Abstract Reproduction Form B-1: Fill & Download for Free


Download the form

How to Edit Your Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 Online Easily Than Ever

Follow the step-by-step guide to get your Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 edited in no time:

  • Select the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will enter into our PDF editor.
  • Edit your file with our easy-to-use features, like highlighting, blackout, and other tools in the top toolbar.
  • Hit the Download button and download your all-set document for reference in the future.
Get Form

Download the form

We Are Proud of Letting You Edit Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 With a Simplified Workload

Explore More Features Of Our Best PDF Editor for Abstract Reproduction Form B-1

Get Form

Download the form

How to Edit Your Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 Online

When you edit your document, you may need to add text, fill out the date, and do other editing. CocoDoc makes it very easy to edit your form in a few steps. Let's see how this works.

  • Select the Get Form button on this page.
  • You will enter into our online PDF editor page.
  • Once you enter into our editor, click the tool icon in the top toolbar to edit your form, like signing and erasing.
  • To add date, click the Date icon, hold and drag the generated date to the field you need to fill in.
  • Change the default date by deleting the default and inserting a desired date in the box.
  • Click OK to verify your added date and click the Download button once the form is ready.

How to Edit Text for Your Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 with Adobe DC on Windows

Adobe DC on Windows is a popular tool to edit your file on a PC. This is especially useful when you finish the job about file edit on a computer. So, let'get started.

  • Find and open the Adobe DC app on Windows.
  • Find and click the Edit PDF tool.
  • Click the Select a File button and upload a file for editing.
  • Click a text box to change the text font, size, and other formats.
  • Select File > Save or File > Save As to verify your change to Abstract Reproduction Form B-1.

How to Edit Your Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 With Adobe Dc on Mac

  • Find the intended file to be edited and Open it with the Adobe DC for Mac.
  • Navigate to and click Edit PDF from the right position.
  • Edit your form as needed by selecting the tool from the top toolbar.
  • Click the Fill & Sign tool and select the Sign icon in the top toolbar to make you own signature.
  • Select File > Save save all editing.

How to Edit your Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 from G Suite with CocoDoc

Like using G Suite for your work to sign a form? You can edit your form in Google Drive with CocoDoc, so you can fill out your PDF in your familiar work platform.

  • Add CocoDoc for Google Drive add-on.
  • In the Drive, browse through a form to be filed and right click it and select Open With.
  • Select the CocoDoc PDF option, and allow your Google account to integrate into CocoDoc in the popup windows.
  • Choose the PDF Editor option to begin your filling process.
  • Click the tool in the top toolbar to edit your Abstract Reproduction Form B-1 on the needed position, like signing and adding text.
  • Click the Download button in the case you may lost the change.

PDF Editor FAQ

How can CO2 cause global warming when it only amounts to less than 400 ppm?

IT CANNOT. The percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere is near zero at 0.039 % much too small to have any effect heating the climate.A fundamental question is the mechanics of how CO2 actually retains heat when the number of molecules at of 400 PPM is near zero?Even if you assume that each CO2 molecule is capable of retaining thermal energy, contradicting the 2nd law of thermodynamics, only 400 molecules in one million molecules of air are carbon dioxide. Looking at the randomness of molecules interaction suggest that on a probabilistic basis only, the photon of IR radiation is unlikely to encounter CO2.In reality, when a CO2 molecule does encounter IR radiation (at the correct wavelength), the effect is to promote electrons from lower orbitals to higher ones. They relax back to ground state in a millisecond time base with re-radiation of the energy quanta. Quite how this mechanism can act as a "thermal blanket" warming the planet remains a mystery!Mike CampbellFurther most C02 in the atmosphere is from natural sources including volcanos and wild fires at 95% leaving only 5% from fossil fuels or less than 20 ppm.This amount of Co2 is near zero and cannot physically cause any climate effect in the atmosphere.Most importantly Co2 is a life saving gas and we need more for medical applications such baby incubators, aids to surgery and more.For this reason alone it is insane to reduce your carbon dioxide footprint as leading politicians want.Established applicationsThe earliest of medically defined applications were for use as a respiratory stimulant; and for use in the enlargement of body cavities during certain surgical procedures, particularly in cases such as endoscopy. Another interesting application is to enlarge blood vessels, in a controlled setting.Medical applications for carbon dioxide today• Medical carbon dioxide. Therapeutic indicationsCarbon dioxide is used:• to increase depth of anaesthesia rapidly when volatile agents are being administered. It increases depth of respiration and helps to overcome breathholding and bronchial spasm• to facilitate blind intubation in anaesthetic practice• to facilitate vasodilation and thus lessen the degree of metabolic acidosis during the induction of hypothermia• to increase cerebral blood flow in arteriosclerotic patients undergoing surgery• to stimulate respiration after a period of apnoea• in chronic respiratory obstruction after it has been relieved• to prevent hypocapnia during hyperventilation• for clinical and physiological investigations• in gynaecological investigation for insufflation into fallopian tubes and abdominal cavities• as solid carbon dioxide (dry ice) in tissue freezing techniques and for the destruction of warts by freezing.https://www.boconline.co.uk/en/images/medical_carbon_dioxide_tcm410-56027.pdfFire extinguishers use Co2 to dampen and cool down the fire.The recently claimed ‘global warming’ as ‘climate change’ is not happening. Many have been fooled by the randomness and non-linear reality of the climate. Much confusion about the scientific meaning of climate change. It is only a statistically a fiction based on a long- term view of weather changes.Climate change occurs when changes in Earth's climate system result in new weather patterns that last for at least a few decades, and maybe for millions of years. W.The further back you survey the climate the more uncertain is the claim that the climate today has exited the Little Ice Age.The above graph looks back to the PRECAMBRIAN and the seesawing hot and cold up to today. Note the little swiggle of warming that may only be the chaotic natural bump in the ice age road.No evidence of that the declining temperatures from 85 million years back have stopped receding when the view is in millions of years.This Holocene Temperature history graph brings us much closer to our current climate. It shows the current warm period is not unusual and just as important that temperatures have been receding for the past 7000 years. This means the bump up of temperatures of the last century are not evidence of global warming. Again the up jiggle warmer proves nothing when integrated into the longer perspective but the seesaw variability to hot or cold. The trend line is clearly cooling not warming.Now look at the temperature’s decling history over the past hundred years -Bring the data to the past 40 years we see rise and fall and now falling -Since 1979 there has been much variability hot to cold and now falling colder.Much evidence today of recent weather with brutal freezing winters and extensive flooding coincides with the same kind of weather experienced during the Little Ice Age.1575 Winter Landscape with Snowfall near Antwerp by Lucas van Valckenborch.Städel Museum/Wikimedia CommonsSoldiers struggle and freeze from winters during Washington’s march to Valley Forge. Paintings capture how brutal the weather was in 1777–80 in America in the last days of Little Ice Age.Epic And Massive Flooding In Europe During The Little Ice AgePublished on June 24, 2016Written by http://iceagenow.orgKilled more than 500,000 people.This is the global cooling fearIntense flooding in the low countries of Europe became “darkly repetitive” during the Little Ice Age, writes McKillop. The cooling period lasted 450 years,HUMAN EMISSION OF CO2 HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE.In any event there is no evidence that human emissions of Co2 at only 3.6% of natural Co2 matter to the climate. They are vital plant food, but too tiny to effect the climate. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 alarmists.Think about it - this is not 1%, not 0.1 % and not even half of 0.1 % impossible to imagine how this minute amount could cover the earth like a blanket or greenhouse and trap sunlight. The original greenhouse theory 100 years ago (later abandoned) relied on water vapour not Co2 .Climate change happens over thousands of years, but man-mad Co2 is imperceptible in the earth’s temperatures. Earth’s temperature rises in the past have always preceded a rise in CO2 by a few hundred years according to peer reviewed research, not as Al Gore would have you believe, caused it.Co2 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE NOT PRECEDE ITEasterbrook, 2016ABSTRACT“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”FAKE GREENHOUST METAPHORTHEREFORE THE GREENHOUSE METAPHOR USED BY ALARMISTS IS FALSE BECAUSE PHYSICALLY THE AMOUNT OF CO2 IS TOO MINUSCULE TO TRAP ANYTHING.. THE MORE ACCURATE METAPHOR IS A ‘PINCH OF SALT’ THAT CAUSES A CHEMICAL REACTION MAKING ALL FOOD TASTE BETTER JUST AS CO2 CAUSES A CHEMICAL REACTION WITH THE MICRO FACTORY OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS.Figure 2.3: Photosynthesis: In the process of photosynthesis, plants convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy in the form of glucose - or sugar.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minute epidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2OWater (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.1. The evidence strongly suggests climate change is mainly driven by the Sun's variation and its effect on cloud cover variation and the consequent accumulation/dissipation of energy in/from the high heat capacity oceans.Fewer clouds mean higher temperatures and the reverse is true.The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.Radiant to ChemicalFigure A. Graphs of the overall atmospheric concentration and the relative percentages of trace gases such as Co2.The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.The Role of Water VapourWater vapor is, by far, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, absorbing heat across many wavelengths in the infrared spectrum. However, the impact of a greenhouse gas must also consider how long that gas remains in the atmosphere and how much it varies from place to place.From a humid rainforest to an arid desert, the amount of water vapor varies wildly around the world, making up anywhere between zero and four percent of the atmosphere. It also varies over time through seasonal changes and with height. The higher you get in the atmosphere, the drier it can become.For Greenhouse gases water vapour at 95% is major not Co2 that is near zero.Anthropocentric CO2 is Only 0.117% !In my view the answer to this question is very relevant to upsetting the scare mongering from Al Gore and other alarmists about unprecedented global warming. The facts are there are too few Co2 molecules to have any effect on the earth’s climate. The amount of Co2 today at just 400 ppm [parts per million.] Co2 today pales in comparison with the past when there was more than 5000 ppm which is > 10 X as much! [ Remember with every breath out we exhale > 35,000 ppm of Co2 into the atmosphere.]The entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.GREENHOUSE GASES COMPOSITIONHere is a key graph of all Greenhouse gases that shows detailed percentages of where the source of C02 in the atmosphere and human emissions are miniscule at only 0.117%. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from other natural sources it is foolish to think humans make any difference. Even the most costly efforts to limit human Co2 emissions if they succeeded would have a very small-- undetectable-- effect on global climate.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossil...It may be a little hard to picture just how minute the fossil fuel emissions across the globe are. Please take 3 minutes to view this helpful Australian Rice video that helped Australia’s public decide to axe the futile carbon tax.AXE THE TAX AUSTRALIA THE RICE VIDEO 85880 32 CO2 1 HUMAN CO2It is hard to imagine, but essential to realize they have no effect on the climate, just how small the Co2 emissions from fossil fuels are. Co2 so small drawn to scale it is invisible.Per NASA, there is around 1 trillion tons of CO2 in our atmosphere on the average, yet there is 500 trillion tons of annual water vapor, which means that CO2 is only 1/500th that of water vapor, and with the natural convection which causes the sink, most of the 1 trillion tons of CO2 every year is brought back down to earth because of its higher density and as part of the sink, while a large percentage of the rest dissipates and is made harmless as relevant to the greenhouse effect, also water vapor absorbs 5 times more solar energy than CO2 which changes the 1/500th to 1/2,500th, so as far as the ability to absorb solar energy and create a greenhouse effect, CO2 is only 1/2,500 that of water vapor.Now realize that the 3% of CO2 that man produces of the 1 trillion tons of total CO2 makes CO2 from fossil fuels only 1/82,500th that of water vapor. Now do you really think if you add 1 grain of salt to 82,500 grains of sugar, the sugar will now taste like salt?Even adjusting for unproven heat retention make little difference in the composition of Co2 in the atmosphere.Dr. Ed is a physicist, certified consulting meteorologist, award-winning programmer, pilot with glider, power and instrument ratings, world-class sailor, national ...Berry’s conclusion, like his hypothesis is simple:Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.For those of us who have looked at the massive amount of natural CO2 released by a variety of causes including forest fires and volcanic eruptions, Berry’s thesis provides a useful complement to observational notes. Essentially he explains that man-caused CO2 under current conditions could not account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the modern era. This also confirms what science has long known — that periods of massive warming and cooling swings have existed independent of human activity on many occasions.Scientists like Ed Berry are largely shut out of the academic discussion, so it is good to see Berry find an outlet for publication of a theory he has worked on for some time.Visit Blog - edberry.com to reach Dr. Berry.Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesVolume 3, Issue 1, June 2019, Pages: 13-26Received: May 13, 2019; Accepted: Jun. 12, 2019; Published: Jul. 4, 2019Author Edwin X Berry, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, USAAbstractThe United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.KeywordsCarbon Dioxide, CO2, Climate Change, AnthropogenicTo cite this articleEdwin X Berry, Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, pp. 13-26. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13CopyrightCopyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.References[1]USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp; 2018. doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. Climate Science Special Report:[2]IPCC, 2001: Working Group 1: The scientific basis. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere CO2. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf[3]IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf[4]D. Archer, M. Eby, V. Brovkin, A. Ridgwell, L. Cao, U. Mikolajewicz, et al., “Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide”. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 37, pp. 117–134; 2009. Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide[5]G. C. Cawley, “On the Atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced CO2”. Energy Fuels 25, pp. 5503–5513; 2011. On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide[6]Z. Kern, M. Leuenberger, Comment on "The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature" by Humlum et al. Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.: Isotopes ignored. Glob. Planet. Chang. 109, 1–2; 2013. Redirecting[7]P. Kohler, J. Hauck, C. Volker, D. A. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J. B. Halpern, et al. Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle andCO2residence time in the atmosphere” by H. Harde, Global and Planetary Change; 2017. https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/KoehlerGPC17.pdf[8]R. Revelle, H. Suess, “CO2 exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades”. Tellus. 9: 18-27; 1957. Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades.[9]C. Starr, “Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle”. Science Direct, 18, 12, pp. 1297-1310; 1992. Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle[10]T. V. Segalstad, “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma”. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U. K. [ISBN 0952773422]: 184-219; 1998. http://www.CO2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf[11]Z. Jaworowski, “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2”. Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 2003. Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticism's of the assumed reliability of IPCC graphics merging pre-industrial CO2 data from ice cores with atmospheric measurements from 20C[12]Z. Jaworowski, “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our Time”. 21st CENTURY Science & Technology. 2007. https://21sci-tech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf[13]E. Beck, “180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”. Energy & Environment. Vol 18, No. 2. 2007. https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202008%20ONLINE/CO2_chemical.pdf[14]A. Rorsch, R.S. Courtney, D. Thoenes, “The Interaction of Climate Change and the CO2 Cycle”. Energy & Environment, Volume 16, No 2; 2005. The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle - A. Rörsch, R. S. Courtney, D. Thoenes, 2005[15]R.S. Courtney, “Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration”. International Conference on Climate Change, New York. 2008. Videos - Richard Courtney ICCC1[16]T, Quirk, “Sources and sinks of CO2”. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1, pp. 105-121. 2009. Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide - Tom Quirk, 2009[17]R. E. Essenhigh, “Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced CO2”. Energy Fuel 23, pp. 2773-2784; 2009. Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide[18]J. A. Glassman, “On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere and what is happening with CO2 in the modern era”. Rocket Scientist Journal; 2010. https://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_CO2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more[19]M. L. Salby, “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate”. Cambridge University Press. 2012. (ISBN: 978-0-521-76718-7) Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate: Murry L. Salby: 9780521767187: Amazon.com: Books[20]M. L. Salby, “Relationship Between Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature”. Video Presentation, April 18, 2013. Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg. Presentation Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg on 18 April 2013[21]M. L. Salby, “Atmosphere Carbon”. Video Presentation, July 18, 2016. University College London. Prof Salby: Atmospheric Carbon, 18 July 2016, University College London - Streamlined Lecture[22]M. L. Salby, “What is really behind the increase in atmospheric CO2?” Video Presentation, October 10, 2018. Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, Germany. Salby HSU 2018 (Clean Audio)[23]O. Humlum, K. Stordahl, J.E. Solheim, “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures”. Global and Planetary Change, 100, pp 51-69, 2013. The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature[24]H. Harde, “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-26; 2017. Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere.[25]H. Harde, “What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations”. Earth Sciences Vol. 8, No. 3, 2019, pp. 139-159. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13 What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO, http://article.esjournal.org/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20190803.13.pdf[26]E. X Berry, “A fatal flaw in global warming science”. Basic Science of a Changing Climate. Porto University, Portugal. Sep 7; 2018. https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/11_edwinberryportosep7final.pdf[27]E. X Berry, “Contradictions to IPCC’s climate change theory”. Annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Phoenix; 2019. Contradictions to IPCC's Climate Change Theory[28]T. Boden, B. Andres, (2017) Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2014. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems.[29]H. B. Dwight, “Tables of Integrals and Other Mathematical Data” Item 90.1. MacMillian Company; 1955. Tables of Integrals and Other Mathematical Data: Herbert Bristol Dwight: 9780023311703: Amazon.com: Books[30]U. Siegenthaler, F. Joos, “Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle”. Tellus, 44B, 186-207; 1992. Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle[31]E. Maier-Reimer, L. Hasselmann, “Transport and storage of CO2 in the ocean – an inorganic ocean-circulation carbon cycle model”. Climate Dynamics 2 (2):63–90; 1987. DOI: 10.1007/BF01054491[32]F. Joos, R. Roth, J. S. Fuglestvedt, G. P. Peters, I. G. Enting, von Bloh, et al. “Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis”. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13 (5), doi: 10.5194/acpd-12-19799-2012. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793-2825; 2013. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/2793/2013/acp-13-2793-2013.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235431147_Carbon_dioxide_and_climate_impulse_response_functions_for_the_computation_of_greenhouse_gas_metrics_A_multi-model_analysis[33]F. Joos, “Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model”. 2002. Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model[34]Q. Hua, M. Barbetti, A. Z. Rakowski. “Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950–2010”. RADIOCARBON, Vol 55, pp. 2059–2072. Table S2c. 2013. Atmospheric Radiocarbon for the Period 1950–2010 | Radiocarbon | Cambridge Core[35]J. C. Turnbull, S. E. Mikaloff Fletcher, I. Ansell, G. W. Brailsford, R. C. Moss, Norris, et al. “Sixty years of radiocarbon dioxide measurements at Wellington, New Zealand: 1954–2014”. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, pp. 14771–14784. 2017. Sixty years of radiocarbon dioxide measurements at Wellington, New Zealand: 1954-2014[36]I. Levin, T. Naegler, B. Kromer, M. Diehl, R. Francey, A. Gomez-Pelaez, et al., “Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2”. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology. 2010. Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2[37]Wikipedia: Isotopes. Isotope - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[38]A. P. Ballantyne, C. B. Alden, J. B. Miller, P. P. Tans, J. W. C. White, "Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years", Nature 488, pp. 70-73, 2012. doi:10.1038/nature11299. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230615762_Increase_in_observed_net_carbon_dioxide_uptake_by_land_and_oceans_during_the_past_50_years[39]RealClimate, “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”. 2004. How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?[40]R. Spencer, “A simple model of the atmospheric CO2 budget”. 2019. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/a-simple-model-of-the-atmospheric-CO2-budget/[41]J. Munshi, “Responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions: Updated”. SSRN; 2017. Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Updated[42]Chaamjamal, “Fossil fuel emissions and atmospheric composition”. Thongchai Thailand. 2019. Fossil Fuel Emissions and Atmospheric CompositionCARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTE AND IS NECESSARY FOR ALL LIFE"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemisthttp://www.populartechnology.net...The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' EverBy Mike Van Biezen[I have added in square brackets data and graphs of more evidence in support of each of the 10 Key scientific problems blaming humans for global warming.]Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983. By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records. In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records. When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago. This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.[]2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:Starting at the end of 1978, satellites began to collect temperature data from around the globe. For the next 20 years, until 1998, the global average temperature remained unchanged in direct contradiction to the earth-bound weather station data, which indicated “unprecedented” temperature increases. In 1998 there was a strong El Nino year with high temperatures, which returned to pre-1998 levels until 2001. In 2001 there was a sudden jump in the global temperature of about 0.3 degrees centigrade which then remained at about that level for the next 14 years, with a very slight overall decrease in the global temperatures during that time.[]3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing remarkable. For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100 years, including those found in Greenland. Comparing today’s temperatures to the 1980’s is like comparing our summer temperatures to those in April, rather than those of last summer. It is obvious why the global warming community does this, and very misleading (or deceiving).4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:Many places around the world experienced a quite significant and persistent cooling trend to the point where scientists began to wonder if the world was beginning to slide into a new ice age period. For example, Greenland experienced some of the coldest years in 120 years during the 1980’s, as was the case in many other places around the world. During that same 40-year period, the CO2 levels around the world increased by 17%, which is a very significant increase. If global temperatures decreased by such a significant amount over 40 years while atmospheric CO2 increased by such a large amount we can only reach two conclusions: 1. There must be a weak correlation, at best, between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, 2. There must be stronger factors driving climate and temperature than atmospheric CO2.[]5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:It has been shown that nighttime temperatures recorded by many weather stations have been artificially raised by the expulsion of radiant heat collected and stored during the daytime by concrete and brick structures such as houses, buildings, roads, and also cars. Since land area of cities and large towns containing these weather stations only make up a very small fraction of the total land area, this influence on global average temperature data is significant. Since the daytime and nighttime temperatures are combined to form an average, these artificially-raised nighttime temperatures skew the average data. When one only looks at daytime temperatures only from larger urban areas, the “drastic global warming” is no longer visible. (This can also be seen when looking at nearby rural area weather station data, which is more indicative of the true climate of that area).6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching An Inconvenient Truth, higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around. Any college freshman chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is colder. That is why the CO2 level during the ice ages was so much lower than the levels today. That doesn’t take away the fact that we are artificially raising the atmospheric CO2 levels, but just because we do, that doesn’t mean that this will cause temperatures to increase in any significant way. The 40-year cooling period between 1940 and 1980 appear to support that premise. What we can conclude is that the ice ages were not caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2 levels and that other stronger factors were involved with these very large climate changes.7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2. It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth. That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced. But it is hard to convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval warm period. Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods during the last 10,000 years. There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder. The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline. Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter cold winters. The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our recent history.[]9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 yearsThe notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific basis. Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years. It is no secret that glaciers advanced to unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age. Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps saw their homes threatened and fields destroyed by these large ice masses. Pleas went out to local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance. Around 1850, the climate returned to more “normal” temperatures and the glaciers began to recede. But then between 1940 and 1980, as the temperatures declined again, most of the glaciers halted their retreat and began to expand again, until warmer weather at the end of the last century caused them to continue the retreat they started 150 years earlier. Furthermore, we now know that many of the glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago. As a case in point, there is a glacier to the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen Glacier. It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick. A Scandinavian research team bored ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist. It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist but have returned because of the onset of colder weather. Today’s temperatures are much lower than those that were predominant during the Holocene era as substantiated by studying the many cores that were dug from Greenland’s ice sheet.[GLOBAL VIEW OF THE ARCTIC OCEAN 2000.]10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true. Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.There are many more specific areas that I have researched and for which I have compiled data and presentation material, equally compelling regarding at exposing the fallacies of global warming. A new twist has swept the global warming movement lately, especially since they had to admit that their own data showed that there was a “hiatus” on the warming, as illustrated in the 2014 IPCC report; their data showed an actual cooling over the last 10 years. The new term: “climate change” is now taking over, such that unusual events of any kind, like the record snowfall in Boston, can be blamed on the burning of fossil fuels without offering any concrete scientific data as to how one could cause the other.Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science.https://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate ChangeBy Kenneth Richard on 8. June 2017“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017Allmendinger, 2017The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory“The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole. In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”Blaauw, 2017“This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.”Nikolov and Zeller, 2017“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”Huang et al., 2017“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”Viterito, 2017“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists. Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe. Applying the same methodology employed in CSARGW, an updated analysis through 2016 adds new knowledge of this important relationship while strengthening support for that study’s conclusions. The correlation between HGFA seismic frequency and global temperatures moved higher with the addition of the 2016 data: the revised correlation now reads 0.814, up from 0.785 for the analysis through 2015. This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.”Hertzberg et al., 2017“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”Song, Wang & Tang, 2016A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect“In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]. … [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2). … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.”Manheimer, 2016“[T]he actual data show that up to now fears of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by data, or else involve processes occurring since long before excess CO2 in the atmosphere became a concern. Based on actual measurements and reasonable extrapolation of them, there is no reason why the responsible use of fossil fuel cannot continue to support worldwide civilisation. The argument to greatly restrict fossil fuel rests entirely on the theoretical assertion that at some point in the near future there will be a sudden and dramatic change in the very nature of the data presented here. If implemented, these would be sufficient to greatly upset the lifestyle of billions of people, and to further impoverish the already most impoverished parts of the world. … [N]othing in the past suggests that future climate will be significantly different before mid century because of rising levels of CO2.”Hertzberg and Schreuder, 2016“The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.”Mikhailovich et al., 2016About the Influence of the Giant Planets onLong-Term Evolution of Global Temperature“The observed variability of global temperature is usually explained through the decrease in the coefficient of the grayness of the Earth caused by increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, i.e. by the anthropogenically caused increase in the greenhouse effect. The validity of such views raises some doubts, as their validity is based either on the results of the climate simulation, or on the results of the regression analysis, in relation to which the fullness of the used set of regression does not seem certain. At the same time, just the results of climate modeling do not seem to be quite reliable … The effects associated with the displacement of the center of gravity of the solar system under the influence of giant planets (Jupiter and Saturn) are discussed. Based on the hypothesis of parametric resonance in the variation of global temperature with disturbances in the photosphere shape and the Earth-to-Sun distance due to the oppositions of said planets, a regression model that explains the observed long-term evolution of global temperature is built. It was shown that residuals of the model are close to white noise, i.e. the [influence of planets] hypothesis almost entirely explains the effect of temperature increase for the period presented in the vernacular crutem3 database [1850-present].”Vares et al., 2016… Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity … GeomagneticActivity … Causal Source for Global Warming“Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.”Easterbrook, 2016“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”Chemke et al., 2016The Thermodynamic Effect of AtmosphericMass on Early Earth’s TemperatureObservations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.[No mention of CO2 as a factor in warming the Earth-Atmosphere system]Haine, 2016“Notably, the three studies [Jackson et al., 2016; Böning et al., 2016; Robson et al., 2016] report an absence of anthropogenic effects on the AMOC, at least so far: the directly observed AMOC weakening since 2004 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols have affected North Atlantic ocean temperatures. The midlatitude North Atlantic temperature changes since 2005 have greater magnitude and opposite sign (cooling) than those attributed to ocean uptake of anthropogenic heat. The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.. And despite large changes in the freshwater budget of the Arctic, some of which are anthropogenic, there is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”Ellis and Palmer, 2016Conclusion: “[I]nterglacial warming is eccentricity and polar ice regrowth regulated, Great Summer forced, and dust-ice albedo amplified. And the greenhouse-gas attributes of CO2 play little or no part in this complex feedback system.”Evans, 2016“The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the nonobservation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2 response to the CO2 forcing.”Gervais, 2016Anthropogenic CO2 Warming Challenged By 60-year CycleConclusion: “Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies (Idso, 1998; Miskolczi, 2007; Paltridge et al., 2009; Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010; Clark, 2010; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015; Volokin and ReLlez, 2015). On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.”http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/...Climate Gate – Global Warming The Myth: CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our TimePosted on December 12, 2009 by mcauleysworldThe following article by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., Look, Feel, & Smell your best., was published, after peer review, in March 2007. Dr. Jaworski was one of the first to point out the loss of scientific integrity in the field of global warming research.CO2 – The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our TimeBy: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworski, M.D., Ph. D., Look, Feel, & Smell your best.ERI Science March 16, 2007Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, one of our planets first climate change specialists, is a multidisciplinary scientist, now a senior advisor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-58, he measured the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. From 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers: in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the Peruvian Andes. He has published many papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements in ice cores. Two of his papers on climate appear on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine. www.21stcenturysciencetech.com. Dr Jaworski is one of the world’s preeminent scholars in the field of ice core analysis.IntroductionOn Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming. After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style to a crowd of politicians and media, accompanied by a blackout of the Eiffel Tower to show that electric energy is bad. The event induced a tsunami of hysteria that ran around the world. This was probably the main aim of this clearly political paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats and published more than three months before the IPCC’s 1,600-page scientific report, which was not released until May 2007.In the words of the IPCC, the delay was needed so that, “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages was allowed to be in conflict with what the politicians (and bureaucrats) said beforehand in the summary! (In fact several of the original findings and conclusions made by the panel of investigating scientists were changed prior to the publication of the actual report – conclusions that were not in “lockstep” with the desired political conclusions were deleted from the report).This is a strange and unusual method of operation for a scientific report, and even stranger is the frankness of the IPCC’s words about the delay, disclosing its lack of scientific integrity and independence. It is exactly the same modus operandi demonstrated in the three former IPCC reports of 1990, 1995, and 2001. ……The Four Basic IPCC LiesThe four basic statements in the “Summary for Policymakers” are:1).Carbon dioxide, an important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, increased markedly as a result of human activities and its atmospheric concentration of 379 ppmv (parts per million, by volume) in 2005 by far exceeding the natural range of 180 to 300 ppmv over the last 650,000 years.2. Since 1750, human activities warmed the climate.3. The warmth of the last half-century is unusual, is the highest in at least the past 1,300 years, and is “very likely” caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.4. Predictions are made that anthropogenic warming will continue for centuries and between 2090 and 2099 the global average surface temperature will increase 1.1°C to 6.4°C.Various scare stories of global catastrophes are prophesied to occur if man-made emissions are not curbed by drastic political decisions.The obvious beneficial effects of warming are downplayed. (Beneficial effects include larger crop yields, reducing the likelyhood of continued global famine).Except for the pronouncements concerning CO2, all these points are garlanded with qualifications such as “likely,” “very likely,” “extremely likely” and “unequivocal.”In fact, to the contrary, all 4 of these points are incorrect.The first “Summary for Policymakers” statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice.This statement is a half-truth.It is true that CO2 is “an important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas,” but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect. This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the “Summary for Policymakers.”Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea, human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse gas, probably close to 0.12%. (12 hundredth’s of 1%).Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.The Truth About Ice CoresBecause carbon dioxide ice core records are regarded as a foundation of the man-made global warming hypothesis, let us dwell on them for a while.The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition of gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere.This assumption is in conflict with ample evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the opposite (see review in Jaworowski et al. 1992b).Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere. But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values much higher than the current atmospheric concentrations. (Jaworowski et al. 1992b). These recent proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years (Siegenthaler et al. 2005) even during the six former interglacial periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial!This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true, as shown below).It was never experimentally demonstrated that ice core records reliably represent the original atmospheric composition. Other proxies demonstrated that many millions of years ago CO2 levels in the atmosphere reached, at various times, 377, 450, and even 3,500 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001), and that during the past 10,000 years these levels were, as a rule, higher than 300 ppmv, fluctuating up to 348 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001, Wagner et al 1999, Wagner et al. 2002).The results of these last studies prove false the assertion of stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 ppmv to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. (Global warming alarmist claim this false level of atmospheric level of CO2 – it is the base level from which they claim an alarming increase has occurred).The results of the cited pre-1985 studies are strongly supported by direct CO2 measurements, carried out in the pre-industrial and 20th-Century atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps even 1,000 times higher than today. According to today’s climate models, the Earth would have been too hot for life at that time (Ohmoto et al. 2004).However, geologic evidence suggests there was not a Venus-style, “runaway warming.” Instead, life flourished then in the oceans and land, with such enormously high levels of this “gas of life,” from which our bodies and all living creatures are built (Godlewski 1873). Yet, Greens now call this gas a dangerous “pollutant.”The Hockey Stick CurvesOn the basis of assumption piled upon assumption, several versions of CO2 “hockey stick curves” were compiled by combining distorted proxy ice core data and direct atmospheric CO2 measurements.These so-called hockey stick curves were published countless times as a proof of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmophere.These measurements were created by illegitimately mixing proxy ice core data with direct measurements in the atmosphere.“…. falsified CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in all the IPCC reports, including the “Summary for Policymakers” issued in 2007….”These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by improper manipulation of data an arbitrary rejection of the high readings from “old ice” and an arbritary rejection of low readings from “young ice”, simply because the data did not fit the preconceived idea of man-made global warming. (Yes, the study “excluded all data” that did not fit the preconceived and desired outcome – the data which tended to disprove the desired outcome was excluded from the report).Dr. Jaworski’s compelling report can be read in its entirety (with supporting graphs and references) here:http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/p...How Does The Atmosphere Really Warm Up?PUBLISHED BYccdeditorNOVEMBER 5, 2018 10:38 AMHow does the air get hot? How does the air warm at all? Just consider this – 99% of the atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen and oxygen which are both transparent to infrared radiation, both incoming and outgoing. Is this a scientific fact, agreed by both Warmists and Skeptics? Yes, it is.So how does the air get warm? How is it that the weather forecasters routinely broadcast the temperature in a given place and also project the highest temperature likely and the lowest also?So we are all agreed on two things. The first is that 99% of air is transparent to infrared radiation and second that there is a given but moving temperature in any certain location – say London or Paris, Singapore or Jakarta. But what is causing the warming? What actually effects the warming?There are three means of heat transference, namely radiation, conduction, and convection. We have already ruled out radiation since 99% of the atmosphere is transparent to this radiation.So, is it only the greenhouse gases that get hot? I don’t think that anybody considers that to be a possibility. It would be totally ridiculous to say that 1% of the air is hot and the 99% is cold.So if radiation is ruled out, then the only real possibility left is conduction. It cannot be convection since that is a means of cooling. Sure, there are what are called convection heaters, but is not that a misnomer?When one examines them more closely one finds that the air is heated by an electrical coil that is hot, so, in fact, the air is heated by conduction and convection occurs by itself or with the help of a fan.In the same way, a radiator does radiate a little when hot water passes through it, but the air is actually heated by touching, by conduction and radiation plays a minor part.Holding one’s hand close to a hot radiator and then touching the same radiator easily prove this. At three inches away the heat is barely felt.But the heat transferred to the hand when it is laid on the radiator is instant. To be absolutely certain of this, try putting a hand on a kettle of boiling water!In this way, we can see that the mantra of Hans Schreuder ‘Sun heats Earth and Earth heats Atmosphere’ is correct. The atmosphere does not heat the Earth – on the contrary, the atmosphere is a giant cooling system.The radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere and collides with the mass of the Earth, be it rocks, sands, prairies, forests, lakes, rivers and oceans.Over the whole surface of the Earth, there is this great unending heat exchange, by conduction. The heat everywhere is carried upwards and away by convection.As the molecules of the air are heated they burst out of their cage and the molecules spread out in a giant fan, getting farther and farther apart with altitude.Only in this way can we understand why, as we ascend a hill or a mountain, the air gets progressively colder, which is even more noticeable in aviation. As the air gets thinner, that is to say as the molecules get farther and farther apart, so the temperature drops.Yet it is true that some of the molecules of the greenhouse gases may indeed be hot. The Warmists argue that these hot molecules effectively warm other molecules and even radiate back down towards the surface of the Earth.This is where a great error occurs, even amongst certain physicists. They have overlooked one thing, namely that between the molecules at altitude there is ‘nothing’, there is space, and there is a vacuum.I have quite often written ‘One cannot heat “nothing” only for the built-in grammar check in Word to rule out what it senses as a double negative. But this concept is essential.The radiation from the Sun passes through outer space precisely because it is a vacuum. A vacuum cannot get hot for there is ‘nothing’ to get hot. Only ‘something’ like ‘mass’ can get hot and have a temperature.So we see that a spaceship, which does have mass, has to take enormous pains to keep cool when suspended in this vacuum.The Warmists argue that the average mean surface temperature has risen by 0.8º Celsius since 1900 or 0.8 degrees in over 100 years.They may well be right although they admit that they have to make thousands of calculations from weather stations, ships at sea, radiosonde balloons and satellites in space to arrive at their conclusions.Above all, we must remember that an ‘average’ temperature is not a temperature at all. If it were, then the Moon, with its extremes of temperature, would be a habitable place!Furthermore, they argue that this same average temperature would be some 10s of degrees less without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They might indeed make a case with water vapor impeding the exit of heat, as indeed it does.But what is interesting is that they show and acknowledge that the Sun is the main source of energy, of heat and light.When we examine these arguments seriously we can see they have got a lot right. The Earth and the oceans do indeed absorb solar energy.The intense heat in the dry Sahara does dissipate quickly as the Sun sets, while in Jakarta where the air is full of moisture the temperature declines slowly.However, slowly or quickly, they are conceding that the atmosphere is a great travellator for carrying heat away to outer space.The atmosphere does not warm the Earth – only the radiation from the Sun does that. And it is the surface of the Earth that both warms and cools the atmosphere.The Warmists also make a bizarre claim that the molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) radiate heat back to the Earths surface.A molecule is tiny, not visible to the naked eye. Just how far can a molecule radiate? Not very far, since it is governed by the Inverse Square Law.So indeed a molecule of carbon dioxide may indeed absorb infrared radiation, but neither carbon dioxide nor water vapor generates heat.It is important to realize that the Warmists do not claim that the greenhouse gases generate heat, only that these greenhouse gases prevent the escape of heat thus making the lower atmosphere warmer.So the science is agreed by both sides, that is to say, the data. The trouble is that while it is true that water vapor may well inhibit the exit of heat from the surface, it can clearly be shown that clouds break up and scatter incoming infrared radiation.So while nitrogen and oxygen are transparent, the greenhouse gases are opaque and therefore both inhibit the entry and the exit of infrared radiation. Ergo water vapor can clearly be observed as a coolant.When a cloud on a fine sunny day passes across the face of the Sun it cools. When raindrops fall the atmosphere cools. When ocean water evaporates, the sea may warm but the atmosphere above is cooled.The Warmist scientists are not so stupid as to claim that that the greenhouse gases ‘generate’ heat, but their claim effectively is that these same gases prevent ‘heat loss’ – called the greenhouse effect.But greenhouse or ordinary brick-built house is all the same – heat always seeks an equilibrium, which is actually never achieved. In my own house, since I hate the cold, I may have the central heating on for hours, until the temperature has risen to a comfortable degree.What is the difference? My boiler is generating heat. The moment it clocks off at 11 PM the heat disperses. Nothing can prevent this dispersion. The heat will pass through walls, through windows under doors seeking equilibrium with the outside temperature.Why then is equilibrium never achieved? For the very simple reason that the outside air masses are also seeking equilibrium and awaiting the radiation from the Sun.All sorts of other factors kick in. There are winds, there are weather fronts where one mass of warmer air may collide with a colder mass, there is the Coriolis effect, and there are rain and frost. So there is a continuous fight for equilibrium, which is never achieved.We live in a world of flux. Those who attempt to arrive at a global temperature are striving in vain. And those who attempt to blame mankind for upsetting the balance of nature by burning fossil fuels ignore at their peril the enormous cosmic influences, which affect the tides, the monsoons, and even the movements of the continents.Surely the Earth is warming and cooling, surely the climates everywhere are indeed changing and evolving, for in spite of wars and technological advances, the cosmic forces demand that mankind makes progress at an ever increasing speed.To return to my initial question: What heats the air? once we realize that only conduction can possibly heat the air, then all the talk of the greenhouse gases capturing the radiation from the Earth falls into place.So we may pose the question to ourselves? Is there any such thing as anthropological (man-made) global warming? Surprise, surprise!Yes, there is some man-made global warming, by means of the prevention of heat loss, through the greenhouse gases.But since the greenhouse gases are together in sum only 1% of the atmosphere, then only half of 1% can be attributed to mankind, as night follows day.And since nature produces 96% of carbon dioxide and only 4% is produced by man, the effect of mankind on the warming of the Earth can be reduced by a further 96%.So the Warmists may indeed claim 0.0048% of the warming and the Luke Warmers may agree, but dare I say it, the Slayers of the Sky Dragon are the only ones to have understood the whole picture.The quantities I have mentioned are so trifling as to be laughable. In any case, evaporation alone would negate any theoretical warming.How Does The Atmosphere Really Warm Up?

What do you think will be (or currently is) the next major event historians will credit as a crippling blow to human progress?

I’m always careful with such hypotheticals because as we all know; the fundamentally chaotic nature of the universe is of such ass-bending complexity that makesing accurate predictions is basically impossible. Will we die in a nuclear inferno? Will swarms of monstrous Kaiju erupt from deep within the earth’s crust and make potty across all five continents? Will a virulent form of space herpes get carried across the interstellar void and scab up our plumbing to the point where reproduction requires a full set of kebab skewers?I don’t know and neither do you.So, let’s start with what we do know.We’re all fucked.It’s not just that the sun is going to explode in around 4 or five billion years’ time. I mean it is definitely going to do that and you really don’t want to be in the vicinity when that happens. But if you read enough Larry Niven then you’ll come to appreciate that the technology we currently possess is rubbish. We might be able to take some comfort in that. One only has to look back a few decades to realize how crap technology from the past looks today.And I’m not just talking about Tamagotchi.As I write this, the only man-made object to have left our own solar system – Voyager I -- is clipping along at a cool 38,000 mph (61,000 km/h) some 11.7 billion miles (18.8 billion kilometers) above our heads. At that speed, in around 40,000 years’ time it will have a close encounter of the blurred kind with a star called AC +79 3888, which lies around 17.6 light-years from where you are sitting right now.Whilst it seems doubtful that there will be any aliens there to throw the poor old thing the kind of welcoming committee it truly deserves, voyager will continue to orbit the Milky Way for such a long time that we might as well call it forever. And if it ever is picked up by alien intelligences and examined, they will no doubt come to a singular damning conclusion.Its creators were rubbish.OK, maybe that’s not fair. The whole thing is mightily impressed by the standards of the 1970’s, but the fact remains that Voyager has less computing power than you would find in a typical key fob. Yes, that thing that unlocks your car is smarter than our first interstellar spacecraft. Which means that even if you could hack into its systems and reprogram it so that it knew how to unlock your car, it probably wouldn’t be able to do it. And even if it could, even travelling at the speed of light, it would take the signal 17 hours to reach Voyager and another 17 hours for it to transmit back to you. So, if you wanted to use your car at 11am on Tuesday morning you’d have to wake up at 1am on Monday morning in order to unlock it.Using Voyager to unlock your car would be a stupid thing to do.Indeed, as Wire reported back in 2013:“The computers aboard the Voyager probes each have 69.63 kilobytes of memory, total. That’s about enough to store one average internet JPEG file. The probes’ scientific data is encoded on old-fashioned digital 8-track tape machines rather than whatever solid state drive your high-end laptop is currently using. Once it's been transmitted to Earth, the spacecraft has to write over old data in order to have enough room for new observations.”So whilst sitting here in 2017 I can think of few ways that humanity might escape the death of our sun, I do have to acknowledge that the computer I’m typing on is rubbish, the super-fast broadband I’m using to communicate with you is shit and despite being a bastion of modern progressive values by the standards of my time I – or rather my contemporary culture – might one day be the stuff of museum trips where goggle eyes children marvel at the fact that 21st century man watched television instead of having information beamed directly into their cerebral cortex.So maybe we'll have the means to dodge that sun sized bullet when it's lobbed our way.But like I said, it’s not just that.It’s the fact that the universe is going to die of heat death.For those of you who don’t know, heat death will occur because the second law of thermodynamics – which stipulates that the amount of entropy in a system must always increase – demands that it occurs.At least we think it does.The amount of entropy in a system is a measure of how disordered the system is - the higher the entropy, the more disordered it is. Heat-death occurs when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy, when all of the energy has migrated to places of less energy. At this point nothing is happening anymore and you have less chance of extracting a bit of work out of the universe than the White House Chief of Staff has of convincing the President to switch of the news and get something done.Because at that point, the universe is no longer alive.It’s an ex universe, if you will, and no amount of fancy technology or elaborate wearing of cravats is going to change that.And I know what you’re thinking. Considering the year, we just had, heat death sounds like some kind of blessed release but I’m afraid that I’m going to have to put one or two flies in the ointment. Because firstly, it might not even happen if the Universe turns out to be so massive that it falls back in on itself.Talk about fat shaming.And secondly because even if it does happen it’s going to take quite some time. In fact, it’s not going to happen for about 10 to the power of 103 years. And that’s a long time. Long enough that even the Simpsons will have been cancled.So, we’re definitely screwed, but not just yet.So, what is the more immediate danger?It depends on who you ask really.I mean, I know you asked me, but I’m going to spend some time looking at some other opinions.The common thought is that we will blow ourselves up, descend into savagery and become vassals to a race of bipedal primates who have developed a hyoid bone for some reason or another. This, ‘planet of the ape’s theorem,’ is all well and good, but the reality of a nuclear exchange is somewhat less dramatic. Yes, we have the power to render the earth uninhabitable and yes, a nuke is going to go off at some point – it’s pretty much inevitable—but no, not all nuclear conflicts will result in our annihilation and very few of them will produce a race of horse riding apes with bolt action rifles. Donald Trump’s frightening obsession with nuclear weapons is liable to get a lot of people killed it’s true. We might lose Seoul, we might lose Tokyo or even New York.But we’ve lost cities before.Which is not to minimize the risk or the horror of such events. It’s just that they are not likely to result in ‘end of time,’ scenarios.There have been seven world wars that I can think of — each one more devastating than the one that went before it — but the fact remains that the last time great powers fired at one another in anger was in 1945. The systems we put in place to prevent war between such mighty nations were well thought out and robust.The proof of that is in the total lack of nuclear exchange.I know that some madman might get hold of the launch codes and I know that some of you just spat out your tea out in wonder that I’m unaware that Donald Trump and Putin are madmen and they already have hold of the launch codes and yes, you’re right that’s bothersome. But mass-murdering prick though Putin might be, he is nevertheless a pretty shrewd guy. He’s not likely to blow up the world for one simple reason. It’s where he keeps all his stuff.And he likes his stuff.Meanwhile, Trump is no Nihilist either. He probably doesn’t know what the word means and in the unlikely event that he decided to launch an illegal attack, his order would probably be refused or else someone would have the foresight to put a little nutmeg in his hot milk so that he drifted off into a pleasant dream about sharing a hot tub with his eldest daughter.So not war then.At least, not in any way we can predict without succumbing to what is fondly known as ‘Philip K Dick,’ syndrome.What about the end times then? What if the four horsemen of the apocalypse are checking bridles and bits as we speak? What if Trump is the antichrist and hordes of undead are going to be let loose upon this earth to wreak havoc and ruin holidays?Well, since I don’t believe in any of the Sky gods that were invented b Bronze Age man, I’m going to have to nix that one too. If you do ever meet me in hell, feel free to throw another log on the pire to remind me of my hubris.So if not fire and brimstone, then what about some sort of societal malaise? The deprivations of modernity, the depravity and hedonism that will lead us to a latter-day Sodom and Gomora without any need for Angels of death or back door shenanigans?It’s true, that there has been a lot of talk of the post-truth reality we live in and the danger it poses to democracy and whilst I share the concerns of many, I don’t see it as the onset of any fundamental doom. Whilst it is true that the populists are in ascension, the sad reality of their position is that their ideas are shit. And shit is pernicious by evolutionary ‘design.’ A turd that has been sprayed with febreeze still smells like a turd up close .Trust me, I know.One year in, only 32 percent of Americans now support Donald Trump and whilst that number is depressingly high it’s not unusual for roughly one third of any social group – even one writ large across a nation the size of the U.S. – to be composed of abject morons.(I don’t really think they are all morons, calm down.)Nor am I surprised that democracy has gotten into such a sorry state. We invent things, it’s what we do. There are very few people who don’t know who the Wright brothers are (or were I guess,) because they invented the airplane and airplanes transformed the world in wondrous and terrible ways. But they also invented the plane crash. Orville Wright was piloting his flyer in 1908 -- just five years after his first successful flight—when he crashed and produced the world’s first plane crash fatality. His passenger Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge, died in the crash you see. And I know what you are thinking. How ironic it is that the person who invented flying machines just happened to be piloting the first one to go into the ground with enough force to kill somebody. But it’s not ironic at all. It was 1908. There weren’t that many pilots about.Keep up.The concept of the unforeseen down side to otherwise quite lovely things is known as an integral accident and it applies to the invention of pretty much everything humans have ever made; buttons, candy floss, Wankel rotary engines. You name it, if human beings invented it, it comes with some kind of downside.We invented social media. We got Trump and Brexit.Which sucks, but it’s important to note that integral accidents can be mitigated to a certain extent often, after it becomes apparent that the thing we invented is dangerous. Those people that craved a non-politician in the White house are liable to rue the day they voted for Trump and sure a lot of them think that a rue is a precursor to a béchamel sauce and it is, but that's not what I'm getting at here --I don't have time to explain what a homophone is, and even if I did, many would object to it on the grounds that they prefer to eat food that is ‘straight.’Whilst many people still firmly believe that their opinion is as valid as anyone else’s, many more are wakening up to the idea that expertise in any given field warrants some kind of collateral. The fight back might take some time, but sooner or later people will look to experts to fix the mess we’re in. Scoff if you like but before too long, people will want to see the grown-ups in charge again. Brexit might be watered down into a thin soup and Trump’s presidency will one day be a painful memory of instead of the constant kick in the dick it is today.So, I hardly think the collapse of democracy is imminent and nor do I buy the idea that violent revolution is just around the corner. Neoliberalism will either opt to balance the scales to sufficient extent that wealth becomes more evenly distributed or they will go the way of the French Aristocrats circa 1789. That’s a given.But I think that they are liable to see such things coming this time around. Many of the super wealthy are becoming increasingly paranoid about just how monstrously conspicuous their comparative wealth is becoming. Their greed isn’t the issue. It’s the insatiability of their greed that is unacceptable and they going to have to start giving some of it back. People voted for Trump and Brexit as a way of addressing the retrograde slide form prosperity into something that looked like prosperity but smelled a bit like a Taco Bell supper. Right diagnosis, wrong cure. Next time around it might be a Jeremy Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders grabbing the protest vote and at that point, we’re liable to see some Lockean repositioning take place.So, what does that leave us with?I hate to bring this up really because it’s one of those answers that I could have just led with. I chose not to because – well – because it’s snowing outside; the fire is burning and I live in a plush loft apartment in a building inhabited primarily by hipster doofuses and aging lothario foreign language lecturers.So, it’s quiet and warm, somewhere in the building a man is wearing a beret, smoking a cigarillo and listening to experimental jazz.And I like to write.But you know what I’m going to say anyway.The next event that historians are likely to see as a crippling blow to humanity is climate change.I told you that you weren’t going to like it.Geoffrey Parker’s War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century is one of the most important history books ever written. It’s also very long book which is why it’s rather fortunate that I agreed to write the Cliff notes for it that you can find here. I usually only do political philosophy.So, here I am then, plagiarizing myself.“Parker, takes things further than most in his quest to understand the meaning of a century’s-worth of turbulence spread across the whole globe. Beginning by breaking down the evidence for significant climatic cooling in the 17th-century (due to decreased solar activity), he moves on to detailed study of the effects the cooling had on societies and regimes across the world. From this detailed spadework, he constructs a persuasive argument that accounts for the different ways in which the effects of climate change played out across the century – an argument with profound implications for a future likely to see serious climate change of its own.”The important take home from all of this is that Parker was not suggesting that the climate changes of the past had anything whatsoever to do with humans. The climatic cooling of the 17th century was entirely non- anthropogenic in nature. Humans had begun to globalize its true, and we’d certainly started polluting the atmosphere what with the burning of peat and the shallow mining of coal. But such efforts were -- to use the words of Professor Parker -- ‘small and twatty,’ compared to the kind of polluting we do today.Ok, those are my words not his.However, regardless of whether or not the sudden drop in temperature had anything to do with humans or not is entirely beside the point. The general crisis of the 17th century has long been known as one of the shittiest periods in human history and in Global crisis, Parker makes a convincing case that the general crisis not only had an awful lot to do with the weather but that the impact of climate change was felt across the entire surface of the planet. Indeed, as Trevor Roper once noted, the crisis left the seventeenth century “broken in the middle, irreparably broken.”The freak weather conditions and abnormally cold summers around the world damaged crops and helped cause widespread famine and disease. These had a devastating effect around the world, wiping out millions of people. Coupled with this, rampant political mismanagement made things worse. Much worse. Parker argued that a “fatal synergy” between the two phenomena – climate change and political incompetence – which came together to cause “recession and revolution around the world,” lasting for two generations and convincing those who lived through it that they faced “unprecedented hardships.”And what hardships they were.The seventeenth century saw more wars and political turmoil than ever before in human history. Between 1636 and 1666, 49 major revolts and revolutions took place across the world. There were 27 in Europe (including Russia and Turkey), 7 in the Americas, and 15 in Asia and Africa.In several cases local conflicts triggered much longer, more widespread, more destructive wars. The Bohemian revolt of 1618 helped start The Thirty Years War, “a prolonged conflict that lasted three decades and eventually involved all the major states of Europe.” A Manchurian war against the Chinese emperor the same year led to 70 years of fighting in the region.And it all took place “against a background of extreme weather events” related to global climate change.Sub-Saharan Africa endured a drought from 1614 to 1619. In Europe, 1616 was known as the “year without a summer” and was the wettest in 500 years.Droughts affected whole swathes of North and South America, while both Europe and the Middle East suffered intense cold during 1620. Such conditions laid waste to crops and livestock, leading to widespread food shortages and famine.A fatal synergy indeed.Such observations don’t reveal anything particularly novel of course. Politics is all about property or—in the modern age – money. Money is an expression of resources – crops, human labor, cravats, mogwai, bottles of imported water, jams and custards. Anything that can be traded – including abstract concepts such as debt and risk – can be boiled down to some kind of resource. Which is interesting because humanity at heart relies only on one commodity.The sun.Oh, I know that I said it was going to blow up – and it will – and I also know that ‘man cannot live on sunbeam alone,’ but we live in a solar economy nonetheless. Our local star grows the crops, warms the oceans, created conditions ripe for the laying down of fossil fuels, allows oxygen to exist in gaseous form and has an indirect influence on the sale of millinery to bald men.Oh, and it drives the weather.The link between weather and property should be obvious to anyone who has tried to button their coat up as a hurricane approaches a coastal town. I have, and as one button came free of its bearings it flew from my coat and literally exploded upon contact with a nearby wall.There are few things that can so emphatically convince a person to go indoors than a ‘button bullet.’And it’s not just that strong winds tend to blow things down. Slight variation in temperature averages can have an egregious effect on the human ecosystem. The apathetic Sun Spot activity that coincided with the 17th century’s Little Ice Age froze the Thames solid enough that in both 1683 and 1684, fairs were held on it. The first of these fairs occurred in 1607, the last in 1814.But there were also famines, storms, logistical nightmares and monetary crisis. And since politics is all about property, the political classes were met with challenges that they were woefully ill equipped to deal with and no number of ice skating elephants on major European rivers were going to change that. Farms were destroyed by encroaching glaciers. The golden Horn – In Turkey – froze in 1622. In 1658 a Swedish army marched across the sea and invaded nearby Denmark. Norse colonies in Greenland starved to death. Iceland was surrounded by permanent sheet ice; the population halved. The button, stoves, and ceramic tiles were all invented. Viticulture disappeared from northern climates, famines killed off around 10 percent of the human population which – of course – led to an explosion of Witch Hunts as the authorities decided to blame crop failure on single women.(There have pretty much always been Republicans.)In other words, climate change – despite not having been caused by human action -- nevertheless had a dramatic effect on the human population. Climate change, property, political crisis. The three go hand in hand.In the wake of such evidence, it is hard to imagine how the Earth’s next phase of anthropogenic climate change is set to challenge humanity. It might seem fairly benign right now. A few hot summers, some particularly virulent hurricane seasons, footage of starving polar bears, sheets of ice the size of Belgium sheering away from the Antarctic ice shelf… Coral bleaching, sea levels that rose 8 inches during the 20th century and may rise 16 inches during this one. Ocean acidification, extreme weather events, potato farming in Greenland, early snow melts, glacial retreats and a big question mark surrounding what the hell we’re going to do with all the dead Penguins once shit gets too warm for them.Actually, none of it is benign at all. It’s already scary as all hell.But it’s all merely a series of monstrously unpleasant hor d'oeuvre. Like vol-au-vents filled with bits of bee sick. Wait, no, that’s honey.People like honey.It’s more like a plate of sliders made of pig snouts and trifle… or … something like that.Let’s be clear.We’re not ‘doing nothing.’Any predictions as to what the planet is going to look like in 2100 is dependent on the actions that we take today. A favorite refrain of climate change skeptics is to point to the fact that so few of us are currently underwater whilst ignoring the fact that we have acted to mitigate the damage that has already been done. Fears of an ever-expanding hole in the ozone layer – something that if left unchecked would have led to skyrocketing cancers – cannot now be dismissed as environmental hysteria. The hole closed because the international community got together and restricted the use of CFC’s. You can’t put out a fire and then run through the burned brush telling everyone that “it’s not hot at all,” and that “CNN’s reporting of California wild fires was fake news.”That’s not a QED moment.So, what are we doing?The Paris Agreement hammered out by delegates from 196 countries in December 2015, calls for holding the ongoing rise in global average temperature to “well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels,” while “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C.What? That’s it? I just put my heating up by that much and I’m still a bit cold.Well, it does sound that way yes, but those who read the mashed potato analogy from an answer I gave here will understand that a two degree change in temperature can bring with it cataclysmic changes.According to NASA:The European Geosciences Union published a study in April 2016 that examined the impact of a 1.5 degree Celsius vs. a 2.0 C temperature increase by the end of the century, given what we know so far about how climate works. It found that the jump from 1.5 to 2 degrees—a third more of an increase—raises the impact by about that same fraction, very roughly, on most of the phenomena the study covered. Heat waves would last around a third longer, rain storms would be about a third more intense, the increase in sea level would be approximately that much higher and the percentage of tropical coral reefs at risk of severe degradation would be roughly that much greater.But in some cases, that extra increase in temperature makes things much direr. At 1.5 C, the study found that tropical coral reefs stand a chance of adapting and reversing a portion of their die-off in the last half of the century. But at 2 C, the chance of recovery vanishes. Tropical corals are virtually wiped out by the year 2100.With a 1.5 C rise in temperature, the Mediterranean area is forecast to have about 9 percent less fresh water available. At 2 C, that water deficit nearly doubles. So, does the decrease in wheat and maize harvest in the tropics.On a global scale, production of wheat and soy is forecast to increase with a 1.5 C temperature rise, partly because warming is favorable for farming in higher latitudes and partly because the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is largely responsible for the temperature increase, is thought to have a fertilization effect. But at 2 C, that advantage plummets by 700 percent for soy and disappears entirely for wheat.Shit!Much of the food we eat is already close to a thermal limit anyway and that does not take into account the fact that pests and pathogens may spread more rapidly at higher temperatures. At certain temperature thresholds, crops don’t die but nor do they produce seeds and if you’re thinking ‘Fuck it, I’ll just eat burgers without the bun well, what the fuck are you going to feed the cows on Einstein?Huh? Didn’t think of that did you huh?Actually, you probably did, I’m making unnecessarily harsh judgments about your intelligence.Soz.Growing corn that does not produce a corncob might be fun for a while but it will get old super-fast especially for vegetarians like me. It’s literally the only thing on the menu at KFC that I can eat.Not that I’ve ever been to KFC but you know, never say never.Now, you might be thinking that all of this has a lot more to do with climatology and horticulture than it does with politics but that’s simply not the case. Going back to the notion that politics is property and property is money we come back full circle to the notion that if climate change is not kept in check then things are liable to get a bit ‘wiggy.’“But,” I hear you say. “Can’t we just science the hell out of the problem?”The temptation to assume that new technologies might swoop in and save us is ever present in discussions about such matters. After all, during the Little Ice Age, people invented stoves and buttons. And I applaud their innovations but I’m sorry, I don’t share the optimism of some of the more exuberant climate change enablers. To begin with there is no guarantee that we will indeed come up with a series of technical innovations robust enough to save the day. Sure, give it up for buttons but most technology we make today revolves around the size of -- or indeed absence of -- bezels around increasingly foolish looking mobile phones. Such technology is far from being ‘green’ in any way shape or form. Apple refuses to tell us how much pollution went into producing its batteries, screens, chipboards and earphones and all the coal and gas burned to manufacture, ship and assemble iPhone parts doesn’t get included in a corporation’s environmental rating. But the very fact that they won’t tell us, tells us that their phones are grubby little pieces of shiny consumerism so desirable, so sensual that we just ‘gots to have them.’Let’s face it, our technology, however much we love it and wish it was not so, is really, really dirty.So, there’s that.Of more concern is the fact that such technology might be reactionary. Houses mounted with retractable pontoons aren’t a thing and they won’t be a thing until people start realizing that retractable pontoons become an absolute must item – a flotation, flotation, flotation mantra if you will.That’s a good joke if you’re British. You’ll just have to trust me.What all this boils down to is at the very least some kind of severe economic stress and at the worst the end of all civilization. The latter is no good. We know this for two reasons.1. Thomas Hobbes warned us that in a world without the state there would be:“No place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society. And what is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”2. We’ve all seen the walking dead and know that the zombies are the least of people’s problems.Which is not to say that the severe economic stress brought on by climate change will be a walk in the park. As if we hadn’t seen enough evidence of the dangers of economic stress form Geoffrey Parker’s analysis of the global crisis, we have plenty of examples of things going tits up without any egging on whatsoever from a slew of crappy weather events. The collapse of Weimar Germany, the Russian revolution, revolutionary France, the fall of Rome, Trump and Brexit! All these events were brought on via economic stresses. The Ming empire collapsed – in 1644 -- in the middle of a famine. The Russian Rurik dynasty came to its end during the ‘time of troubles’ a period that began in 1598 and ended in 1613. That the great Russian famine of 1601 -1603 – an event that killed 2 million Russians one third of the entire population – took place slap bang in the middle of the interregnum is no coincidence.Bad economy, bad politics. Hungry people are easily radicalized. Aggrieved people are unpredictable creatures.Trump decided that Americans didn’t want anything to do with the Paris agreements and that’s fine. It remains one of the most shortsighted and petulant acts of recent political memory but oh well, what do we really expect from a man who is to a basket of dildos what a carrot is to another near-identical carrot. His sulking is unlikely to derail the process not least of all because by the time the U.S. officially withdraws, there is a strong chance that he will no longer be president.Even so, there remains a chance that the accords will fail, that other nations will jump ship or that our calculations are off. I If we hit a 2 or 3 degree increase in global temperatures then we will be hard pressed to deal with the consequences. Extreme weather events will multiply, sixty-foot high Kaiju will destroy city after city, the pomegranate will become extinct, cheese will lose its flavor and all around the world those hit hardest by economic downturns – the poor and ill-educated – will suffer.And in their suffering, they might decide to vote in a lunatic.And that scares me.Or it would do but for two things.I’ll probably allready be dead.Even if not, I built a bunker in the basement that the sales people assure me Godzilla himself could not break into.Sleep tight.For general musings or indeed if you want to contact me / yell at me or ask for my phone number, you can contact me via Twitter.

People Trust Us

It is free and downloable, what else can I ask for, many of the things that you do with PDFCreator are for pay in others app, I like a lit the possibility to add my personal sign to the files, and make my files more secure creating a very high encrypted password.

Justin Miller