View Full Text-Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

Emissions or evaporation of invisible water vapor is the most relevant greenhouse gas impacting the climate without doubt.So which effect is stronger, water vapor's cooling effect or warming effect? Interestingly, it is seldom mentioned in the global warming debate that the surface cooling effect of evaporation (which creates water vapor) is stronger than its greenhouse warming effect.This fact of course puts a big monkey wrench in global warming alarmism as it shows the cooling effect of the most important greenhouse gas water vapor.The atmosphere is made up of many different gases, the primary ones are Nitrogen and Oxygen at 99% and they are permanent. There are many variable gases and some are identified as so called greenhouse gases GHG incorrectly because they do not act like a real world greenhouse because they are much too minuscule measured only in ppm.While this chart illustrates the GHG and non GHG gases. At the top in size is clearly water vapor at up to 4% dwarfing carbon dioxide 0.039% almost zero.Greenhouse gas emissions are vigorously defended by climate alarmism as the control knob of global warming. Yet leading climate scientists with many peer reviewed studies and detailed books debunk the hypothesis and its relevance to climate.The debate like much of the climate discussion has a key misleading aspect pushed by the alarmism supporters in the fact that water vapour is the major GHG gas by far and is consistently ignored to make human emission seem more important than they are. .Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse SystemJust how much of the "Greenhouse Effect"is caused by human activity?It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.Water vaporis 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases,carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.Ref. A closer look at the numbersWATER VAPOR“Clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is the gas state of H2O and is invisible. ... Clouds are collections of liquid water droplets or ice that are small enough to float. When the water vapor in the air gets cold enough, it condenses back into liquid in the forms of droplets.Dec 16, 2012Clouds are just water vapor, so why do they move?”Carbon emissions are dwarfed by water vapor the most significant greenhouse gas at 95%..The climate debate has exposed much misleading information pushed by alarmists like the infamous hockey stick graph of Michael Mann erasing Medieval warming and the Little Ice age. Sadly the matter of greenhouse gases has a major fudge also intended to mislead viewers and that is ignoring the fact water vapor is far and away the key greenhouse gas while the demonized human carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are so minute at 0.28% GHG they are immaterial to the climate .What is water vapor?Water vapor is water in its gaseous state-instead of liquid or solid (ice). Water vapor is totally invisible. If you see a cloud, fog, or mist, these are all liquid water, not water vapor.Water vapor is extremely important to the weather and climate. Without it, there would be no clouds or rain or snow, since all of these require water vapor in order to form. All of the water vapor that evaporates from the surface of the Earth eventually returns as precipitation - rain or snow.Water vapor is also the Earth's most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which helps keep the Earth warm enough to support life.When liquid water is evaporated to form water vapor, heat is absorbed. This helps to cool the surface of the Earth. This "latent heat of condensation" is released again when the water vapor condenses to form cloud water. This source of heat helps drive the updrafts in clouds and precipitation systems, which then causes even more water vapor to condense into cloud, and more cloud water and ice to form precipitation.Interesting facts:Water Vapor Cools AND Warms the Climate System?When water evaporates from the surface of the Earth, it cools the surface. This keeps the surface from getting too hot. But because that water vapor is also the atmosphere's primary greenhouse gas, water vapor acts to keep the Earth's surface warmer than it would otherwise be.So which effect is stronger, water vapor's cooling effect or warming effect? Interestingly, it is seldom mentioned in the global warming debate that the surface cooling effect of evaporation (which creates water vapor) is stronger than its greenhouse warming effect.(page last updated 12/15/2019) What is water vapor?Greenhouse GasesWater VaporWater vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and is responsible for a large fraction of the infrared radiation retained by the atmosphere.From: World Survey of Climatology, 1995D.J. Easterbrook, in Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition), 20161 Role of Water VaporWater vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (Fig. 9.1). The reason for this is because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases (Fig. 9.2), and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. The atmospheric water vapor content is highly variable and not easy to measure as a single global number.Sign in to download full-size imageFigure 9.2. Wavelengths of greenhouse gases that emit and absorb infrared radiation.The effect of water vapor on temperature is especially important because of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that CO2 can cause catastrophic global warming. Because CO2 is not capable of causing significant global warming by itself, their contention is that increased CO2raises temperature slightly and that produces an increase in water vapor, which does have the capability of raising atmospheric temperature. If that is indeed the case, then as CO2 rises, we should observe a concomitant increase in water vapor. However, Figs. 9.3 and 9.4 show that water vapor (relative humidity) between 10,000 and 30,000 feet declined from 1948 to 2014.Sign in to download full-size imageFigure 9.3. Decline of atmospheric water vapor between 10,000 and 30,000 feet from 1948 to 2012.From data at Providing Insight into Climate Change.Sign in to download full-size imageWater Vapor - an overviewMany compelling references debunk the hypothesis of any greenhouse gas effect.Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth? This recent book puncturing the greenhouse gas theory by top scientists should at least make viewers see why the science is not settled.Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth?http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/allen-wes/Slaying the Sky...Slayers of the sky dragon. The authors of Slaying the Sky Dragon are firmly in the latter camp. They don’t deny climate change, only man-made climate change; but they do deny any greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas. Indeed, they claim that all IR-absorbing gases including water vapour have only a cooling effect.Arguments presented in Slaying the Sky DragonThe atmosphere is warmed primarily by conduction, not by radiation; and so the major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen) are more likely to warm the trace IR-absorbing gases than visa-versa. The major gases also absorb and emit some IR radiation.The IR-absorbing gases simply scatter IR radiation or otherwise pass any absorbed energy on immediately. These trace gases absorb more solar radiation than OLR and thus cool Earth’s surface; so they are notgreenhouse gases; it is water vapour that makes tropical rainforests cooler than tropical deserts. The glass on a greenhouse works only by limiting convection, not by back-radiation.There is no such thing as back-radiation (no empirical evidence for it) and the postulated recycling of energy between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is a non-physical ‘amplification’.Atmospheric IR radiation cannot affect Earth’s surface temperature because heat cannot flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.There is so much uncertainty the science of greenhouse gases (GHG) is not settled! I will address key uncertainties about GHG emissions with relevant references.http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/allen-wes/Slaying%20the%20Sky%20Dragon-3.pdfI have identified 4 major uncertainties relevant to this question:[math]The first major uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions is are the primary and permanent gases Nitrogen and Oxygen included as a GHG?[/math][math]The second major uncertainty is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not?[/math][math]The third major uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions is whether the increase in ppm over the past century was natural or driven by human industry?[/math][math]The fourth major uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions is whether the climatic impact is based on “meritless conjectures.”[/math]The first major uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions is are the primary and permanent gases Nitrogen and Oxygen included as a GHG?:The key criteria for a GHG is whether the gas is radiatively important to provide back radiation. The graph following is the conventional identifying only 6 very small GHG including Water Vapour the major one and CO2 the very minor and minuscule gas fundamental to photosynthesis and plant life.However there is disagreement about this list and certainly the science is not settled as to whether the theory of greenhouse gas heat trapping and IR is valid. See -Scientists: Oxygen & Nitrogen ‘Radiatively Important’ Greenhouse Gases With IR Absorption Temps Similar To CO2By Kenneth Richard on10. February 2020Share this...Earth’s atmosphere is made of 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2). The “consensus” view is N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases (GHGs) and don’t absorb infrared radiation (IR). But scientists have been saying N2 absorbs and radiates IR since 1944 and more recent (2012, 2016) studies have found N2 and O2 are “radiatively important” greenhouse gases with IR temperature absorption capacities similar to CO2.It’s been known for 75 years that nitrogen – the Earth’s most prevalent atmospheric gas – absorbs and “strongly” radiates infrared energy (Stebbins et al., 1944)Image Source: Stebbins et al., 1944What does this uncertainty mean to the anthropogenic global warming AGH hypothesis and the Paris Accord? Surely it means that if infrared radiation from Nitrogen and Oxygen are as effective as CO2 then reducing industrial emissions of CO2 as targeted by the Paris Accord is futile.2. The second major uncertainty is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not?Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse GasThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation. Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said, “No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics. Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.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?Dr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | Europe ReloadedCompelling graphs showing that CO2 lags and does not lead temperature.More evidence is found in the many graphs showing that CO2 does not correlate with temperature changes.3. The third major uncertainty about greenhouse gas emissions is whether the increase in ppm over the past century was natural or driven by human industry?The best answer based on the science is most of the increase inCO2 has been natural and not from human industry.The earth began recovering from the Little Ice Age in 1850 in the natural solar cycles warming the planet. This warming caused an increase in CO2 so the issue is whether industry coming of age and emitting CO2 from fossil fuels had any significant impact?Most Of The Rise In CO2 Likely Comes From Natural SourcesBy P Gosselin on2. March 2013Share this...The Carbon Cycle – Nature or Nurture?By Ed CarylWe know, from ice measurements, measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow Alaska, and the South Pole, that atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing in our atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. We also know that temperatures have been increasing in that same time interval, as the earth warms up from the “Little Ice Age.” The proponents of the theory that man’s production of CO2 has resulted in this temperature increase, use that idea to predict future temperature increases based on our continuing to use fossil fuels and continuing to force an increase in atmospheric CO2. But, is the increase in CO2 due to man; or is the increase in CO2 natural, due to rising temperatures caused by natural means?The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?Here is the same comparison using sea surface temperature (HADSST2).Figure 6: Plot of the monthly sea surface anomaly and monthly CO2 change.Figure 7: Corresponding scatter plot showing an R2value of 0.5528.Sea surface temperature seems to be driving atmospheric CO2 changes. This makes sense because CO2 solubility in seawater is temperature dependent.But what of man’s CO2 additions to the atmosphere? The data for carbon release is annual data, so the graphs are much coarser in appearance, and the change in CO2 must be annualized.Figure 8: Annual change in fossil carbon use and the annual change in CO2.Figure 9: Scatter diagram of carbon emissions change vs atmospheric CO2 change. Note that the R2 value is 0.05386, less than a tenth of the value of SST vs CO2.It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting.Most Of The Rise In CO2 Likely Comes From Natural Sources4. The major uncertainty about greenhouse emissions is whether the climatic impact is based on “meritless conjectures.”The greenhouse theory lacks observable experiments and is based on ignoring the minuscule and variable size of CO2 making the metaphor of a tight blanket covering of CO2 at only 0.04% or near zero hard to even imagine let alone verify.The earth is not similar to a real greenhouse because the atmosphere is open and does not capture heat by convection or back radiation.CO2 is very minute and cannot be a control knob of the climate because of its small size. A much better metaphor to describe CO2 in the process of photosynthesis is a pinch of salt.Photosynthesis like salt is a chemical reaction where small size works just fine.Research shows many leading science studies that refute the alleged greenhouse gas warming effect on the planet.Published in the Journal of Natural Science Kramm, Dlugi and Mslders find there is “no tangible evidence that the greenhouse effect does exist.”Atmospheric scientistsDr. Gerhard KrammDr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole MšldersScrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactAbstract Full-Text HTMLDownload as PDF (Size:13770KB) PP. 971-998DOI: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124 18,167 Downloads 41,522 Views CitationsAuthor(s) Leave a commentGerhard Kramm, Ralph DlugiAffiliation(s).ABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quan- tifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.KEYWORDSPhysical Climatology; Statistical Climatology; Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect; Earth-Atmosphere SystemCite this paperKramm, G. and Dlugi, R. (2011) Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact. Natural Science, 3, 971-998. doi: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124.Conflicts of InterestThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.References[1]Ramanathan, V., Callis, L., Cess, R., Hansen, J., Isaksen, I., Kuhn, W., Lacis, A., Luther, F., Mahlman, J., Reck, R. and Schlesinger, M. (1987) Climate-chemical interactions and effects of changing atmospheric trace gases. Reviews of Geophysics, 25, 1441-1482. doi:10.1029/RG025i007p01441[2]Gerlich, G. and Tscheuschner, R.D. (2009) Falsi?cation of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 23, 275-364. doi:10.1142/S021797920904984X[3]Halpern, J.B., Colose, C.M., Ho-Stuart, C., Shore, J.D., Smith, A.P. and Zimmermann, J. (2010) Comment on “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics”. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24, 1309-1332. doi:10.1142/S021797921005555X[4]Gerlich, G. and Tscheuschner, R.D. (2010) Reply to “comment on ‘falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics’ by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho- Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann”. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24, 1333- 1359. doi:10.1142/S0217979210055573[5]Planck, M. (1913) Vorlesungen über die Theorie der W?rmestrahlung. Verlag Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig.[6]Fortak, H. (1979) Entropy and climate. In: Bach, W., Pankrath, J. and Kellogg, W., Eds., Man’s impact on climate. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Oxford/New York, pp. 1-14.[7]Zhang, Z.M. and Basu, S. (2007) Entropy flow and generation in radiative transfer between surfaces. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 50, 702-712. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2006.07.009[8]Stephens, G.L. and Obrien, D.M. (1993) Entropy and climate. I: Erbe observations of the entropy production of the Earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 119, 121-152. doi:10.1002/qj.49711950906[9]Wright, S.E., Scott, D.S., Haddow, J.B. and Rosen, M.A. (2001) On the entropy of radiative heat transfer in engineering thermodynamics. International Journal of Engineering Science, 39, 1691-1706. doi:10.1016/S0020-7225(01)00024-6[10]Monin, A.S. and Shishkov, Y.A. (2000) Climate as a problem in physics. Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, 170, 419-445. doi:10.3367/UFNr.0170.200004d.0419[11]Sch?nwiese, C.-D. (2005), Globaler und regionaler Klimawandel—Eine aktuelle wissenschaftliche übersicht. J.-W. Goethe University, Fankfurt, Germany.[12]Gerlich, G. (2005), Zur Physik und Mathematik globaler Klimamodelle. In: Presentation before the Theodor- Heuss-Akademie, Gummersbach, Germany.[13]Hantel, M. (1997) Klimatologie. Bergmann, schaefer— Lehrbuch der Experimentalphysik, Band 7, Erde und Planeten. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 311- 426.[14]Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L. and Mcmahon, T.A. (2007) Updated world map of the K?ppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11, 1633-1644. doi:10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007[15]Liou, K.N. (2002) An introduction to atmospheric radiation—Second edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.[16]Loutre, M.F., Paillard, D., Vimeux, F. and Cortijo, E. (2004) Does mean annual insolation have the potential to change the climate? Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 221, 1-14. doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(04)00108-6[17]Berger, A. (1978) Long-term variations of daily insolation and Quaternary climatic changes. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 35, 2362-2367. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035<2362:LTVODI>http://2.0.CO;2[18]Berger, A. (1988) Milankovitch theory and climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 24, 624-657.[19]Mittelstaedt, P. (1970) Klassische mechanik. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, Germany.[20]Greiner, W. (1977) Theoretische physik, band 1, mechanik I. Verlag Harry Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.[21]Kramm, G. and Dlugi, R. (2010) On the meaning of feedback parameter, transient climate response and the greenhouse effect: Basic considerations and the discussion of uncertainties. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 4, 137-159. doi:10.2174/1874282301004010137[22]Kondratyev, K.Y. (1969) Radiation in the Atmosphere. Academic Press, New York/London.[23]Iqbal, M. (1983) An introduction to solar radiation. Academic Press Canada.[24]Haltiner, G.J. and Martin, F.L. (1957) Dynamical and physical meteorology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York/Toronto/London.[25]M?ller, F. (1973) Einführung in die Meteorologie. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim/ Wien/Zürich.[26]Vardavas, I.M. and Taylor, F.W. (2007) Radiation and climate. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199227471.001.0001[27]Petty, G.W. (2004) A first course in atmospheric radiation. Sundog Publishing, Madison, WI.[28]Bohren, C.F. and Clothiaux, E.E. (2006) Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation. Wiley-VCH, Berlin, Germany. doi:10.1002/9783527618620[29]Planck, M. (1901) Ueber das gesetz der energieverteilung im normalspectrum. Annalen der Physik, 4, 553-563. doi:10.1002/andp.19013090310[30]Goody, R.M. and Yung, Y.L. (1989) Atmospheric radiation: Theoretical basis. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.[31]Fortak, H. (1971) Meteorologie. Deutsche Buch-Gemeinschaft, Berlin/Darmstadt/Wien.[32]Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H. (1992) Physics of climate. American Institute of Physics, New York.[33]Milankovitch, M. (1941) Kanon der Erdbestrahlungen und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem. Royal Serbian Academy, Section of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, 33, Belgrade.[34]Bretagnon, P. (1974) Termes a longues periodes dans le systeme solaire. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 30, 141-154.[35]Lindzen, R.S. (1994) Climate dynamics and global change. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 26, 353-378. doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.26.010194.002033[36]Crowley, T.J. and North, G.R. (1991) Paleoclimatology. Oxford University Press, New York.[37]Budó, A. (1990) Theoretische Mechanik. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Germany.[38]Bretagnon, P., Fienga, A. and Simon, J.L. (2003) Expressions for precession consistent with the IAU 2000A model—Considerations about the ecliptic and the Earth Orientation Parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 400, 785-790. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021912[39]Capitaine, N., Wallace, P.T. and Chapront, J. (2005) Improvement of the IAU 2000 precession model. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 432, 355-367.[40]Hilton, J.L., Capitaine, N., Chapront, J., Ferrandiz, J.M., Fienga, A., Fukushima, T., Getino, J., Mathews, P., Simon, J.-L., Soffel, M., Vondrak, J., Wallace, P. and Williams, J. (2006) Report of the international astronomical union division I. Working group on precession and the ecliptic. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 94, 351-367. doi:10.1007/s10569-006-0001-2[41]Berger, A. and Loutre, M.F. (1991) Insolation values for the climate of the last 10000000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews, 10, 297-317. doi:10.1016/0277-3791(91)90033-Q[42]Berger, A., Loutre, M.F. and Tricot, C. (1993) Insolation and earths orbital periods. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 98, 10341-10362. doi:10.1029/93JD00222[43]Brasseur, G.P. and Solomon, S. (2005) Aeronomy of the middle atmosphere. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.[44]Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T. and Kiehl, J. (2009) Earth’s global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90, 311-323. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1[45]Zipser, E.J. (2003) Some views on “hot towers” after 50 years of tropical field programs and two years of TRMM data. Meteorological Monographs, 29, 49-58.[46]Tao, W.-K., Halverson, J., Lemone, M., Adler, R., Garstang, M., Houze Jr., R., Pielke Sr., R.A. and Woodley, W. (2003) The research of Dr. Joanne Simpson: Fifty years investigating hurricanes, tropical clouds and cloud systems. Meteorological Monographs, 29, 1-15.[47]Fierro, A.O., Simpson, J., Lemone, M.A., Straka, J.M. and Smull, B.F. (2009) On how hot towers fuel the hadley cell: An observational and modeling study of line- organized convection in the equatorial trough from TOGA COARE. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 66, 2730-2746. doi:10.1175/2009JAS3017.1[48]Lindzen, R.S. and Pan, W. (1993) A note on orbital control of equator-pole heat fluxes. Climate Dynamics, 10, 49-57. doi:10.1007/BF00210336[49]Kidder, S.Q. and Vonder Haar, T.H. (1995) Satellite meteorology. Academic Press, San Diego/New York/Boston/ London/Sydney/Tokyo/Toronto.[50]Deardorff, J.W. (1978) Efficient prediction of ground surface temperature and moisture, with inclusion of a layer of vegetation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 83C, 1889-1903. doi:10.1029/JC083iC04p01889[51]Mccumber, M.C. (1980) A numerical simulation of the influence of heat and moisture fluxes upon mesoscale circulation. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.[52]Pielke, R.A. (1984) Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.[53]Meyers, T. and Paw U, K.T. (1986) Testing of a higher- order closure model for modeling airflow within and above plant canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 37, 297-311. doi:10.1007/BF00122991[54]Meyers, T. and Paw U, K.T. (1987) Modelling the plant canopy micrometeorology with higher-order closure principles. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 41, 143-163. doi:10.1016/0168-1923(87)90075-X[55]Sellers, P.J., Mintz, Y., Sud, Y.C. and Dalcher, A. (1986) A simple biosphere model (Sib) for use within general- circulation models. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 43, 505-531. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1986)043<0505:ASBMFU>http://2.0.CO;2[56]Braud, I., Dantasantonino, A.C., Vauclin, M., Thony, J.L. and Ruelle, P. (1995) A simple soil-plant-atmosphere transfer model (Sispat) development and field verification. Journal of Hydrology, 166, 213-250. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(94)05085-C[57]Kramm, G., Beier, N., Foken, T., Muller, H., Schroder, P. and Seiler, W. (1996) A SVAT scheme for NO, NO2 and O3—Model description and test results. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 61, 89-106. doi:10.1007/BF01029714[58]Kramm, G., Dlugi, R., Müller, H. and Paw U, K.T. (1998) Numerische untersuchungen zum austausch von impuls, sensibler w?rme und masse zwischen atmosph?re und hoher vegetation. Annalen der Meteorologie, 37, 475- 476.[59]Ziemann, A. (1998) Numerical simulation of meteorological quantities in and above forest canopies. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 7, 120-128.[60]Su, H.B., Shaw, R.H. and Paw U, K.T. (2000) Two-point correlation analysis of neutrally stratified flow within and above a forest from large-eddy simulation. Boundary- Layer Meteorology, 94, 423-460. doi:10.1023/A:1002430213742[61]Pyles, R.D., Weare, B.C. and Paw U, K.T. (2000) The UCD advanced canopy-atmosphere-soil algorithm: Com- parisons with observations from different climate and vegetation regimes. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 126, 2951-2980. doi:10.1002/qj.49712656917[62]Pyles, R.D., Weare, B.C., Paw, U. K.T. and Gustafson, W. (2003) Coupling between the University of California, Davis, Advanced Canopy-Atmosphere-Soil Algorithm (ACASA) and MM5: Preliminary results for July 1998 for western North America. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 42, 557-569. doi:10.1175/1520-0450(2003)042<0557:CBTUOC>http://2.0.CO;2[63]M?lders, N., Haferkorn, U., D?ring, J. and Kramm, G. (2003) Long-term investigations on the water budget quantities predicted by the hydro-thermodynamic soil vegetation scheme (HTSVS)—Part I: Description of the model and impact of long-wave radiation, roots, snow and soil frost. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 84, 115-135. doi:10.1007/s00703-002-0578-2[64]M?lders, N., Haferkorn, U., D?ring, J. and Kramm, G. (2003) Long-term investigations on the water budget quantities predicted by the hydro-thermodynamic soil vegetation scheme (HTSVS)—Part II: Evaluation, sensitivity and uncertainty. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 84, 137-156. doi:10.1007/s00703-002-0596-0[65]Pal Arya, S. (1988) Introduction to micrometeorology. Academic Press, San Diego/New York/Boston/London/ Sydney/Tokyo/Toronto.[66]Stefan, J. (1879) über die beziehung zwischen der w?rmestrahlung und der temperatur. Wiener Ber. II, 79, 391-428.[67]Boltzmann, L. (1884) Ableitung des stefan’schen gesetzes, betreffend die abh?ngigkeit der w?rmestrahlung von der temperatur aus der electromagnetischen lichttheorie. Wiedemann’s Annalen, 22, 291-294.[68]Kramm, G. and M?lders, N. (2009) Planck’s blackbody radiation law: Presentation in different domains and determination of the related dimensional constants. Journal of the Calcutta Mathematical Society, 5, 27-61.[69]Harmel, R.D., Richardson, C.W., Hanson, C.L. and Johnson, G.L. (2002) Evaluating the adequacy of simulating maximum and minimum daily air temperature with the normal distribution. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 41, 744-753. doi:10.1175/1520-0450(2002)041<0744:ETAOSM>http://2.0.CO;2[70]M?ller, F. (1964) Optics of the lower atmosphere. Applied Optics, 3, 157-166. doi:10.1364/AO.3.000157[71]Hansen, J., Lacis, A., Rind, D., Russell, G., Stone, P., Fung, I., Ruedy, R. and Lerner, J. (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Hansen, J.E. and Takahashi, T., Eds., Climate processes and climate Sensitivity. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C., pp. 130-163. doi:10.1029/GM029p0130[72]Hartmann, D.L. (1994) Global physical climatology. Academic Press, San Diego.[73]Cremers, C.J., Birkebak, R.C. and White, J.E. (1971) Lunar surface temperature at tranquility base. AIAA Journal, 9, 1899-1903. doi:10.2514/3.50000[74]Mukai, T., Tanaka, M., Ishimoto, H. and Nakamura, R. (1997) Temperature variations across craters in the polar regions of the Moon and Mercury. Advances in Space Research, 19, 1497-1506. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00348-7[75]Vasavada, A.R., Paige, D.A. and Wood, S.E. (1999) Near-surface temperatures on Mercury and the Moon and the stability of polar ice deposits. Icarus, 141, 179-193. doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6175[76]Budyko, M.I. (1977) Climatic change. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C.[77]Kramm, G., Dlugi, R. and Zelger, M. (2009) Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith. Comments on the "Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect" by Arthur P. Smith, arXiv:0802.4324[78]Monstein, C. (2001) The Moon’s temperature at l = 2.77 cm. ORION, 4.[79]Piddington, J.H. and Minnett, H.C. (1949) Microwave thermal radiation from the Moon. Australian Journal of Scientific Research A, 2, 63-77.[80]Pierrehumbert, R.T. (2011) Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today, 64, 33-38. doi:10.1063/1.3541943[81]Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D. and Ruedy, R.A. (2010) Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330, 356-359. doi:10.1126/science.1190653[82]Wien, W. (1896) Ueber die energieverteilung im emissionsspectrum eines schwarzen k?rpers. Annalen der Physik, 58, 662-669.[83]Wien, W. (1894) Temperatur und entropie der strahlung. Annalen der Physik, 52, 132-165. doi:10.1002/andp.18942880511[84]Dines, W.H. (1917) The heat balance of the atmosphere. Quaterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 43, 151-158. doi:10.1002/qj.49704318203[85]M?ller, F. (1963) On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the earth's surface and on the climate. Journal of Geophysical Research, 68, 3877-3886.[86]Lorenz, E.N. (1967) The Nature and theory of the general circulation of the atmosphere. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.[87]Bernhardt, K. and Lauter, E.A. (1977) Globale physikalische prozesse und umwelt. Zeitschrift f. Meteorologie, 27, 1-20.[88]Holton, J.R. (1979) An Introduction to dynamic meteorology. Academic Press, New York/San Francisco/Lon- don.[89]Kramm, G. and Meixner, F.X. (2000) On the dispersion of trace species in the atmospheric boundary layer: A re-formulation of the governing equations for the turbulent flow of the compressible atmosphere. Tellus, 52A, 500-522.[90]M?ller, F. (1973) Geschichte der meteorologischen Strahlungsforschung. Promet, 2, 1-23.[91]Chandrasekhar, S. (1960) Radiative transfer. Dover Publications, New York.[92]Lenoble, J. (1993) Atmospheric radiative transfer. A. Deepak Publishing, Hampton, VA.[93]Arrhenius, S. (1896) On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, 41, 237-275.[94]Miskolczi, F.M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi- transparent planetary atmospheres. Id?járás, 111, 1-40.[95]Kiehl, J.T. and Trenberth, K.E. (1997) Earth’s annual global mean energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 197-208. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0197:EAGMEB>http://2.0.CO;2[96]United States Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program. (1975) Understanding climatic change: A program for action. National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.[97]Budyko, M.I. (1982) The Earth’s climate, past and future. Academic Press, New York.[98]Paltridge, G.W. and Platt, C.M.R. (1976) Radiative processes in meteorology and climatology. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., Amsterdam /New York.[99]Ramanathan, V. (1987) The role of earth radiation budget studies in climate and general-circulation research. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 92, 4075-4095. doi:10.1029/JD092iD04p04075[100]Schneider, S.H. (1987) Climate modeling. Scientific American, 256, 72-80. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0587-72[101]Maccracken, M.C. (1985) Carbon dioxide and climate change: Background and overview. In: Maccracken, M.C. and Luther, F.M., Eds., Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide. U.S. Department of Energy, pp. 1-23.[102]Henderson-Sellers, A. and Robinson, P.J. (1986) Contemporary climatology. Longman Scientific & Technical, Wiley, London/New York.[103]Rossow, W.B. and Zhang, Y.C. (1995) Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP data sets 2. Validation and first results. Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres, 100, 1167-1197.[104]Fu, Q. (2003) Radiation (SOLAR). In: Holton, J.R., Ed., Encyclopedia of atmospheric sciences. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 1859-1863.[105]Berger, A. (1992) Orbital Variations and insolation database. In: IGBP PAGES/world data center for paleoclimatology data contribution series # 92-007. NOAA/ NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, CO.[106]Hasse, L. (1971) The sea surface temperature deviation and the heat flow at the sea-air interface. Boundary- Layer Meteorology, 1, 368-379. doi:10.1007/BF02186037[107]Meehl, G.A., Karl, T., Easterling, D.R., Changnon, S., Pielke, R., Changnon, D., Evans, J., Groisman, P.Y., Knutson, T.R., Kunkel, K.E., Mearns, L.O., Parmesan, C., Pulwarty, R., Root, T., Sylves, R.T., Whetton, P. and Zwiers, F. (2000) An introduction to trends in extreme weather and climate events: Observations, socioeconomic impacts, terrestrial ecological impacts and model projections. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81, 413-416. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081<0413:AITTIE>http://2.3.CO;2[108]Forster, P., et al. (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M. and Miller. H.L., Eds., Climate change 2007: The physical science basis—Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, pp. 129-234.Scientific Research Publishing

The following explanation is a brief summary of a few papers and other sources that explain various parts of the crisis. This is not a full analytical treatment, but I believe that it's more complete than what I've read in most news outlets. The articles by Lane (2012) and De Grauwe (2012) that are linked to in the bibliography are far more complete than this explanation and they're quite accesible for people with little to no economics background. All credit goes Massimo Guliodori ( http://www1.fee.uva.nl/toe/giuliodori.shtm) for compiling these papers as part of the Monetary and Fiscal Policy course at the University of Amsterdam. For the record, I am an undergraduate economics student. I am not a researcher, I have no affiliation with the University of Amsterdam (other than studying there) and I am by no means an expert. I encourage everyone to read the referenced literature. Do not just take my word for it.The answer is divided into 3 sections. The first section looks at the agreements that were made prior to the creation of the European Monetary Union. The second section concerns itself with risk factors that were present before the banking crisis. The final section looks at how the banking crisis became a sovereign debt crisis.1. The creation of the European Monetary Union.The Maastricht treaty [1]The Maastricht treaty was signed on the 7th of February, 1992 and went into effect on November 1st 1993. One of its goals was to "establish economic and monetary union"[1]. The objectives were to create a single currency and to ensure price stability. The creation of the monetary union (MU) consists of three steps: first there's liberalisation of capital movement, next there's convergence of economic policies, and finally there is the establishment of the European Central Bank and a single currency. The Maastricht Treaty also established that the Central Bank is independent of national and community political authorities. This is important because politicians may form goals that harm the system. For instance, during elections a politician may exercise policy that reduces unemployment below the natural level. However, such a policy can lead to increases in inflation and subsequent welfare loss. The ECB sticks to keeping inflation at its target level and doesn't take directions from politicians.Stability and Growth Pact[2]The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) was proposed by German finance minister Theo Waigel in the mid 1990's. Its purpose was to safeguard fiscal discipline in the European Monetary Union. The three most important takeaways from the SGP are:Countries are permitted to have a budget deficit that is at most 3% of their GDP. That is, the difference between what a government spends and what it receives (tax revenues) should be no more than 3% of GDP.[3]Countries are permitted to have an outstanding debt-to-GDP ratio of no more than 60%. [3]There is a "no bailout" clause. If a country can't meet its debt obligations, it defaults. [3]The SGP has been criticised. The above demands do not account for business cycles, meaning that if there's an economic slump and the government decides to boost the economy and temporary run a slightly larger deficit, they are punished. There's new legislation underway that deals with this. Another critique of the SGP is that by using a bit of clever accounting you can make it look as if you're hitting the marks outlined above, but you're really not. [4] This is what happened in Greece, who basically hid their debt. [5]The first countries to break the SGP requirements were Germany and France. The SGP was not enforced against them, probably because they were the countries that drafted the SGP and thus the decision was made to exempt them from this slip up.The SGP has been reformed in 2005 and 2011. [4]2. Pre-crisis risk factorsDivergence of competitiveness in the Eurozone [6]The divergence in competitiveness levels is one of the most remarkable imbalances in the EU. De Grauwe (2012) offers the following figure[6]:At the top we see countries such as Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece. At the bottom we see countries such as Austria, Germany and France. Starting from a base level in 2000, this graph shows us is that over the years it has become relatively more expensive to produce in Greece when compared to Germany. The countries that are currently in trouble seem to be situated at the top of the graph.How is this a problem? For a country like Greece, it means that there's not a lot of demand for their products because the same products can be bought cheaper elsewhere. The result is that Greece becomes an importing nation rather than an exporting nation. When your imports exceed your exports (that is, you are running a current account deficit), you're paying more money than what you are earning on your exports. If all of a sudden there's a stop in funding markets, like a financial crisis, then you need to quickly close that deficit. You can't export more, because you're not competitive, so you have to start importing less. Doing so results in a contraction of output because you're hammering the importing industry. A contraction in output can also be viewed as a rise in unemployment levels. This is a very simplified version of what's actually going on and I encourage you to read Lane (2012) [3] pp. 52-53.So how do you deal with competitiveness issues? Basically your labor is too expensive, i.e. wages are too high. Cutting wages is one option but it's not a practical one due to "downward wage rigidity", people – and more importantly unions – do not like it when wages are lowered. Another option is to simply become more productive, you could think about higher levels of education in this context, but this is easier said than done. What countries do when they are not in a monetary union is that they devalue their currency. If you make your currency really cheap it makes the stuff you produce really cheap. Imagine the pre-Euro period: Greece could and would simply devalue the Drachma, which would make Greece's products relatively cheap and thus demand would be maintained. Italy had a similar tactic.But now they're in a monetary union. The exchange rate of the Euro is controlled by the ECB and the ECB is independent of local and community politics. A Monetary Union can be seen as the most extreme form of pegging your exchange rate, i.e. you fix your exchange rate for good by accepting an outside monetary authority. Now countries like Greece are screwed with regards to productivity. In order for these countries to become competitive they need to resort to internal devaluation. They need to bring down wages and prices. But this calls for a recession. Recessions make the markets nervous as investors see the economic conditions in a country deteriorate. If a financial shock (banking crisis) hits a country when it's going through such a fragile economic period, a country can find itself in deep trouble.Debt levels [3]Figure taken from Lane (2012) [3].We can see that there's quite a bit of difference between our usual suspects and the countries that have performed relatively well when it comes to their public debt-to-GDP ratios. Lane (2012) provides the following analysis. Italy and Greece have had debt-to-GDP ratios of over 90% since the early 90's. They never hit the 60% mark as required. Ireland, Portugal, and Spain achieved declines in debt in the 90's and while Portugal's debt started to climb since 2000, Ireland and Spain actually pushed their debt down. In fact between 2002-2007 Germany and France had higher debt ratios. Germany and France used to have debt ratios in the 90's that were around the 60% mark (I believe that's how they set the requirements, along with the 3% deficit mark.)But obviously debt isn't the only explanation for the crisis. Greece and Italy were in deep trouble in terms of debt, but Spain was doing fine. Ireland seemed to have been doing fine. So there has to be more to it than just debt.Overlevered banksBanks are huge. Bank assets are bigger than the economies of the countries in which they reside. So when a financial crisis hits and banks are suddenly in trouble, pulling with them a large part of the public (businesses and households), the country decides to step in and bail out the banks. Why? Because they're so big that if you let them fail you're going to wreck the nation (this is obviously being debated in some circles).From the above figure we can see that in 2007 banks issued more credit than what some countries were able to produce in terms of output. In the most extreme case, Ireland, the loans added up to 184.3% of GDP.Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans (%)This figure shows how the amount of bad debt increased in the wake of the financial crisis. Ireland, Greece and Italy are up there. Notice the dramatic rise in bad loans in Ireland.Banking assets as percentage of GDP[7](click for a larger picture)Another chart proving that banks are huge. One of my professors maintains that this was the biggest risk factor contributing to the financial crisis turning into a sovereign debt crisis. I think you understand the point of this by now, if a government has to bail out a sector that is so much larger than what that country produces then it's going to be painful, even if it's just a partial bailout.The 2003-2007 Boom and failure to tighten fiscal policy. [3]The disparities in terms of banks size and differences in productive (and thus current account imbalances) were huge in the 2003-2007 period. According to Lane there is still no complete explanation of why this happened but it seems to be tightly linked with the securitization boom in the US. The low interest rates and massive lending weren't coming from governments but from the private sector. Households and firms (and banks) were piling up (toxic) assets.The "outsider" countries, by which I mean the countries that aren't considered to be the core EU countries like Germany and France, but the peripheral countries like Italy, Spain, Greece and Ireland experienced much larger credit booms because now they had access to funds with their own currency. Instead of borrowing something in a foreign denomination such as the dollar and hoping that the exchange rate plays along nicely and doesn't destroy the value of their holdings they now had access to a very strong currency.Naturally you'd think that any sensible government is going to capitalize on such a boom and raise taxes in order to gain some reserves for when this business cycle inevitably starts to go south. Guess what, they failed to do that. They failed to use proper analytical frameworks to judge economic conditions. They failed to capitalize on higher revenue streams in order to get ready for a future economic downturn.3. Crisis hits: 2008 and onwards. [3]When the crisis hit the initial response was to deal with the financial instability that arose, there weren't any big concerns about sovereign debt. European banks were exposed to a lot of US asset backed securities (mortgages) that lost their value after the housing market in the US collapsed. This caused bank balance sheets to severely deteriorate. Subsequently banks stopped lending money to each other. When banks stop lending money to each other they really get into trouble. The banking crisis hit the system in an asymmetric fashion. Investors, now wary of risks, first started to pull away from international capital and securing their funds at home. The first country to suffer from this was Ireland, their financial system relies on short-term international credit and when credit froze up the government had to provide a 2 year liability guarantee in 2008 (Lane, 2012).The credit crisis furthermore caused a sharp reversal in the current account deficits described earlier and an end to the boom. Spain and Ireland suffered from the end of the credit boom because it hit their construction sectors very hard. Spain relied on a lot of real estate development during the growth period of '03-'07 and now that was all gone. Still the debt crisis hadn't really begun and the focus was more on stabilising the financial system. Banks valued sovereign bonds as a good investment alternative and thus demanded more debt, causing interest rates to remain calm.Things started to come apart in late 2009 as governments began to revise their deficit-to-GDP ratios. These turned out to increase faster than expected. Shit really hit the fan when Greece came out with its revised deficit forecast in October 2009. Instead of 6%, 12.7% of GDP (Lane, 2012). I don't know what exactly happened to Greece in the years prior to the crisis, but from what I've understood they used a bit of clever accounting to hide the mess that they were in. Greece was in a really bad state and very vulnerable. Everything blew up in their face and they became the poster child of the crisis. The new government just went "Hey… it's not our fault, the last guys were assholes." Not only did this shock the markets, but it also set up a political premise that the crisis was the fault of countries such as Greece even though the system was unstable prior to the crisis. Of course Greek bonds were sold and Greece's interest rate rose and rose. If a country's interest rate rises sufficiently, it's basically shut out of the bond market because the debt is going to grow faster than the economy and the country is never capable of repaying its debt.Figure from Lane showing divergence of interest rates:I'm not going to into the measures that were undertaken to rescue these countries as its not fundamental to the question (although I encourage you to read Lane, it's really accessible to non-economists), but here's one of the things you should understand about debt. A part of a country's debt burden is reflected in its interest rates. If the interest rates go up, the country has to pay back more debt in the future. So, when a country gets into serious trouble because it has high debt levels to begin with, the markets start to worry. When the markets worry, they sell, when they sell the interest rate rises and the debt burden goes up. This causes markets to worry even more and drive up the debt even more. Eventually the markets can push a country into default. A lot of what the ECB has been doing is basically showing that it has the cojones to keep buying nasty assets in order to calm down the markets.A note on dealing with shocks: Independent country vs Monetary Union [6]Let me show you 2 charts from De Grauwe (2012) [6].Riddle me this: Why is it that Spain's interest rate is higher than that of the UK even though the UK has a higher debt ratio? The UK appears to me more at risk of a potential default (keyword: appears) but the markets are worried more about Spain. Que Paso?When a country is independent and has its own central bank like the UK does (the Bank of England) it can deal with shocks in a different way than a country that has no control over its currency (like Spain and the rest of the EMU countries). Let me explain:UK scenarioImagine the UK is hit by a shock. Investors become anxious, lose confidence and start selling UK bonds. Investors are now left with Pounds, which they want to dump because – again – they don't trust the UK anymore. Dumping the pound causes the exchange rate of the Pound to depreciate. The price will drop until someone starts buying these pounds. The BoE buys these pounds and reinvests them back into the UK economy. Some of these pounds might go back into UK bonds, but some will be used to breathe life into the UK economy. The crux is that liquidity remains bottled up inside of the UK and markets can't pressure the UK into a default.Spanish scenarioSpain gets hit by a shock, like the real estate construction shock mentioned earlier. Investors panic and sell Spanish bonds. Now these investors are left with Euro's. Guess what, Spain doesn't have a central bank. No, instead investors take their Euro's and buy German bonds…or Dutch bonds…or French bonds…or whatever stable Euro asset they might find. Spain is basically bleeding money. Liquidity is leaving the country. Interest rates are driven up and up and the country can be forced into a default position. De Grauwe [6] has a more elaborate explanation, but this gets the basic point across.Additional flight to safetyIn August Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank said[8]:The governing council, within its mandate to maintain price stability over the medium term and in observance of its independence in determining monetary policy, may undertake outright open market operations of a size adequate to reach its objective. Furthermore the governing council will consider further non-standard monetary policy measures according to what is required to repair monetary policy transmission. In the coming weeks we will design the appropriate modalities for such policy measures.That's banking language for "We're not going to let the speculative bastards take us down and we will keep buying assets and injecting liquidity into the system until you all calm the hell down".That commitment in combination with the Spanish authorities showing the political will to go through painful cuts paid off: Spanish Bond Yields Drop to 8-Month Low.Some speculators have been scared off by these measures and have decided to reallocate their portfolios to include less risky debts, such as German debt.To summarizeThe Euro Crisis is the combination of irresponsible behaviour, poor fiscal policy by countries, mediocre European regulations that were never enforced to begin with, large shocks to the system in the form of a banking crisis and big underlying differences in terms of competitiveness and debt levels. Yes the banking crisis significantly contributed to the state of current affairs, but it's shortsighted to say that that was the only reason why all of this happened.For countries like Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal it was a combination of an economic shock and bad fiscal policy. The shock was so big that the countries couldn't handle it. What started off in the banking sector resonated throughout other parts of the economy such as the construction sector. The shock was so big that countries found themselves in huge debts trying to deal with that shock. Then the markets started to lose trust in these countries, driving up their interest rates which resulted in an inability to borrow on international capital markets. This meant that countries lost their liquidity status and had even more problems trying to tackle their debts. This in term agitated markets even more and thus a vicious cycle ensued. Subsequently countries started applying for bailouts.The reason why Greece has been turned into the poster boy of the crisis is because they screwed up in a royal fashion, even more so than the other "usual suspects" (Spain, Ireland etc.). They manipulated their acounts and withheld information. Eventually it turned out that they were in the worst shape. There are plenty of economists who think that Greece will have to default because no amount of support will save them. Secondly, there's also a political dimension in this whole scenario. Politicians from the northern countries (Germany, the Netherlands etc.) need to be able to justify these measures to their electorate. And the thing is, the north is paying for the trouble down below. Feldstein, who was critical of the Euro project before it even began wrote an article on what he thinks is going to happen with Greece[9]. I encourage you to read it.Economies are highly networked. German banks hold Greek debt, Greek banks hold bad securities, Spanish banks hold Greek debt etc. etc. Whenever something goes sour, it spills over into other countries. These network effects are significant.Research about the Euro Crisis is ongoing.References:[1] Treaty of Maastricht on European Union[2] Stability and Growth Pact[3] Lane, Philip R. (2012). The European Sovereign Debt Crisis (Free text) Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 26, Number 3—Pages 49–68[4] Stability and Growth Pact – Wikipedia[5] Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis[6] De Grauwe, P. (2011). A fragile Eurozone in search of a better governance. (PDF: http://www.esr.ie/vol43_1/01%20Grauwe.pdf)[7] http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/bankinguniontwohalves.pdf[8] Mario Draghi on the eurozone: in quotes - Telegraph[9] Feldstein, M. (2011). The Euro and European Economic Conditions. NBER Working Paper. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17617N.B. Feldstein has written a lot about the "Grexit" (Greek Exit), you can find his work here: http://www.nber.org/feldstein/

Yes, President Donald John Trump will be re-elected. A growing economy, lowest unemployment rates, lower illegal entries at the southern border, more drugs seized at the southern border,withdrawn from disastrous trade deals, withdrawn from the catastrophic Paris climate accord,more regulations slashed, more conservative federal judges installed, prison reform,finally a pay raise for our US military members, finally a pay raise for our senior citizens on social security, improvements to Medicare and Medicaid coverages for senior citizens, improvements to Veterans Affairs coverages and veterans care,reopened more national forests, national park, national recreation areas, national monuments, national wilderness areas to public access public use and public enjoyment,clean coal initiative to open and build more clean coal power plants, build and open more natural gas power plants, build new and more petroleum refinement facilities, build new and more nuclear power plants based on thorium,revitalized and improve the US space program, revitalize and improve the US military capabilities,improve the US solar observatory program satellites, funding earth science, and climate research by Professor Valentina Zharkova and her presentation of how the Earth’s Natural Climate Cycles are controlled and determined by the Natural Solar Cycles (Solar Maximums, Grand Solar Maximums, Solar Minimums, Grand Solar Minimums),funding earth science and climate research by John L. Casey, author of the books, “‎Upheaval, Dark Winter, Cold Sun” and a climate researcher who has independently proven the Natural Solar Cycles of Solar Maximums, Grand Solar Maximums, Solar Minimums, Grand Solar Minimums, which in turn, controls and directly causes the Earth’s Natural Climate Cycles,funding earth science and climate research by other well-respected scientists who have been fired or threatened with dismissal if they do not stop talking about Natural Solar Cycles of Solar Maximums, Grand Solar Maximums, Solar Minimums, Grand Solar Minimums, which in turn, controls and directly causes the Earth’s Natural Climate Cycles,Here are more earth science and climate research the Trump Administration has funded on Natural Solar Cycles of Solar Maximums, Grand Solar Maximums, Solar Minimums, Grand Solar Minimums, which in turn, controls and directly causes the Earth’s Natural Climate Cycles.#GlobalWarming #JohnColeman #TheWeatherChannelFounder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming!109,918 views • Published on Mar 20, 2008The John Birch SocietyPart 1: Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming! (Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming!)Part 2: Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming! (Part 2) (Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming! (Part 2))Part 3: Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming! (Part 3) (Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming! (Part 3))Part 4: Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming! (Part 4) (Founder of The Weather Channel Slams Global Warming! (Part 4))___________________________________________________________________________________The Last Time the Globe WarmedTry CuriosityStream today: http://curiositystream.com/eons (http://curiositystream.com/eons)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: PBS: Donate (PBS: Donate)Imagine an enormous, lush rainforest teeming with life...in the Arctic. Well, there was a time -- and not too long ago -- when the world warmed more than any human has ever seen. (So far)Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios.com (http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios.com)Special thanks to Nobumichi Tamura for allowing us to use his work:Spinops (Spinops)Want to follow Eons elsewhere on the internet?Facebook - Log In or Sign Up to View (Log In or Sign Up to View)Twitter - Eons (@EonsShow) | Twitter (Eons (@EonsShow) | Twitter)Instagram - Eons (@eonsshow) • Instagram photos and videos (Eons (@eonsshow) • Instagram photos and videos)References:CU Boulder Today (CU Boulder Today)Science Advances (Science Advances)Geology | GeoScienceWorld (Geology | GeoScienceWorld)Science, health and medical journals, full-text articles and books. (Science, health and medical journals, full-text articles and books.)Science (Science)130 million publications on ResearchGate (130 million publications on ResearchGate)Archive of all online content (Archive of all online content)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/)https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth (https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth)NASA Earth Observatory - Home (NASA Earth Observatory - Home)Palaeontology [online] (Palaeontology [online])http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/ (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/)http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/ (http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/)Index of /FTP (Index of /FTP)https://www.sciencealert.com/carbon-emergency (https://www.sciencealert.com/carbon-emergency)https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/ (https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/)https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease (https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease)NASA Earth Observatory - Home (NASA Earth Observatory - Home)http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/eli/cc/resource (http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/eli/cc/resource)http://people.earth.yale.edu/paleocenane (http://people.earth.yale.edu/paleocenane)Thomas Kammer, West Virginia University (Thomas Kammer, West Virginia University)Eocene (Eocene)http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonou (http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonou)...http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/ (http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/)...http://naturalhistory.si.edu/ete/ETE_ (http://naturalhistory.si.edu/ete/ETE_)...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti)...National Geographic Magazine (National Geographic Magazine)...Science, health and medical journals, full-text articles and books. (Science, health and medical journals, full-text articles and books.)...https://www.livescience.com/15597-pri (https://www.livescience.com/15597-pri)...https://news.nationalgeographic.com/n (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/n)...http://electronic-earth.net/3/19/2008 (http://electronic-earth.net/3/19/2008)...The Geological Society of London (https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscienti)...https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1)...http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id= (http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=)...Caption authors (Spanish)Juan de Dios Ayala GonzálezMariana Sánchez TapiaRodrigo Valenzuela ShawcroftCategory: Science & Technology___________________________________________________________________________________Is an Ice Age Coming? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios2,894,274 views•Published on May 25, 2016https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0wsSpoiler: no (and climate change has nothing to do with this).Get your own Space Time t­shirt at http://bit.ly/1QlzoBi (http://bit.ly/1QlzoBi)Tweet at us! @pbsspacetimeFacebook: PBS SpaceTime (http://facebook.com/pbsspacetime)Email us! [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])Comment on Reddit: PBS Space Time • r/pbsspacetime (http://www.reddit.com/r/pbsspacetime)Support us on Patreon! PBS Space Time is creating Astrophysics Videos | Patreon (http://www.patreon.com/pbsspacetime)Help translate our videos! http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_p (http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_p)...We’re living in a brief window of time where our planet isn’t frozen underneath a giant layer of glaciers. How much longer will the moderate climate that we’ve come to know as “normal” continue? What causes these dramatic shifts in temperature that thaw our planet and then throw it back into a state of deep freeze? This episode looks at how the changes in our planet’s orbit and rotation impacts our climate.Written and hosted by Matt O’DowdMade by Kornhaber Brown (Home | kornhaberbrown (http://www.kornhaberbrown.com))Comments: 4798alexander4798https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYSW...Ryan Lidsterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYSW...Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryanskyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYSW...Other Links:Physics Girl: Is Energy Always Conserved?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHCc9...PBS Idea Channel: Is Math a Feature of the Universe or a Feature of Human Creation?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNym...Caption authors (Turkish)Uzak EvrenlerMelih Rustu CALIKOGLUCategory: Education___________________________________________________________________________________How Volcanoes Froze the Earth (Twice)675,313 views•Published on Jul 17, 2019https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ONwQV26L-kOver 600 million years ago, sheets of ice coated our planet on both land and sea. How did this happen? And most importantly for us, why did the planet eventually thaw again? The evidence for Snowball Earth is written on every continent today.Thanks to Julio Lacerda and Franz Anthony from Studio 252mya for their wonderful illustrations. You can find more of their work here: Studio 252MYA (https://252mya.com/)Special thanks to Judy Pu for answering our questions about Snowball Earth.Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: PBS Digital Studios (http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios)Super special thanks to the following Patreon patrons for helping make Eons possible:Katie Fichtner, Anthony Callaghan, MissyElliottSmith, The Scintillating Spencer, AA, Zachary Spencer, Stefan Weber, Ilya Murashov, Charles Kahle, Robert Amling, Po Foon Kwong, Larry Wilson, Merri Snaidman, John Vanek, Neil H. Gray, Esmeralda Rupp-Spangle, Gregory Donovan, الخليفي سلطان, Gabriel Cortez, Marcus Lejon, Robert Arévalo, Robert Hill, Todd Dittman, Betsy Radley, PS, Philip Slingerland, Jose Garcia, Eric Vonk, Tony Wamsley, Henrik Peteri, Jonathan Wright, Jon Monteiro, James Bording, Brad Nicholls, Miles Chaston, Michael McClellan, Jeff Graham, Maria Humphrey, Nathan Paskett, Connor Jensen, Daisuke Goto, Hubert Rady, Gregory Kintz, Tyson Cleary, Chandler Bass, Joao Ascensao, Tsee Lee, Sarah Fritts, Alex Yan.If you'd like to support the channel, head over to http://patreon.com/eons (http://patreon.com/eons), and pledge for some cool rewards!Want to follow Eons elsewhere on the internet?Facebook - Log In or Sign Up to View (Log In or Sign Up to View)Twitter - Eons (@EonsShow) | Twitter (Eons (@EonsShow) | Twitter)Instagram - Eons (@eonsshow) • Instagram photos and videos (Eons (@eonsshow) • Instagram photos and videos)References: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d)...Category: Science & Technology___________________________________________________________________________________The Power of Volcanoes Pt. 1: Years without Summer | Full Documentary1,009,637 views•Published on Jun 3, 2017https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7fR2Z880z8In the 6th century AD, large parts of the world were affected by mysterious weather events causing temperature drop, crop failures and famines. The series’ first episode analyzes how one single volcano probably caused “The Years Without Summer”, also known as Little Ice Age.The Power of Volcanoes Pt. 2: In the Shade of burning Mountains | Full Documentary702,558 views•Published on Jun 17, 2017https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzJ5oy-DBoABig Volcanic eruptions are very rare compared to the duration of human life. Only indications of passed catastrophes can give us a clue what could happen in the future. An epidemic in Europe, Sulphur sediments found in the ice of Greenland and a forever disappeared nation – could a volcano connect all these things? Scientists reconstruct passed catastrophes and explain the power of the stone giants.Category: Science & Technology___________________________________________________________________________________How Much Does the Sun Affect Earth's Climate?90,045 views•Published on Jul 10, 2018https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlYgFM9ndd4The sun is obviously a big factor in the earth's weather, but changes in the solar cycle don't always affect our climate in straightforward ways.Host: Caitlin HofmeisterFor special, curated artifacts of this universe, check out https://scishowfinds.com/ (https://scishowfinds.com/)Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow (https://www.patreon.com/scishow)Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters:Lazarus G, Sam Lutfi, Nicholas Smith, D.A. Noe, سلطان الخليفي, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, Tim Curwick, Charles George, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters. Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: http://dftba.com/scishow (http://dftba.com/scishow)Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/scishow (http://www.facebook.com/scishow)Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/scishow (http://www.twitter.com/scishow)Tumblr: http://scishow.tumblr.com (http://scishow.tumblr.com)Instagram: http://instagram.com/thescishow (http://instagram.com/thescishow)Sources:https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/no (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/no)...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4449.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4449.pdf)https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c)...https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/su (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/su)...https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br (https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br)...https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming (https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming)...https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea)...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e)...https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warm (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warm)...http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/1 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/1)...https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-imp (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-imp)...https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar (https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar)...https://www.space.com/19280-solar-act (https://www.space.com/19280-solar-act)...http://science.sciencemag.org/content (http://science.sciencemag.org/content)...http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/ (http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/)...Images:https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/tr (https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/tr)...https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/th (https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/th)...https://images.nasa.gov/details-GSFC_ (https://images.nasa.gov/details-GSFC_)...https://www.videoblocks.com/video/sno (https://www.videoblocks.com/video/sno)...https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/wi (https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/wi)...https://images.nasa.gov/details-PIA18 (https://images.nasa.gov/details-PIA18)...https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10804 (https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10804)https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4551 (https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4551)https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/ea (https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/ea)...Category: Education___________________________________________________________________________________Solar Variability and Climate - Joanna D. Haigh11,385 views•Published on Jul 12, 2017https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1MPQYN6fnQSerious Science - http://serious-science.org (http://serious-science.org)Joanna D. Haigh on the ‘little ice age’, solar radiation, and global warminghttp://serious-science.org/solar-vari (http://serious-science.org/solar-vari)...Category: Science & Technology___________________________________________________________________________________Dan Britt - Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of ClimateDr. Britt does a fantastic job at explaining how the earth’s non-linear orbits around the sun, the swinging magnetic poles, the oscillating spin, and planetary ocean heating and cooling cycles, and the solar cycles are all major factors in normal climate change.However, in the last 1/3 of the film, Dr. Britt does jump on liberal bandwagon, blaming human use of agriculture and fossil fuels as the major contributors of higher CO2 and Methane releases as the reason for the delayed normal galactical formation into the next Ice Age.330,564 views•Published on Feb 8, 2012Another lecture in IHMC's award-winning lecture series. http://www.ihmc.us (http://www.ihmc.us)Climate change has become a major political issue, but few understand how climate has changed in the past and the forces that drive climate. Most people don't know that fifty million years ago there were breadfruit trees and crocodiles on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, or that 18,000 years ago there was a mile-thick glacier on Manhattan and a continuous belt of winter sea ice extending south to Cape Hatteras. The History of Climate provides the context of our current climate debate and fundamental insight into how the climate works.Dr. Daniel Britt is a Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences at the Department of Physics, University of Central Florida. He was educated at the University of Washington and Brown University, receiving a Ph.D. from Brown in 1991. He has had a varied career including service in the US Air Force as an ICBM missile launch officer and an economist for Boeing before going into planetary sciences. He has served on the science teams of two NASA missions, Mars Pathfinder and Deep Space 1. He was the project manager for the camera on Mars Pathfinder and has built hardware for all the NASA Mars landers.Britt currently does research on the physical properties and mineralogy of asteroids, comets, the Moon, and Mars under several NASA grants. Honors include 5 NASA Achievement Awards, election as a Fellow of the Meteoritical Society, and an asteroid named after him; 4395 Dan Britt. He is currently President of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society. He lives in Orlando with his wife, Judith. They have two sons, ages 16 and 21.Category: Science & Technology___________________________________________________________________________________Princeton's William Happer rebuts myth of carbon pollution128,059 viewshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8iEEO2UIbADr. William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University, summarizes his arguments about the myth of carbon pollution. It's that myth that underlies global warming alarmists' key arguments. Happer offered these comments during a Sept. 8, 2014, speech for the John Locke Foundation's Shaftesbury Society.Category: News & Politics___________________________________________________________________________________Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom241,166 views•Published on Aug 16, 2019https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3UIs global warming real? Have any such predictions been established scientifically? Would massive “carbon” taxes and other controls put America and the world—especially the poor—at great risk? “Especially the “Green New Deal” will have a catastrophic financial effect on all nations, especially with the poverty and working class peoples.”At this special event, a geoscientist and astrophysicist Willie Soon separates fact from fiction in the global warming debate. He explains why the forecasts from CO2 climate models have been so wrong—and why solar influences on clouds, oceans, and wind drive climate change, not CO2 emissions. Stanford University physicist Elliott Bloom then comments.“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.”—Freeman J. Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study; Templeton Prize Laureate“I am writing to express my deep admiration and respect for Dr. Willie Soon, a fine astrophysicist and human being... As Willie has shown in many ways, observational facts do not fit the CO2 dogma, and an enormous amount of evidence points to the Sun as a much more important driver of climate... Willie was right—whatever the cause of changing temperature, the main driver cannot be the concentration of atmospheric CO2.”—William Happer, Chairman, Presidential Committee on Climate Security; Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University; Member, National Academy of SciencesWillie Soon is a geophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He received his Ph.D. (with distinction) in aeronautical engineering from the University of Southern California, and he has been Astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory; Senior Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute; Senior Visiting Fellow at the State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science at Xiamen University; and Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Putra Malaysia. The author of 90 scientific papers, he has IEEE received the Nuclear & Plasma Sciences Society Award, Rockwell Dennis Hunt Award, Smithsonian Institution Award, Courage in Defense of Science Award, Petr Beckmann Award for Courage and Achievement in Defense of Scientific Truth and Freedom, and Frederick Seitz Memorial Award.Elliott D. Bloom is Professor Emeritus in the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) at Stanford University and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He was a member of the SLAC team with Jerome I. Friedman, Henry W. Kendall and Richard E. Taylor who received the Nobel Prize in Physics. He received his Ph.D. in physics from the California Institute of Technology, he is the author of numerous scientific papers, and he is the recipient of the Senior Scientist Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.For further information on and to order copies of the Independent Institute book, "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate," by geophysicist S. Fred Singer, please go here:http://www.independent.org/store/book (http://www.independent.org/store/book)...The Independent Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public-policy research and educational organization that shapes ideas into profound and lasting impact. The mission of Independent is to advance peaceful, prosperous boldly, and free societies grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity. Applying independent thinking to issues that matter, the Independent Institute creates transformational ideas for today’s most pressing social and economic challenges. The results of this work are published as books, the quarterly journal, "The Independent Review," and other publications and form the basis for numerous conference and media programs. By connecting these ideas with other organizations and networks, Independent seeks to inspire action that can unleash an era of unparalleled human flourishing at home and around the globe.Independent Institute:http://www.independent.org/ (http://www.independent.org/)“The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy” (Quarterly Journal):http://www.independent.org/publicatio (http://www.independent.org/publicatio)...Independent Institute Books:http://www.independent.org/store/inde (http://www.independent.org/store/inde)...FREE Email Updates from the Independent Institute:http://www.independent.org/register/s (http://www.independent.org/register/s)...Become a Member of the Independent Institute and receive a FREE gift:https://secure.independent.org/donate/ (https://secure.independent.org/donate/)Category: Education___________________________________________________________________________________A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming717,286 views•Published on Nov 11, 2014https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRASteven F. Hayward, Pepperdine UniversityThis lecture is part of Hillsdale College's 2014 CCA series. To learn more about Hillsdale College and the CCA programs, visit http://www.hillsdale.edu/outreach/cca (http://www.hillsdale.edu/outreach/cca)Category: EducationCreated using YouTube Video EditorSource videos View attributions___________________________________________________________________________________Climate Change Reconsidered: Science the U.N. Will Exclude from Its Next Climate Report54,486 views•Published on Sep 24, 2013https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaVL1Ham-4A"Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science" -- produced by a team of 40 scientists -- is the newest volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by The Heartland Institute and members of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). As in previous reports, thousands of peer-reviewed articles are cited to determine the current state-of-the-art of climate science. This newest volume's findings challenge the alarmist reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose next report is due out later this month. NIPCC authors paid special attention to contributions that were overlooked by the IPCC or that presented data, discussion, or implications, arguing against the IPCC's claim that dangerous global warming is occurring, or will occur, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.Category: News & Politics___________________________________________________________________________________Dr Willie Soon demolishes the extreme weather panic and other hysterical arguments20,701 views•Published on Aug 23, 2019Dr. Willie Soon covers a range of issues including extreme weather, climate models, and possible alternative explanations for the observed variation.For more info, see http://swarnabharat.in/climate (http://swarnabharat.in/climate)Category: News & Politics___________________________________________________________________________________These are just a handful of the dozens of videos and pieces of science-based information which can be used to COMPLETELY DESTROY the PARIS “Climate Change” and the “Global Warming” conspiracy theories. These are the scientists who have proven, Al Gore is a LIAR!Please, think before simply believing everything the mainstream news media keeps cramming into your cranium. The US mainstream news media and US social media platforms are all corporately owned, professional spin doctors. The news anchors all look similar to the over-dressed Hunger Games Hosts or Sleazy Televangelists strutting around in their glitzy glammed up studios. All of the US mainstream news media and social media are purely ultra-leftists biased, special interest groups influenced, completely funded by ultra-wealthy multi-billionaire and muti-trillionaire families.Remember, the US mainstream news media and US social media platforms are completely compliant and subservient to the Globalist agenda of the CIA, NSA, MI5, and Mossad. The news media and social media news are only allowed to crank out the Globalist filth through Operation Mockingbird, the CIA, NSA, MI5, and Mossad Global news media control network. The big problem is, now that Operation Mockingbird has been “outed” the CIA, NSA, MI5, and Mossad has begun to use other more sophisticated covert mainstream news media manipulation operations, entertainment industry manipulation operations, and social media manipulation operations. These newer and more sophisticated covert mainstream news media manipulation operations, covert entertainment industry manipulation operations, and covert social media manipulation operations are specifically designed to “feed” directly to the global populations only the information, entertainment, and social media interaction they (CIA, NSA, MI5, Mossad) have chosen for the US, UK, EU, Israel, and basically the majority of the world’s populations to read, hear, see, and believe. If you doubt me, go ahead and click on these links, read for yourself, these credible news networks, who are now reporting on Operation Mockingbird, after a blizzard of Freedom of Information Act applications were filed by US Citizens, UK Citizens, French Citizens, German Citizens, Russian Citizens, Canadian Citizens, Italian Citizens, Australian Citizens, and Israeli Citizens. Operation Mockingbird | Operation, Outcome, Facts & Summary Notes (Operation Mockingbird | Operation, Outcome, Facts & Summary Notes) // User Clip: Operation Mockingbird exposed on C-Span (User Clip: Operation Mockingbird exposed on C-Span) // Underground Knowledge - A discussion group (Underground Knowledge - A discussion group) / Carl Bernstein (Carl Bernstein) // Operation Mockingbird: New York Times confesses to role in subverting First Amendment (Operation Mockingbird: New York Times confesses to role in subverting First Amendment)Project Echelon is the CIA, NSA, MI5, and Mossad information and intelligence gathering program to sweep up all telecommunications, cellular, internet, social media, cable television subscriptions, cable television viewing habits, satellite television subscriptions, satellite television viewing habits, law enforcement fire-rescue and ambulance radio communications and location tracking, CB radio communications and location tracking, HAM radio communications and location tracking, all other electronic communications and location tracking. Ex-Snoop Confirms Echelon Network (Ex-Snoop Confirms Echelon Network)Project Nightingale is the CIA, NSA, MI5, and Mossad mission to collect, store, and constantly update DNA samples and detailed health information on as many people around the globe as they can. Fortunately, one of their front companies, Google, got caught collecting detailed health information on US Citizens. WSJ News Exclusive | Google’s ‘Project Nightingale’ Triggers Federal Inquiry (WSJ News Exclusive | Google’s ‘Project Nightingale’ Triggers Federal Inquiry)Some of these videos are frequently deleted from YouTube, then resubmitted in an edited format, until the college or original posting educational program files a civil suit against YouTube. YouTube then relents and allows the original video and presentation to be posted in an unedited format.Might the actions of YouTube clue you into the political camp YouTube chooses to side with? It would seem the ultra-liberal camp has taken a firm hold of YouTube. YouTube’s ultra-liberal self-appointed sensors, at will, sensors the substance of all videos, comments, accounts, and users on YouTube, without any oversite. The sad thing is, these videos are available some days, gone or highly edited a few days, then back on a few days later.Respectfully,Randy Jay Pine