Emergency Action Plan Review Components Incomplete Meets: Fill & Download for Free

No. Scientists do not say we should ‘combat climate change.’ They say there is no scientific evidence humans are having any separate and measurable effect on the climate. Natural variation explains the past and current state of the climate.The best evidence is that anthropogenic global warming is modest and benign, and rising CO2 levels are beneficial, rather than harmful, for both mankind and most natural ecosystems.“That’s why over 30,000 American scientists (including me DAVE BURTON) have signed the “Global Warming Petition” attesting to the fact that:“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”Dave Burton, IPCC AR5 WGI expert reviewerThink about this fact. In 1995 2000+ climate scientists from around the world working on the UN IPCC project concluded as follows:In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”Instead of accepting the uncertainty of our complex climate and the difficulty of finding evidence that parses or separates human effects from the dominant natural effects the draft summary was ignored along with the scientists plea for more research with a detailed program outlined. No the UN General Assembly leaders took over the science Report without any credibility and published this dishonest conclusion.“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”This sordid story of mendacity is told objectively and documented by Bernie Lewin in this book -The author allows these select passages from his book for discussion. They show how the IPCC was threatened with extinction for failing to find human climate change and then the political arm of the UN interfered and fudged the reports using the scandalout Michael Mann fudged hockey stick graphs that erased conventional history of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. -Following the welcoming addresses by the Italian President and Environment Minister, there first came Patrick Obasi, Secretary General of the WMO. At the conclusion of a speech mostly making recommendations for the future direction of the IPCC, he noted that the most important result in the current assessment is the evidence for a ‘discernible human influence on global climate’.682 Next came the new head of UNEP, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who opened with the now familiar narrative of triumph: A decade ago, the scientific community alerted the world to the likelihood that we humans are causing the global climate to change. Five years ago, you said you were very confident that this is indeed the case, but that it would be ten years before we would experience any consequences. Now, just five years later, you are reporting that effects of global warming are upon us. As you put it in your report, ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’.683 Later in her speech, this key component of the report’s message is summarised, without qualification, as ‘human activities are affecting the global climate’ and so… For the first time, we have evidence that a signal of global warming is beginning to emerge from the ‘noise’ of natural variability. In other words, you [the IPCC] have given the world a reality check. You have pinched us and we have realised we are not dreaming. Climate change is with us. The question is: what do we do with this knowledge?684Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 286-287). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.A fudged hockey stick by Mann saved the IPCC from being damned out of existenceUnder Houghton and Watson the IPCC third assessment would champion the work of another young scientist who in 1998 produced a temperature trend graph that seemed to have solved Barnett’s problem of a natural variability ‘yardstick’. Using proxy data stretching back to the end of the Medieval Warm Period and instrumental data for the last 100 years, Michael Mann’s results showed such a rapid general warming trend over the last 100 years that it towered over previous fluctuations, thus leaving no room for doubt that something extraordinary is now underway.735Mann soon extended his study back across an entire millennium and this so-called ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is what featured in the IPCC third assessment report. When the report was released in 2001, the graph was the most spectacular vehicle for its promotion; it was also later widely used by governments promoting emissions-reduction policies.These campaigns were not unduly affected by the concerns that were soon raised about the methodology of the graph’s construction, nor by the ensuing Hockey Stick controversy, which would grow to be much larger and endure much longer than the Chapter 8 controversy.736 Instead, the visual impact of the Hockey Stick continued to overwhelm any doubt that there was already a discernible human influence on the global climate.If we consider the other lead authors of Chapter 8, we find that they would suffer little from the controversy, but they won none of the accolades afforded Santer, which is hardly surprising given that they were not always entirely in accord with the IPCC line. Tom Wigley’s expressed scepticism of the science behind climate action extended beyond the determination of natural variability. We will remember that just after the lead author meeting in Asheville he had published a commentary on the Met Office’s neat tracking of the recent global temperature trend, questioning the simulation of the sulphate effect and the apparent success of the modelling prediction. But even before Asheville he also questioned the scientific-economic rationale behind the rush towards emissions reduction. Collaborating with energy economists on a study partly funded by the energy industry, he concluded that it is not advisable to start curbing emissions for another 30 years.* Still, he remained fiercely loyal to Santer during the Chapter 8 controversy and to all the scientists working under the funding generated by the scare. His continuing `loyal opposition’ is particularly evident in emails leaked in 2009, which show that during the Hockey Stick controversy he was at the same time working hard behind the scenes to fend off skeptics while privately agreeing with much of the criticism of Mann’s work.* 738Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 308-309). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.Sanders is a left wing politician and this group sadly have a reputation of not telling the truth about the science.– Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity tobring about justice and equality in the world.”– Christine Stewart,The truth is the science of human caused global warming is just as Christine Stewart said ‘mostly phony.’Some famous left intellectuals like CAMILLE PAGLIA are embarrassed by the Bernie Sanders lack of scientific erudition.I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from Leonardo DiCaprio, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years. [Empasis added]Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.https://www.salon.com/2007/10/10...Camille PagliaCamille Paglia is a second-wave feminist and an American academic specializing in literature and culture, particularly topics around gender, sex, and sexuality. She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines.The Post's ViewOpinionBernie Sanders’s climate plan will take us nowhereSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leaves after visiting the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 11 in Des Moines. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)By Editorial BoardAugust 25, 2019 at 2:58 p.m. PDTSEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.) released a climate plan last week. In his characteristic style, he excited a class of left-wing ideologues — and elicited eye rolls from everyone else.The proposal calls for $16.3 trillion in new spending over a decade to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in electricity production and transportation by 2030 — nearly 10 times the amount former vice president and fellow Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed spending. By 2050, the country would no longer produce net greenhouse gas emissions. At least this latter goal is right. So much else in the plan is wrongheaded.Mr. Sanders would spend more than $2 trillion to build new wind, solar and geothermal electricity-production infrastructure through government-run utilities. He would spend another $2 trillion buying people electric cars. Though he proposes totally electrifying car and truck transportation, he also wants to spend $607 billion linking U.S. cities with high-speed rail, which, under his plan, would represent a major cost for meager carbon benefits.ADMr. Sanders insists that his plan would be paid for through new taxes levied against fossil-fuel companies, cuts in military spending and new income tax revenue from the jobs he claims his plan would create. The senator promises 20 million “good-paying, unionized jobs.” Only about 6.1 million people are unemployed in the United States. Though some currently employed Americans could try to trade up to the cushy gigs envisioned by Mr. Sanders, many of them would not have the skills required to weatherize homes or install solar panels.Mr. Sanders also promises to make his plan unnecessarily expensive by ruling out a long-established source of carbon-free electricity: nuclear power. Not only would he halt the building of new plants, but he also would deny re-licensing to the existing ones that now provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.As with practically every grandiose program Mr. Sanders proposes, we are left wondering what the democratic socialist would actually do as president. Nothing resembling his climate plan could pass Congress, even with a strong Democratic majority. Mr. Sanders typically retorts that he will lead a political revolution. But he will not change the fact that the nation is ideologically pluralistic.ADOn climate policy, the key is to get the most bang for the nation’s buck. The task is so large that direct government spending on projects such as power plants is a recipe for unconscionable waste. Mr. Sanders’s promise to divert national wealth into proven boondoggles such as high-speed rail is another red flag.No central planner can know exactly how and where to invest for an efficient and effective energy transition. That is why economists continue to recommend that the government take a simple, two-pronged approach: invest in scientific research and prime the market to accept new, clean technologies with a substantial and steadily rising carbon tax. People and businesses would find the most effective ways to avoid the increasingly high, tax-inflated costs of using dirty fuels. Maybe that would mean building huge new solar farms throughout the country. Maybe it would mean massive energy efficiency gains driven by home retrofits or new appliances. Maybe it would mean continuing to accept some role for nuclear power.We do not know, precisely, what the most efficient path looks like. We are also certain that Mr. Sanders does not.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-climate-plan-will-take-us-nowhere/2019/08/25/4e780768-c5c3-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.htmlI think we underestimate the size of the atmosphere and the complexity of natural forces. We have a greatly exaggerated view of our place. We fail to see the atmosphere in perspective. As this chart shows both natural and industrial Co2 are too little to control the climate.Think about it how could this sliver of Co2 gas at 0.03% have such a big role in the climate? Of course it does not. Also Co2 is essential to life on earth as the invisible non-toxic vital plant food through the ‘micro factory’ of photosynthesisPhotosynthesis consumes carbon dioxide to create carbohydratesCo2 IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE ON OUR PLANETCo2 is the air we breath out at 35,000 ppm with every breath. It is necessary for life on the planet through the process of photosynthesis converting radiant energy to chemical.Nature's smallest factory: The Calvin cycle - Cathy SymingtonPhotosynthesis Process Step by StepBy definition, photosynthesis is a process by which photoautotrophs convert the energy derived from the Sun into usable chemical energy. Light, water, chlorophyll, and carbon dioxide are the basic requirements for this process.Step 1Carbon 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.Step 2Water enters the leaves, primarily through the roots. These roots are especially designed to draw the ground water and transport it to the leaves through the stem.Step 3As sunlight falls on the leaf surface, the chlorophyll, i.e., the green pigment present in the plant leaf, traps the energy in it. Interestingly, the green color of the leaf is also attributed to presence of chlorophyll.Step 4Then hydrogen and oxygen are produced by converting water using the energy derived from the Sun. Hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide in order to make food for the plant, while oxygen is released through the stomata. Similarly, even algae and bacteria use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to prepare food, while oxygen is let out as a waste product.The electrons from the chlorophyll molecules and protons from the water molecules facilitate chemical reactions in the cell. These reactions produce ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which provides energy for cellular reactions, and NADP (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide diphosphate), essential in plant metabolism.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.While we take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide to produce energy, plants take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen to produce energy.Photosynthesis has several benefits, not just for the photoautotrophs, but also for humans and animals. The chemical energy stored in plants is transferred to animals and humans when they consume plant matter. It also helps in maintaining a normal level of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Almost all the oxygen present in the atmosphere can be attributed to this process, which also means that respiration and photosynthesis go together.https://biologywise.com/process-...The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.A PINCH OF SALTA much more accurate metaphor for Co2 is the well known “a pinch of salt makes everything taste better.” The minute amount of salt like Co2 has a chemical reaction with food making it more sugary and less bitter. But like Co2 a pinch of salt is too small to warm the food or the planet.It helps to gain perspective OF HOW MINUTE CO2 IS with a picture graph.The yellow sphere represents 1 to 2,500 molecules which is the amount of CO2 amongst the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. TRY TO APPLY THIS MINUTE AMOUNT OF CO2 TO THE NEXT GRAPH OF A GREENHOUSE COVERING THE EARTH. Not possible to even imagine.THIS IS THE FAKE GREENHOUSE OF ALARMISM WITH NO PANELS COVERED WITH MINUTE AMOUNTS OF CO2.There is too little Co2 to COVER ANYTHING this means carbon dioxide has no meaningful role in the earth’s climate. The use of a greenhouse has a climate metaphor is the heart of great misunderstanding.The Post's ViewOpinionBernie Sanders’s climate plan will take us nowhereSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leaves after visiting the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 11 in Des Moines. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)By Editorial BoardAugust 25, 2019 at 2:58 p.m. PDTSEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.) released a climate plan last week. In his characteristic style, he excited a class of left-wing ideologues — and elicited eye rolls from everyone else.The proposal calls for $16.3 trillion in new spending over a decade to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in electricity production and transportation by 2030 — nearly 10 times the amount former vice president and fellow Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed spending. By 2050, the country would no longer produce net greenhouse gas emissions. At least this latter goal is right. So much else in the plan is wrongheaded.Mr. Sanders would spend more than $2 trillion to build new wind, solar and geothermal electricity-production infrastructure through government-run utilities. He would spend another $2 trillion buying people electric cars. Though he proposes totally electrifying car and truck transportation, he also wants to spend $607 billion linking U.S. cities with high-speed rail, which, under his plan, would represent a major cost for meager carbon benefits.ADMr. Sanders insists that his plan would be paid for through new taxes levied against fossil-fuel companies, cuts in military spending and new income tax revenue from the jobs he claims his plan would create. The senator promises 20 million “good-paying, unionized jobs.” Only about 6.1 million people are unemployed in the United States. Though some currently employed Americans could try to trade up to the cushy gigs envisioned by Mr. Sanders, many of them would not have the skills required to weatherize homes or install solar panels.Mr. Sanders also promises to make his plan unnecessarily expensive by ruling out a long-established source of carbon-free electricity: nuclear power. Not only would he halt the building of new plants, but he also would deny re-licensing to the existing ones that now provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.As with practically every grandiose program Mr. Sanders proposes, we are left wondering what the democratic socialist would actually do as president. Nothing resembling his climate plan could pass Congress, even with a strong Democratic majority. Mr. Sanders typically retorts that he will lead a political revolution. But he will not change the fact that the nation is ideologically pluralistic.ADOn climate policy, the key is to get the most bang for the nation’s buck. The task is so large that direct government spending on projects such as power plants is a recipe for unconscionable waste. Mr. Sanders’s promise to divert national wealth into proven boondoggles such as high-speed rail is another red flag.No central planner can know exactly how and where to invest for an efficient and effective energy transition. That is why economists continue to recommend that the government take a simple, two-pronged approach: invest in scientific research and prime the market to accept new, clean technologies with a substantial and steadily rising carbon tax. People and businesses would find the most effective ways to avoid the increasingly high, tax-inflated costs of using dirty fuels. Maybe that would mean building huge new solar farms throughout the country. Maybe it would mean massive energy efficiency gains driven by home retrofits or new appliances. Maybe it would mean continuing to accept some role for nuclear power.We do not know, precisely, what the most efficient path looks like. We are also certain that Mr. Sanders does not.Read more:Hugh Hewitt: If you take climate change seriously, get on the Bernie busDavid Von Drehle: Trump’s wall is child’s play compared to Bernie Sanders’s climate planKatrina vanden Heuvel: Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media biasPaul Waldman: The single clearest choice voters will face in 2020The Post’s View: Want a Green New Deal? Here’s a better one.Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)I am going to outline peer reviewed papers published in major journals that support the above. I challenge those who disagree to reveal just one peer reviewed paper that contradicts the conclusion of 2000 + IPCC working group 1 scientists in 1995 as follows -2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.Why do we need more study of the question of human caused climate change. The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said there are too many uncertainties and we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.11.1 IntroductionPresent shortcomings include Significant uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding* the sensitivity of the global average temperature and mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,* Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic impacts, such that current climate change predictions have little meaning for any particular location,* Uncertainty in the timing ot the expected climate change,* Uncertainty in the natural variationsTo overcome these shortcomings, substantial improvements are required in scientific understanding which will depend on the creative ettorts of individual scientists and groups. Nevertheless the scale of the task demands international coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system we must recognize that this system is influenced by a complex array of interacting physical chemical and biological processes The scientific strategy to address these processes must include both observation and modelling. We must be able to understand the mechanisms responsible for past and present variations and to incorporate these mechanisms into suitable models ot the natural system. The models can then be run forward in time to simulate the evolution of the climate system. Such a programme includes three essential step* Analysis of observational data, often obtained from incomplete and indirect measurements, to produce coherent information and understanding,* Application of observational information and under standing to construct and validate time-dependent mathematical models of natural processes,* Running such models forward to produce predictions that can (and must) be tested against observations to determine their "skill" or reliability over relatively short time-periods.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...Sadly the IPCC politicians wrote the final report and the “Summary”. The changed completely the intent of the ‘scientists’ doubts. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”This conclusion is simply false yet since 1995 the UN IPCC has proceeded as though it was true. Why?“As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all,it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”– Michael Mann (Climategate Emails)WE need to get some broad based support,to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statementsand make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balanceis between being effective and being honest.“– Prof. Stephen Schneider,Stanford Professor of Climatology,lead author of many IPCC reportsHere is a brief analysis of why we need more study of ‘global warming’ -. In summary, nothing humans do will significantly affect this planet’s climate. The AGW hypothesis has now been shown to be false. None of the predictions made in the past by alarmists have come to pass. All of the models developed by the IPCC and other similar bodies based on CO2 being something that causes warming have been grossly inaccurate. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are having very little effect on the world’s climate. The rising CO2 level is good for plants and marine life and is therefore good for humans. Just about everything to do with this movement, including its bogus 97% consensus, is fraudulent, ie, attempting to gain a benefit through deception…Many people will trot out the fact that CO2 preferentially absorbs certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation and, as a consequence it becomes hotter than the surrounding molecules of oxygen and nitrogen which largely comprise the air we breathe. They will tell you that this has been known since the late 1800’s as if that gives it a certain amount of credibility. Often this will be accompanied by an illustration of an ancient but interesting piece of laboratory equipment such as a microscope and spectrometer. The objective of this is to suggest that you are intellectually slow for not being aware of this fact. From that they make the giant leap that 400 molecules of CO2 in an atmosphere of 1 million molecules will somehow magically heat up those 1 million molecules. It doesn’t. In fact there are two laws of thermodynamics which say they have little overall effect at all.The first law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In other words when the sun’s energy falls on earth it will be absorbed by many things to a greater or lesser degree. Radiation that is not caught by, for example, a CO2 molecule will be caught by water vapour, other gaseous molecules that comprise the atmosphere, vegetation, water (mainly rivers & oceans) and the land. CO2 is not going to magically increase the amount of energy that is falling on the earth.The 2nd law of Thermodynamics states that when a body is hotter than its surroundings it will radiate its heat. So when a CO2 molecule absorbs a portion of the sun’s energy, it becomes warmer than its surround and it radiates its energy in all directions. This is important. Depending on how high the molecule is off the earth’s surface, most of the radiation from the CO2 molecule is away from the earth back into space. In other words, the CO2 molecule catches some of the sun’s radiation heading to earth and effectively reflects the majority of this radiation back into space. When a molecule does radiate back towards space, this radiation is likely to be absorbed by other molecules of different natures and these then also radiate most of their energy back into space. And so the process goes.Kevin Loughrey, New South WalesSo there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.Dr. Richard LindzenFull lecture here - https://www.thegwpf.org/content/...I will document in detail the published scientific research papers that support the above summary of Keven Loughrey and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen.Let’s start with the report of the UN IPCC Working Group 1 summary of 2000 climate scientists studying the issue for 5 years. Here is their conclusion -Think about it surely if there was any scientific research supporting human climate change all these scientists would have found it and they would not report - 2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”Recently, Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis further correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change. There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.I will rebut the false view of other answers to this question by documenting in detail major research studies in major journals like NATURAL SCIENCE, NATURE and ATMOSPHERE AND OCEANIC PHYSICS that demolish so called climate change and are ignored.As a starter here are four ABSTRACTS from leading scientists debunking climate change. There are more. A summary of each with more detail following. I ask readers if they have seen any reference to these very relevant science papers in the media? I HAVE NOT. The media continues to toot the lie about 97% CONSENSUS.1. It is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures. [Emphasis added]Cite this paperKramm, G. and Dlugi, R. (2011) Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact. Natural Science, 3,2. Their study published in NATURE confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURAL and solar not Co2 The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院https://www.nature.com/articles/...3. The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, [Emphasis added] in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph) Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009 DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph] (or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)4. ‘STUDY BLOWS 'GREENHOUSE THEORY OUT OF THE WATER''All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control'The paper, published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist.Karl Zeller and Ned NikolovThey conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.“Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature] and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System,” the paper explains.“This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth,” the study continues.ABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quan- tifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures. [Emphasis added]Cite this paperKramm, G. and Dlugi, R. (2011) Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact. Natural Science, 3,The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordNew research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy.The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.My comments published by NATURE.James Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/...JAMES MATKIN•2017-08-23 10:03 PMThe great failure of the Paris accord is the failure to accept that the IPCC Al Gore hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is not settled science. Indeed, none of the predictions of doom have occurred. New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. The “driving force” of climate change is natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming. The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院 Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NOT ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are “the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.” The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record This means that climate change cannot be stopped as Paris attendees believed. Co2 is very beneficial plant food and we need more not less. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013... It is good news for civilization that the Paris targets are not being met around thttps://www.nature.com/news/prov...GERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPERFalsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, [Emphasis added] in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)PEER REVIEWIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 75 reviewers, both internal and external (90%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.Greenhouse Gas Climate Science Is Broken Beyond RepairPublished on July 30, 2018Written by Hans SchreuderIn earlier centuries, science had a positive influence on society in developing social awareness around objectivity and rationality.It replaced the witchcraft and hocus pocus of charlatans with evaluation of objective evidence as the means of determining truth. But now, science is leading the pack for charlatanism and witchcraft, as junk science is acquiring a greater legitimacy than the charlatans ever had.Wherever there is corruption in science the most important, underlying facts are contrived, while science is applied to more superficial elements of the subject. Omitting the science where it is most relevant isn’t an error, it is fraud. That’s why the word fraud must be used in describing the major corruptions of science.Nowadays, science bureaucrats require that every detail of research be described in grant proposals; and in the laboratory, the researchers can do nothing but fill in the blanks with numbers. The claim is that doing otherwise would be defrauding the public. So the research has to be done at a desk instead of the laboratory.Science bureaucrats are not politicians. They are scientists who put themselves in competition with the scientists in the laboratories. The editors and reviewers of science journals do the same. The result is that the laboratory scientists are dominated by office scientists who dictate how their work will be designed and reported.Madness has taken over the western world, an insanity that demands we destroy ourselves over the ludicrous claim that a tiny increase of a trace gas (carbon dioxide) has endangered the world due to an even more ludicrous “atmospheric greenhouse effect“.Let me therefore conclude my “I Love My Carbon Dioxide” mission by stating the following, which is in the tradition of proper science, not radiative forcing’s greenhouse effect pseudo-science:The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.2 .Considering, therefore, that even inside an actual greenhouse with a barrier of solid glass no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect occurs, most certainly there can be no greenhouse effect in our turbulent atmosphere.Energy can not be created from nothing, not even by means of re-radiated infra red. Widely accepted theory has it that more energy is re-radiated to earth than comes from the sun in the first place, amounting to almost an extra two suns. All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise.A block of ice in a room does not cause the room to warm up, despite the block of ice radiating its energy into the room.Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead.The accepted carbon dioxide greenhouse theory is thus declared a complete and total scam, as more fully detailed in these papers, amongst many (and I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject) :“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” https://tech-know-group.com/arch... and “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics”https://ilovemycarbondioxide.com...Hans SchreuderIpswich, UKwww.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.htmlwww.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html‘STUDY BLOWS 'GREENHOUSE THEORY OUT OF THE WATER''All observed climatic changes have natural causes completely outside of human control'The paper, published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist.Karl Zeller and Ned NikolovThey conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature ModelNed T. Nikolov, Dr. Ir. M. Menco B. Ph., Karl F. ZellerPublished 2017New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature ModelNed T. Nikolov, Dr. Ir. M. Menco B. Ph., Karl F. ZellerPublished 2017In a recent study Volokin and ReLlez [1] demonstrated that the strength of Earth’s atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (GE) is about 90 K instead of 33 K as presently assumed by most researchers [2-7]. The new estimate corrected a long-standing mathematical error in the application of the Stefan–Boltzmann (SB) radiation law to a sphere pertaining to Hölder’s inequality between integrals. Since the current greenhouse theory strives to explain GE solely through a retention (trapping) of outgoing long-wavelength (LW) radiation by atmospheric gases [2,5,710], a thermal enhancement of 90 K creates a logical conundrum, since satellite observations constrain the global atmospheric LW absorption to 155–158 W m-2 [11-13]. Such a flux might only explain a surface warming up to 35 K. Hence, more than 60% of Earth’s 90 K atmospheric effect appears to remain inexplicable in the context of the current theory. Furthermore, satelliteand surface-based radiation measurements have shown [12-14] that the lower troposphere emits 42-44% more radiation towards the surface (i.e. 341-346 W m-2) than the net shortwave flux delivered to the Earth-atmosphere system by the Sun (i.e. 240 W m-2). In other words, the lower troposphere contains significantly more kinetic energy than expected from solar heating alone, a conclusion also supported by the new 90 K GE estimate. A similar but more extreme situation is observed on Venus as well, where the atmospheric downwelling LW radiation near the surface (>15,000 W m-2) exceeds the total absorbed solar flux (65–150 W m-2) by a factor of 100 or more [6]. The radiative greenhouse theory cannot explain this apparent paradox considering the fact that infrared-absorbing gases such as CO2, water vapor and methane only re-radiate available LW emissions and do not constitute significant heat storage or a net source of additional energy to the system. This raises a fundamental question about the origin of the observed energy surplus in the lower troposphere of terrestrial planets with respect to the solar input. The above inconsistencies between theory and observations prompted us to take a new look at the mechanisms controlling the atmospheric thermal effect. LESSThe same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA.So precise is the formula, the authors of the paper told WND, that, by using it, they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis.That theory, which underpins the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis and the climate models used by the United Nations, was first proposed and developed in the 19th century.However, the experiments on which it was based involved glass boxes that retain heat by preventing the mixing of air inside the box with air outside the box.The experiment is not analogous to what occurs in the real atmosphere, which does not have walls or a lid, according to Nikolov and Zeller.The new paper, headlined “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model,” argues that greenhouse theory is incorrect.“This was not a pre-conceived conclusion, but a result from an objective analysis of vetted NASA observations,” Nikolov told WND.The real mechanisms that control the temperature of the planet, they say, are the sun’s energy and the air pressure of the atmosphere. The same applies to other celestial bodies, according to the scientists behind the paper.To understand the phenomena, the authors used three planets – Venus, Earth and Mars – as well as three natural satellites: the Moon of Earth, Titan of Saturn and Triton of Neptune.They chose the celestial bodies based on three criteria: having a solid surface, representation of a broad range of environments, and the existence of reliable data on temperature, atmospheric composition and air pressure.“Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature] and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System,” the paper explains.“This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth,” the study continues.Mt. Kilimanjaro located at Equator (~3.1° S) is a GREAT EXAMPLE of the atmospheric pressure effect on ground temperature: As air pressure decreases from 92 kPa at the foothills of Kilimanjaro to 47.8 kPa at its Summit, the mean annual surface temperature drops from 23° C to -6° CMolar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate SensitivityRobert Ian Holmes Science & Engineering Faculty,Federation University, Mt Helen, Ballarat, AustraliaEmail address: [email protected] cite this article: Robert Ian Holmes. Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity. Earth Sciences.Vol. 6, No. 6, 2017, pp. 157-163. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20170606.18Received: November 14, 2017;Accepted: November 24, 2017; Published: December 7, 2017Abstract:It has always been complicated mathematically, to calculate the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with a thick atmosphere. Usually, the Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) black body law is used to provide the effective temperature, then debate arises about the size or relevance of additional factors, including the ‘greenhouse effect’. Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters; the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density and the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law. It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters. Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas. In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa. Instead, it is a postulate of this hypothesis that the residual temperature difference of 33°C between the S-B effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression.Keywords: Climate Sensitivity, Climate Change, Global Warming, Venus Temperature, Greenhouse Effect, Temperatures of Planetary Atmospheres, Earth Temperature, Auto-Compression 1.Introduction; It is known that planetary bodies which have thick atmospheres, naturally set up a rising temperature gradient in that part of the atmosphere which is higher than a pressure of 10kPa, (0.1 bar) until that bodies’ surface is reached [1] (Figure 1). Less well known is that this rising temperature gradient continues even below the surface [2]. It is postulated that in this denser part of the atmosphere, (on Earth, the troposphere) convection and adiabatic auto-compression effects rule over radiative or ‘greenhouse’ effects in the determination of atmospheric temperatures and thermal gradients. However, higher up in the atmosphere, once the atmospheric pressure drops below 10kPa (0.1 bar) then radiative effects dominate. This is because the atmosphere there is too thin to initiate convection or any warming due to auto-compression. Although the term ‘auto-compression’ may be unfamiliar to some, this can be seen as simply an engineering term for what meteorologists call the ‘lapse rate’ and astronomers call the ‘Kelvin-Helmholtz’ contraction. Under the latter, the contraction of a large inter-stellar molecular gas cloud under gravity, achieves such high temperatures that nuclear fusion initiates, and a star is bornThe Role of Clouds in Global Radiation Changes Measured in Israel during the Last Sixty YearsFull-Text HTML XMLDownload as PDF (Size:985KB) PP. 61-76DOI: 10.4236/ajcc.2019.81004 98 Downloads 201 ViewsAuthor(s) Leave a comment Indira Paudel 1,2* Shabtai Cohen 1, Gerald Stanhill 1Affiliation(s)1 Department of Environmental Physics and Irrigation, Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences, Rishon Le Zion, Israel.2 Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, IN, USA.ABSTRACTAn analysis of global radiation measurements and fractional cloud cover observations made in the Israel Meteorological Service’s network of climate stations demonstrated a significant decrease in the transmittance of solar radiation through the atmosphere during the last 60 years. The major cause was the reduced transparency of clouds. Under completely overcast skies with complete cloud cover transmission in the industrialized central coastal region decreased from 0.41 in the mid-20th century to 0.21 in the first decade of the 21st century. Under cloudless skies the reduction in the transmission of global radiation was less, from 0.79 to 0.71, and not statistically significant. Similar but somewhat smaller changes were observed in the less industrialized central hill region. Multi-linear analysis showed that since 1970, 61% of the measured decline in global radiation was attributable to changes in fractional cloud cover but only 2% to the marked increase in local fuel combustion; there was no statistically significant interaction between the two parameters.KEYWORDSCloud Transmission, Fractional Cloud Cover, Dimming and Brightening, Direct and Indirect Aerosol Effects, Fossil Fuel Combustion1. IntroductionThe first reports of widespread and significant changes in the solar irradiance at the Earth’s surface [1] [2] emphasized the causal role of anthropogenic aerosols, a conclusion supported by a study linking population density with changes in global radiation, Eg 3] .In the present study we examine the effect of the fractional sky cover and the transmissivity of clouds, a major factor influencing Eg , based on the changes measured in Israel during the last 60 years.The importance of clouds was apparent in an analysis of Eg measurements in Israel’s industrialized central coastal plain which showed that the trend in global dimming was smaller during cloudless days and seasons than during all sky conditions [4] .Over the Eastern Mediterranean a simulation study of radiation transfer during the 1983 to 2013 period showed that on an average annual basis the effect of clouds, aerosols and water vapor reduced Eg by 63 W∙m −2 , 18 W∙m−2 and 9 W∙m−2 respectively, accounting for 70%, 20% and 10% of their combined radiative effect; it should be noted that the simulation used a constant aerosol load [5] .A study of changes in net solar radiation over the entire Mediterranean basin, based on the GEOS-5 climate model processing of satellite data, indicated that between 1970 and 2012 spatial and temporal trends were primarily controlled by variations in cloud optical depth, although the analysis was unable to distinguish between the roles of the extent of cloud cover and cloud radiative properties [6] . There is also evidence from surface observations, satellite measurements and climate model simulations that total cloud in the Mediterranean has decreased since the late 1970’s [7] especially in the eastern and central regions and during springtime [8] .On a global scale the onset of global brightening in the 1980’s [2] coincided with a reduction in cloud, based on both land and ship based surface observations, satellite measurements (https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/prod...), and Earthshine [9] .A major difficulty in distinguishing between the role of aerosols and clouds as the cause of trends in global radiation is due to their complex interaction [10] [11] , (http://www.climatechange2013.org...).In this study we make this distinction using a simple statistical approach to separate aerosol effects on Eg into the direct effect observable under cloud-free skies and the indirect effects which include the influence of aerosols on the formation, magnitude and duration of clouds as well as on their radiative properties, i.e. reflection and absorption of solar radiation.Our analysis is based on measurements of global radiation and observations of total cloud cover made at climate stations in Israel during the 60-year period 1954-2014, supplemented with data of total fuel consumption since 1970 used as a proxy measure to quantify the effects of local emissions of anthropogenic aerosols.5. ConclusionChanges in cloud, both in the fraction of sky covered and in their radiative characteristics, played a major role in determining the global radiation measured in Israel during the last 60 years. Highly significant inverse linear relationships between normalized Eg and cloud cover indicate that a reduction in cloud transmission occurred in both the central coastal plain and central mountain region with a much smaller change in the transmission of cloudless skies. Analysis by stepwise regression indicated that since 1970 changes in cloud cover accounted for 61% of the changes in Eg while the major increase in local fossil fuel consumption, serving as a proxy for anthropogenic aerosol emissions, only accounted for an additional 2% of the changes.[emphasis added] Although the interaction between cloud cover and fossil fuel consumption is not statistically significant the indirect aerosol effect demonstrated in this study suggests that an important microphysical interaction may exist.Cite this paperPaudel, I. , Cohen, S. and Stanhill, G. (2019) The Role of Clouds in Global Radiation Changes Measured in Israel during the Last Sixty Years. American Journal of Climate Change, 8, 61-76. doi: 10.4236/ajcc.2019.81004.The Role of Clouds in Global Radiation Changes Measured in Israel during the Last Sixty YearsCarbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.Tom V. SegalstadMineralogical-Geological Museum University of Oslo Sars' Gate 1, N-0562Oslo NorwayWhen you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930).AbstractThe three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO 2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO 2 measurements from ice cores; CO 2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling. It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity. Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO 2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO 2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior. The apparent annual atmospheric CO 2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO 2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO 2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes. 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle. IPCC's "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know it.1. IntroductionThe atmospheric CO2 is as important as oxygen for life on Earth. Without CO2 the plant photosynthetic metabolism would not be possible, and the present life-forms on Earth would vanish. Over the last years it has been constructed a dogma that an apparent increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic burning of fossil carbon in the forms of petroleum, coal, and natural gas. This extra atmospheric CO 2 has been claimed to cause global climatic change with a significant atmospheric temperature rise of 1.5 to 4.5°C in the next decennium (Houghton et al., 1990). There is then indeed a paradox that CO 2, "The Gas of Life", is now being condemned as the evil "polluting" gas, a gas which will be a threat to people's living on Earth, through a postulated "Global Warming". Even more so when earlier warmer periods in the Earth's history have been characterized as "Climatic Optimum". The construction of the "CO 2Greenhouse Effect Doom" dogma, based on atmospheric CO 2 level measurements in air and ice cores, carbon cycle modelling, CO 2 residence time (lifetime is here used synonymously), and carbon isotopes, is here examined, and the dogma is rejected on geochemical grounds.Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate SensitivityRobert Ian Holmes Science & Engineering Faculty, Federation University, Mt Helen, Ballarat, AustraliaEmail address: [email protected] cite this article: Robert Ian Holmes. Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity. Earth Sciences.Vol. 6, No. 6, 2017, pp. 157-163. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20170606.18 Received: November 14, 2017; Accepted: November 24, 2017; Published: December 7, 2017Abstract:It has always been complicated mathematically, to calculate the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with a thick atmosphere. Usually, the Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) black body law is used to provide the effective temperature, then debate arises about the size or relevance of additional factors, including the ‘greenhouse effect’. Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters; the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density and the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law. It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters. Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas. In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa. Instead, it is a postulate of this hypothesis that the residual temperature difference of 33°C between the S-B effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression.6. ConclusionsWater vapor is the most important "greenhouse gas". Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is small, maximum 4% found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations. The "Greenhouse Effect" of this contribution is small and well within natural climatic variability. The amount of fossil fuel carbon is minute compared to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. The atmospheric CO2 lifetime is about 5 years. The ocean will be able to absorb the larger part of the CO2 that Man can produce through burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC CO2 global warming model is not supported by the scientific data. Based on geochemical knowledge there should be no reason to fear a climatic catastrophe 7 because of Man's release of the life-governing CO2 gas. The global climate is primarily governed by the enormous heat energy stored in the oceans and the latent heat of melting of the ice caps, not by the small amount of heat that can be absorbed in atmospheric CO2; hence legislation of "CO2 taxes" to be paid by the public cannot influence on the sea level and the global climate.Acknowledgements: Technological Oriented Studies, University of Oslo, for financial support; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski for scientific discussions and contributions.Referenceshttp://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ES...Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate SensitivityRobert Ian Holmes Science & Engineering Faculty,Federation University, Mt Helen, Ballarat, AustraliaEmail address: [email protected] cite this article: Robert Ian Holmes. Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity. Earth Sciences.Vol. 6, No. 6, 2017, pp. 157-163. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20170606.18Received: November 14, 2017;Accepted: November 24, 2017; Published: December 7, 2017Abstract:It has always been complicated mathematically, to calculate the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with a thick atmosphere. Usually, the Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) black body law is used to provide the effective temperature, then debate arises about the size or relevance of additional factors, including the ‘greenhouse effect’. Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters; the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density and the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law. It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters. Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas. In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa. Instead, it is a postulate of this hypothesis that the residual temperature difference of 33°C between the S-B effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression.Keywords: Climate Sensitivity, Climate Change, Global Warming, Venus Temperature, Greenhouse Effect, Temperatures of Planetary Atmospheres, Earth Temperature, Auto-Compression 1.Introduction; It is known that planetary bodies which have thick atmospheres, naturally set up a rising temperature gradient in that part of the atmosphere which is higher than a pressure of 10kPa, (0.1 bar) until that bodies’ surface is reached [1] (Figure 1). Less well known is that this rising temperature gradient continues even below the surface [2]. It is postulated that in this denser part of the atmosphere, (on Earth, the troposphere) convection and adiabatic auto-compression effects rule over radiative or ‘greenhouse’ effects in the determination of atmospheric temperatures and thermal gradients. However, higher up in the atmosphere, once the atmospheric pressure drops below 10kPa (0.1 bar) then radiative effects dominate. This is because the atmosphere there is too thin to initiate convection or any warming due to auto-compression. Although the term ‘auto-compression’ may be unfamiliar to some, this can be seen as simply an engineering term for what meteorologists call the ‘lapse rate’ and astronomers call the ‘Kelvin-Helmholtz’ contraction. Under the latter, the contraction of a large inter-stellar molecular gas cloud under gravity, achieves such high temperatures that nuclear fusion initiates, and a star is bornThe Role of Clouds in Global Radiation Changes Measured in Israel during the Last Sixty YearsFull-Text HTML XMLDownload as PDF (Size:985KB) PP. 61-76DOI: 10.4236/ajcc.2019.81004 98 Downloads 201 ViewsAuthor(s) Leave a comment Indira Paudel 1,2* Shabtai Cohen 1, Gerald Stanhill 1Affiliation(s)1 Department of Environmental Physics and Irrigation, Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences, Rishon Le Zion, Israel.2 Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, IN, USA.ABSTRACTAn analysis of global radiation measurements and fractional cloud cover observations made in the Israel Meteorological Service’s network of climate stations demonstrated a significant decrease in the transmittance of solar radiation through the atmosphere during the last 60 years. The major cause was the reduced transparency of clouds. Under completely overcast skies with complete cloud cover transmission in the industrialized central coastal region decreased from 0.41 in the mid-20th century to 0.21 in the first decade of the 21st century. Under cloudless skies the reduction in the transmission of global radiation was less, from 0.79 to 0.71, and not statistically significant. Similar but somewhat smaller changes were observed in the less industrialized central hill region. Multi-linear analysis showed that since 1970, 61% of the measured decline in global radiation was attributable to changes in fractional cloud cover but only 2% to the marked increase in local fuel combustion; there was no statistically significant interaction between the two parameters.KEYWORDSCloud Transmission, Fractional Cloud Cover, Dimming and Brightening, Direct and Indirect Aerosol Effects, Fossil Fuel Combustion1. IntroductionThe first reports of widespread and significant changes in the solar irradiance at the Earth’s surface [1] [2] emphasized the causal role of anthropogenic aerosols, a conclusion supported by a study linking population density with changes in global radiation, Eg 3] .In the present study we examine the effect of the fractional sky cover and the transmissivity of clouds, a major factor influencing Eg , based on the changes measured in Israel during the last 60 years.The importance of clouds was apparent in an analysis of Eg measurements in Israel’s industrialized central coastal plain which showed that the trend in global dimming was smaller during cloudless days and seasons than during all sky conditions [4] .Over the Eastern Mediterranean a simulation study of radiation transfer during the 1983 to 2013 period showed that on an average annual basis the effect of clouds, aerosols and water vapor reduced Eg by 63 W∙m −2 , 18 W∙m−2 and 9 W∙m−2 respectively, accounting for 70%, 20% and 10% of their combined radiative effect; it should be noted that the simulation used a constant aerosol load [5] .A study of changes in net solar radiation over the entire Mediterranean basin, based on the GEOS-5 climate model processing of satellite data, indicated that between 1970 and 2012 spatial and temporal trends were primarily controlled by variations in cloud optical depth, although the analysis was unable to distinguish between the roles of the extent of cloud cover and cloud radiative properties [6] . There is also evidence from surface observations, satellite measurements and climate model simulations that total cloud in the Mediterranean has decreased since the late 1970’s [7] especially in the eastern and central regions and during springtime [8] .On a global scale the onset of global brightening in the 1980’s [2] coincided with a reduction in cloud, based on both land and ship based surface observations, satellite measurements (https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/prod...), and Earthshine [9] .A major difficulty in distinguishing between the role of aerosols and clouds as the cause of trends in global radiation is due to their complex interaction [10] [11] , (http://www.climatechange2013.org...).In this study we make this distinction using a simple statistical approach to separate aerosol effects on Eg into the direct effect observable under cloud-free skies and the indirect effects which include the influence of aerosols on the formation, magnitude and duration of clouds as well as on their radiative properties, i.e. reflection and absorption of solar radiation.Our analysis is based on measurements of global radiation and observations of total cloud cover made at climate stations in Israel during the 60-year period 1954-2014, supplemented with data of total fuel consumption since 1970 used as a proxy measure to quantify the effects of local emissions of anthropogenic aerosols.5. ConclusionChanges in cloud, both in the fraction of sky covered and in their radiative characteristics, played a major role in determining the global radiation measured in Israel during the last 60 years. Highly significant inverse linear relationships between normalized Eg and cloud cover indicate that a reduction in cloud transmission occurred in both the central coastal plain and central mountain region with a much smaller change in the transmission of cloudless skies. Analysis by stepwise regression indicated that since 1970 changes in cloud cover accounted for 61% of the changes in Eg while the major increase in local fossil fuel consumption, serving as a proxy for anthropogenic aerosol emissions, only accounted for an additional 2% of the changes.[emphasis added] Although the interaction between cloud cover and fossil fuel consumption is not statistically significant the indirect aerosol effect demonstrated in this study suggests that an important microphysical interaction may exist.Cite this paperPaudel, I. , Cohen, S. and Stanhill, G. (2019) The Role of Clouds in Global Radiation Changes Measured in Israel during the Last Sixty Years. American Journal of Climate Change, 8, 61-76. doi: 10.4236/ajcc.2019.81004.The Role of Clouds in Global Radiation Changes Measured in Israel during the Last Sixty YearsCarbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.Tom V. SegalstadMineralogical-Geological Museum University of Oslo Sars' Gate 1, N-0562Oslo NorwayWhen you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930).AbstractThe three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO 2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO 2 measurements from ice cores; CO 2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling. It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited". Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity. Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO 2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO 2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior. The apparent annual atmospheric CO 2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO 2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO 2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes. 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle. IPCC's "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know it.1. IntroductionThe atmospheric CO2 is as important as oxygen for life on Earth. Without CO2 the plant photosynthetic metabolism would not be possible, and the present life-forms on Earth would vanish. Over the last years it has been constructed a dogma that an apparent increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic burning of fossil carbon in the forms of petroleum, coal, and natural gas. This extra atmospheric CO 2 has been claimed to cause global climatic change with a significant atmospheric temperature rise of 1.5 to 4.5°C in the next decennium (Houghton et al., 1990). There is then indeed a paradox that CO 2, "The Gas of Life", is now being condemned as the evil "polluting" gas, a gas which will be a threat to people's living on Earth, through a postulated "Global Warming". Even more so when earlier warmer periods in the Earth's history have been characterized as "Climatic Optimum". The construction of the "CO 2Greenhouse Effect Doom" dogma, based on atmospheric CO 2 level measurements in air and ice cores, carbon cycle modelling, CO 2 residence time (lifetime is here used synonymously), and carbon isotopes, is here examined, and the dogma is rejected on geochemical grounds.Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate SensitivityRobert Ian Holmes Science & Engineering Faculty, Federation University, Mt Helen, Ballarat, AustraliaEmail address: [email protected] cite this article: Robert Ian Holmes. Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity. Earth Sciences.Vol. 6, No. 6, 2017, pp. 157-163. doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20170606.18 Received: November 14, 2017; Accepted: November 24, 2017; Published: December 7, 2017Abstract:It has always been complicated mathematically, to calculate the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with a thick atmosphere. Usually, the Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) black body law is used to provide the effective temperature, then debate arises about the size or relevance of additional factors, including the ‘greenhouse effect’. Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters; the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density and the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law. It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters. Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas. In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa. Instead, it is a postulate of this hypothesis that the residual temperature difference of 33°C between the S-B effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression.6. ConclusionsWater vapor is the most important "greenhouse gas". Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is small, maximum 4% found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations. The "Greenhouse Effect" of this contribution is small and well within natural climatic variability. The amount of fossil fuel carbon is minute compared to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. The atmospheric CO2 lifetime is about 5 years. The ocean will be able to absorb the larger part of the CO2 that Man can produce through burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC CO2 global warming model is not supported by the scientific data. Based on geochemical knowledge there should be no reason to fear a climatic catastrophe 7 because of Man's release of the life-governing CO2 gas. The global climate is primarily governed by the enormous heat energy stored in the oceans and the latent heat of melting of the ice caps, not by the small amount of heat that can be absorbed in atmospheric CO2; hence legislation of "CO2 taxes" to be paid by the public cannot influence on the sea level and the global climate.Acknowledgements: Technological Oriented Studies, University of Oslo, for financial support; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski for scientific discussions and contributions.Referenceshttp://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ES.... This video shows that a candle floating on water, burning in the air inside a glass, converts the oxygen in the air to CO2. The water rises in the glass because the CO2 , which replaced the oxygen, is quickly dissolved in the water. The water contains calcium ions Ca, because we initially dissolved calcium hydroxide Ca(OH) 2 in the water. The CO2produced during oxygen burning reacts with the calcium ions to produce solid calcium carbonate CaCO 3, which is easily visible as a whitening of the water when we switch on a flashlight. This little kitchen experiment demonstrates the inorganic carbon cycle in nature. The oceans take out our anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO 3 -, which in turn forms solid calcium carbonate either organically in calcareous organisms or precipitates inorganically. The CaCO 3 is precipitating and not dissolving during this process, because buffering in the ocean maintains a stable pH around 8. We also see that CO2 reacts very fast with the water, contrary to the claim by the IPCC that it takes 50 - 200 years for this to happen.Try this for yourself in your kitchen!IT JUST TAKES ONE BRILLIANT MIND TO BREAK WITH THE CONSENSUS.Galileo - Darwin - Einstein"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. HarvardThe five science abstracts following published in major journals meet the test of Michael Crichton particularly when there are no abstracts on the other side.There are thousands of leading scientists who break with the 97% phony consensus and are ignored by big media. Why???Partial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAustin Robert, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Look, Feel, & Smell your best. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhDSo there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.Dr. Richard LindzenFull lecture here - https://www.thegwpf.org/content/...How have the media and politicians of the left been duped and sucked in by such obvious bad science? The answer is politics of politicians like Bernie Sanders. They want to attack our market friendly industrialization.HOW DID WE GET IN SUCH A MESS?THE global warming climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement of the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about claimed man-made “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Left’s social agendas.THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the U.N.)THOUGHTS on humanity:“The Earth has cancerand the cancer is Man.”– Club of Rome,(environmental think-tank,consultants to the United Nations)THE Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.NOT surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’:AROUND the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.THE conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.*THE CREATOR, FABRICATOR AND PROPONENT OF GLOBAL WARMING – Maurice Strong (UNEP)The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | ClimatismTHE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.STRONG and the UN’s ‘Climate Change’ agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of Climate Change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative…“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP*WHY CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) aka “Carbon Pollution”?ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.LINDZEN’S summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”•••“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”MORE : CLIMATE CHANGE : It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled | Climatism*CONTROL CO2 (Energy), CONTROL YOU!ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare :“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be theequivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University/Royal Society fellowProf Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University / Royal Society fellow*THE motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom, with the misguided fear of overpopulation, a principle driver.THEIR solution is to use the emotive issue of ‘Climate Change’ to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic and political structures across the globe through their various unelected, taxpayer funded global(ist) bodies…UNFCCCUN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism“Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that “Communism is the best model to fight global warming.“IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.SEE : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism*COP24 CLIMATE CONFERENCE(S)THE current UN climate chief, Antonio Guterres, reiterated the sentiments of former Chief, Christiana Figueres, almost verbatim at the recently concluded COP24 conference in Katowice, Poland…Graham Kirk@GrahamKirk17If warming is so bad, why did the Minoan and Roman civilizations thrive during 'warm periods'? Why did the great Gothic Cathedral building period occur and the beginnings of the Renaissance in Europe in a warming period? Yet minuscule warming in the 21st will be a disaster?EVERY major metric of # ExtremeWeather is declining in frequency & intensity or no trend as #CO2 emissions rise: • Heatwaves • Cyclones • Hurricanes • Tornadoes • Global Weather Disasters/Losses • Drought • Floodshttps://climatism.blog/2019/01/17/climatism-2019-state-of-the-climate-report/ … via @JWSpry #Auspol #ClimateChange

I think the biggest most transformative breakthrough, isn’t the break-though from the last ten years but the many game theoretic and adversarial methods which have emerged as a result of applying game theoretic ideas to AI problems.Modern Game theoretic deep learning inspired by Nash’ Equilibrium.Image creative commons share alikeThe thesis, written under the supervision of doctoral advisor Albert W. Tucker, contained the definition and properties of the Nash equilibrium, a crucial concept in non-cooperative games. It won Nash the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1994.Nash, John Forbes (1950). "Equilibrium Points in N-person Games". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 36 (1): 48–49. doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48. MR 0031701. PMC 1063129 . PMID 16588946.Nash, John Forbes (1950). "The Bargaining Problem" (PDF). Econometrica. 18 (2): 155–62. doi:10.2307/1907266. JSTOR 1907266. MR 0035977.Nash, John Forbes (1951). "Non-cooperative Games" (PDF). Annals of Mathematics. 54 (2): 286–95. doi:10.2307/1969529. JSTOR 1969529. MR 0043432.Nash, John Forbes (1953). "Two-person Cooperative Games" (PDF). Econometrica. 21 (1): 128–40. doi:10.2307/1906951. MR 0053471.(source: John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia.)A Beautiful MindFor those unfamiliar with Nash here he is in the dramatised A Beautiful Mind, Starring Russell CroweThe work around game theoretic applications, in particular applied to solving imperfect-information games - for me personally, this is the most exciting area to have really made progress during 2017.In particular work out of University of Alberta’s Dr. Michael Bowling and more recently Tuomas Sandholm’s Carnegie Mellon lab, particularly around progressing the field to make Counter-Factual Regret Minimisation more computationally realistic to a wider number of organisations.Here’s the paper which won Best Paper at NIPS 2017Safe and Nested Subgame Solving for Imperfect-Information Games here a talk, detailing the paper.Here’s a talk by Professor Sandholm from 2015, which details their earlier approach to solving Zero-sum, two player, imperfect information games.Professor Sandholm built on the DeepStack teams’s innovation:Counter Factual Regret Minimisation and various improvements upon the original 2007 concept for tackling imperfect information games like Poker.While CFR dates back quite a while, it should be considered to be:“The algo that keeps on giving”The CFR family of game theoretic algorithms, are the underlying solvers for imperfect information game. Mostly by the clever academics over in Canada at the University of Albert (Figure 1) and Carnegie Mellon lab led by Tuomas W. SandholmFIGURE 1 - Clever academics over in Canada at the University of AlbertVIDEO 1 - NIPS 2017 BEST PAPERMore generally speaking…It is at the intersection of AI and game theory, where I believe we’re seeing the biggest breakthroughs. Additionally I suspect that the social impacts will soon begin to shock humanity.While Generative Adversarial Networks or GANs (Goodfellow et al, 2017) broadly concern me. It has been interesting to observe an economy emerge from this innovation. Curated labelled images correctly preprocessed and prepared with accompanying JSON formatted indices.Celebrity faces being relatively easy to harvest from the various images hosting services then with game theoretic principals, networks are trained adversarially by the process of self-play.Many millions of iterations of Montecarlo Tree Search, over a preprocesssed lossless GameShrink algorithm [Citation Needed] to then approximate Nash Equilibria (J Nash, 1950) was Homepage - CMU - Carnegie Mellon University - CMU - Carnegie Mellon University in 2016…One may define a concept of an n-person game in which each player has a finite set of pure strategies and in which a definite set of payments to the n players corresponds to each n-tuple of pure strategies, one strategy being taken for each player. For mixed strategies, which are probability distributions over the pure strategies, the pay-off functions are the expectations of the players, thus becoming polylinear forms.Or to put it in layman's terms, I refer you to The Economist’s article titled: “What is the Nash equilibrium and why does it matter? Decisions that are good for individuals can sometimes be terrible for groups”One of the most important tools at their disposal is the Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, who won a Nobel prize in 1994 for its discovery. This simple concept helps economists work out how competing companies set their prices, how governments should design auctions to squeeze the most from bidders and how to explain the sometimes self-defeating decisions that groups make. (The Economist, 2016)In my opinion, the biggest breakthrough in AI of recent times (based upon some arbitrary generalisation of time), while I expect it to have the biggest impact upon humanity, admittedly, the potential applications concern, as much as amaze me.Regret Minimization in Games with Incomplete Information (Zinkevich et al, 2007)For those unfamiliar with Game Theory, it was popularised by the brilliant, John Von Neumann. Though it was first conceptualised by Emile Borel in 1921, according to this Stanford article: Von Neumann and the Development of Game Theory .In 1921, Emile Borel, a French mathematician, published several papers on the theory of games. He used poker as an example and addressed the problem of bluffing and second-guessing the opponent in a game of imperfect information. Borel envisioned game theory as being used in economic and military applications.The articles goes on to illustrate some of the parallels between the game of poker and many other diverse fields of interest.Von Neumann realized that poker was not guided by probability theory alone, as an unfortunate player who would use only probability theory would find out. Von Neumann wanted to formalize the idea of "bluffing," a strategy that is meant to deceive the other players and hide information from them.Their book, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, revolutionized the field of economics. Although the work itself was intended solely for economists, its applications to psychology, sociology, politics, warfare, recreational games, and many other fields soon became apparent. (source: Von Neumann and the Development of Game Theory)Counter-Factual Regret Minimisation, however is the technique whereby an approximation of Nash Equilibria may be computed, explained beautifully and quite enthusiastically by Professor Tuomas Sandholm in the video below.VIDEO 2 - Enthusiastic Professor Explains How To Solve Imperfect Information Games Using Counter-Factual Regret MinimisationFrom 2016 progress led to NIPS Best Paper 2017Published on 24 Nov 2017 by Noam Brown and Professor Sandholme (Carnegie Mellon, with their Texas Hold’em Poker Hustler-bot Libratus) The AI from Noam BrownLibratus, an artificial intelligence developed by Carnegie Mellon University, made history by defeating four of the world’s best professional poker players in a marathon 20-day poker competition, called “Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence: Upping the Ante” at Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh.Once the last of 120,000 hands of Heads-up, No-Limit Texas Hold’em were played on Jan. 30, Libratus led the pros by a collective $1,766,250 in chips. The developers of Libratus — Tuomas Sandholm, professor of computer science, and Noam Brown, a Ph.D. student in computer science — said the sizable victory is statistically significant and not simply a matter of luck.“The best AI’s ability to do strategic reasoning with imperfect information has now surpassed that of the best humans,” Sandholm said.This new milestone in artificial intelligence has implications for any realm in which information is incomplete and opponents sow misinformation, said Frank Pfenning, head of the Computer Science Department in CMU’s School of Computer Science. Business negotiation, military strategy, cybersecurity and medical treatment planning could all benefit from automated decision-making using a Libratus-like AI.“The computer can’t win at poker if it can’t bluff,” Pfenning said. “Developing an AI that can do that successfully is a tremendous step forward scientifically and has numerous applications. Imagine that your smartphone will someday be able to negotiate the best price on a new car for you. That’s just the beginning.”The pros — Dong Kim, Jimmy Chou, Daniel McAulay and Jason Les — will split a $200,000 prize purse based on their respective performances during the event.McAulay, of Scotland, said Libratus was a tougher opponent than he expected, but it was exciting to play against it.“Whenever you play a top player at poker, you learn from it,” McAulay said.Les, of Costa Mesa, Calif., agreed that superior opponents help poker players improve.“Usually, you have to lose a lot and pay a lot of money for the experience,” he said. “Here, at least I’m not losing any money.”“This experiment demanded that we assemble some of the world’s best professional poker players who specialize in Heads-up No-Limit Texas Hold’em and that they would play to the best of their abilities throughout the long contest,” Brown said. “These players more than met that description and proved to be a tenacious team of opponents for Libratus, studying and strategizing together throughout the event.”Libratus’ victory was made possible by the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center’s Bridges computer, on which the AI computed its strategy before and during the event, and by Rivers Casino, which hosted the event.“Rivers Casino was proud to partner with Carnegie Mellon University and the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center to host the Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence: Upping the Ante competition,” said Craig Clark, general manager of Rivers Casino. “History-making events like this are very important as they increase awareness of how companies in Pittsburgh are impacting the world.”The event was surrounded by speculation about how Libratus was able to improve day to day during the competition. It turns out it was the pros themselves who taught Libratus about its weaknesses.“After play ended each day, a meta-algorithm analyzed what holes the pros had identified and exploited in Libratus’ strategy,” Sandholm said. “It then prioritized the holes and algorithmically patched the top three using the supercomputer each night. This is very different than how learning has been used in the past in poker. Typically researchers develop algorithms that try to exploit the opponent’s weaknesses. In contrast, here the daily improvement is about algorithmically fixing holes in our own strategy.”Sandholm also said that Libratus’ end-game strategy, which was computed live with the Bridges computer for each hand, was a major advance.“The end-game solver has a perfect analysis of the cards,” he said.It was able to update its strategy for each hand in a way that ensured any late changes would only improve the strategy. Over the course of the competition, the pros responded by making more aggressive moves early in the hand, no doubt to avoid playing in the deep waters of the endgame where the AI had an advantage, he added.Sandholm will be sharing all of Libratus’ secrets now that the competition is over, beginning with invited talks at the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence meeting Feb. 4-9 in San Francisco and in submissions to peer-reviewed scientific conferences and journals.Throughout the competition, Libratus recruited the raw power of approximately 600 of Bridges’ 846 compute nodes. Bridges total speed is 1.35 petaflops, about 7,250 times as fast as a high-end laptop and its memory is 274 Terabytes, about 17,500 as much as you’d get in that laptop. This computing power gave Libratus the ability to play four of the best Texas Hold’em players in the world at once and beat them.Developer Tuomas Sandholm and the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center’s Bridges computer, on which the AI computed its strategy.“We designed Bridges to converge high-performance computing and artificial intelligence,” said Nick Nystrom, PSC’s senior director of research and principal investigator for the National Science Foundation-funded Bridges system. “Libratus’ win is an important milestone toward developing AIs to address complex, real-world problems. At the same time, Bridges is powering new discoveries in the physical sciences, biology, social science, business and even the humanities. With its unique emphasis on usability, new projects are always welcome.”Sandholm said he will continue his research push on the core technologies involved in solving imperfect-information games and in applying these technologies to real-world problems. That includes his work with Optimized Markets, a company he founded to automate negotiations.“CMU played a pivotal role in developing both computer chess, which eventually beat the human world champion, and Watson, the AI that beat top human Jeopardy! competitors,” Pfenning said. “It has been very exciting to watch the progress of poker-playing programs that have finally surpassed the best human players. Each one of these accomplishments represents a major milestone in our understanding of intelligence."Brains Vs. AI was sponsored by GreatPoint Ventures, Avenue4Analytics, TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, the journal Artificial Intelligence, Intel and Optimized Markets, Inc. Carnegie Mellon’s School of Computer Science partnered with Rivers Casino, the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) through a peer-reviewed XSEDE allocation, and Sandholm’s Electronic Marketplaces Laboratory for the event.Head’s-Up No-Limit Texas Hold’em is an exceedingly complex game, with 10^160 (the number 1 followed by 160 zeroes) information sets — each set being characterized by the path of play in the hand as perceived by the player whose turn it is. That’s vastly more information sets than the number of atoms in the universe.The AI must make decisions without knowing all of the cards in play, while trying to sniff out bluffing by its opponent. As “no-limit” suggests, players may bet or raise any amount up to all of their chips.(source: Carnegie Mellon Artificial Intelligence Beats Top Poker Pros - News - Carnegie Mellon University)In imperfect-information games, the optimal strategy in a subgame may depend on the strategy in other, unreached subgames. Thus a subgame cannot be solved in isolation and must instead consider the strategy for the entire game as a whole, unlike perfect-information games. Nevertheless, it is possible to first approximate a solution for the whole game and then improve it in individual subgames. This is referred to as subgame solving. We introduce subgame-solving techniques that outperform prior methods both in theory and practice. We also show how to adapt them, and past subgame-solving techniques, to respond to opponent actions that are outside the original action abstraction; this significantly outperforms the prior state-of-the-art approach, action translation. Finally, we show that subgame solving can be repeated as the game progresses down the game tree, leading to far lower exploitability. These techniques were a key component of Libratus, the first AI to defeat top humans in heads-up no-limit Texas hold'em poker.With Libratus beating all the pros.What concerns me about this particular approach. It the consideration of man behind the solution’s foundation stone.Were I come at the AI topic from is detailed below:-Paul Reilly's answer to What are the main challenges today on the way to true Artificial Intelligence?My primary concern is the implication for objective reality and what measures are being deployed to date, without our express concent.Paul Reilly's answer to How can AI help counter "fake news"?

The article you reference is like most other articles fallaciously claiming the global warming “science is settled”. It’s primarily opinion derived from otherwise inconclusive or manipulated data. It’s utterly absurd to claim that the theory of CAGW has been proven or even validated by the scientific method. It hasn’t. It is still just hypothesis based upon correlation; partially estimated, extrapolated, manipulated, and manufactured temperature data; flawed and manipulated computer models using the manipulated temperature data and “educated” guesses of climate sensitivity to CO2; and an incomplete understanding of how CO2 affects climate combined with an unproven hypothesis speculating that “greenhouse gases” warm the earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is an immense(more)