Daily Social Studies Warm Ups Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

Life tip: Make your desktop wallpaper something you want to learn/study instead of a picture. (Eg: periodic table, a new language, inspiring thought)Best revenge ever: There's an app called Spoiled. It'll text anonymous “Game of Thrones” spoilers to your enemies the moment it's done airing!The app RunPee will tell you the best times during a movie to go to the bathroom because movie theatres don't have pause buttons.Stuck in the rain without an Umbrella? Go to the nearest bar. They usually have collections of forgotten umbrellas that have been there for months. Leave a nice tip and ask for one.Have an annoying song stuck in your head? Sing or listen to the song till the end. People tend to remember unfinished things better, this is called the Zeigarnik effect.If you're coughing uncontrollably, raise your hands above your head and it will stop!The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer.Ever wanted to stop sneeze you feel coming? Press your tongue against the roof of your mouth, and it's gone.Placing an envelope in the fridge for an hour will unseal it. A good tip to know if you forgot to include something.Having a paper due? Need to not get distracted by the Internet? KeepMeOut lets you block sites for certain periods, so you'll stay focused on the task at hand.Need to test a printer? Print the Google homepage. It has all the colours, uses almost no ink.Trying to find an example of a word used in a sentence? Google the word and click “news”. You'll get a bunch of headlines with that word in it.Someone send you a pages file but you're on a PC? Simply change the file extension from .pages to .zip to open it. Inside you'll find a PDF version of it.If you have to charge your phone at your friend's house, leave your bike/car keys by the phone so you can't leave without it.Amazon Prime is free for college students or anyone with a .edu email address. Get free kindle books, instant videos and free two-day shipping!Stop what you're doing right now and type “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” into Google. You're welcome:)Having a meeting or job interview via Skype? Tape some googly eyes on either side of your webcam to help maintain eye contact. It may sound ridiculous but it works!Get in the habit of pressing “Ctrl + S” every 5 minutes when working on something important. You'll thank yourself later.Is Roommate's phone alarm not going off? Call their phone. It will turn it off.Get out of the Bed Easily: Snoozers know how difficult it can be sometimes. If you’re struggling to get out of the bed, try this: Start a countdown from 20 to 0 in your head. There’s the neuroscience behind this small hack: our brain hates anticlimactic inactivity after a build-up, so by the time you will reach zero, you’ll want to get out of the bed.21. Do this Every Morning: This one-minute hack will change your morning for good: drink 8-12oz of water with lemon first thing in the morning and stand barefoot exposing your eyes to the sun. Water on an empty stomach revs up metabolism and helps you burn fat more effectively during the day while looking at the sun stimulates your pituitary gland regulating your circadian rhythm. Try it and you’ll revise your morning cup of coffee habit and feel much more enthusiastic about your day.22. Practice Mirror Technique: Politicians and actors are very familiar with this hack. Just one minute of mirror technique can help you to build up confidence, set the tone of your intentions for this day, or just brighten you up. Have an important meeting? Repeat your pitch lines and statements with different facial expressions and tones of your voice. Your brain will automatically pick up the one most suitable when the time comes. Getting out and about? Check yourself in the mirror-like you normally would, pause for a moment and put a huge grin on your face. Hold that expression and wish yourself a good day. Works like a charm:)23. Use the “Advice Me” Strategy: The method is simple and can be applied in various situations where you want to leverage something. For example, you want a raise or bargaining a higher salary during a job interview: say to the employer “I’m good at what I do, and that’s why you’re hiring me, but you’re a better manager. Can I have your advice, given that (say very high number) is a reasonable sum?” Two things happened: 1) you’ve given them the starting point (very high number) from where you can settle on a lower sum (which would still be high); 2) you placed them in the position where they guide you to your goal. Since it was their advice, it’s only reasonable that they won’t deny you if you follow it.24. Ditch your smartphone for a book: We touch our smartphones 2500 times spending a whopping 4 hours a day on average! You’re thinking it makes you more productive and helps you learn all the amazing new stuff on a go, but it’s not. Most of it, according to Telecom and Network technology tracker, is wasted on Facebook addiction and idle-surfing. Furthermore, a recent survey by the Huffington Post showed that people who dedicate their spare time surfing social media are more stressed and less focused when they return to their tasks. Always have an interesting book with you, so the next time you have a spare minute you can enjoy it. As a bonus, reading promotes stronger analytical skills and reduces stress.Read a book and ditch your smartphone. Reading promotes stronger analytical skills and reduces stress.25. Set Wallpapers of your goals: Visualizing your goals all the time is more effective than talking or pondering about them. It creates an image in your subconsciousness association yourself with this goal, thus erasing the nagging self-doubts and “what ifs.” Change your smartphone and desktop wallpapers with the vision of your dream. This can be something straightforward like a car or a boat, or figurative like a tropical island if you feel you need a vacation.26. Do Eye Exercise: The time we spend staring at screens has grown exponentially over the last decade. Your laptop or smartphone might be the culprit in the first place, but it can also help in this. Set a Pomodoro timer and take regular breaks off the screens. Look at distant objects for 20 seconds, then blink rapidly for 20 seconds, then rub your hands vigorously so they are warm and place them gently over your eyes for another 20 seconds.27. Smile More Often:Smile more often. It's an act of making the whole world around you a tad better. Ingenious in its simplicity, yet often overlooked. We get used to smiling at strangers all the time but forget to smile to ourselves. Smiling makes you appear more attractive and younger to others, lowers your blood pressure, increase levels of happy hormones endorphins, and is very contagious. It’s an act of making the whole world around you a tad better.Here are some quotes smile quotes to brighten up your day!You can also follow ‘uni_que.dreams’ on Instagram for motivation, positivity and happiness quotes.Finally, if you want another positive way to improve your life, then read and learn something new every day.Hey, you still reading? Wow, thanks.Well, that’s for this answer. See ya.Bye.Edit: Thankyou for 1K+ upvotes. To many of you, it may be a small thing but it’s my first answer on which I have got so many upvotes. So, thank you once again to all those who upvoted and shared my answer. Love you all.

Surprising that it is old and disreputed science of the 1800s relied on by alarmists today for any connections between Co2 and the climate. They rely wrongly on Joseph Fourier in 1824, John Tyndall in 1860, and by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.The presumed pioneers, Fourier and Pouillet, were only concerned with water vapour. Tyndall showed that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide. Yet the wrong greenhouse gas has been chosen, purely because its concentration can be blamed on human activity.Arrhenius ignored the advice of these pioneers and failed to realise that Langley’s measurements which he used did not include carbon dioxide absorption; so his results were for water vapour instead. All subsequent advocates for an important role for carbon dioxide have failed to realise this.The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.CHAPTER 5 :THE GREENHOUSE EFFECTThe alarmists fail to offer any modern references supportive of anthropogenic (i.e. man made causes. This is the reason that 2000 IPCC scientists researching the very issue of human caused climate activity found none in their summary report in 1995 -1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”The uncertainties of the IPCC working group 1 continue without any peer reviewed studies. Yet the public are bamboozled by the lies of Al Gore and other alarmists on this issue."If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."“WE need to get some broad based support,to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statementsand make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest.“– Prof. Stephen Schneider,Stanford Professor of Climatology,lead author of many IPCC reportsAll the peer reviewed science today supports the conclusion of the IPCC working group 1 “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes,” also the skeptical view of Dr. Kary Mullis Nobel Laureate.Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment of the current state of climate science, describing it as a "Joke".As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.MAJOR PEER REVIEW STUDIES THAT DEMOLISH THE OLD ARRHENIUS SCIENCEThe greenhouse gas effect is fictitious.GERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPERFalsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, [Emphasis added] in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)PEER REVIEWIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 75 reviewers, both internal and external (90%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.Greenhouse Gas Climate Science Is Broken Beyond RepairPublished on July 30, 2018Written by Hans SchreuderIn earlier centuries, science had a positive influence on society in developing social awareness around objectivity and rationality.It replaced the witchcraft and hocus pocus of charlatans with evaluation of objective evidence as the means of determining truth. But now, science is leading the pack for charlatanism and witchcraft, as junk science is acquiring a greater legitimacy than the charlatans ever had.Wherever there is corruption in science the most important, underlying facts are contrived, while science is applied to more superficial elements of the subject. Omitting the science where it is most relevant isn’t an error, it is fraud. That’s why the word fraud must be used in describing the major corruptions of science.Nowadays, science bureaucrats require that every detail of research be described in grant proposals; and in the laboratory, the researchers can do nothing but fill in the blanks with numbers. The claim is that doing otherwise would be defrauding the public. So the research has to be done at a desk instead of the laboratory.Science bureaucrats are not politicians. They are scientists who put themselves in competition with the scientists in the laboratories. The editors and reviewers of science journals do the same. The result is that the laboratory scientists are dominated by office scientists who dictate how their work will be designed and reported.Madness has taken over the western world, an insanity that demands we destroy ourselves over the ludicrous claim that a tiny increase of a trace gas (carbon dioxide) has endangered the world due to an even more ludicrous “atmospheric greenhouse effect“.Let me therefore conclude my “I Love My Carbon Dioxide” mission by stating the following, which is in the tradition of proper science, not radiative forcing’s greenhouse effect pseudo-science:The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.2 .Considering, therefore, that even inside an actual greenhouse with a barrier of solid glass no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect occurs, most certainly there can be no greenhouse effect in our turbulent atmosphere.Energy can not be created from nothing, not even by means of re-radiated infra red. Widely accepted theory has it that more energy is re-radiated to earth than comes from the sun in the first place, amounting to almost an extra two suns. All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise.A block of ice in a room does not cause the room to warm up, despite the block of ice radiating its energy into the room.Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead.The accepted carbon dioxide greenhouse theory is thus declared a complete and total scam, as more fully detailed in these papers, amongst many (and I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject) :“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” https://tech-know-group.com/arch... and “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics”https://ilovemycarbondioxide.com...Hans SchreuderIpswich, UKwww.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.htmlwww.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.htmlLet’s suppose for the sake of argument there is a greenhouse effect, but the size of human emissions of Co2 at 400 parts per million ppm ‘near zero’ is too minute to have any physical effect on the climate. It is beyond imagination.How can this minuscule amount of human emissions be a heat trapping blanket? It is physically impossible!The yellow sphere in the next graph represents the amount of natural CO2 amongst the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. TRY TO APPLY THIS MINUTE AMOUNT OF CO2 TO THE NEXT GRAPH OF A GREENHOUSE COVERING THE EARTH WHEN HUMAN EMISSIONS ARE ONLY 3% OF NATURAL. Not possible to even imagine.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has nomeaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.This graph shows the ratio of all Co2 to other gases at 1 to 2500.Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.@NikolovScienceA Ph.D. Physical Scientist with a broad range of interests in various fields of science, i.e. climate, cosmology, astrophysics, nutrition, archaeology etc.Why is Mt. Kilimanjaro, located at EQUATOR (3.0674° S) at 5,900 m above sea level, covered with permanent snow & glaciers, and has a mean T below 0 C? The reason is the thermal effect of the earth’s atmosphere is the control knob of earth’s temperature.This is a layman's summary of our new #climate concept emerging from analysis of recent NASA planetary observations from across the Solar System (including Earth) described in these papers: 1. https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723 … 2. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf …Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate ApocalypseMore honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of goodDr. Jeffrey Foss“What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.“Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them – but they keep ignoring their mistake.”Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flush with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite – a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science – and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep – as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.Willie Soon may one day be a household name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who – Gasp! – single handedly convinced Big Oil to continue business as usual.Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.The IPCC – along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers – desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the industrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending us against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up – an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s – long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years – in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.Only the sun – not the CO2 from our fires – could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness – variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect”) that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.In just such ways they sell us their Climate Apocalypse – along with the roll-back of human energy use, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of us if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe – for now.Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data – actual evidence – shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow – that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiatus in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that – even though they previously insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuously growing.Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases – an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion – and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse industry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy – who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse – was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaDr. Willie Soon versus the Climate ApocalypseYou like Dr Foss and Dr Willie Soon should not ignore the sun as it is the source of all energy on the earth.A GRAPH TO DEBUNK AGWA Graph to Debunk AGW: Solar Geomagnetic Activity is highly correlated to Global Temperature changes between 1856-2000Wednesday, April 10th 2013, 4:15 PM EDTCo2sceptic (Site Admin)A paper published in the journal of the Italian Astronomical Society finds that solar geomagnetic activity was highly correlated to global temperature changes over the period from 1856-2000. The authors “show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.”More peer reviewed research demolishing any effect of Co2 in the climate.Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactFull-Text HTMLDownload as PDF (Size:13770KB) PP. 971-998DOI: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124 16,038 Downloads 38,002 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. [Emphasis added]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.2011.312124.100 + References accessible at website.

Sadly the science relied on by the alarmists claiming a discernible human impact on global warming is bunk! Surprising that it is old and demolished science of the 1800s relied on by alarmists today for any connections between human emissions of co2 and global warming. They wrongly rely on Joseph Fourier in 1824, John Tyndall in 1860, and by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.This text shows that the Fourier did not study Co2 his conclusion were only about water vapour which is 20 times larger.THE REAL GREENHOUSEA real greenhouse is a confined sector of the real climate described in Chapter 1. It receives sunlight through glass panels but it protects from atmospheric circulation and from precipitation and thus is able to maintain a higher temperature than the outside climate which is cooled by these effects.Otherwise it behaves in exactly the same way as outside. The sun`s rays are absorbed at the base and the frame and so raise its temperature. It is cooled when the air above is warmed and rises by convection. It is also cooled when water is evaporated and the air becomes more humid. Eventually all the air in the greenhouse has a higher temperature than the outside, where it would be cooled if escaped. The infrared radiation from the ground and from the atmosphere cannot pass through the glass. But they are not reflected as Fourier and others have surmised. They are absorbed and so heat the surface, then cooled by outside convection and outwards radiation.As greenhouses are not insulated the frame is warmed and is cooled by the outside air circulation and precipitation. At night or when the sun does not shine the frame cools by convection and radiation. The air inside also cools but some heat is transferred to the base by deposition of dew when the humidity falls. Internal radiation plays a small but negligible part. Infra red from the base is merely absorbed by the frame and the glass but it is not reflected as Fourier surmised, but the absorbed heat is mainly lost by external convection of the frame.SUMMARYThe replacement of the accumulated discoveries of meteorology described in Chapter 1 by global climate models based on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide was motivated by an environmentalist delusion that human activity was exclusively responsible for the climate.The presumed pioneers, Fourier and Pouillet, were only concerned with water vapour. Tyndall showed that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide. Yet the wrong greenhouse gas has been chosen, purely because its concentration can be blamed on human activity.Arrhenius ignored the advice of these pioneers and failed to realise that Langley’s measurements which he used did not include carbon dioxide absorption; so his results were for water vapour instead. All subsequent advocates for an important role for carbon dioxide have failed to realise this.They wrongly rely on Joseph Fourier in 1824, John Tyndall in 1860, and by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.The presumed pioneers, Fourier and Pouillet, were only concerned with water vapour. Tyndall showed that water vapour was far more important than carbon dioxide. Yet the wrong greenhouse gas has been chosen, purely because its concentration can be blamed on human activity.Arrhenius ignored the advice of these pioneers and failed to realise that Langley’s measurements which he used did not include carbon dioxide absorption; so his results were for water vapour instead. All subsequent advocates for an important role for carbon dioxide have failed to realise this.The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.CHAPTER 5 :THE GREENHOUSE EFFECTCHAPTER 5 :THE GREENHOUSE EFFECTThe alarmists fail to offer any modern references supportive of anthropogenic (i.e. man made causes.) This is the reason that 2000 IPCC scientists researching the very issue of human caused climate activity found none in their summary report in 1995 -1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”The uncertainties of the IPCC working group 1 continue without any peer reviewed studies. Yet the public are bamboozled by the lies of Al Gore and other alarmists on this issue."If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."“WE need to get some broad based support,to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statementsand make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest.“– Prof. Stephen Schneider,Stanford Professor of Climatology,lead author of many IPCC reportsAll the peer reviewed science today supports the conclusion of the IPCC working group 1 “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes,” also the skeptical view of Dr. Kary Mullis Nobel Laureate.Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment of the current state of climate science, describing it as a "Joke".As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.MAJOR PEER REVIEW STUDIES THAT DEMOLISH THE OLD ARRHENIUS SCIENCEThe greenhouse gas effect is fictitious.GERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPERFalsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, [Emphasis added] in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)PEER REVIEWIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 75 reviewers, both internal and external (90%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.Greenhouse Gas Climate Science Is Broken Beyond RepairPublished on July 30, 2018Written by Hans SchreuderIn earlier centuries, science had a positive influence on society in developing social awareness around objectivity and rationality.It replaced the witchcraft and hocus pocus of charlatans with evaluation of objective evidence as the means of determining truth. But now, science is leading the pack for charlatanism and witchcraft, as junk science is acquiring a greater legitimacy than the charlatans ever had.Wherever there is corruption in science the most important, underlying facts are contrived, while science is applied to more superficial elements of the subject. Omitting the science where it is most relevant isn’t an error, it is fraud. That’s why the word fraud must be used in describing the major corruptions of science.Nowadays, science bureaucrats require that every detail of research be described in grant proposals; and in the laboratory, the researchers can do nothing but fill in the blanks with numbers. The claim is that doing otherwise would be defrauding the public. So the research has to be done at a desk instead of the laboratory.Science bureaucrats are not politicians. They are scientists who put themselves in competition with the scientists in the laboratories. The editors and reviewers of science journals do the same. The result is that the laboratory scientists are dominated by office scientists who dictate how their work will be designed and reported.Madness has taken over the western world, an insanity that demands we destroy ourselves over the ludicrous claim that a tiny increase of a trace gas (carbon dioxide) has endangered the world due to an even more ludicrous “atmospheric greenhouse effect“.Let me therefore conclude my “I Love My Carbon Dioxide” mission by stating the following, which is in the tradition of proper science, not radiative forcing’s greenhouse effect pseudo-science:The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.2 .Considering, therefore, that even inside an actual greenhouse with a barrier of solid glass no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect occurs, most certainly there can be no greenhouse effect in our turbulent atmosphere.Energy can not be created from nothing, not even by means of re-radiated infra red. Widely accepted theory has it that more energy is re-radiated to earth than comes from the sun in the first place, amounting to almost an extra two suns. All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise.A block of ice in a room does not cause the room to warm up, despite the block of ice radiating its energy into the room.Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead.The accepted carbon dioxide greenhouse theory is thus declared a complete and total scam, as more fully detailed in these papers, amongst many (and I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject) :“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” https://tech-know-group.com/arch... and “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics”https://ilovemycarbondioxide.com...Hans SchreuderIpswich, UKwww.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.htmlwww.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.htmlLet’s suppose for the sake of argument there is a greenhouse effect, but the size of human emissions of Co2 at 400 parts per million ppm ‘near zero’ is too minute to have any physical effect on the climate. It is beyond imagination.How can this minuscule amount of human emissions be a heat trapping blanket? It is physically impossible!The yellow sphere in the next graph represents the amount of natural CO2 amongst the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. TRY TO APPLY THIS MINUTE AMOUNT OF CO2 TO THE NEXT GRAPH OF A GREENHOUSE COVERING THE EARTH WHEN HUMAN EMISSIONS ARE ONLY 3% OF NATURAL. Not possible to even imagine.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has nomeaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.This graph shows the ratio of all Co2 to other gases at 1 to 2500.Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.@NikolovScienceA Ph.D. Physical Scientist with a broad range of interests in various fields of science, i.e. climate, cosmology, astrophysics, nutrition, archaeology etc.Why is Mt. Kilimanjaro, located at EQUATOR (3.0674° S) at 5,900 m above sea level, covered with permanent snow & glaciers, and has a mean T below 0 C? The reason is the thermal effect of the earth’s atmosphere is the control knob of earth’s temperature.This is a layman's summary of our new #climate concept emerging from analysis of recent NASA planetary observations from across the Solar System (including Earth) described in these papers: 1. https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723 … 2. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf …Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate ApocalypseMore honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of goodDr. Jeffrey Foss“What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.“Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them – but they keep ignoring their mistake.”Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flush with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite – a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science – and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep – as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.Willie Soon may one day be a household name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who – Gasp! – single handedly convinced Big Oil to continue business as usual.Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.The IPCC – along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers – desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the industrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending us against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up – an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s – long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years – in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.Only the sun – not the CO2 from our fires – could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness – variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect”) that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.In just such ways they sell us their Climate Apocalypse – along with the roll-back of human energy use, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of us if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe – for now.Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data – actual evidence – shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow – that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiatus in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that – even though they previously insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuously growing.Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases – an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion – and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse industry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy – who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse – was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaDr. Willie Soon versus the Climate ApocalypseYou like Dr Foss and Dr Willie Soon should not ignore the sun as it is the source of all energy on the earth.A GRAPH TO DEBUNK AGWA Graph to Debunk AGW: Solar Geomagnetic Activity is highly correlated to Global Temperature changes between 1856-2000Wednesday, April 10th 2013, 4:15 PM EDTCo2sceptic (Site Admin)A paper published in the journal of the Italian Astronomical Society finds that solar geomagnetic activity was highly correlated to global temperature changes over the period from 1856-2000. The authors “show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.”More peer reviewed research demolishing any effect of Co2 in the climate.Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactFull-Text HTMLDownload as PDF (Size:13770KB) PP. 971-998DOI: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124 16,038 Downloads 38,002 Views CitationsAuthor(s) Leave a commentGerhard Kramm, Ralph DlugiABSTRACTIn 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. [Emphasis added]Cite 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.2011.312124.100 + References accessible at website.Necromancy definition, a method of divination through alleged communication with the dead; black art.