must have two consecutive negative tests before they can be released.Frasure is now out of the hospital, but is worried about being stigmatized by her home community.“Are they going to be afraid?” she wondered. ”Are they going to criticize me for being home, thinking I brought virus back with me?”___This story corrects that the Gulf War was in 1991, not 1999.___Milko reported from Jakarta, Indonesia. Associated Press video producer Olivia Zhang in Beijing contributed to this report.___The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.Most coronavirus patients recover, still anxiety, fear loomHave a look at this up to date record of where the most cases and deaths are. What sticks out is the answer is the virus hot zones are climate zones. The virus is most virulent in the Northern Temperate zones not the tropics or not the polar regions.I remember working in the tropics from 1962–65 and not experiencing the flu even once or the common cold, yet my prior living in Southern Alberta I had pneumonia twice and bronchitis also. Of course my anecdotal experiences do not qualify as a scientific analysis but climate zones do seem to matter for this Covid-19 virus if you look at the charts below.Coronavirus Update (Live): 194,515 Cases and 7,893 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Outbreak3 charts that helped change coronavirus policy in the UK and USThe UK and the US have ramped up efforts to "flatten the curve" of the COVID-19 pandemic.It follows the publication of a scientific report modelling the effectiveness of different interventions to limit the spread of the virus.The report concludes that a strategy of "suppression" would be better than "mitigation" to reduce deaths and prevent healthcare systems being overwhelmed.Suppression involves a combination of four interventions: social distancing of the entire population, case isolation, household quarantine and school and university closure.But when these measures are relaxed, the modelling predicted cases would rise again, so interventions may need to be in place until a vaccine is developed - 18 months or longer.In his first daily press conference on the coronavirus pandemic on 16 March, the UK's Prime Minister Boris Johnson outlined a raft of new key measures to curb the spread of infection, saying "drastic action" was needed.They include avoiding gathering in public places, working from home where possible, everyone in a household self-isolating for 14 days if one person gets sick, and the over-70s and most vulnerable minimizing social contact.At the same time, the White House released new guidelines urging Americans to avoid gatherings of more than 10, to work from home, only shop for essential items and stop eating in restaurants.Have you read?Here's what countries are doing to slow the coronavirus outbreakManaging mental health during coronavirus - experts around the world share insightsA visual history of pandemicsStates across the US have ordered sweeping restrictions - including New York closing all restaurants, theatres and casinos.Helping to drive these stepped up COVID-19 responses from both countries is a report from London's Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, which models the impact of different non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on the number of deaths and the healthcare system.These three charts show the impact of doing nothing, compared to taking more drastic action, according to the report, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.1) 'Do nothing'Daily deaths are predicted to peak after around three months if people don't change their behaviour.Image: Imperial College COVID-19 Response TeamIn this worst-case scenario, there are no interventions or changes in people's behaviour. The Imperial College scientists predict the number of deaths would peak in each country three months after the first coronavirus infections were discovered.Based on each person infecting another 2.4 people (the R0 or reproduction number), they predict approximately 81% of the populations of both countries would be infected, resulting in 510,000 deaths in Great Britain and 2.2 million in the US.The peak is higher in Britain due to the older population and occurs later in the US because of the larger geographic scale.What is the World Economic Forum doing about the coronavirus outbreak?ShowThese estimates don't account for indirect deaths, where people don't receive treatment for unrelated health conditions due to the healthcare systems being overwhelmed.However, the report notes that: "Epidemic timings are approximate given the limitations of surveillance data in both countries."Crucially, they predict that in this scenario, demand on intensive care beds would be 30 times greater than the availability, with capacity "exceeded as early as the second week in April".2) Mitigation vs suppressionHow interventions could reduce the impact on healthcare systems, as long as they're in place. Chart B is a close-up.Image: Imperial College COVID-19 Response TeamTo find the best-case scenario for reducing the number of deaths and impact on the hospitals, the report modelled two different strategies for dealing with the outbreak in both countries.Mitigation: Focuses on "slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread – reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection".Suppression: Aims to "reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely".While both strategies pose challenges, the scientists found that mitigation measures (home isolation of those with symptoms and others in the household and social distancing of the elderly and vulnerable) would reduce deaths by half and peak healthcare demands by two-thirds.But the outbreak would still result in 250,000 deaths in Britain, and 1.1 to 1.2 million in the US, with the 'surge capacity' of intensive care units overwhelmed "at least eight-fold".Steven Riley@SRileyIDDOur Report 9 on #COVID19 shouldn't be a surprise, but its not an easy read. This virus is just too severe. Flattening the curve not so different from containment. As per @WHO, very strong social distancing needed as soon as health care system in danger. https://twitter.com/MRC_Outbreak/status/1239616254555623427 …The report notes that, in the UK, this conclusion has only been reached "in the last few days", based on the demand for intensive care beds experienced in Italy and NHS information.Suppression involves combining four interventions to "flatten the curve" for a five-month period. It's predicted to have the biggest impact, but stops short of a total lockdown.The scientists said: "Our projections show that to be able to reduce R to close to 1 or below, a combination of case isolation, social distancing of the entire population and either household quarantine or school and university closure are required."Around three weeks after the combined interventions are introduced, the scientists predict there would be a reduction in the peak need for intensive care beds - and this would continue to decline while the policies stay in place.However, once the interventions are relaxed (around September in the above chart), the infections would begin to rise again, leading to a predicted peak epidemic later in the year.3) A cycle of suppression and relaxation?What the next two years could look like in terms of coronavirus cases until a vaccine is available.Image: Imperial College COVID-19 Response TeamAccording to the report, successful temporary suppression now would lead to a larger epidemic later in the year "in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity".The major challenge with such rigorous suppression measures, say the scientists, is that because the virus starts spreading again once they're relaxed, they would need to be kept in place until a vaccine becomes available, which could be more than 18 months away.In the chart above, they show that we could enter a cycle of "intermittent social distancing", responding to rises in cases, when the measures would need to be reintroduced.The report says China and South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, but notes: "It remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced."3 charts that helped change coronavirus policy in the UK and USCONCLUSIONWe must keep current about these three fears: AMAZON RAINFOREST, GLOBAL WARMING AND THE CORONAVIRUS, but the forces in play are mostly natural beyond our control. We need to be resilient to survive these challenges and that means staying the course with market based economic policy. Adopting socialism at this point would be a step backwards and reduce our chances of survival.

Global warming does not make winters record colder and very snowy. Winters are colder because global warming is not happening.The mistaken notion of decreasing snowfall in our lifetimes reinforces the idea that many people have that supposed man-made warming is more significant and impactful than it really is. Despite the evidence to the contrary we are warned regularly of the “end of snow” from warming driven by our use of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us in 2001 that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”Dr. Kathryn Hayhoe, no stranger to failed alarmist predictions, stated in 2008 that the California region would experience 70% to 90% reduction in snowfall due to warming. This was just three years before California’s snowiest winter on record of 2010/2011.As with so many other climate fantasies the “end of snow” prediction doesn’t stand up to review of the actual data. Go ahead and buy those skis, you will be using them often in the decades to come.https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/warming_and_the_snows_of_yesteryear.htmlFull article below.Temperatures are the achilles heel of the radical claim of human caused warming as the increase as been too little and now a pause and even a decline in global temperatures. WINTER WEATHER MEANS COOLER TEMPERATURES AND THE DATA CANNOT BE TAMPERED TO LOOK WARMER.Earth in ‘Greatest Two-Year Cooling Event in a Century’ ShockOur planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?You haven’t, even though the figures are pretty spectacular. As Aaron Brown reports hereat Real Clear Markets:From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.To put this temperature drop in context, consider that this is enough to offset by more than half the entirety of the global warming the planet has experienced since the end of the 19th century.https://climatism.blog/2019/01/09/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-scam/This graph shows with temperatures have not changed with a prolonged view from the Little Ice age time 1770 to the recovery today. The temperature oscillations are natural and the alarmists fooled by taking too short a view of the data.er GSMKAZAKHSTAN’S CAPITAL UNDER “STATE OF EMERGENCY” AS SEVERE WEEK-LONG WINTER STORM CONTINUES TO RAVAGE THE CITYJANUARY 28, 2020 CAP ALLONAuthorities in the Kazakhstan capital of Nur-Sultan have declared a state of emergency after a week-long winter storm continues to pummel the city with strong winds and heavy snow, reports akipress.com.Deputy Minister of Interior of Kazakhstan, Yuri Ilyin, declared the emergency over the weekend.Since January 23, a total of 645 people have required rescuing from the snowstorms and accompanying drifts, according to tengrinews.kz. In addition, and over the same period, 133 stranded vehicles have been been dug-out and towed — 106 cars, 9 buses, 18 trucks, and 1 loader.Transportation links to and from Nur-Sultan were cut on January 27, while all schools in the capital remained closed. A spokesman for city’s International Airport has confirmed that all flights have been cancelled indefinitely, for obvious safety reasons.Kazakhstan's Capital under "State of Emergency" as Severe Week-Long Winter Storm Continues to Ravage the City - ElectroverseMODERATE WINTERS PREDICTION MORE THAN FALSE!The authors of the global warming hypothesis universally predicted moderate winters without snow. They wrote this weather projection into their 2001 Report.THE “97% of Experts” Agreed Too!2000 : a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif2000 : Spiegel…“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”2004 : Mark Lynas told us…“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas2005 : Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel…Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”The projection of the end of snow by so many scientists made sense if there was a real warming from rising temperatures because the continued snow albedo will arrest any runaway global warming. The complete failure of this projection must be evidence that the alleged global warming is false and the slight warming at less than one degree centigrade for the last 140 years is just Mother nature and her natural variability swinging hot then cool as she has done for hundreds of million years.Albedo means the snow reflects sunlight away making the weather colder. This feedback goes on and on in a cycle of cooling impacting the spring, the next summer, fall and the next winter and ultimately the planet. Therefore with snowy winters the fear of a too hot climate is impossible.Some say the alleged warming cases an increase in moisture and this causes the increased snow. This is impossible as it does not explain the record cooling needed for the moisture to turn to snow.The story of snow is strong evidence that the global warming hypothesis is false because reality so contradicts the hypothesis of human caused warming.REFERENCESU.N. IPCC :IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeTHEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”The moderate snowless winter predictions made sense because without winter snow spring and summers would warm up and so on leading to unprecedented warming. On the other hand with snow continuing the prediction of global warming cannot happen.Record snowy winters are increasing putting the lie to global warming.ICELAND’S EMIGRATION CENTER DISAPPEARS UNDER SNOW: “WE’VE NEVER BEFORE HAD SNOW ON THIS SCALE”DECEMBER 20, 2019 CAP ALLON“We’ve never before had snow on this scale,” exclaimed Valgeir Þorvaldsson, director of the Icelandic Emigration Center in Hofsós, North Iceland [as reported by icelandmonitor].Located in a two-story house, the Emigration Center practically disappeared under a monster dumping of snow delivered by last week’s record-breaking storm.“When building these houses, it never occurred to us we’d have to shovel [snow] off these roofs. There are, I believe, 9 meters (30 ft) up to the gable of the biggest house, and the roofs are very steep, too,” continued Þorvaldsson.“Maybe this is why people emigrated to America,” he jokingly pondered.Rain and Snow on the Way as New Storm Hits Southern CaliforniaPOSTED 7:30 AM, DECEMBER 29, 2019, BY LOS ANGELES TIMES, UPDATED AT 10:28AM, DECEMBER 29, 2019Jay Shepherd, 4, plays in the snow just before the sun sets in Joshua Tree National Park on Dec. 27, 2019. (Credit: Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times)SNOWFALL Will Signal The Death Of The Global Warming MovementPosted: November 18, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry |BREAKING : ‘A Very Rare And Exciting Event’ To The Rescue | ClimatismSNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snowlike we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.”– Professor Mojib Latif (2000)“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)***WE all associate snowstorms with cold weather. But, the effects of snow on our climate and weather last long after the storm has passed. Due to snows reflective properties, its presence or absence influences patterns of heating and cooling over Earth’s surface more than any other single land surface feature.CLIMATE models from the 1970s have consistently predicted that CO2-induced global warming climate change should be causing a significant decline in total snow cover. However, Global snow cover has actually increased since at least the start of the record (Connolly et al, 2019), leading to some scepticism within the scientific community about the validity of the climate models.EN BY PIERRE GOSSELIN ON NOV 14, 2019. POSTED IN LATEST NEWSN. Hemisphere In Hypothermic Shock! Record Cold, ‘Historic Snowstorms’Winter hasn’t even officially arrived, but already large areas of the northern hemisphere are seeing “historic snowfalls,” frigid temperatures, and even avalanche alarms.The Northern Hemisphere has certainly caught a major cold, one certainly not caused by the human CO2 virus.Instead of fever, parts of the northern hemisphere are in hypothermia!Alarmists, media desperateThough global warming scientists will never admit it, they are really surprised and stunned.All that is left for them is to make up some cockamamie warming-causes-cold explanations and hope there are enough severely stupid among the media and masses to believe it.“United States — Rewrite the Record Books”Beginning in North America, “sub-zero temperatures are now blasting” millions of Americans following “the three historic snowstorms which buried parts of the U.S. last month,” reports weather site Electroverse - Documenting Earth Changes during the next GSM and Pole Shift here.Electroverse writes that “lows throughout the week will be more like January temperatures” with readings below zero for many U.S. states and “temps down into the teens are even forecast as far south as Texas.”Yesterday, 97 records were toppled.“It’s a big deal,” Electroverse writes in its headline. They also add:“No, record cold & snow IS NOT made ‘more likely in a warming world.’ In fact, the IPCC’s line—until not that long ago—was that ‘milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.'”Solar activity suspectedIt’s not the sort of thing we are supposed to be expecting from a “warming planet”. Some climate experts blame natural factors, like solar activity, for the cold, and that these warnings have long been known since the sun has entered a new period of calm.Freeze watches and warnings also extend as far south as Florida. And it’s only early November. And don’t expect to see many FFF activists show up at rallies protesting hot weather any time soon.Polar Bear Science site here also reports that the Hudson Bay in Canada has started freezing up earlier than normal three years in a row!Europe starting to get clobbered by snow, 2m in the AlpsMeanwhile cold has also spread across Europe, though not quite as brutal as what we’ve been seeing across North America.In central Europe, the Austrian online Heute here reports that “huge amounts of snow” are on the way for the Alps.German site http://Wetteronline.de reports here of “new, severe snowfalls in the Alps” with “up to two meters of fresh snow are possible in places up to the weekend” in Switzerland, Austria, and Northern Italy. “This is good news for winter sports enthusiasts – but the danger of avalanches is increasing.”Biggest November snowstorm in 40 yearsEven global warming child activist Greta Thunberg’s Sweden is getting hard hit by extreme cold and snow. Electroverse reports the Nordic country is suffering “its biggest November snowstorm in 40 years.”On November 10th, Mika tweeted that temps in northern Sweden fell 10 -34.5°C.Mika Rantanen@mikarantaneToday is the coldest morning so far during the ongoing winter season:-34.5°C in Sweden, -31.1°C in Norway and -30.6°C in Finland (not shown on the map).21411:31 PM - Nov 9, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy96 people are talking about thisMost snow in 60 yearsThe German Ruhrkultur site reports how also Finland just saw “the coldest autumn temperature and the highest snow depth in at least 60 years” and that “the temperature in Enontekiö, a municipality in Finnish Lapland, dropped to 28.2°C on Tuesday 5 November.”Deepening cold across Siberia as well“On November 11 in Yakutia, the daily temperature never rose above −30°C (-22F),” reports the SOTT site here. “Some parts of Siberia were even colder: In Evenkia and the northern regions of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the temperature dropped to −41 … −44°C.”SOTT comments (sarcastically): “I wonder how much ice will melt at −44°C (-47F).With all the early winter weather, it’s ridiculous to claim the globe is burning up. So it’s no wonder the alarmists have taken their climate ambulance to the far side of the globe, NSW Australia, and kept their narrow focus on brush fires.Read more at No Tricks ZoneN. Hemisphere In Hypothermic Shock! Record Cold, 'Historic Snowstorms'Cold temperature records smashed in B.C. WednesdayPuntzi Mountain, in the Cariboo region, was - 48.8 C on Wednesday, shattering the 2005 record of - 37.4 C.TIFFANY CRAWFORDUpdated: January 16, 2020SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINTSeveral cold temperature records were smashed in B.C. Wednesday following a winter storm that lashed much of the province.Environment and Climate Change Canada says seven areas of the province broke records, including Puntzi Mountain in the Cariboo at –48.8 C on Wednesday, shattering the 2005 record of –37.4.Prince George and Burns Lake were below –44 and broke earlier records of just under –41. Quesnel was –41.9, down from –41.2 in 1916.Tattlayoko Lake in the Chilcotin region was –35.4, down from –35 in 1950, while Clinton was –33.3, breaking its record –29.8 in 2005.Bella Bella, on B.C.’s Central Coast, was –12.8, which broke the 2012 record of –7.6.ECCC Weather British Columbia✔@ECCCWeatherBC#Brrr, it's been very COLD in the interior over the past few days. Last time it was -40C in Quesnel was 1991! Check out these minimum temperature records from this morning...Gradual warming is forecast for the coming days... not quite warm but less cold. #BCStorm30#Brrr, it's been very COLD in the interior over the past few days. Last time it was -40C in Quesnel was 1991! Check out these minimum temperature records from this morning...Gradual warming is forecast for the coming days... not quite warm but less cold. #BCStorm pic.twitter.com/uuaypwyUBY— ECCC Weather British Columbia (@ECCCWeatherBC) January 15, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy#Brrr, it's been very COLD in the interior over the past few days. Last time it was -40C in Quesnel was 1991! Check out these minimum temperature records from this morning...Gradual warming is forecast for the coming days... not quite warm but less cold. #BCStorm pic.twitter.com/uuaypwyUBY— ECCC Weather British Columbia (@ECCCWeatherBC) January 15, 2020Many parts of the province were still under extreme cold weather warnings Thursday, including the Peace River, Elk Valley, Haines Road, South Klondike, Teslin, and Yoho and Kootenay Park regions. Environment and Climate Change Canada says Arctic winds could push the wind chill temperature down below –50 in some areas.Elsewere, Arctic flow warnings were in effect for the North and Central coasts, and the Fraser Valley, where the wind chill was expected to be –20.Meantime, the frigid weather has caused energy use to soar. Fortis B.C. reported Thursday that natural gas use increased by 50 per cent on Tuesday compared to the same day the week before. When comparing Tuesday’s use to an average January day, there was more than a 75 per cent increase in natural gas use.In the southern Interior, Fortis B.C. customers’ electricity use was up 35 per cent on Tuesday, while the company says the last seven days were up four per cent compared with last year’s highest energy use week, which was the first week of January 2019.This just in from Russia -New cold records set in RussiaJanuary 25, 2020 by RobertNot much ice will be melting a -56C (-68.8F).Every day of the past week in the Magadan region the frosts grew stronger, and over the past day the air temperature dropped below the norm by 8.5 degrees.But in continental areas, temperature set new records. In the village of Talon, on January 24, the temperature dropped to -46.2C (-51.1 F), which is 0.2 degrees below the previous record set in 1978.But these are not the lowest temperatures in Russia. In the east of Yakutia last night, frosts intensified to -56C (-68.8F).‘The wind chill sensation could go to -61°C in this region.’Метеоновости о погодеAMERICAN THINKER ARTICLE - OUR MEMORY LAPSESJanuary 30, 2020Warming and the Snows of YesteryearBy Gregory WrightstoneI was recently reminded of one of the most common misconceptions about our changing climate that is often accepted as fact by climate skeptics and true believers alike. Last week a commentary written by a fellow geologist and colleague lamented the less snow and cold in recent winters compared to the winters of his youth in Kentucky in the 1950s and 60s. He also related a talk he had with an octogenarian in Europe over the holidays who told him that he also recalled common snow during Christmas in Germany but alas, no longer.This nearly universally held belief that even the most skeptical of us tend to believe is “warming by recollection.” Virtually every person from snowy climes claims that winters today are nothing like they were when they were a child. This recollection reinforces the thought that we are experiencing global warming within our own lifetime. Never mind that the slight warming of ~0.6 oF (0.3 oC) that a typical 45-year-old may have experienced since that big snowfall when he was five years old is much too slight to be recognizable by anyone.Before I looked at the actual data on the subject, I also believed that the snow of my youth in Pennsylvania exceeded any of recent decades. My research into snowfall records for my hometown of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, showed that my memory of snowfalls past was quite flawed. Snowfall here had been on the rise, rather than in decline.Further examination from around the country revealed that this was not the exception, but the rule, as snow has generally been on the increase dating back many decades. My colleague’s recollection was equally flawed and records indicate that five of the top ten snowiest Februarys in his hometown of Lexington, Kentucky, had occurred since 1975!This notion is not a new one. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson expressed similar opinions about the moderating temperature and lack of snowfall.Both heats and cold are becoming much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep…. The rivers which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scearcely (sic) ever do now.-- Thomas Jefferson 1801Just like Thomas Jefferson in 1801, we remember those times that are remarkable, while forgetting the unremarkable. Our memories are filled with the times of extreme weather conditions as opposed to the moderate.Big snowfalls periodically happen. Just like the picture below of me and my siblings in the snow in 1961, a six or eight-inch snowfall may come well past your knees when you are only five years old and three feet tall. It is a memory indelibly etched in your brain because it was so awesomely fun. (The odd-looking fellow in the bowler hat is my younger brother).Increasing snow is not isolated to random sites in the United States but confirmed using data from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab (GSL) that reveal snow cover both in North America and across the northern hemisphere have been increasing.The mistaken notion of decreasing snowfall in our lifetimes reinforces the idea that many people have that supposed man-made warming is more significant and impactful than it really is. Despite the evidence to the contrary we are warned regularly of the “end of snow” from warming driven by our use of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned us in 2001 that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”Dr. Kathryn Hayhoe, no stranger to failed alarmist predictions, stated in 2008 that the California region would experience 70% to 90% reduction in snowfall due to warming. This was just three years before California’s snowiest winter on record of 2010/2011.As with so many other climate fantasies the “end of snow” prediction doesn’t stand up to review of the actual data. Go ahead and buy those skis, you will be using them often in the decades to come.https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/warming_and_the_snows_of_yesteryear.htmlWHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE CO2 WARMING HYPOTHESIS?ANSWER: CO2 is not the control knob of temperature and our emissions from fossil fuels have little if any climate effect.Dr. Tim Ball therefore advised us to relax.A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world: e = mc2. You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are, how did the false assumption develop and persist?The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is, he didn’t say what they claim. Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence of the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius’ colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.Original articleDr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | Europe ReloadedNo end in sight to the Alaska coldGuest Blogger / 6 hours ago January 25, 2020*No end in sight to the Alaska cold*OverviewRecent winters have been generally warmer-than-normal in Alaska, but the cold this season has been harsh and unrelenting. The forecast for the next couple of weeks doesn’t look all that promising either as colder-than-normal conditions should persist as we transition from January to February. In general, when Alaska is experiencing colder-than-normal weather for an extended period of time in the winter season, it is usually warmer-than-normal in the eastern US. Indeed, this adage has been observed this month as warmer-than-normal conditions have persisted in the eastern US while Alaska has shivered.The month of January so far has been well below-normal across Alaska and warmer-than-normal in the eastern US and Canada; map courtesy Weather Bell Analytics, NOAADetailsAfter eight years in which winter temperatures have been above average in Alaska, persistent bitter cold has returned and snow is generally at or above the normal levels for this time of year. It was just a few years ago, in fact, that Alaska’s annual dog sled race, the Iditarod, was in some jeopardy due to a lack of snow in Anchorage. In March of 2016, they actually had to import snow from outside of the metro area to create enough cover for dog teams to slide through the downtown area. During this month, the temperature in Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, fell below zero on 16 of the first 21 days, averaging about 20 degrees below normal. In Fairbanks, Alaska’s third-most populous city, they have recorded 10 days of minus 30° (F), the longest such stretch since 2012.Colder-than-normal conditions are likely to persist into the month of February across the state of Alaska according to the 06Z GEFS 2-m temperature anomaly forecasts; maps courtesy NOAA, Tropical TidbitsIn terms of snowfall, there have been some significant accumulations despite the bitter cold which can often be associated with relatively dry overall weather conditions. In Anchorage, for example, more than 5 inches of snow fell earlier this week which has brought their seasonal totals to around 44 inches which is close-to-normal for this point in the winter season. The interesting thing about the snowfall earlier this week was how light and fluffy it was in the entrenched bitter cold extremely dry Arctic air mass. The snow/water ratio for the 5 inches of snow was 28:1 which is about 3 times normal for Anchorage. (The snow-to-water ratio in the eastern US is often around 10:1 and can be even less when there is “wet” snow).The wintry scene in Anchorage, Alaska (photo courtesy AP)Temperatures were near zero as Friday dawned in the state capital of Anchorage and more bitter Arctic air is moving into the region after a slight relaxation during the past couple of days. Temperatures as low as double digits below zero are likely by the early part of next week and could drop to as low as 50° below in interior sections of Alaska. In fact, all indications are that colder-than-normal weather conditions will continue for at least the next couple of weeks.One final note, yesterday marked the 49th anniversary of the lowest temperature ever recorded in Alaska and in the US. On January 23, 1971, the temperature dropped to -80° (F) at Prospect Creek which was the location of a construction camp during the building of the Alaska pipeline.Meteorologist Paul DorianPerspecta, Inc.perspectaweather.comhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/25/no-end-in-sight-to-the-alaska-cold/Will colder winters and the increasing snowfall around the world stop? Maybe not. There is history of snowball earth millions of years ago due to albedo and global cooling where the earth became one big snowball.Academic research finds evidence for the snowball“Abstract Formation of the Arabian-Nubian Shield (ANS) and the East African Orogen (EAO) occurred between 870 Ma and the end of the Precambrian (
542 Ma). ANS crustal growth encompassed a time of dramatic climatic change, articulated as the Snowball Earth hypothesis (SEH). SEH identifies tremendous paleoclimatic oscillations during Neoproterozoic time. Earth’s climate shifted wildly, from times when much of our planet’s surface was frozen to unusually warm episodes and back againThe Snowball Earth hypothesisThe Snowball Earth hypothesis (SEH) focuses on evidence that Earth experienced several cycles of unparalleled climatic fluctuations during Neoproterozoic time and understanding why this happened. Conditions alternated rapidly between ‘icehouse’ (intense, perhaps global ice cover) and ‘greenhouse’ (globally warm) conditions (Evans, 2000). Hot and cold climatic swings may have been brief, perhaps a few millions of years long, and these separated by much longer intervals of more temperate climate. It is controversial whether or not the entire Earth ever became ice-covered, but it is accepted that Neoproterozoic glaciations were more extensive than late Cenozoic ‘‘ice ages’’. Paleomagnetic evidence indicates that much glacial debris was deposited in low-latitude settings (Harland, 1964; Evans, 2000; Hoffman and Schrag, 2000, 2002; Kilner et al., 2005). Glacial episodes were followed by rapid warming, as evidenced by deposition of thick sequences of ‘cap-carbonates’ above diamictites deposited by ice-rafting or by other modes of periglacial sedimentation. These limestones and dolomites may have been deposited very rapidly, as the warming ocean became supersaturated in carbonate.https://epps.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/Snowball.JAES06.pdfThis ends all life as we know it.The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that during one or more of Earth's icehouse climates, Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago).Snowball Earth - Wikipedia

No No No. Co2 is a trace gas with a very beneficial role in chemical process of photosynthesis converting radiant light from the sun into energy for plant growth. Co2 has no noticeable climate effect and there is certainly no evidence that it makes the climate too warm.The **best evidence** (Learn More About Climate Change) is that anthropogenic global warming is modest and benign, and rising CO2 levels are beneficial, rather than harmful, for both mankind and most natural ecosystems.“That’s why over 30,000 American scientists (including me DAVE BURTON) have signed the “**Global Warming Petition** (http://www.petitionproject.org/)” attesting to the fact that:***“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”***Dave Burton (Dave Burton), IPCC AR5 WGI expert reviewerI doubt the conventional wisdom espoused by the UN IPCC, mainstream media, and Al Gore that people can change the climate. Trace amounts of C02 emissions from fossil fuels are irrelevant to global warming because the Greenhouse gas heat forcing hypothesis discarded long ago is wrong.The scientific method is driven by a process of hypothesis experiment and revision not organization’s executive consensus to placate government funding. The alarmist’s predictions all fail, including the end of snow, dramatic sea rise, unusual glacier melting, Pacific island sinking and polar bears extinction have all been false. This means the global warming hypothesis fails and is false.The best introductory answer to this question comes from Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever PhysicistNobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax“Physics Nobel Laureate; "Global Warming" is PseudoscienceProfessor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong". This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates. The 2015 speech by Prof Giaever is here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_U...1,710,019 viewsDr Giaever presents a very cogent and compelling analysis more true every year as the predictions of the alarmists continue to fail.”The greenhouse gas effect is “bunk”The earth is not a greenhouse. The metaphor is is bad science.The original warming theory invented in 1824 by Fourier was only limited to water vapour that is 95% of the total gases and refuted in 1909 by RW Wood a famous American physicist and inventor. Wood based his refutation on a better understanding of how a real greenhouse works and it is not by back radiation. It is the fact the glass panel prevent the trapped air being cooled by the atmosphere. The earth is an open system there are no glass panel and Co2 plant food at 0.1% (near zero) of the atmosphere could not have such large effects on the climate is impossible to even image. There is only one molecule of Co2 emissions between Vancouver and Hope 130 K away.Looking at all the gases in the atmosphere 76% Nitrogen and 20.5% Oxygen shows the so called greenhouse gases are only < 4%. The largest greenhouse gas is water vapour at 95%. Most of the Co2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources at 4% this leaves only minute amounts of industry produced Co2 too small to measure.Make up of invisible radiative gases misnamed greenhouse gases.This 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.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 http://tax.It 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.Climate alarmists ignore this evidence that GHG are trace gases with water vapour at 95% and Co2 near zero from human fossil fuels. are too small a portion of the atmosphere to matter because it takes the punch out of their hypothesis.The saddest part of the debate over global warming is the fact alarmists like Al Gore and Barack Obama say the science is settled when there are so many leading scientists and research papers offside. The claim of certainty about a science hypothesis about minor Greenhouse Gases is terrible and obviously wrong.Because we think in pictures and our conceptual system is steeped in metaphor the bad greenhouse metaphor used in climate science distorts our understanding of climate reality.Greenhouse is a misleading word, a bad metaphor and a delusion claiming that Co2 from human emissions have a major effect on the climate? Is the claim of heat forcing or back radiation from the greenhouse effect false?Does the fact human Co2 emissions are near zero or minuscule at 0.1% of the atmosphere make it physically impossible for us to have any influence on our chaotic and variable climate? Co2 gas is only 1 molecule of 2,600 other molecules.History proves that vivid metaphors with false science in the hands of the media, politicians and mass hysteria can be devastating. The popular book, SILENT SPRING written by Rachel Carson is a tragic example of environmentalism gone mad.Bad METAPHORS from shoddy science are deadly“THE SILENT SPRING AND THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT EXAMPLES“While excellent literature, however, Silent Spring was very poor science…Carson wrongly claimed DDT Endangered U.S. Birds with Extinction. According to Rachel Carson, DDT was so harmful to birds that someday America’s springs would be silent, as all the birds that might enliven them with song would be dead. Indeed, it was from this poignant image that she drew the title for her http://book.An examination of actual data, however, thoroughly debunks Carson’s claim… In the case of the robin, singled out by Carson as “the tragic symbol of the fate of the birds,”[40] the population count increased twelvefold.Many other studies show the same pattern of sharp increase of some bird populations during the DDT years.THE DDT LIE IN PHOTO BY THE NEW YORKER JUNE 23, 1962Silent Spring—IITo only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase in agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably, perhaps, scrub typhus and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that, in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable.. By some estimates, the death toll in Africa alone from unnecessary malaria resulting from the restrictions on DDT has exceeded 100 million people.[26]”Robert Zubrin is a New Atlantis contributing editor. This essay is adapted from his new book — the latest volume in our New Atlantis Books series — Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism.”https://www.thenewatlantis.com/p...I submit that Al Gore’s slide show and subsequent movie, THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH is sadly a remake of Rachael Carson’s SILENT SPRING and by denying fossil fuels to > 2 billion living off the grid the result will be just as devastating..Leading scientists do not support the notion that the most beneficial trace gas on the planet Co2 ,that is invisible and non toxic could physically be the control knob of our climate. The claim surely feels like a hoax.Why Global Warming?Despite the overwhelming evidence against human-caused global warming, why is actual temperature data consistently ignored? Current climate fluctuations are trivial and well within historical limits. It is a fact that it has been warmer than today for a majority of time in the earth’s climate past.The earth’s climate is symmetry between millions of years as a hot box and then as an ice box. Global warming and global cooling are the imperceptible nonlinear driving forces causing climate scientists to be fooled by randomness. No one knows in their lifetimes what direction the chaotic climate is trending.“Green Guru James Lovelock now says we may ‘enjoy’ global warming: I was ‘led astray’ by the ice cores that seemed to imply changes in carbon dioxide were the dominant cause of changes. Lovelock regrets that huge sums have been 'squandered on the renewable energy sources”, many of which are “ugly and hopelessly impractical” and threaten a “green satanic change” to Britain’s landscape.”Earth has been cooling for 64 million years as shown above. It will continue to cool. Is the current warming just a dead cat bounce? This is worth worrying about as global warming seems to be morphing into global cooling.Historical temperature data shows the alarmists alleged current ‘unprecedented global warming’ is a fantasy or a hoax. Though all the information presented here is publicly available and well known in both scientific and political circles, why does this false notion prevail that mankind is destroying the planet? Could the motive behind such madness be something other than saving the Earth?Geologists are one science discipline steeped in climate history that is not fooled by the AGW false crusade.December 13, 2013“American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) national president Ronald Wallace and Tennessee Section president Todd McFarland (Nashville office of AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc.) visited Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) on December 5th for an AIPG section meeting. ..“From an education perspective, one of the differences between AIPG and two of the other major geoscience societies, the Geological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union, is that a substantial number of AIPG members have expressed skepticism about the extent to which human activity is to blame for global warming during the last 150 years....“I do not know a single geologist who believes that (global warming ) is a man-made phenonomon.”Peter Sciaky Senate testimony, Oct. 29, 2007, Congressional Record, Senate, Vol. 153. Pt. 20Science organizations who follow Al Gore’s flawed inconvenient truth about the climate change are wrong. Because geologists are steeped in climate history (it is essential to their livelihood) they are much better informed on this issue . Also the American Association of State Climatologists who are not like the alarmists deniers of natural forces dominating the earth’s climate.Tuesday, 06 January 2015“Is Global Warming a Hoax?Written by Ed Hiserodt and Rebecca TerrellIn our information age, we’re bombarded with statistics on every danger the number crunchers can conjure — people struck by lightning, airplane vs. automotive deaths, and even drownings in bathtubs. But one statistic is curiously missing from the list. Even though President Obama and other global-warming alarmists warn of a looming climate apocalypse, they avoid giving a metric to prove their claims. They blame man-made climate change for a vast array of ills, including floods, droughts, wildfires, and tornados. But they never quantify what they say is the driving force behind it all: temperature.They have a very good reason. Actual temperature data doesn’t cooperate with their party line that mankind is ruining the planet with its addiction to so-called fossil fuels and its appetite for ample, affordable energy. Too few taxpayers are demanding proof, and too many are willing to accept global-warming fictions on blind faith, opening the door for federal regulators to foist irrational energy restrictions on the public. Understanding Earth’s climate fluctuations will make us much less willing to let them stifle our economic, industrial, and social progress, while understanding environmentalists’ true motives may incite us to expose their deceit.The Holocene PeriodPaleoclimatologists are scientists who study Earth’s climate history, and two specific studies outshine others in their field in terms of scope and consensus in the scientific community. The multinational European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) lasted from January 1996 until December 2006, earning the European Union’s 2008 Descartes Prize for Research. Investigation at the Russian Vostok Station in Antarctica has been going on since the 1970s. Both groups have studied ice cores as deep as two miles, establishing climate chronology from changes in layering thickness and measuring historic temperature data from varying ratios of oxygen isotopes in entrapped air bubbles.Figure 1 (below) plots ice core data, covering the past 11,700 years — an age known as the Holocene period — with present day included at the far right of the graph. The thick black line traces the average of eight different temperature reconstructions. It highlights the Holocene Optimum, which occurred between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago. Climate alarmists conveniently overlook evidence during the Holocene optimum where there were extended periods of temperatures exceeding the averages by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius above present temperatures.Though temperatures have been falling ever since, the decline hasn’t been steady. About 3,300 years ago temperatures peaked during the Minoan Warm Period, and again during the Roman Warm Period some 2,000 years ago. The Medieval Warm Period occurred 1,000 years ago, when wine vineyards dotted the landscape in Great Britain and Vikings grew corn and barley in Greenland. Each of these eras was warmer than today. Additionally, two significantly low dips are the 8200 Cold Period and the Little Ice Age, 400 to 500 years ago.The Little Ice Age, Greenland, and Some GlaciersThe Little Ice Age is troublesome for global-warming alarmists, since historical evidence suggests the period had extremely low global temperatures, which began recovering only as recently as the mid-19th century. During this era, the Thames River in England froze solid during the winter with ice so thick Londoners held “frost fairs” on it. Noted 17th-century English diarist John Evelyn described what he saw at the fair of 1683-84:Coaches [carriages] plied from Westminster to the Temple, and from several other stairs too and fro, as in the streets; sleds, sliding with skeetes, a bull-baiting, horse and coach races, puppet plays and interludes, cooks, tipling and other lewd places, so that it seemed to be a bacchanalian triumph, or carnival on the water.There were five winters during the Little Ice Age when the Thames froze thick enough to hold a frost fair: 1683-84, 1716, 1739-40, 1789, and 1814. According to Tom de Castella, writing for BBC News Magazine in January 2014, during the last of these, carnival-goers watched an elephant tramp across the river…In this 1677 painting by Abraham Hondius, “The Frozen Thames,looking Eastwards towards Old London Bridge,” people are shown enjoying themselves on the ice. In the 17th century there was a prolonged reduction in solar activity called the Maunder minimum, which lasted roughly from 1645 to 1700. During this period, there were only about 50 sunspots recorded instead of theusual 40-50 thousand. Image credit: Museum of London.Like Greenland and the Little Ice Age, glaciers aren’t cooperating with climate alarmists either, though glacier retreat is supposedly a harbinger of doom for our warming planet. On the contrary, it has been following the pattern you would expect during recovery from the Little Ice Age. The website for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK) offers the example of Glacier National Park (GNP) in Montana. An estimated 150 glaciers blanketed the land in 1850, most of which still existed in 1910 when the park was established. “In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP,” reads the site.But the exciting news is what’s popping up from underneath these retreating ice rivers. “Ancient trees emerge from frozen forest ‘tomb,’” reported the Juneau Empire in September 2013, quoting a University of Alaska Southeast geology professor who dates tree stumps from under the Mendenhall Glacier between 1,400 and 2,350 years old, corresponding to both the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.Forests aren’t the only finds. In 2003, Swiss archaeologists discovered clothes, weapons, and animal remains at the edge of the retreating Alpine Schnidejoch Glacier. According to German newspaper Tages Spiegel, the researchers were excited about the relics from a time when the glacial zone began roughly 700 meters higher than it does today, the “timber line had climbed substantially,” and “temperatures in the Swiss Alps were up to two degrees over today’s.”It’s clear such evidence and scientific consensus don’t play along with the climate-change charade. Instead, they free mankind from blame for climate fluctuations.Satellite vs. SurfaceWe rely on ice core analysis to discover temperature trends of the past millennia because there was no reliable measurement system prior to 1714 when Daniel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury-in-glass thermometer. His device came into general use in the late 1800s, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) confirms that “there was a net global warming of about 0.4º Celsius between the 1880s and 1970s.”The year 1979 saw the launch of the first temperature-gauging satellites, and suddenly we were not limited to data from ground stations, sea buoys, merchant vessels, and weather balloons. Research by environmental economist Dr. Ross McKitrick of Canada’s University of Guelph explains the drastic effect satellites had on how global temperatures are measured.He found that pre-satellite data is inconsistent because monitored portions of Earth’s surface have changed continuously since the late 1800s, with scant attention to the Southern Hemisphere, and that even by 2000 only 50 percent of the Earth’s surface had thermometer coverage. To add to the confusion, “about 90 percent of the land-based data now being used to construct global averages are sampled in cities,” contaminating readings with an “urban heat island” effect. This issue became the subject of two independent studies: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? published in 2009 by the Heartland Institute and the 2011 critique by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Climate Monitoring: NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. The studies revealed incomplete and erroneous reporting of temperature data and, even more shocking, that nearly 90 percent of U.S. locations are in violation of the National Weather Service’s siting requirements that recording devices must not be placed near sources of artificial or radiated/reflected heat such as exhaust fans, asphalt or concrete surfaces, or rooftops. McKitrick reported urbanization in Europe has produced the same phenomenon.Violations such as these generated the sharp upward spike on the right portion of Figure 2 (below). This graph charts global surface temperatures recorded by four separate agencies: NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Met Office (which is the United Kingdom’s weather service), and the Japanese Meteorological Agency…Ironically, NASA data from this same graph sparked the “coming ice age” scare of the 1970s. Note the temperature change of -0.2 degrees Celsius between 1940 and 1980. This two-tenths difference brought on a storm of ice age predictions by major media and government agents. In 1971, the Washington Post reported that research based on climate modeling developed by NASA scientist James Hansen predicted that glaciers would cover much of the globe within 50 years — by 2021 — because of mankind’s fossil-fuel dust blotting out the sun. (Hansen, who later became director of GISS and retired in 2013, continues to make headlines, advocating a steep carbon tax on fossil fuels to stave off global warming, reported the Des Moines Register last October.)Obviously, Hansen has ignored satellite measurements in favor of faulty surface readings. Since 1979, 14 satellite instruments have daily been recording global temperatures throughout different layers of the atmosphere by monitoring thermal emissions. In contrast to surface monitoring, McKitrick reports that satellites cover 95 percent of the Earth with continuous and consistent measurement techniques. The data are available at the University of Alabama in Huntsville website, and anomalies are plotted in Figure 3 (below). The red line is the running average over 13 months while the data points are monthly. What a difference between this and the four-agency surface temperature records! No sharp upward trends, and nothing to cause the public backlash that fear-mongering climate alarmists crave.It Gets Even CoolerAdding to the anti-climax of satellite data are findings from a fleet of more than 3,500 Argo floats launched by a collaboration of 30 United Nations members beginning in 1999. Designed to profile the temperature and salinity of ocean water, these buoys are scattered around the Earth’s oceans, covering nearly three-quarters of the globe. Yet you don’t hear much of the Argo floats because so far they have recorded cooling, not warming. Researchers published findings in the 2010 International Journal of Geosciences, reporting that rates of change in ocean heat content are “preponderantly negative.”This is particularly significant because many climate-change alarmists conjecture that the reason global temperatures of the 21st century are lower than their faulty climate models originally predicted is that the Earth’s oceans are absorbing all the excess heat. On the contrary, Argo researchers concluded that the data did “not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a ‘missing energy.’” In other words, the notion that Earth’s oceans are sponging up all the heat just doesn’t hold water.NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) has also revealed a cooling trend. Established in answer to criticism about NOAA’s site violations, the USCRN is comprised of 114 temperature stations in pristine locations throughout the United States. Meteorologist Anthony Watts plotted the raw USCRN data as shown in Figure 4 (below), which reveals a cooling of 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit since the network began operating in January 2005.Of course, satellites, Argo floats, and USCRN stations are so new, they should be considered still in their pilot phases. In fact, even surface temperature readings since 1880 are a mere blip on the Holocene radar. If you add to Figure 1 data from any of the subsequent charts shown here, you would not be able to discern a difference in the updated graph. Regardless, even temperatures from the most contaminated sources fall well within natural variations. Taken in the broader Holocene context, the modern-day hubbub over climate change is a tempest in a teapot.Why Global Warming?Despite the overwhelming evidence against human-caused global warming, why is actual temperature data consistently ignored? Current climate fluctuations are trivial and well within historical limits. They prove that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. Though all the information presented here is publicly available and well known in both scientific and political circles, why does this false notion prevail that mankind is destroying the planet? Could the motive behind such madness be something other than saving the Earth?Realizing that the USCRN is part of Obama’s own federal agency, NOAA, consider his remarks during a televised address from the September 2014 UN Climate Change Summit in New York City:There’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.… We cannot condemn our children, and their children, to a future that is beyond their capacity to repair.Is the president ignorant of USCRN data? Are United Nations members who applauded his remarks oblivious to their own Argo research? Have none of them heard of the weather satellites orbiting our globe? Or could their implausible climate-change claims have more to do with a lucrative global carbon market in which corporations buy permits to emit greenhouse gases? Reuters financial analysts estimate the 2014 market was worth around $87 billion. Perhaps globalists’ “green” agenda involves cash, not climate or some altruistic moral cause.While business enterprises worldwide are footing the global carbon market bill and passing the extra costs along to consumers, Obama is fleecing taxpayers back home. In a recent report by the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Ken Haapala outlined U.S. federal spending on climate change over the past decade, which totaled more than $165 billion. In 2013 alone “government expenditures on alternative energy sources were 78% greater than [National Institutes of Health] expenditures on all categories of clinical research on known threats to human health.”White House and Homeland Security Department reports reveal global warming received nearly twice as much in 2013 tax funding as did border security. Representative Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) chided the president for spending “30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning,” calling it a “gross misallocation” of tax dollars. Haapala reproached, “The fear of climate change has distorted spending priorities in the Federal government.”If Obama does not want to “condemn our children” to a future beyond repair, why is he ignoring real threats, hiding real data, and wasting billions blaming an uninformed public for a fictitious problem that he says can only be solved by bigger government and more taxation?In his speech at the climate summit, he claimed, “Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call.” What call? The latest Pew Research polls reveal that most Americans identify human-caused climate change as a fraud. Surveys conducted in 2013 and 2014 found a majority of Americans do not see global warming as a major threat and rank it near the bottom of the list of priorities for the president and Congress.If America and other developed nations want to maintain their high standards of living, and if developing nations hope to improve theirs, we must realize that climate-change politics are diametrically opposed to these goals. A “high standard of living” doesn’t mean driving nice cars and wearing designer clothes. It refers to ample food supplies, a dependable infrastructure, employment-generating industry, adequate medical services, and decent education levels. The reliable, affordable power sources responsible for such prosperity — especially coal, oil, and natural gas — sit in the crosshairs of “green” policy restrictions.Radical environmentalists tout so-called renewables such as wind and solar, but “renewable energy” effectively means no energy at all. Wind and solar will never be able to power an industrial economy. These technologies only “generate electricity when their resource is available, not when it is needed,” writes electrical power engineer Bryan Leyland for the industry journal EnergyCentral. “In any power system, the generation must match the demand on a second-by-second basis.” That means when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, the lights go out, unless renewables have reliable power sources as back-up. These are termed base-load providers, and it’s an expensive process for them to ramp up and down in answer to the variability of wind and solar.Forcing power companies to include renewables in their energy mix is a costly mistake. Germany, a world leader in aggressive renewable policies, faces an industrial exodus and economic recession, with electricity prices that have risen approximately 60 percent since 2007. The German Chambers of Commerce report that 25 percent of heavy industrial users are considering relocating abroad.In the United States, where renewable portfolio standards vary from state to state, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that electricity prices broke all-time rec­ords in July 2014, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts even higher rates this winter. A report published in November by consulting firm Energy Ventures Analysis, Energy Market Impacts of Recent Federal Regulations on the Electric Power Sector, predicts that commercial and industrial customers’ power and gas bills will rise 60 percent over the next five years. Individuals will pay for these costs through higher prices for consumer goods, while their own utility bills will also experience a 60-percent increase between now and 2020.Why are we imitating Germany’s folly? Because, while the Obama administration is forcing renewables into the power portfolio, it is squeezing base-load providers out. EPA-mandated emission limits on conventional sources of electricity, especially coal-fired power plants, are so restrictive that current technology cannot meet their demands. Paul Loeffelman, director of Corporate External Affairs for utility giant American Electric Power, states that the EPA’s regulations will force more than 50 gigawatts of coal generation — about 300 power plants — to be retired by 2016. The EPA is also poised to impose similar restrictions on new power plants, prompting U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (http://D-W.Va.) to complain, “Never before has the federal government forced an industry to do something that is technologically impossible. If these regulations go into effect, American jobs will be lost, electricity prices will soar, and economic uncertainty will grow.”He could have said economic uncertainty will skyrocket, which is exactly what happens to society when access to adequate, affordable electricity is restricted. Figure 5 (below) illustrates that countries with strong gross domestic products — the value of goods and services produced within a country annually — boast correspondingly high electrification levels (the percentage of households with electricity). The first 10 countries listed are top in the world ranked by GDP, and the remaining nations represent areas with relatively low electrification levels in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Note the marked difference in GDP between countries with ample electricity and those without.Obviously, energy poverty breeds economic stagnation and vice versa. The International Energy Agency (IEA), an intergovernmental policy advising organization, explains that “access to electricity is particularly crucial to human development” and “cannot easily be replaced by other forms of energy.” IEA claims, “Individuals’ access to electricity is one of the most clear and undistorted indications of a country’s energy poverty status.”But just as Obama’s climate-change cronies turn a blind eye to factual weather data, so do they ignore the need for reliable access to energy. The president’s senior science and technology advisor, John Holdren, advocates transferring billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to developing countries annually, supposedly to combat climate change. Of course, the climate policies our tax dollars help enact will further shackle those energy-impoverished nations.Nonetheless, Obama is fulfilling Hol­dren’s wishes. At November’s G20 Summit in Australia, the president pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, a wealth redistribution mechanism established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush entangled our nation in this international treaty, setting the stage for UN control of our energy sources in the name of “sustainable development.” If that sounds far-fetched, consider that the treaty’s main architect was former UN diplomat Maurice Strong, who declared at its unveiling, “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”UN officials still toe the same party line. In November the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — another brainchild of globalist billionaire Strong — published the final volume of its latest assessment report. Full of grim projections, the study says, “Decarbonizing (i.e., reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation is a key component” of IPCC’s recommended climate policies and recommends that carbon-emitting fossil fuel power generation be “phased out almost entirely by 2100.”Radical environmentalists know that human-caused global warming is a hoax. Temperature data shows no catastrophic warming trend, and archaeological evidence proves the planet has undergone periods of much more intense warming and cooling than our modern age has experienced. The purpose of the manufactured environmental crisis is not to save the Earth but to enslave it by restricting access to reliable, affordable energy.“Partisans for world government take advantage of any contrived crisis to aid them in their drive to rule the planet,” John McManus, president of The John Birch Society (JBS), told The New American. “The global-warming/climate-change hysteria was created to empower a few who intend to dominate all mankind.”But JBS Vice President Marty Ohlson offers a solution. “Concerned citizens should outreach to others to overcome the engineered ignorance about this subject,” he said, pointing to the “treasure trove” of information available at the organization’s website: Environment. The key, Ohlson says, is education. “Tree-huggers of good character will likely re-think the issue after seeing it through the prism of truth.””MY PUBLISHED COMMENTJames Matkin • 8 months agoThe climate alarmists overconfidence about their hypothesis that small amounts of CO2 emissions (0.117%) from fossil fuels added to large amounts of water vapour (95%) in Green House Gases will destabilize the climate has not been proven. The science is therefore pseudoscience like alchemy. This article is very pertinent to show the correlation in many countries of electrification and economic success. Without grid electricity there is devastation. We must stop the immoral vilifying of coal for developing countries living in energy poverty based only on fear mongering from our weak climate science about carbon dioxide.http:// https://www.thenewameric...[2]Harvard Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon gives compelling evidence that the motives of the alarmists are biased by social justice opportunities leveraged by climate fear mongering, not science -Soon refers to two most revealing quotes from alarmist leaders.“No matter if the science is all phony; there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of CanadaOttmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”That Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.http://www.climatedepot.com/2017...“The Green House Gases theory invalidated by its history.“That theory, which underpins the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis and the climate models used by the United Nations, was first proposed and developed in the 19th century.However, the experiments on which it was based involved glass boxes that retain heat by preventing the mixing of air inside the box with air outside the box.The experiment is not analogous to what occurs in the real atmosphere, which does not have walls or a lid, according to Nikolov and Zeller.”Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study...R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018Published on January 15, 2018Written by John O'SullivanFresh analysis of government scientific records reveals the idea of ‘long-settled’ science in the greenhouse gas theory is a myth. The claim human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) act as a control knob on climate only appeared in consensus science since the 1980’s. Prior to that time, official records show the theory as “abandoned.”Famously, on June 24, 1988 the whole world first heard about the dreaded “greenhouse effect” (GHE) from NASA’s new champion of the theory, James Hansen. Hansen had breathed life into an old and “abandoned” theory drawing from new space research into Venus and Mars. Thanks to Hansen’s role, climate fear prevailed for a generation.Hansen is a rogue famous for exaggeration and radical protests against the establishment.Recently, Russian scientists have declared the GHE dead as global cooling sets in; while a team of Italian scientists called for a “deep re-examination” of the failing theory. Other new papers readily dismiss the CO2 climate hypothesis. Below we present the stark evidence and encourage readers to engage in their own research.Consensus as Science?Of course, we should begin by stating real scientists avoid reliance on consensus opinion to determine the validity or otherwise of any theory. But so often, non-scientists in the general public and media (and certain corrupt national science institutes) cite consensus claims to quell discussion and debate.In that regard, we show that for the greater part of the 20th century consensus science, itself, rejected the idea that carbon dioxide causes global warming.The so-called greenhouse gas theory (GHE) was first famously debunked by Professor H. W.Woods in 1909. Establishment scientists usually never decry the Woods debunk. Instead, they gloss over it and the long hiatus that followed (1909-1980).Concocting a Strong NarrativeSpencer R. Weart, director of the Center for the History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics is pre-eminent among establishment science historians in splashing gloss. Weart’s book, ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ is compulsory reading for modern students in this field.Weart plugged Hansen’s comparison of Mars and Venus with Earth, asserting life as being very fragile and vulnerable to any climate shifts. Weart writes:“In the 1960s and 1970s, observations of Mars and Venus showed that planets that seemed much like the Earth could have frightfully different atmospheres. The greenhouse effect had made Venus a furnace, while lack of atmosphere had locked Mars in a deep freeze. This was visible evidence that climate can be delicately balanced, so that a planet’s atmosphere could flip from a livable state to a deadly one.” (id.)Like James Hansen’s ‘fixing’ of history, Weart is masterful at making evidence fit the narrative.. Professor Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan, sums it up succinctly:“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other – every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”The author of the above extract is CEP Brooks. He and the publisher, the American Meteorological Society, unequivocally advise that the old CO2 climate theory of Arrhenius, Fourier, et al:“was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.”Brooks (+AMS) then addresses the rise in atmospheric CO2 due to human industrial activity:“In the past hundred years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callender [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in world temperature.”Continuing, Brooks (1951) makes the same inescapable argument made by skeptics today:“But during the past 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations of temperature without the internvention of man, and there seems no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.”Thus, the greenhouse gas theory was well and truly dead and buried in 1951 – according to settled consensus science (if you are a believer in it)…Canadian space scientist, Joseph E Postma summarizes why bias, group think and incompetence helped sustain the discredited greenhouse gas theory for so long when proper examination shows it is literally ‘flat earth physics.’NASA Boss: Hansen “Embarrassed” UsHansen is an unstable radical prone to exaggeration and misleading data.But time is not the friend of climate fraudsters. And Hansen’s beloved greenhouse gas theory is consistently and monotonously being refuted in peer-reviewed journals rendering him – and other alarmists – disgraced. NASA’s Mass/Gravity Equations contradict the GHE and retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theonm James Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, has declared on government record that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” and “was never muzzled.” [6]The failure, after 30 years of prophesy, for a climate catastrophe to unfold, has left James Hansen a somewhat chastened man. In a recent paper Hansen shows he has now flip-flopped again on the climate forcing properties of aerosols. Returning to his old DIM science idea Hansen now says aerosols are part of the control knob for a planet’s energy content. But contrary to what he claimed before, he now says they cause cooling, not warming.In 2018 the null hypothesis awaits the greenhouse gas theory. In 1951, the AMS and Britain’s best climate scientist and head of the UK Meteorological Office, CEP Brooks said it all (id.)See -R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018 | Principia Scientific InternationalMuch of the public have been fooled by fudged data from the likes of Dr. James Hansen and from chance and randomness finding trends in the chaotic climate history of the short run that fail overtime.Seehttps://www.academia.edu/3363838...Daniel Helman answered this QUORA question IS GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX in the affirmative. He denies AGW is a hoax. He presents the conventional view that because 8 key alarmist predictions are true the theory must be true. I disagree. I will rebut with evidence each Helaman key prediction showing they are false.” Helman’s predictions are in italics.1. Sea Level Rise: Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.2. Global Temperature Rise: All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.3. Warming Oceans: The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.4. Shrinking Ice Sheets: The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.5. Declining Arctic Sea Ice: Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.6. Glacial Retreat: Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.7. Extreme Events: The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.8. Ocean Acidification: Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.THE FACTSSea levels are fallingIn the global warming crusade by the UN IPCC and Al Gore dramatic sea levels rise has been their primary fear mongering prediction. Ridiculous exaggerations have been blamed on fossil fuel Co2 emissions without any evidence.‘For example, Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water,’ Booker noted.Global sea level data is more fiction than fact because of the limited tide stations and natural variations at the regional level. Scientists deride the alarmist fearmongering on sea rise and admit over the past 130 years 7″ rise is imperceptible.Sea-level rise is not accelerating, and has not accelerated since the 1920s.There are about sixty good-quality, 100+ year records of sea-level around the world, and they all show the same thing: there has been no statistically significant acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in the last 85 years or more. That means anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not measurably affect sea-level rise, and predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise are based on superstition, not science.Here are two very high quality sea-level measurement records, one from the Pacific and one from the Atlantic:They show no activity that could be related to increase fossil fuel emissions.A fortiori as lawyers would say is the fact that recently the global sea level data has gone negative to the point that NASA has been forced to explain falling sea levels -On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-s...), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm.Here is the same data presented in a shorter timeline.This is too short to say it is a trend but it certainly rebuts the fictional and wildly ridiculous claims of Al Gore et al.It is relevant that sea levels today are the lowest in the history of our planet and yet they are very stable.Nils-Axel Mörnervia NoTricksZone By P Gosselin on4. February 2018 (Climatism bolds & links added) :SEA LEVELS ‘ABSOLUTELY STABLE’World Leading Authority: Sea Level “Absolutely Stable”… Poor Quality Data From “Office Perps”…IPCC “False”German-speaking readers will surely want to save the text of an interview conducted by the online Baseler Zeitung (BAZ) of Switzerland with world leading sea level expert Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.Few scientists have scientifically published as much on sea level as Mörner has.Yet because he rejects the alarmist scenarios touted by the media and alarmist IPCC scientists, the Swedish professor has long been the target of vicious attack campaigns aimed at discrediting him – yet to little effect.Mörner, who headed of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) Department at Stockholm University from 1991 to 2005, has studied sea level his entire career, visiting 59 countries in the process.Sea level hijacked by an activist agendaIn the interview Mörner tells science journalist Alex Reichmuth that climate and sea level science has been completely politicized and hijacked by an activist agenda and has become a “quasi religion”.According to the BAZ, recently Mörner has been at the Fiji Islands on multiple occasions in order “to study coastal changes and sea level rise”, and to take a first hand look at the “damage” that allegedly has occurred due to climate change over the past years.IPCC is falseThe Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic of alarmist climate science early on because “the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely” and “grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise” and that the IPCC “excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.”He tells the BAZ: “I always want to know what the facts are. That’s why I went to the Fiji Islands.”“Very poor quality data” from “office perps”Mörner also dismisses claims by the Swiss ProClim climate science platform who recently announced that the Fiji Islands are seeing a rapid sea level rise. According to Mörner the data were taken from poor locations. “We looked over the data, and concluded that they are of very poor quality” and that the researchers who handled the data were “office perps” who were “not specialized in coastal dynamic processes and sea level changes”.“Many of them have no clue about the real conditions.”Sea level “absolutely stable”Mörner tells the BAZ that sea level at the Fiji islands was in fact higher than it is today between 1550 and 1700. Coral reefs tell the story and “they don’t lie,” the Swedish professor said. He added he was not surprised by the data because “it is not the first time the IPCC has been wrong”.Over the past 200 years: “The sea level has not changed very much. Over the past 50 to 70 years it has been absolutely stable”.“Because they have a political agenda”Not only is sea level rise due to climate change at the Fiji Islands exaggerated, but the same is true worldwide as a rule. When asked why are we seeing all the warnings from scientists, Mörner tells the BAZ: “Because they have a political agenda.”Mörner warns readers that the IPCC was set up from the get-go with the foregone conclusion man was warming the globe and changing the climate: Mörner says: “And it is sticking to that like a dogma – no matter what the facts are.”When asked if sea level rise poses a problem for the islands, Mörner answers with one simple word: “No.”Strong evidence solar activity impacts sea levelThe Swedish professor also tells the BAZ that the rates of water rushing into the ocean due to glacier melt are exaggerated and that thermal expansion of the ocean is minimal. Mörner adds:“Sea level appears to depend foremost on solar cycle and little from melting ice.”Junk surveys produce “nonsense”When asked by the BAZ why he became skeptical, Mörner recalls the “great anger” from an IPCC representative when he spoke at a 1991 sea level conference in the USA. He was surprised by the reaction, alluding to the fact that it is normal to have different views in science. And as the years followed, he became increasingly aware of the falsehoods made by the IPCC and the organization’s refusal to admit to them.On the subject of publishing research results:“Publishers of scientific journals no longer accept papers that challenge the claims made by the IPCC, no matter the paper’s quality.”In his decades long career, Mörner has authored some 650 publications, and he tells the BAZ that he has no plans to stop fighting. “No one can stop me.”Near the end of the interview Mörner calls the claim that 97% of all climate scientists believe global warming is man-made “nonsense” and that the number comes from “unserious surveys”.“In truth the majority of scientists reject the IPCC claims. Depending on the field, it’s between 50 and 80 percent.”F. Cooling over the next decadesMörner also sees little reason to reduce CO2 emissions, and calls the belief in man-made climate change a religious movement driven by public funding.In conclusion Mörner tells the BAZ that he thinks solar activity will likely decrease and that cooling will ensue over the coming decades.“Then it will become clear just how wrong the global warming warnings are.”The declining reality is strong enough that science articles now try to explain the reason for falling seas.Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study showsAndre Mitchell 16 February 2016“Here's another shocking discovery about global climate change: It contributes to the falling of sea levels, and not to the rising of the seas as previously thought.Using two satellites, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in cooperation with the University of California at Irvine recently found out that water with a measured volume of 3.2 trillion tons has already seeped through land over the past decade.This figure amounts to the rate of sea level rise slowing by 22 percent, according to the new research. This means that previous fears that certain islands will be inundated in coming years can already be allayed.The study's lead author, J.T. Reager of the JPL, explained that because of growing demand for water due to global warming, the surface of the Earth has become more parched, with less groundwater underneath.As a result, water from melting glaciers earlier believed to be causing sea level rise is said to "being absorbed" by lakes, rivers and underground aquifers, similar to the way a sponge absorbs water.”This explanation is hard to believe when the more obvious answer is that original fears were nonsense as the largest glaciers are not melting the earth’s climate is not too hot. Here is a more credible explanation for no rise in seas from Marc Morano -“Marc Morano, a famous global warming sceptic, said these findings prove his belief all along that climate change cannot be directly connected to supposed sea level rises."There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any man-made effect on sea levels. Sea level rise is primarily a local phenomenon related to land subsidence, not carbon dioxide levels," Morano said in a separate article on http://WND.com.”Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study showsYes ,to see just how local (regional) see levels are see the data on major falling seasChurchill Manitoba the primary home of thousands of polar bears hunted by InuitMean sea level trends Churchill, Canada.The mean sea level trend is -9.48 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.57 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1940 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of -3.11 feet in 100 years.https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.go...There are many other examples of sharply falling sea levels in regional coasts.2. Global temperatures are declining from declining solar radiation.Solar Flares and Sun SpotsHabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun’s activity.“Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity,”“Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060,” he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.http://en.rian.ru/russia/2007011...The past 20 years confirms that temperature change correlates with solar radiation as temperature flattens or falls despite sharp increase in fossil fuel Co2 emitted.3. Oceans are cooling3. Cooling Oceans12 New Papers: North Atlantic, Pacific, And Southern Oceans Are Cooling As Glaciers Thicken, Gain MassBy Kenneth Richard on 11. September 2017Graph Source Duchez et al., 2016Contrary to expectations, climate scientists continue to report that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades.According to Dieng et al. (2017), for example, the global oceans underwent a slowdown, a pause, or even a slight cooling trend during 2003 to 2013. This undermines expectations from climate models which presume the increase in radiative forcing from human CO2 emissions should substantially increase ocean temperatures.The authors indicate that the recent trends in ocean temperatures “may just reflect a 60-year natural cycle“, the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), and not follow radiative forcing trends.Dieng et al., 2017 We investigate the global mean and regional change of sea surface and land surface temperature over 2003–2013, using a large number of different data sets, and compare with changes observed over the past few decades (starting in 1950). … While confirming cooling of eastern tropical Pacific during the last decade as reported in several recent studies, our results show that the reduced rate of change of the 2003–2013 time span is a global phenomenon. GMST short-term trends since 1950 computed over successive 11-year windows with 1-year overlap show important decadal variability that highly correlates with 11-year trends of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index. The GMST 11-year trend distribution is well fitted by a Gaussian function, confirming an unforced origin related to internal climate variability.4.5. 6. Glacier ice is expanding not shrinkingSix Decades of Glacial Advance in the Western Ross Sea, AntarcticaPaper ReviewedFountain, A.G., Glenn, B. and Scambos, T.A. 2017. The changing extent of the glaciers along the western Ross Sea, Antarctica. Geology 45: 927-930.Climate alarmists have long anticipated Earth's polar regions to symbolize the proverbial canary in the coal mine when it comes to witnessing the impacts of CO2-induced climate change. In these high latitudes, temperatures are predicted to warm so fast and to such a degree so as to cause unprecedented melting of ice that even the most ardent of climate skeptics would be forced to concede the verity of global warming theory. Consequently, researchers pay close attention to changes in climate in both the Arctic and Antarctic.The most recent work in this regard comes from the scientific team of Fountain et al. (2017), who analyzed changes in glacier extent along the western Ross Sea in Antarctica over the past 60 years. More specifically, using digital scans of paper maps based on aerial imagery acquired by the U.S. Geological Survey, along with modern-day satellite imagery from a variety of platforms, the authors digitized a total of 49 maps and images from which they calculated changes in the terminus positions, ice speed, calving rates and ice front advance and retreat rates from 34 glaciers in this region over the period 1955-2015.In discussing their findings, Fountain et al. report that "no significant spatial or temporal patterns of terminus position, flow speed, or calving emerged, implying that the conditions associated with ice tongue stability are unchanged," at least over the past six decades. However, they also report that "the net change for all the glaciers, weighted by glacier width at the grounding line, has been [one of] advance" (emphasis added) with an average rate of increase of +12 ± 88 m yr-1(see Figure 1 below).In pointing out the significance of the above findings, it is important to note that, over a period of time in which the bulk of the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 has occurred, not only have the majority of glaciers from this large region of Antarctica not retreated, they have collectively grown! This stark reality stands in direct contrast to climate-alarmist predictions for this region; and it reveals that if there is any canary in the coal mine to be seen, it is in the failure of global warming predictions/theory to match real-world observations. What will it take for climate alarmists to concede this fact?Arctic Sea Ice Increasing For Eleven YearsPosted on 14 Oct 2017 by Iowa Climate Science EducationDay 285 Arctic sea ice extent has been increasing since the start of MASIE records in 2006. This year is fifth highest since 2006.fmasie_4km_allyears_extent_sqkm.csv“Meanwhile, criminals in the press and scientific community continue to report the exact opposite of what the data shows.”Global sea ice extent rising.7. Severe weather has declined not worsened.Analysis: It’s not just droughts, but nearly all extreme weather is declining or at or near record lowsEXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters”Posted: August 6, 2017 | Author: Jamie SpryOn Eve of DC climate march, drought drops to record lows in U.S. as nearly all extreme weather is either declining or at or near record lows (See: Climate Bullies Take to the Streets for ‘People’s Climate March' in DC on April 29th’)"It is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative."By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotApril 27, 2017 3:27 PMClimate Depot Special ReportThe federal government has just released yet another key piece of scientific data that counters the man-made global warming narrative. The federal U.S. Drought Monitor report shows that droughts in the U.S. are at record lows in 2017. See:Feds: U.S. drought reaches record low in 2017 as rain reigns – Sees lowest levels of drought ever monitored“Drought in the U.S. fell to a record low this week, with just 6.1% of the lower 48 states currently experiencing such dry conditions, federal officials announced Thursday. That’s the lowest percentage in the 17-year history of the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor report,” USA Today reported on April 27. (Ironically, climate activists had declared California to be in a permanent drought: Flashback 2016: Warmist wrong claim: ‘Thanks El Niño, But California’s Drought Is Probably Forever’)Former Vice President Al Gore has made extreme weather warnings a staple of his climate change activist. See:Al Gore on the Weather: ‘Every night on the news now, practically, is like a nature hike through the book of Revelations’But it is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative.Below is a complete rundown of the very latest on extreme weather conditions: Update data from the 2016 Climate Depot report:Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN SummitExtreme Weather: Scientist to Congress in 2017: ‘No evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of University of ColoradoTornadoes: NOAA Tornado data revealing 2016 as ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ and below average for 5th year in a rowHurricanes: 1) Inconvenient NOAA report: ‘It is premature to conclude (AGW has) already had a detectable impact on’ hurricanes & 2) NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major (Cat 3+) Hurricane Strike & 3) 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers reveal the lack of connection between hurricanes & ‘global warming’Floods: ‘Floods are not increasing’: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’ – Pielke Jr. on how extreme weather is NOT getting worse: ‘Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either.’ “Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.Heavy Rains: 1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worseExtreme weather used to be blamed on ‘global cooling’ in the 1970s and early 80s Flashback NOAA 1974: ‘Extreme weather events blamed on global cooling’ – NOAA October 1974: ‘Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world’5 New Papers: Climate And Weather Events Become LESS Erratic And Severe During Warming PeriodsBy Kenneth Richard on 14. December 2017Cooling, Not Warming, Leads ToWeather and Climate Instability1. Significant Decreasing Trend In Severe Weather Since 1961Zhang et al., 2017Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades. The total number of severe weather days that have either thunderstorm, hail and/or damaging wind decrease about 50% from 1961 to 2010. It is further shown that the reduction in severe weather occurrences correlates strongly with the weakening of East Asian summer monsoon which is the primary source of moisture and dynamic forcing conducive for warm-season severe weather over China.2. Most Frequent Climate Instability During Global Cooling/Reduced CO2 PeriodsKawamura et al., 2017Numerical experiments using a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with freshwater hosing in the northern North Atlantic showed that climate becomes most unstable in intermediate glacial conditions associated with large changes in sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.3. Hurricane Activity Is ‘Subdued’ During Warm Periods (1950-2000)Heller, 2017The hurricane analysis conducted by Burn and Palmer (2015) determined that hurricane activity was subdued during the [warm] Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (~900-1350 CE) and became more produced during the [cold] Little Ice Age (LIA (~1450-1850 CE), followed by a period of variability occurred between ~1850 and ~1900 before entering another subdued state during the industrial period (~1950-2000 CE). In general, the results of this study corroborate these findings … [W]hile hurricane activity was greater during the LIA, it also had more frequent periods of drought compared to the MCA (Burn and Palmer 2014), suggesting that climate fluctuations were more pronounced in the LIA compared to the MCA. The changes in the diatom distribution and fluctuations in chl-a recorded in this study starting around 1350 also indicate that variations in climate have become more distinct during the LIA and from ~1850-1900.[C]limate variability has increased following the onset of the Little Ice Age (~1450-1850 CE), however it is difficult to distinguish the impacts of recent anthropogenic climate warming on hurricane activity from those of natural Atlantic climate regimes, such as ENSO.4. Surface Warming Weakens Cyclone ActivityChen et al., 2017Results indicate that the midlatitude summer cyclone activity over East Asia exhibits decadal changes in the period of 1979–2013 and is significantly weakened after early 1990s. … Moreover, there is a close linkage between the weakening of cyclonic activity after the early 1990s and the nonuniform surface warming of the Eurasian continent. Significant warming to the west of Mongolia tends to weaken the north–south temperature gradient and the atmospheric baroclinicity to its south and eventually can lead to weakening of the midlatitude cyclone activity over East Asia.5. More Hydroclimatic Variability During Cold Periods…Models Say Warming Causes More Instability, So The 21st Century Will Be Like The Little Ice Age, With More Instability/MegadroughtLoisel et al., 2017Our tree ring-based analysis of past drought indicates that the Little Ice Age (LIA) experienced high interannual hydroclimatic variability, similar to projections for the 21st century. This is contrary to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), which had reduced variability and therefore may be misleading as an analog for 21st century warming, notwithstanding its warm (and arid) conditions. Given past non-stationarity, and particularly erratic LIA, a ‘warm LIA’ climate scenario for the coming century that combines high precipitation variability (similar to LIA conditions) with warm and dry conditions (similar to MCA conditions) represents a plausible situation that is supported by recent climate simulations. … Our comparison of tree ring-based drought analysis and records from the tropical Pacific Ocean suggests that changing variability in El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) explains much of the contrasting variances between the MCA and LIA conditions across the American Southwest. The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA, ~950–1400 CE) is often used as an analog for 21stcentury hydroclimate because it represents a warm (and arid) period. The MCA appears related to general surface warming in the Northern Hemisphere, prolonged La Niña conditions, and a persistent positive North Atlantic Oscillation mode. It has been referred to as a stable time interval with ‘quiet’ conditions in regards to low perturbation by external radiative forcing. In this study, we demonstrate that the Little Ice Age (LIA, ~1400–1850 CE) might be more representative of future hydroclimatic variability than the conditions during the MCA megadroughts for the American Southwest, and thus provide a useful scenario for development of future water-resource management and drought and flood hazard mitigation strategies.Reasonabel Skeptic14. December 2017 at 6:46 PM | Permalink | ReplyAt a macro level warming world and decreasing storminess makes sense.In a warmer climate, the poles warm more than the equatorial regions. This will reduce the temperature gradient north to south and storms happen when cold and warm air masses meet. Ergo lower gradient would suggest less violent storms.http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/...8. Ocean acidification bogey man.“Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmismA paper review suggests many studies are flawed, and the effect may not be negative even if it’s realJames Delingpole30 April 2016There was a breathtakingly beautiful BBC series on the Great Barrier Reef recently which my son pronounced himself almost too depressed to watch. ‘What’s the point?’ said Boy. ‘By the time I get to Australia to see it the whole bloody lot will have dissolved.’The menace Boy was describing is ‘ocean acidification’. It’s no wonder he should find it worrying, for it has been assiduously promoted by environmentalists for more than a decade now as ‘global warming’s evil twin’. Last year, no fewer than 600 academic papers were published on the subject, so it must be serious, right?First referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, it has since been endorsed by scientists from numerous learned institutions including the Royal Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the IPCC. Even the great David Attenborough — presenter of the Great Barrier Reef series — has vouched for its authenticity: ‘If the temperature rises up by two degrees and the acidity by a measurable amount, lots of species of coral will die out. Quite what happens then is anybody’s guess. But it won’t be good.’No indeed. Ocean acidification is the terrifying threat whereby all that man-made CO2 we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere may react with the sea to form a sort of giant acid bath. First it will kill off all the calcified marine life, such as shellfish, corals and plankton. Then it will destroy all the species that depend on it — causing an almighty mass extinction which will wipe out the fishing industry and turn our oceans into a barren zone of death.Or so runs the scaremongering theory. The reality may be rather more prosaic. Ocean acidification — the evidence increasingly suggests — is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.Some of us have suspected this for some time. According to Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, long one of ocean acidification theory’s fiercest critics, the term is ‘just short of propaganda’. The pH of the world’s oceans ranges between 7.5 and 8.3 — well above the acid zone (which starts below ‘neutral’ pH7) — so more correctly it should be stated that the seas are becoming slightly less alkaline. ‘Acid’ was chosen, Moore believes, because it has ‘strong negative connotations for most people’.Matt Ridley, too, has been scathing on the topic. In The Rational Optimist he wrote, ‘Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm.’ I agree. That’s why I like to call it the alarmists’ Siegfried Line — their last redoubt should it prove, as looks increasingly to be the case, that the man-made global warming theory is a busted flush.To the alarmist camp, of course, this is yet further evidence that ‘deniers’ are heartless, anti-scientific conspiracy theorists who don’t read peer-reviewed papers and couldn’t give a toss if the world’s marine life is dissolved in a pool of acid due to man’s selfishness and greed. Unfortunately for the doom-mongers, we sceptics have just received some heavy fire-support from a neutral authority.Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasn’t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an ‘inherent bias’ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish ‘doom and gloom stories’.Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 years’ experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections?When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last -century.Even if the oceans were ‘acidifying’, though, it wouldn’t be a disaster for a number of reasons — as recently outlined in a paper by Patrick Moore for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. First, marine species that calcify have survived through millions of years when CO2 was at much higher levels; second, they are more than capable of adapting — even in the short term — to environmental change; third, seawater has a large buffering capacity which prevents dramatic shifts in pH; fourth, if oceans do become warmer due to ‘climate change’, the effect will be for them to ‘outgas’ CO2, not absorb more of it.Finally, and perhaps most damningly, Moore quotes a killer analysis conducted by Craig Idso of all the studies which have been done on the effects of reduced pH levels on marine life. The impact on calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units (beyond what is considered a plausible reduction this century) is beneficial, not damaging. Marine life has nothing whatsoever to fear from ocean acidification.Given all this, you might well ask why our learned institutions, government departments and media outlets have put so much effort into pretending otherwise. Why, between 2009 and 2014, did Defra spend a whopping £12.5 million on an ocean acidification research programme when the issue could have been resolved, for next to nothing, after a few hours’ basic research?To those of us who have been studying the global warming scare in some detail, the answer is depressingly obvious. It’s because in the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it.It’s no coincidence that the ocean acidification narrative began in the early 2000s — just as it was beginning to dawn on the climate alarmists that global temperatures weren’t going to plan. While CO2 levels were continuing to rise, temperatures weren’t. Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business. Ocean acidification fitted the bill perfectly.Does this prove that global warming is not a problem? No it doesn’t. What it does do is lend credence to something we much-maligned sceptics have long been saying: that in many environmental fields, the science is being abused and distorted to promote a political and financial agenda. Perhaps it’s about time our supposed ‘conspiracy theories’ were taken more seriously.”James Matkin •James is right. "Matt Ridley, too, has been scathing on the topic. In The Rational Optimist he wrote, ‘Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm.’ It is dubious science pushed to engender fear. "• The oceans have a huge capacity to resist being destabilised by changes in temperature or composition of the atmosphere. Whenever there is a change, the reactions of other chemicals or life in the sea act to moderate and even reverse those changes. Oceans cover about 71% of the Earth’s surface and the hydrosphere contains over 300 times the mass of gases in the atmosphere. The oceans thus have a huge capacity to buffer any variations in heat content or gas content emanating from the thin veil of atmospheric gases. The effect of man’s supposed 3% contribution to the tiny 0.039% of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s thin atmosphere would not register a long-term effect in the massive oceans." http://carbon-sense.com/201...https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016...Ocean Acidification – the Castle GhostOcean acidification is like the Castle Ghost – everyone is scared of it but no one has seen it.Dozens of learned articles and millions of media words tell us that ocean acidity has increased alarmingly since man started using carbon fuels. The worry is that the carbon dioxide being generated by man’s industry is dissolving in the ocean thus creating acidic water. And the computer models forecast that, by some future date, sea shells and corals will be dissolved or killed by the acidic ocean and/or the associated global warming.However a close look at the chemistry of the oceans and the evidence provided by past records and present observations reveals that the open ocean is alkaline and never acidic, except locally near active submarine volcanic vents. It is deceptive to suggest that sea life is threatened by “the rising acidity of the oceans”. The oceans are still quite alkaline. Nothing unusual or abnormal has yet been detected. Other conclusions are:The pH of the oceans varies naturally from place to place and time to time, depending on temperatures and the activities of plant and animal life. It is impossible to determine a meaningful figure for “average” ocean acidity (pH). It is also impossible to say with any certainty that average ocean pH has changed because of man’s use of carbon fuels. Such “measurements” are an exercise in guided guess-work. (“What would you like the answer to be?”)It is a myth that acidic waters necessarily kill aquatic life. Rain water is slightly acidic and many fresh water lagoons, swamps and reed beds are also acidic. Nevertheless, aquatic life flourishes in these wetlands.The oceans have a huge capacity resist being destabilised by changes in temperature or composition of the atmosphere. Whenever there is a change, the reactions of other chemicals or life in the sea act to moderate and even reverse those changes. Oceans cover about 71% of the Earth’s surface and the hydrosphere contains over 300 times the mass of gases in the atmosphere. The oceans thus have a huge capacity to buffer any variations in heat content or gas content emanating from the thin veil of atmospheric gases. The effect of man’s supposed 3% contribution to the tiny 0.039% of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s thin atmosphere would not register a long-term effect in the massive oceans.Cold ocean currents from the deep ocean periodically up-well to the surface. These currents are rich in dissolved carbon dioxide and other chemicals and decayed organic matter. Where this cold nutrient-rich water surfaces, there is a staggering profusion of aquatic life.Oceans have an unlimited ability to remove carbon dioxide from their waters and store it in thick beds of shells and corals, limestone, chalk, dolomite, magnesite, siderite, marls, methane hydrate and oil shales. Fresh water swamps and lakes on land have also laid down massive deposits of coal and lignite formed from carbon dioxide extracted from the atmosphere. Many of these deposits were laid down when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was far higher than it is today.Carbon dioxide present in the oceans is essential to plant life and current very low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the ocean are limiting plant growth. All animal life depends on these plants. Man’s mining and industrial activities are harmlessly recycling some of this valuable carbon dioxide from natural limestones and hydrocarbons buried in the dead lithosphere, back to the living biosphere.Corals are hardy and adaptable and have survived for 500 million years. During that time they have had to cope with warm eras, ice ages, extinction events, eras of massive volcanic activity, dramatic rising and lowering in sea levels and eons of time when levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were far higher than today.A very recent extensive study of the Great Barrier Reef concluded that the changes forecast under the “business as usual greenhouse gas emissions” were unlikely to cause great harm to the reef.Any change in global temperature or the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere will cause life on land and in the ocean to adjust and adapt. However, on balance, a warmer world with more plant food in the atmosphere and a more vigorous water cycle is very beneficial for the biosphere. The killer climates are associated with ice ages when the atmosphere is cold and dry, the sea levels are much lower and much of Earth’s fresh water is locked up in vast lifeless sheets of ice.There is no justification to use the baseless fear of “acidification of the oceans” as an excuse for a massive dislocation of our transport, food and energy industries. We should instead be focussing on real pollution problems (such as man’s rubbish floating in the oceans) and/or on preparing to cope with real and likely natural disasters (such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, floods, fires, cyclones and droughts).To see a full report on “The Acid Ocean Bogey Man” by Viv Forbes with illustrations and explanations see: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-conte... [PDF, 1.2 MB]Further reading: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/...http://carbon-sense.com/2012/05/...The End of the Ocean Acidification Scare for CoralsFollow @co2sciencePaper ReviewedMcCulloch, M.T., D'Olivo, J.P., Falter, J., Holcomb, M. and Trotter, J.A. 2017. Coral calcification in a changing world and the interactive dynamics of pH and DIC upregulation. Nature Communications 8: 15686, DOI:10.1038/ncomms15686.The global increase in the atmosphere's CO2 content has been hypothesized to possess the potential to harm coral reefs directly. By inducing changes in ocean water chemistry that can lead to reductions in the calcium carbonate saturation state of seawater (Ω), it has been predicted that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 may reduce rates of coral calcification, possibly leading to slower-growing -- and, therefore, weaker -- coral skeletons, and in some cases even death. Such projections, however, often fail to account for the fact that coral calcification is a biologically mediated process, and that out in the real world, living organisms tend to find a way to meet and overcome the many challenges they face, and coral calcification in response to ocean acidification is no exception, as evidenced by findings published in the recent analysis of McCulloch et al. (2017).Writing in the journal Nature Communications, this team of five researchers developed geochemical proxies (δ11B and B/Ca) from Porites corals located on (1) Davis Reef, a mid-shelf reef located east-northeast of Townsville, Queensland, Australia in the central Great Barrier Reef, and (2) Coral Bay, which is part of the Ningaloo Reef coastal fringing system of Western Australia, in order to obtain seasonal records of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and pH of the corals' calcifying fluid (cf) at these locations for the period 2007-2012. And what did those records reveal?As shown in the figure below, coral colonies from both reef locations "exhibit strong seasonal changes in pHcf, from ~8.3 during summer to ~8.5 during winter," which "represents an elevation in pHcf relative to ambient seawater of ~0.4 pH units together with a relatively large seasonal range in pHcf of ~0.2 units." These observations, in the words of McCulloch et al., "are in stark contrast to the far more muted changes based on laboratory-controlled experiments" (as shown in the dashed black line on the figure), which laboratory-based values are "an order of magnitude smaller than those actually observed in reef environments."With respect to DICcf (also depicted in Figure 1), McCulloch et al. report that the "highest DICcf (~ x 3.2 seawater) is found during summer, consistent with thermal/light enhancement of metabolically (zooxanthellae) derived carbon, while the highest pHcf (~8.5) occurs in winter during periods of low DICcf (~ x 2 seawater)."The proxy records also revealed that coral DICcf was inversely related (r2 ~ 0.9) to pHcf. Commenting on this relationship, the marine scientists say it "indicate[s] that the coral is actively maintaining both high (~x 4 to x 6 seawater) and relatively stable (within ± 10% of mean) levels of elevated Ωcf year-round." Or, as they explain it another way, "we have now identified the key functional characteristics of chemically controlled calcification in reef-building coral. The seasonally varying supply of summer-enhanced metabolic DICcf is accompanied by dynamic out-of-phase upregulation of coral pHcf. These parameters acting together maintain elevated but near-constant levels of carbonate saturation state (Ωcf) of the coral's calcifying fluid, the key driver of calcification."The implications of the above findings are enormous, for they reveal that "pHcf upregulation occurs largely independent of changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, and hence ocean acidification," demonstrating "the ability of the coral to 'control' what is arguably one of its most fundamental physiological processes, the growth of its skeleton within which it lives." Furthermore, McCulloch et al. say their work presents "major ramifications for the interpretation of the large number of experiments that have reported a strong sensitivity of coral calcification to increasing ocean acidification," explaining that "an inherent limitation of many of these experiments is that they were generally conducted under conditions of fixed seawater pHsw and/or temperature, light, nutrients, and little water motion, hence conditions that are not conducive to reproducing the natural interactive effects between pHcf and DICcf that we have documented here." Given as much, they conclude that "since the interactive dynamics of pHcf and DICcf upregulation do not appear to be properly simulated under the short-term conditions generally imposed by such artificial experiments, the relevance of their commonly reported finding of reduced coral calcification with reduced seawater pH must now be questioned."And so it appears that alarmist claims of near-future coral reef dissolution, courtesy of the ever-hyped ocean acidification hypothesis, have themselves dissolved away thanks to the seminal work of McCulloch et al. Clearly, the world's corals are much more resilient to changes in their environment than acidification alarmists have claimed them to be.Figure 1. Seasonal time series of coral calcifying fluid pHcf and DICcf. (a) Porites spp. coral calcifying fluid pHcf derived from δ11B systematics for colonies D-2 and D-3 from Davies Reef (18.8°S) in the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland. Shading denotes the summer period when pHcf and seawater pHsw values are at a minimum. Dashed line shows pH*cf expected from artificial experimental calibrations (pH*cf = 0.32 pHsw + 5.2) with an order of magnitude lower seasonal range than measured pHcf values. (b) Same as previous for Porites colonies from Coral Bay (CB-1 and CB-2) in the Ningaloo Reef of Western Australia (23.2°S) showing seasonal fluctuations in pHcf and seawater pHsw. The blue shading denotes the anomalously cool summer temperatures in 2010. (c) Enrichments in calcifying fluid DICcf (left axis; coloured circles) derived from combined B/Ca and δ11B systematics together with synchronous seasonal variations in reef-water temperatures (right axis; black line) for Porites colonies from Davies Reef (GBR). The strong temperature/light control on DICcf is consistent with enhanced metabolic activity of zooxanthellae symbionts in summer. (d) Same as previous but for Porites from Coral Bay (Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia). Source: McCulloch et al. (2017).CO2 ScienceThe Acid Ocean BogeymanIf pictures or diagrams are missing you can download a print-ready copy of this article from:http://carbon-sense.com/wp-conte...