Pdf For Document Distribution Within The Corporate: Fill & Download for Free

Many books written by leading scientists debunk the hypothesis of man made global warming from minute amounts of CO2 emissions by industry creating back radiation contrary to the most fundamental laws of physics. The books listed by me have hundreds of peer reviewed references that show the hoax of alarmism is clearly the mistaken view that the science is settled. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH whatever view you have there is ample evidence to contradict it.This first book just published is an about face by a famous climate scientists who admits he has been wrong blaming humans for climate change.Michael Shellenberger, whose new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, is currently setting the kat among the klimate konformist pigeons by daring to argue that — hold on to your Greta baseball caps! — in fact, we’re not all going to die and that there is a sane alternative to Thunbergianism.Among his findings:Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction.”Climate change is not making natural disasters worse.The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California.Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s.“I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.“In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.”Shellenberger made these points in a piece he wrote the other day for Forbes… which of course yanked it from its website within hours, thus proving Moore’s point about the corporate hijacking of climate alarmism.So he reposted it on the Australian-based website, Quillette; have a look for yourself:On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests.Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism.Shellenberger calls out the impractical Ludditism of the “Green Movement” Neanderthals, and offers policy recommendation that will turn the Greenies purple with rage, including a defense of clean nuclear energy:Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium.Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 percent.Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.Climate Activists Exiting The Doomsday CultResearch papers are sometimes more pertinent than books because they are peer reviewed and there are growing examples in the recent studies that “there is no significant anthropogenic climate change.”The following example published just this year in 2020 -New experimental study challenges the CO2-rise-leads-to-warming paradigmThe seven co-authors of a new paper (Zhang et al., 2020) were intent on demonstrating the dangers of substantial CO2 emissions from soil and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.Natural soil emissions are a legitimate concern for those who believe CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature changes.After all, the air CO2 concentrations in soil can reach 20,000 ppm (Zhang et al., 2020), and natural yearly emissions from soil respiration/perturbation are 9 times greater than that from all human activity combined.Image Source: ScienceDailyZhang and colleagues utilized mesocosms – controlled outdoor experiments – to assess the air and soil temperature effect of step changes in CO2 concentration.They “unexpectedly” found the mesocosms with the 3 highest CO2 concentrations – 3200, 7500, and 16,900 ppm – actually had lower associated atmospheric temperatures than the mesocosms with 480 ppm.The authors suggest the higher CO2 concentrations rise, the more they “may enhance net heat loss”.Similarly, even soil temperatures were cooler with the higher CO2 concentrations (16,900 ppm), leading the authors to suggest that substantially higher CO2 “may cool the soil”.These experimental results would appear to undermine the popular assumption that linear increases in CO2 cause linear increases in temperature due to an enhancement of the overall greenhouse effect.Image Source: Zhang et al., 2020Zhang et al., 2020“The increased atmospheric air temperatures with CO2 concentration (ranging from 300 ppm to 7500 ppm) at daytime with higher radiation were understandable. Unexpectedly, the magnitude of temperature increase of atmospheric air in mesocosms with 16900 ppm CO2 declined significantly compared to that with 7500 ppm CO2 at daytime with higher radiation. In addition, the temperatures of atmospheric air in mesocosms with substantially higher CO2 concentration (ranging from 3200 ppm to 16900 ppm) were lower than that with the lower CO2 concentration (480 ppm) at early morning and/or nighttime with lower heat radiation. These results emphasized that the molecules of CO2 not only absorb the infrared radiation but also re-emit it to the surrounding space (20). Thus an increase of CO2 concentration in atmospheric air may result in either an increase or decrease of the air temperature in the atmosphere, depending on the balance of heat gain and loss. In other words, CO2 with substantially higher concentration may enhance the net heat loss to colder surrounding interfaces when the heat absorption capacity of CO2 was saturated or heat input was much limited.”“[T]he significant decrease of soil air temperature in mesocosms with CO2 concentration of 16900 ppm indicated that soil with substantially higher CO2 concentration may cool the soil probably by transferring more heat to surrounding space during colder periods when the temperature difference between soil and surface atmospheric air became larger. The realistic significance of these findings was greater than those in the atmosphere because CO2 concentration in soil air was often in the range of 1,000 ppm – 20,000 ppm [21-23]. Hence, the variation of soil CO2 concentration may regulate the balance of heat gain and loss in soil which determines the contribution of soil to surface warming of the earth.”More Proof That Greenhouse Gases Do Not Drive The Climate. Climate Drives The GasesEight years ago, 2 physicists published a comprehensive 115-page scientific paper entitled “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics.https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf)GERLICH AND TSHEUSHNER. 2009This paper has been updated in 2017.Role of greenhouse gases in climate changeHertzberg et al., 2017Gerhard GerlichPhysics > Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics[Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4)]Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. TscheuschnerThe 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, 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.Comments:115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Subjects:Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as:arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)Image Source: Pla et al., 2017PEER 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 Board17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate ChangeBy Kenneth Richard on8. June 2017“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017Allmendinger, 2017The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory“The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole. In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”Blaauw, 2017“This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.”Nikolov and Zeller, 2017“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”Huang et al., 2017“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”Viterito, 2017“The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015. The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists. Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe. Applying the same methodology employed in CSARGW, an updated analysis through 2016 adds new knowledge of this important relationship while strengthening support for that study’s conclusions. The correlation between HGFA seismic frequency and global temperatures moved higher with the addition of the 2016 data: the revised correlation now reads 0.814, up from 0.785 for the analysis through 2015. This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.”Hertzberg et al., 2017“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”Song, Wang & Tang, 2016A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect“In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising. Meanwhile, the long-term change of the global averaged OLR anomaly (−0.01 W m−2 yr−1) is also not statistically significant. Thus, these two phenomena result in a trendless Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect]. … [A]remarkably decreasing Gaa trend (−0.27 W m−2 yr−1) exists over the central tropical Pacific, indicating a weakened atmospheric greenhouse effect in this area, which largely offsets the warming effect in the aforementioned surrounding regions. As a result, a trendless global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is displayed between 1991 and 2002 (Fig. 2). … Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.”Manheimer, 2016“[T]he actual data show that up to now fears of imminent climate catastrophe are not supported by data, or else involve processes occurring since long before excess CO2 in the atmosphere became a concern. Based on actual measurements and reasonable extrapolation of them, there is no reason why the responsible use of fossil fuel cannot continue to support worldwide civilisation. The argument to greatly restrict fossil fuel rests entirely on the theoretical assertion that at some point in the near future there will be a sudden and dramatic change in the very nature of the data presented here. If implemented, these would be sufficient to greatly upset the lifestyle of billions of people, and to further impoverish the already most impoverished parts of the world. … [N]othing in the past suggests that future climate will be significantly different before mid century because of rising levels of CO2.”Hertzberg and Schreuder, 2016“The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.”Mikhailovich et al., 2016About the Influence of the Giant Planets onLong-Term Evolution of Global Temperature“The observed variability of global temperature is usually explained through the decrease in the coefficient of the grayness of the Earth caused by increased content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2, i.e. by the anthropogenically caused increase in the greenhouse effect. The validity of such views raises some doubts, as their validity is based either on the results of the climate simulation, or on the results of the regression analysis, in relation to which the fullness of the used set of regression does not seem certain. At the same time, just the results of climate modeling do not seem to be quite reliable … The effects associated with the displacement of the center of gravity of the solar system under the influence of giant planets (Jupiter and Saturn) are discussed. Based on the hypothesis of parametric resonance in the variation of global temperature with disturbances in the photosphere shape and the Earth-to-Sun distance due to the oppositions of said planets, a regression model that explains the observed long-term evolution of global temperature is built. It was shown that residuals of the model are close to white noise, i.e. the [influence of planets] hypothesis almost entirely explains the effect of temperature increase for the period presented in the vernacular crutem3 database [1850-present].”Vares et al., 2016… Earth’s Magnetic Dipole Intensity … GeomagneticActivity … Causal Source for Global Warming“Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geomagnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.”Easterbrook, 2016“CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.”Chemke et al., 2016The Thermodynamic Effect of AtmosphericMass on Early Earth’s TemperatureObservations suggest that Earth’s early atmospheric mass differed from the present day. The effects of a different atmospheric mass on radiative forcing have been investigated in climate models of variable sophistication, but a mechanistic understanding of the thermodynamic component of the effect of atmospheric mass on early climate is missing. Using a 3D idealized global circulation model (GCM), we systematically examine the thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on near-surface temperature. We find that higher atmospheric mass tends to increase the near-surface temperature mostly due an increase in the heat capacity of the atmosphere, which decreases the net radiative cooling effect in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Additionally, the vertical advection of heat by eddies decreases with increasing atmospheric mass, resulting in further near-surface warming. As both net radiative cooling and vertical eddy heat fluxes are extratropical phenomena, higher atmospheric mass tends to flatten the meridional temperature gradient.An increase in atmospheric mass causes an increase in near-surface temperatures and a decrease of the equator-pole near-surface temperature gradient. Warming is caused mostly by the increase in atmospheric heat capacity, which decrease the net radiative cooling of the atmosphere.[No mention of CO2 as a factor in warming the Earth-Atmosphere system]Haine, 2016“Notably, the three studies [Jackson et al., 2016; Böning et al., 2016; Robson et al., 2016] report an absence of anthropogenic effects on the AMOC, at least so far: the directly observed AMOC weakening since 2004 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols have affected North Atlantic ocean temperatures. The midlatitude North Atlantic temperature changes since 2005 have greater magnitude and opposite sign (cooling) than those attributed to ocean uptake of anthropogenic heat. The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected.. And despite large changes in the freshwater budget of the Arctic, some of which are anthropogenic, there is no clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”Ellis and Palmer, 2016Conclusion: “[I]nterglacial warming is eccentricity and polar ice regrowth regulated, Great Summer forced, and dust-ice albedo amplified. And the greenhouse-gas attributes of CO2 play little or no part in this complex feedback system.”Evans, 2016“The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the non-observation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2 response to the CO2 forcing.”Gervais, 2016Anthropogenic CO2Warming Challenged By 60-year CycleConclusion: “Dangerous anthropogenic warming is questioned (i) upon recognition of the large amplitude of the natural 60–year cyclic component and (ii) upon revision downwards of the transient climate response consistent with latest tendencies shown in Fig. 1, here found to be at most 0.6 °C once the natural component has been removed, consistent with latest infrared studies (Harde, 2014). Anthropogenic warming well below the potentially dangerous range were reported in older and recent studies (Idso, 1998; Miskolczi, 2007; Paltridge et al., 2009; Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009; Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010; Clark, 2010; Kramm and Dlugi, 2011; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015; Volokin and ReLlez, 2015). On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.”Doubt is the way of the scientific method ignored by the alarmist crowd. Included in my list are books with free pdf links so readers can review them immediately.This stimulating monograph challenges the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that indicates a significant increase in carbon dioxide levels and prescribes worldwide policies for curbing global warming. With an in-depth look at the IPCC report itself, this examination argues that the quality and reliability of the IPCC’s measurements are poor, the system of determining how much weight should be attributed to different influences on the earth’s temperature is faulty, and the validity of evidence derived from computer modeling is questionable. By challenging the IPCC’s methodology and results, this pointed assessment has far-reaching consequences for the effectiveness of policy decisions regarding global warming and rising carbon dioxide levels made by the IPCC and other organizations. AMAZONUp dated graph supports Gray’s skepticism showing the rise in CO2 levels without and rise in temperature from 1979 to 2017.BiographyI am a scientist, originally Cambridge PhD in Chemistry 1946 with a long research career in UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China and many publications. I have been an expert reviewer for all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and submitted 1,898 comments to the last Report, 16% of the total. There is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate and all we get is spin and doublespeak. Put "Vincent Gray Climate Fraud" into Google and you will get more than 50,000 hits. The Greenhouse Delusion" will start you off.He commented on every publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with 1,898 comments on the 2007 Report. He published critical studies on all of the reports including a book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001'". He published "Confessions of a Climate Sceptic"[4] He was sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming:[5] "The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[6] Gray called for the IPCC to be abolished, claiming it was “fundamentally corrupt” and that significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed, were unsound[7] and that the IPCC resisted all efforts to try to discuss or rectify these problems.[6 Gray was featured on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Counterpoint in a debate entitled "Nine Lies about Global Warming",[8] and was interviewed in a featured story in The New Zealand Herald as a "prominent" global warming skeptic.[2] In 2002, Gray also published a book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001".[9] In it, Gray argues "that the quality and reliability of the IPCC's measurements are poor, the system of determining how much weight should be attributed to different influences on the earth's temperature is faulty, and the validity of evidence derived from computer modeling is questionable."Gray died in Petone on 14 June 2018, aged 96.Vincent R. Gray - WikipediaCO2 is heavier than air and does not mix well with other gases in the atmosphere, contrary to general understanding. CO2 is a variable gas unlike Nitrogen and Oxygen that are premanent and thus CO2 has different concentrations across the globe notably higher in urban than rural populations.This makes the claim of a CO2 being a blanket covering the earth like a greenhouse impossible. See the gaps in the USA.Sometimes it is around 400 ppm while at other places it can be around 280 ppm or much less or even zero. How long does propane stay in the air as it has the same density as CO2? Both gases fall to the ground and pool there. How could last CO2 in the atmosphere when CO2 is 50% heavier than air? See the large gaps across the globe where there is no CO2 cover -See also -THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM by Vincent Gray Climate Consultant 75 Silverstream Road, Crofton Downs, Wellington 6035, New Zealand Email (Revised October 2008)… the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very far from being “well-mixed”. Beck (2007) showed that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can vary between 280 ppmv and 400pmmv, or even more, depending on the time, place and wind direction but is highly variable (Figure 18)The few recent measurements over land indicate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere tends to be higher over industrial and urban areas and lower over forests and pastures. In this way and by a process of “smoothing”, “seasonally adjusting” and “annually averaging”, the illusion is created that carbon dioxide 26 26 concentration in the atmosphere is a constant, so the “radiative forcing” can be calculated from its increase by use of a non linear empirical equation.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/13e7/3ab15dbc1a499116bf967407748a1d185792.pdfI think the following insight by Alan Longhurst unravels the alarmist’s failed predictions, as their models are too simple like a one trick pony in a big complex circus -I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.“Precisely the very unscientific folly and bias of the climate-change crowd.CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCEA Welcome Voice in the Climate DebatePosted onSeptember 21, 2015 by Ron ClutzSomeone has written a book much needed, adding a welcome voice into rational consideration of climate matters. The book is entitled: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science, it is free and can be downloaded here:About the authorAlan R. Longhurst is a biological oceanographer who has studied the ecology of the continental shelf of the Gulf of Guinea (1954-63), and the trophic structure and flux of energy through the pelagic ecosystems of the eastern Pacific (1963-71), the Barents Sea (1973), the Canadian Arctic (1983-89) and the Northwest Atlantic (1978-94). He coordinated the international EASTROPAC expeditions in the 1960s and directed the NOAA SW Science Center on the Scripps campus at La Jolla (1967-71), the Marine Ecology Laboratory at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (1977-79) and was Director-General of that Institute (1970-86). He has published 80-odd research papers and his most recent books are “Ecological Geography of the Sea” (Elsevier, 1998 & 2007) and “Mismanagement of Marine Fisheries” (Cambridge, 2010).I recommend this climate science book as readable, thorough, considerate, and well-documented. He also gives insightful personal experiences from his oceanographic career. I particularly appreciate his emphasis on the ocean’s complex role in climate dynamics. Also his discussion of surface temperature measurements has echos in my own analyses of the records.For a review and overview by Dr. Judith Curry, her post is here:New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate ScienceLonghurst concludes with this:Perhaps the one thing that would shake the collective certainty would be if the simple, single value used to represent global surface temperature continued to languish at around the same value as it has for the last 15 years for, say, another 5 years? Of course, it may not – simply because the next Nino will quickly reduce the area of cold, upwelled water exposed at the sea surface and global SST will suddenly rise, as it did in 1998. In fact, as I write, this is occurring and the anticipated announcement has already been made NOAA that this year we experienced the warmest July ever recorded.But if a new Gleissberg cycle makes itself felt when the equatorial Pacific has settled back into its ‘normal’ Trade Wind state, and if the new cycle overwhelms the effect on SAT measurements of urbanisation and land use change so that the GSMT index cools significantly, then the earth sciences will have a heavy bill to be paid in the arena of public support. And the more so if a Convention concerning measures agreed to be taken has already been signed into effect…Share this:Press ThisTwitterFacebook2 commentsmanicbeancounter · September 21, 2015I like this from the Preface (as quoted by Judith Curry)I became troubled by what seemed to be a preference to view the climate as a global stable state, unless perturbed by anthropogenic effects, rather than as a highly complex system having several dominant states, each having a characteristic return period imposed on gradual change at millennial scale.It reminds me of when I studied economics three decades ago. Theoretical models assumed an equilibrium state, then considered the effects on an exogenous factor on that equilibrium. The more mathematical models were based on Walrasian general equilibrium, with instantaneous leaps from one equilibrium to another. Climate models have always struck me as being the opposite. The exogenous human factors throw climate out of equilibrium. Beyond a certain point the climate system is unable to reach an stable new equilibrium, but instead becomes ever more unstable and chaotic.LikeReplyRon Clutz · September 21, 2015Agreed. The paleoclimate research shows that our climate is bistable, moving from hot house to ice house. In between negative feedbacks, mainly oceanic, constrain the variability . The models fail for 3 reasons: high CO2 sensitivity, high water feedback and lack of thermal inertia (oceans again).Climate Book By Japanese Physic’s Professor: ‘The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore’Emeritus Yuh FukaiA climate skeptic book by Japanese physicist and Professor Emeritus Yuh Fukai released in October 2015, was recently released in Kindle version. The title of the book in Japanese is 地球はもう温暖化していない, which means: “The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore”In his book, Dr. Fukai quotes many scientists such as Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, Dr. Kunihiko Takeda, and Dr. Kiminori Itoh.Also prominently featured are charts by R. J. Donohue et al, Dr. Roy Spencer, and Dr. John Christy.Dr. Fukai writes: “An enormous amount of meteorological balloon data of great worth ignored by IPCC were employed in Christy’s 2015 graph.”CO2 “a good thing” …studies show global greeningDr. Fukai also points out that global vegetation coverage increased by 11% in 29 years, from 1982 to 2010, as increasing CO2 has helped the greening of the Sahel and the Sahara Desert.He contradicts the often heard media claims that drought is spreading globally, writing: “The media spread the word that desertification is progressing globally, but practically the desert is greening through CO2.” […] “Everyone should be aware that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not in itself harmful, but it’s a good thing.”No correlationDr. Fukai also shows that the Earth’s temperature change is not simple and does not correlate at all with CO2. He shows graphs from D. M. Etheridge et al., Mauna Loa Observatory and the temperature data from Moberg et al. (2005).Chart: http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txtThe retired Japanese professor writes that at around 1000 A.D. — the Medieval Warm Period — there were no signs showing CO2 concentration was higher.A temperature graph using data from Moberg et al. (2005) shows the Medieval Warm Period appears clearly and that CO2 was in fact around 280 ppm at that time.Warming better for humansIn addition, he writes that from a historical perspective, “warming brought about no trouble to human life.”Fukai notes that in Japan the great famine of Kanei (1640 to 1643) and the great famine of Genroku (1695 to 1696) happened during the Little Ice Age, a dark and gloomy period of crop failures and paranoid witch hunts.He writes: “We have never heard of a famine resulting in a warming period”, and that “global cooling was a terror for humans.”Suppressed viewsHe notes that public opinion in Japan has been almost universally behind the claim that humans are the main cause of warming.Some 91% of Japanese citizens believe it. A shocking number compared to other countries. It is certain the media were in part hugely responsible, he writes.Dissent is rare in Japan“Articles by outspoken journalists overseas, however, have put the brakes on the CO2-made global warming hypothesis. There is no chance of that here in Japan. Japanese journalists have suppressed views that challenge the hypothesis,” Fukai writes.According to Fukai: “Among Japanese earth scientists, only Dr. Shigenori Maruyama has sharply criticized the theory that global warming is caused by CO2 from a paleoclimatology point of view.”But he adds: “Many solar researchers stand for an opinion that solar activity plays a major role in driving the climate.” In Japan, there is Dr. Kunitomo Sakurai and Dr. Hiroko Miyahara.IPCC “scientifically immoral”About the IPCC, he writes: “The IPCC is fixated on global warming being caused by CO2, simply ignore all other factors, and that their attitude is scientifically immoral.”He notes in his book, citing NoTricksZone, that Prof. Hans von Storch “Fears that science is taking a role in political decision processes” and “sea level rise fears are unwarranted because long-term tide gauge data show 21st-century sea level rise will be approximately as much as the 21st century“.Read more at No Tricks ZoneDr Gerrit J. van der Lingen is a geologist and paleoclimatologist. Studying climate change in the past made him realise that the belief in modern catastrophic man-made global warming, caused by carbon dioxide, is not supported by sound science. He became involved in the debate between the belief in dangerous man-made global warming and science based on observations and actual measurements, a debate between ideology and proper science. For fifteen years he wrote articles, gave lectures and took part in oral and published debates. He has now collated these activities in this book. These “memoirs” provide a fascinating insight in the disagreements about this global obsession.Most information provided to the public about climate change comes from persons who study weather and weather processes, to whom a 150 year long temperature record represents “a long time”. To Dr van der Lingen, 150 years represents just a single heartbeat of the geological history that provides the proper context within which to judge modern climate danger. Read this book not just for the intelligent perspective it provides on the global warming scam, but also because it is at the same time a rattling good account of some of the most fascinating aspects of the history of our planet Earth.Professor Bob Carter, Townsville, Australia.Author of “Climate: The Counter Consensus” and “Taxing Air”For many years Dr van der Lingen has been actively engaged in debunking the man-made global warming hype, exposing the facts as an antidote against the misinformation, bordering on climate propaganda, which is often presented in the mainstream media. The result of his endeavors can be found in this fine and easily accessible collection of essays, which is a must read for all who are interested in what is mistakenly called the ‘greatest threat to mankind’.Hans Labohm, Leimuiden, The Netherlands.Independent economist and lead author of “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma”.As a non-scientific layman who found himself absorbed into the ‘global warming’ (a.k.a. ‘climate change’) debate in 2006, I found I had a lot to learn from genuine experts in the related sciences, first Professor Augie Auer, then Prof Bob Carter, and then Dr Gerrit van der Lingen. As a geologist and paleoclimatologist, Gerrit has the rare skill of making complex issues immediately comprehensible to laypeople like me, presenting relevant facts with convincing and easily understandable clarity.Terry Dunleavy MBE, Auckland New Zealand.Co-founder New Zealand Climate Science Coalition; founding chairman, International Climate Science Coalition.There are many books available debunking today’s cause célèbre of human-induced climate change – also known as ‘man-made global warming’, but one of the most approachable and enjoyable to read is this collection of essays and articles by Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen. Dr. van der Lingen’s arguments slice through the nonsense like a scythe, exposing it for what it is: the biggest, most expensive pseudo-scientific scam in history. Anyone who wants to know how and why a supposedly scientific debate morphed into a political movement motivated by a smorgasbord of agendas should read this book.Joe Fone, Christchurch, New ZealandAuthor of ‘Climate Change: Natural or Manmade?’ Amazon review.Warmer is better than colder for civilization as we know from past ice ages. The idea of a stable global climate is a fantasy. It never has been and never will as the major driving forces are solar cycles and ocean currents not fossil fuels. These forces are natural, chaotic and unstoppable. See this research.The most harmful untrue claim promoted by all governments in the Paris Climate Accord is that a carbon tax will somehow change the earth’s climate for the better. The false notion is that there is or ever has been a stable time in climate history. This is a stupid fable.The consequence for developing countries if they enact these taxes and abide by the Paris carbon reducing targets will be the greatest social reversal in history bringing misery and death to millions living without electricity. Cooking outside is the most harmful environmental issue today and Paris demonizing coal power will leave millions without hope of a more healthy alternative.Climate of Corruption : Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming HoaxMelting glaciers, suffering polar bears, rising oceans—these are just a few of the climate change crisis myths debunked by noted aerospace expert Larry Bell in this explosive new book. With meticulous research, Bell deflates these and other climate misconceptions with perceptive analysis, humor, and the most recent scientific data. Written for the laymen, yet in-depth enough for the specialist, this book digs deep into the natural and political aspects of the climate change debate, answering fundamental questions that reveal the all-too-human origins of “scientific” inquiry. Why and how are some of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions cashing in on the debate? Who stand to benefit most by promoting public climate change alarmism? What true political and financial purposes are served by the vilification of carbon dioxide? How do climate deceptions promote grossly exaggerated claims for non-fossil alternative energy capacities and advance blatant global wealth redistribution goals? With its devastating portrayal of scientific and government establishments run amok, this book is an invaluable addition to the tremendously popular literature attacking the scientific status quo. Climate of Corruption will bring welcome relief to all those who are fed up with climate crisis insanity.By now International climate is generally interesting to transfer the resources from developed to developing nations. Or as soon quote from the poor in rich countries to the rich and poor countries. And quotationThe truth is that there is no evidence for any significant human impact on global climate, and that there is nothing in a practical sense we can do to affect global climate. And is Larry Bell points out, a somewhat warmer climate with increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be beneficial overall to earths inhabitants, especially to those in developing nations who depend on agriculture for a living. Climate of Corruption brings a breath of fresh, cool air to the overheated climate debater.S. Fred Singer former director of US National Weather Service light service professor M or M or test at University of Virginia and Cole author of Unstoppable Global Warming[2]“Climate change is as remote from our experience as the world of atomic movements, and we are just as unable to see or experience it directly in our daily lives. But that is because climate is too large and slow to see, rather than too small and quick…When you look out the window, the weather you see is not climate. As with atoms and molecules, you can only get some idea of it through indirect means. There may be palm trees or there maybe snow outside to give you a clue, but you cannot actually see climate itself with your own eyes. Our knowledge and experience of it is fundamentally indirect, accumulated from years of experience or from the prevailing plant life. We often defer to elders and look at records accumulated over generations to get a sense of it.”Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warmingby Christopher Essex (Author), Ross McKitrick (Author) page 64.“We have shown, page after page, that certainty on the subject of the future direction of climate is impossible; that anyone who thinks we can predict the climate only courts the laughter of the gods...”1. Lennart O. BengtssonBengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to Environmental Research Letters, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.[14]Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.Professional WebsiteSelected BooksGeosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2001)The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change (Springer, 2012)Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows (Springer, 2012)Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet (Springer, 2013)AMAZING VOLTE FACEDid you know the UN almost dismissed the IPCC because their ‘best scientists’ as Gore says did not find human caused global warming after extensive research in 1990? After 5 years of research and discussion those 3000 best scientist 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.”The story of the failure of the IPCC science to support the UN General Assembly is reported in detail by Bernie Lewin in the above recent book.However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report that evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a `catastrophe signal' that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise. (less)The IPCC drama is played out as Lewin recites the struggle for power between the policy side headed by the G77 underdeveloped countries and the science side with thousands researching in Working Group 1. The G77 wanted to march forward quickly and get the climate reparations from the rich nations like the US and Germany. They became very impatient with the scientists who had serious doubts about the thesis that fossil fuels were sinking the developed nation coasts and it was all the fault of industrialization and market capitalism.Therefore the IPCC science summary detecting no human signal was terrible news for larger group. Worse are the clarifying reasons for no human signal of the IPCC because they looked unresolvable, certainly no hope for many years of ‘’observable data.’The ‘shortcomings and uncertainties’ found by IPCC working group are key to the reason the group refused to find the ‘science settled’ as th. See-11.1 IntroductionIn order to deal with the issues posed by increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and to prepare human societies for the impacts of climate change, climate predictions must become more reliable and precisePresent 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 demandsinternational coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system wc 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.The UN ignored these shortcomings and uncertainties identified by the scientists and went ahead as though the opposite finding had been made.In fact we now know that after that meeting in Madrid Santer had traveled directly to the UK Met office in Bracknell. Following the vague and disputed direction of the Madrid letter, and under Houghton’s direction, he had proceeded to modify the Chapter so that it would not directly contradict the bottom line finding that the evidence points towards human attribution. He had paid special attention to the many statements arising from the skeptical Barnett paper, which had reported the lack of any ‘yardstick’ of natural variability against which the human influence could be measured. The chapter’s Concluding Summary had been entirely removed.IPCC politicians wrote the final report and the “Summary”. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary’. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming2016, Pages 163-173Chapter 9 - Greenhouse GasesD.J.EasterbrookWestern Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United Stateshttps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-1...AbstractA greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation. The primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nontoxic, colorless, odorless gas. Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (90–85%) because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases, and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth's climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming always precedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the cause of the warming.The atmosphere of the planet is huge and notwithstanding our arrogance we are not a big factor.Global warming and human-induced climate change are perhaps the most important scientific issues of our time. These issues continue to be debated in the scientific community and in the media without true consensus about the role of greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor.Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.·An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming· Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field· Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warmingCompelling, easy-to-read, and written by internationally recognized experts in applied science, this volume destroys the human-caused global warming theory and clears the innocent carbon dioxide molecule of all the heinous crimes it is accused of. Google BooksOriginally published: 2011Authors: Alan Siddons, Hans Shreuder, John O'SullivanEven before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world’s first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming.Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.INTRODUCTIONThe most fundamental assumption in the theory of human CO2 Is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. Problem is that every record of any duration for any period in history of the earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs: temperatures increase precedes CO2. Despite that a massive deception was developed and continues.How does the massive deception of human induced global warming bypasses normally rigorous scientific method why does it continue to survive? Who orchestrated the science of politics? What was the motor?Two major factors explaining how Antrel Jenny global warming rakkas a GW and brackets evil got away with a massive deception. First was explication of fear. The end of the world is coming, there’s only a few years left in the mantra of everyone UN Secretary-General abandoned key move Prince Charles. Second was exploitation of people’s lack of knowledge or understanding sign. Science… Challenge facing anyone trying to cover the exploiters is to bring logic clarity and understanding in the way a majority of people can understand.Is the Greenhouse Effect a Sky Dragon Myth? A Dialogue with the Authors of Slaying the Sky DragonDr D Weston Allen – meet the author here 10/10/12INTRODUCTIONMy book, The Weather Makers Re-Examined, published in 2011 by Irenic Publications, was a comprehensive and damning critique of Tim Flannery’s alarming best seller which claimed ‘we are The Weather Makers’. I now examine Slaying the Sky Dragon (SSD), a full frontal attack on the greenhouse theory or ‘sky dragon’ by eight authors who refer to themselves as the ‘Slayers’ (p.358) – a term I adopt when referring to them. This 358-page book was published in 2011 by Stairway Press in WA (USA).Defining the sky dragonThe ‘greenhouse theory’ gradually evolved from the seminal work and limited understanding1 of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, John Tyndall in the 1860s, Svante Arrhenius in 1896-1908, Guy Callendar in 1938 to Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. It holds that solar radiation penetrates Earth’s atmosphere to reach the surface which is warmed by the absorption of this electromagnetic energy. The warmed surface emits infrared radiation, and much of this outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is intercepted by trace gases in the atmosphere. Some of this energy is radiated back to Earth’s surface where it is absorbed as thermal energy, thus enhancing solar warming of the surface by day and slowing cooling by night. Since glass on a greenhouse also absorbs and re-radiates infrared (IR) radiation, this atmospheric phenomenon became known as the ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE), and the trace gases are referred to as ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG).As real greenhouses work primarily by limiting convection, and GHGs by promoting it, SSD refers to them as ‘IR-absorbing gases’. Comprising less than half of one percent (0.5%) of Earth’s atmosphere, these gases are scattered somewhat unevenly through the atmosphere and across the globe. Most of the GHE, particularly over the tropics, is due to water vapour (H2O) and clouds in the troposphere, the bottom layer of the atmosphere where convective mixing and weather occurs. The tropopause, separating the troposphere from the stratosphere, increases in altitude from about 8km over polar regions to about 17km over the tropics. Above the stratosphere is the cold mesosphere (about 50-85km altitude) and then the very warm thin thermosphere which merges into the exosphere (at 350-800km altitude depending on solar activity). The troposphere contains about 80% of the mass of the atmosphere and the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is generally considered to be about 100km above Earth’s surface.Without any IR-absorbing GHGs in the atmosphere, all radiative energy losses balancing solar input would occur at Earth’s surface. According to the laws of radiation, the average temperature at the surface would then be about -180C, nearly 330C colder than the observed mean value. While IR is radiated to space from the surface and atmosphere, the average loss occurs where the temperature is actually -180C at an altitude of around 5km. The more GHGs in the atmosphere the higher this average radiative layer; and since the temperature below it increases by about 6.50C/km (the lapse rate), the higher this layer the higher the temperature at Earth’s surface. This critique will examine only the basics of this very complex subject.Arguments presented in Slaying the Sky DragonThe atmosphere is warmed primarily by conduction, not by radiation; and so the major atmospheric gases (nitrogen and oxygen) are more likely to warm the trace IR-absorbing gases than visa-versa. The major gases also absorb and emit some IR radiation.The IR-absorbing gases simply scatter IR radiation or otherwise pass any absorbed energy on immediately. These trace gases absorb more solar radiation than OLR and thus cool Earth’s surface; so they are notgreenhouse gases; it is water vapour that makes tropical rainforests cooler than tropical deserts. The glass on a greenhouse works only by limiting convection, not by back-radiation.There is no such thing as back-radiation (no empirical evidence for it) and the postulated recycling of energy between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere is a non-physical ‘amplification’.Atmospheric IR radiation cannot affect Earth’s surface temperature because heat cannot flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.Every planet with an atmosphere has a surface temperature higher than predicted; and the surface temperature of such planets rises in direct proportion to atmospheric pressure.The lapse rate (declining temperature with altitude) is determined by gravity and the specific heat of the atmospheric gases, not by their ability to absorb IR radiation.The GHE is supposed to increase lapse rates, but Earth’s lapse rate (6.5K/km) is lower than predicted (9.8K/km), so the greenhouse theory is wrong.Since emissions occur at the TOA at a mean altitude of 5km (where it is -180C), the lapse rate alone explains the fact that Earth’s effective blackbody temperature is 330C below its surface temperature (150C).Based on a surface emissivity of ‘about 0.7’, a GHE is not needed to balance Earth’s energy budget. Averaging Earth’s energy budget over day and night in flat earth climate models is fundamentally flawed,and this invalidates all climate models.Human emissions of CO2 are not a problem since more than 98% is absorbed within a year.Historically, temperature rises precede atmospheric CO2 increases; so global warming produces more CO2, released from warming oceans, never the opposite.Increased geo-nuclear activity is warming the oceans from below and causing global warming. Global temperatures have been going down rapidly.The critical issue is not climate sensitivity (to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels) or how much global warming is due to CO2, because none of it is.There is no empirical evidence for a GHE but ample evidence against it, as provided in SSD and at their website: Principia Scientific International.2. John R. ChristyChristy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15]Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16]; In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.[17]Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.[18]In an interview with the New York Times published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19]However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to ad hominem attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," Journal of Climate, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," Atmospheric Environment, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," Nature, 1997, 389: 342 — 343.“Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” Science, 2000, 287: 1242 — 1245.”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," Climate Dynamics, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.”Reliability of satellite data sets," Science, 2003, 301: 1046 — 1047.”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," Energy & Environment, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," Remote Sensing, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," Nature, 2010, 463: 730 — 732.”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," Geoscience Data Journal, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.3. Judith A. CurryCurry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist with broad research interests, including atmospheric modeling, the polar regions, atmosphere-ocean interactions, remote sensing, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research, and hurricanes, especially their relationship to tornadoes. Before retiring, she was actively researching the evidence for a link between global warming and hurricane frequency and severity.Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists. For example, in 2011, she published (with a collaborator) an article stressing the uncertainties involved in climate science and urging caution on her colleagues.[20]After having posted comments along these lines on other people’s blogs for several years, in 2010, she created her own climate-related blog, Climate Etc. (see below), to foster a more open and skeptical discussion of the whole gamut of issues involving climate change/global warming. She also gave testimony some half dozen times between 2006 and 2015 to Senate and House subcommittees, expressing in several of them her concerns about the politicization of the usual scientific process in the area of climate change. Writing on her blog in 2015 about her most-recent Congressional testimony, Curry summarized her position as follows:The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.[21]Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science. She continues to be active in the field of climatology through her two blogs and her many public lectures.Curry is the author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books (see below). She has received many research grants, been invited to give numerous public lectures, and participated in many workshops, discussion panels, and committees, both in the US and abroad. In 2007, Curry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).Academic WebsiteProfessional WebsitePersonal WebsiteSelected BooksThermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Academic Press, 1988)Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (Academic Press, 2003)Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds (Cambridge University Press, 2014)4. Richard S. LindzenLindzen was born in Webster, Massachusetts, in 1940. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.Already in his PhD dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22]After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23]Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24]Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.[25]The idea for which Lindzen is best known, though, is undoubtedly the “adaptive infrared iris” conjecture.[26]According to this model, the observed inverse correlation between surface temperature and cirrus cloud formation may operate as a negative feedback on infrared radiation (heat) build-up near the earth’s surface. According to this proposal, decreasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures rise leads to increased heat radiation into space, while increasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures decline leads to increased heat retention — much as the iris of the human eye adapts to ambient light by widening and narrowing. If correct, this phenomenon would be reason for optimism that global warming might be to some extent self-limiting. Lindzen’s hypothesis has been highly controversial, but it is still being discussed as a serious proposal, even by his many critics.Lindzen was a Contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment, and to Chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Lindzen began to express his concern about the reliability of the computer models upon which official IPCC and other extreme climate projections are based. He has been especially critical of the notion that the “science is settled.” In a 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he maintained that the science is far from settled and that “[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”[27]For his trouble, Lindzen has suffered the usual brutal, ad hominem attacks from the climate-change establishment.Lindzen is author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports (see below). He is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS).Academic WebsiteSelected BooksAtmospheric Tides (D. Reidel, 1970)Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application (Naval Research Lab, 1977)The Atmosphere — a Challenge: The Science of Jule Gregory Charney(American Meteorological Society, 1990)Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1990)THIS BOOK JUST PUBLISHED -ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle EditionbyNakamura Mototaka(Author)ArticlesGSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his bookThe Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his websiterealclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free onKindle— arm yourself with the facts, and spread them.Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the book):“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”SOLAR FORCINGSolar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.As Roy Spencer, PhD. eloquently writes:“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: "Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World" - ElectroverseThis book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, ProfessorIn this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONKent Price4.0 out of 5 stars As a retired solar radio astronomer, I appreciate the science in this bookNovember 25, 2014 - Published on Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & moreIt is no surprise that the sun is the major contributor to the Earth's surface temperature. However, this book details how the sun changes with time, in terms of electromagnetic energy radiated, magnetic field changes, and coronal mass ejections, and the resultant impact on temperature of the Earth. The result is not a simple variation of "total radiated energy" but also complex interactions such as the Sun's magnetic field shielding the Earth from cosmic rays (radiation from outside the solar system) which in turn cause more cloud cover which reflects sunlight and reduces temperatures.The book is organized with a preface plus nine chapters, four of which are written by guest contributors:(1) It's the sun stupid(2) Climate catastrophe deferred - a summary(3) Our temperamental sun (by Nir Shaviv), Solar forcing and 20-th century climate change(4) Brief history of temperature: our climate in the past (by Nicola Scafetta)(5) Has the IPCC really done its homework? (by Henrik Svensmark), cosmic rays and clouds(6) Misunderstood climate amplifiers (by Werner Weber), mining a treasure trove of old solar data(7) A look into the future(8) How climate scientists are attempting to transform society(9) A new energy agenda emergesAs a retired solar radio astronomer, I appreciate the science in this book and heartily recommend it to the general reader, just ignore the extensive footnotes at the end of each chapter (and which would have been better left to the end of the book). A strong point in the book is the extensive graphs (which are very small on the Kindle) and discussion of climate data gathered over time (100's, 1000's, and even 100,000's of years). This data from the past indicates the possible changes in the future. An interesting note is that the current climate models which focus on CO2 and a static sun are not able to fit the actual past data.The governments of the world are rushing to declare a "climate crisis" in order to justify new carbon taxes (which assume that increased CO2 emissions are causing climate changes). The material in this book should help taxpayers understand the major factors that impact climate and the expected rate of temperature change.German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTCProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Charles4.0 out of 5 starsThe alternative viewpoint of global warmingDecember 20, 2018Professor Plimer is highly qualified to write such a scientific book, and that is borne out by the text. His thesis is that global climate has varied over millenia and will continue to vary, with no influence by humans or our carbon combustion. What I particularly appreciate is that - unlike the IPCC - Professor Plimer cites references that the reader can check for oneself, to back up every claim he makes. He includes graphs from both IPCC and other sources to prove that the IPCC claims are false. Anyone truly interested in the climate change issue should read this book before deciding what is true and what is false.AMAZON -Climate, sea level, and ice sheets have always changed, and the changes observed today are less than those of the past. Climate changes are cyclical and are driven by the Earth’s position in the galaxy, the sun, wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, and plate tectonics. In previous times, atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than at present but did not drive climate change. No runaway greenhouse effect or acid oceans occurred during times of excessively high carbon dioxide. During past glaciations, carbon dioxide was higher than it is today. The non-scientific popular political view is that humans change climate. Do we have reason for concern about possible human-induced climate change? This book’s 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature and other authoritative sources engagingly synthesize what we know about the sun, earth, ice, water, and air. Importantly, in a parallel to his 1994 book challenging “creation science,” Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer describes Al Gore’s book and movie An Inconvenient Truth as long on scientific “misrepresentations.” “Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists,” he writes, “who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo.”Kenneth FairhurstNovember 18, 2009Humans have been burning fossil fuels and producing CO2 for the past 150 years. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The Earth's mean temperature appears to have risen over this period. "Obviously human produced CO2 has caused the warming" says the IPCC. The science is settled. Q.e.d. Anything that is at variance with this is obviously wrong and must be either ignored or changed."Not so fast" says Ian Plimer. You are ignoring the basic statistical law which states that correlation does not mean causation. I will write a book to show that there is nothing new about climate change. That the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than present at various times of its evolution. That todays CO2 levels are much lower than in the geological past and are not exceptionally high in relationship to the historical past. That there are many things on Earth and in space producing climate variability. That the fears of catastrophic global warming are unfounded, and that previous warm periods have been beneficial to both human society and the biosphere whilst cold periods have been times of great hardship.Has he succeeded in his quest? Absolutely! He presents convincing evidence in favour of all the above propositions, and continually emphasises how woefully inadequate are the global climate models that the IPCC relies on. I do not believe that anybody could read this book with an open mind and not be convinced that there is overwhelming evidence against the possibility of catastrophic AGW.Professor Plimer is Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Adelaide University, and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at Melbourne University. Geology is one of the core disciplines of climate science. Consequently he is well qualified to write on this topic (not something that can be said of some IPCC lead authors, not to mention the authors of various alarmist AGW books and films).The book devotes chapters to climate history, the Earth, the Sun, water, ice and air. Each chapter is preceded by a very useful synopsis of the topics to be covered. The ways, many of them theoretical, in which these systems interact to produce the climate is explored. The stupendous complexity of these interactions is apparent. Much time is spent on the methods that have been used to determine past climates and CO2 levels as well as the ways that the IPCC and some of its lead authors have misinterpreted and misused the data. The final chapter sets forth Plimer's opinions about the politics of global warming, the individuals and groups supporting it out of self interest and the many ill-informed people who have been misled by them. Although this chapter is a bit rambling and could have used some editing, it contains plenty of information that deserves to be common knowledge.The book is constructed around more than 2,300 references. This may account for the choppiness of the writing and the repetition referred to in other reviews. The amount of information is massive, and, unless one has a photographic memory, it will take a great deal of time and effort to get through the book. It is definitely not bedtime reading material, but anyone who puts in the effort will be richly rewarded.And what of the IPCC? They have changed the CO2 atmopheric residence time from the previously accepted 4 to 5 years to a ridiculous 50 to 200 years without a shred of real-world evidence to support it. The role of the sun is downplayed and the variability of the solar constant is grossly underestimated. They admit that clouds and precipitation systems are poorly modelled, and they do not even try to model ENSO. They have spent billions of dollars over 2 decades in trying to find a fingerprint for AGW, and have completely failed to do so. In no way are these the actions of a responsible and impartial body. But then the science is settled isn't it? Professor Plimer details many more examples.The book is not perfect. There are several contradictory statements and one that made me raise my eyebrows. On page 19 he states that one of the IPCC lead authors on epidemiology has written on mercury poisoning from land mines. This is a mis-quote from page 188 of Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers".Also, some of the graphs are not very explanatory.CO2 is a trace gas, 50% heavier than air and highly soluble in water. It is essential to life, and is a fundamental building block of all our foodstuffs. Yet the idea has taken hold that it is a dangerous pollutant which threatens to destroy civilisation and the planet. Because of this, governments are discussing spending trillions of dollars on a futile attempt to control and reduce its atmospheric concentration. This is preposterous. It is pure madness. Future generations will look back at it and shake their heads in amazement.Professor Plimer has done his best to bring sanity to the discussions on climate change. I wholeheartedly recommend his book.The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened explains why the catastrophic decline in polar bear numbers we were promised in 2007 failed to materialize. It’s the story of how and why the polar bear came to be considered 'Threatened' with extinction, and tracks its rise and fall as an icon of the global warming movement. The book also tells the story of Crockford’s role in bringing that failure to public attention and the backlash against her that ensued – and why, among all others who have attempted to do so previously, she was uniquely positioned to do so. In general, this is a cautionary tale of scientific hubris and of scientific failure, of researchers staking their careers on untested computer simulations and later obfuscating inconvenient facts.For the first time, you'll see a frank and detailed account of attempts by scientists to conceal population growth as numbers rose from an historical low in the 1960s to the astonishing highs that surely must exist after almost 50 years of protection from overhunting. There is also a blunt account of what truly abundant populations of bears mean for the millions of people who live and work in areas of the Arctic inhabited by polar bears.5. Nir J. ShavivShaviv was born in Ithaca, New York, in 1972, but was raised in Israel. He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study inShaviv first made a name for himself (see his 1998 and 2001 papers, below) with his research on the relationship between inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres and the Eddington limit (the equilibrium point at which the centrifugal force of stellar radiation production equals the centripetal force of gravitation). This theoretical work led to a concrete prediction that was later confirmed telescopically (see the 2013 Naturepaper listed below).Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002 (see below), detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity (see his 2012 paper, below). He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.In recent years, Shaviv has become an active critic of the results and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations supporting the consensus view. In particular, he rejects the often-heard claim that “97% of climate scientists” agree that anthropogenic climate change is certain and highly dangerous. Shaviv emphasizes (see the video clip, below) that “science is not a democracy” and all that matters is the evidence for these claims — which he finds deficient.Shaviv is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters, of which some of the most important are listed below.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications”Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids," Astrophysical Journal, 1992, 392: 106 — 117.”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background," Physical Review Letters, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1998, 494: L193 — L197.”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2001, 326: 126 — 146.”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth," New Astronomy, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?," GSA Today, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection," in Richard C. Ragaini, ed., International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 2003. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110: A08105.”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate," Space Science Reviews, 2006, 127: 327 — 465.”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, Icarus, 2011, 216: 403 — 414.”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century," Advances in Space Research, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in planetary atmospheres," Acta Polytechnica, 2013, 53(Supplement): 832 — 838.”An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosion," Nature, 2013, 494: 65 — 67.10 recent science papers deny any significant greenhouse climate effect.The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver?Davis et al., 2018 [T]he contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). … The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.Gray, 2018 [T]he globe’s annual surface solar absorption of 171 Wm-2 is balanced by about half going to evaporation (85 Wm-2) and the other half (86 Wm-2) going to surface to atmosphere upward IR (59 Wm-2) flux and surface to air upward flux by sensible heat transfer (27 Wm-2). Assuming that the imposed extra CO2 doubling IR blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 is taken up and balanced by the earth’s surface as the solar absorption is taken up and balanced, we should expect a direct warming of only ~ 0.5°C for a doubling of the CO2. The 1°C expected warming that is commonly accepted incorrectly assumes that all the absorbed IR goes to balancing outward radiation (through E = σT4- e.g., the Stefan-Boltzmann law) with no energy going to evaporation. … This analysis shows that the influence of doubling atmospheric CO2 by itself (without invoking any assumed water vapor positive feedback) leads to only small amounts of global warming which are much less than predicted by GCMs.Fleming, 2018 This manuscript will review the essence of the role of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The logic of CO2 involvement in changing the climate will be investigated from every perspective: reviewing the historical data record, examining in further detail the twentieth-century data record, and evaluating the radiation role of CO2 in the atmosphere—calculating and integrating the Schwarzschild radiation equation with a full complement of CO2 absorption coefficients. A review of the new theory of climate change—due to the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with cosmic rays, is provided. The application of this new theory is applied to climate-change events within the latter part of the Earth’s interglacial period. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.Holmes, 2018 In short, there is unlikely to be any significant net warming from the greenhouse effect on any planetary body in the parts of atmospheres which are >10kPa. Instead, it is proposed that the residual temperature difference between the effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature, is a thermal enhancement caused by gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto compression, powered by convection. A new null hypothesis of global warming or climate change is therefore proposed and argued for; one which does not include any anomalous or net warming from greenhouse gases in the tropospheric atmospheres of any planetary body. … A decline of 6% in lower tropospheric tropical cloud cover (15°N–15°S) occurred 1984 – 2000 according to the international satellite cloud climatology project’s data [29]. These years are contained well with the 1975-2000 period of warming, and an observed 0.4°C rise in global temperatures occurred over the same period. Scatter diagrams [55] of low cloud cover vs global surface air temperatures indicate that a 1% fall in low clouds equates to a 0.07°C rise in surface air temperatures – hence this change in cloudiness accounts for the entire observed rise in global temperatures during the 1975-2000 period, leaving no room for any effect from growing greenhouse gases.Ollila, 2018 The temperature effects of the water and CO2 are based on spectral analysis calculations, which show that water is 11.8 times stronger a GH gas than CO2 in the present climate. … There are essential features in the long-term trends of temperature and TPW [total precipitable water], which are calculated and depicted as mean values 11 years running. The temperature has increased about 0.4°C since 1979 and has now paused at this level. The long-term trend of TPW effects shows that it has slightly decreased during the temperature-increasing period from 1979 to 2000. This means that the absolute water amount in the atmosphere does not follow the temperature increase, but is practically constant, reacting only very slightly to the long-term trends of temperature changes. The assumption that relative humidity is constant and that it amplifies the GH gas changes over the longer periods by doubling the warming effects finds no grounds based on the behavior of the TWP [total precipitable water] trend. The positive water feedback exists only during the short-term ENSO events (≤4 years). … The validity of the IPCC model can be tested against the observed temperature. It turns out that the IPCC-calculated temperature increase for 2016 is 1.27°C, which is 49 per cent higher than the observed 0.85°C. This validity test means that the IPCC climate forcing model using the radiative forcing value of CO2 is too sensitive for CO2 increase, and the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter, including the positive water feedback doubling the GH gas effects, does not exist. … The CO2 emissions from 2000 onward represent about one-third of the total emissions since 1750, but the temperature has not increased, and it has paused at the present level. This is worthy proof that the IPCC’s climate model has overestimated human-induced causes and has probably underestimated natural causes like the sun’s activity changes, considering the historical temperatures during the past 2000 years. … The RF [radiative forcing] value for the CO2 concentration of 560 ppm is 2.16 Wm−2 according to equation (3), which is 42 per cent smaller than 3.7 Wm−2 used by the IPCC. The same study of Ollila (2014) shows that the CS [climate sensitivity] parameter λ is 0.27 K/(Wm−2), which means that there is no water feedback. Using this λ value, equation (3) gives a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] value of 0.6°C only. This same result is also reported by Harde (2014) using the spectral analysis method. …There are both theoretical- and measurement-based studies showing results that can be explained only by the fact that there is no positive water feedback. This result reduces the CS [climate sensitivity] by 50 per cent. Some research studies show that the RF [radiative forcing] value of carbon dioxide is considerably smaller than the commonly used RF value, according to the equation of Myhre et al. (1998). Because of these two causes, the critical studies show a TCS [transient climate sensitivity] of about 0.6°C instead of 1.9°C by the IPCC, a 200 per cent difference.Smirnov, 2018 From this, it follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved. Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.Munshi, 2018 Atmospheric CO2 concentrations and surface temperature reconstructions in the study period 1850-2017 are used to estimate observed equilibrium climate sensitivity. Comparison of climate sensitivities in the first and second halves of the study period and a study of climate sensitivities in a moving 60-year window show that the estimated values of climate sensitivity are unstable and unreliable and that therefore they may not contain useful information. These results are not consistent with the existence of a climate sensitivity parameter that determines surface temperature according to atmospheric CO2 concentration.Liu and Chen, 2018 CO2 and temperature records at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and other observation stations show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not significant. These stations are located away from big cities, and in various latitudes and hemispheres. But the correlation is significant in global mean data. Over the last five decades, CO2 has grown at an accelerating rate with no corresponding rise in temperature in the stations. This discrepancy indicates that CO2 probably is not the driving force of temperature change globally but only locally(mainly in big cities). We suggest that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too low to drive global temperature change. Our empirical perception of the global warming record is due to the urban heat island effect: temperature rises in areas with rising population density and rising industrial activity. This effect mainly occurs in the areas with high population and intense human activities, and is not representative of global warming. Regions far from cities, such as the Mauna Loa highland, show no evident warming trend. The global monthly mean temperature calculated by record data, widely used by academic researchers, shows R~2=0.765, a high degree of correlation with CO2. However, the R~2 shows much less significance (mean R~2=0.024) if calculated by each record for 188 selected stations over the world. This test suggests that the inflated high correlation between CO2 and temperature(mean R~2=0.765-0.024=0.741) used in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) was very likely produced during data correction and processing. This untrue global monthly mean temperature has created a picture: human emission drives global warming.Laubereau and Iglev, 2018 Using a simple 1-dimensional model the global warming of the surface is computed that is generated by the increase of GHG and the albedo change. A modest effect by the GHG of 0.08 K is calculated for the period 1880 to 1955 with a further increase by 0.18 K for 1955 to 2015. A larger contribution of 0.55 ± 0.05 K is estimated for the melting of polar sea ice (MSI) in the latter period, i.e. it notably exceeds that of the GHG and may be compared with the observed global temperature rise of 1.0 ± 0.1 K during the past 60 years. … In conclusion we wish to say that we have performed a study of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide, methane, dinitrogen-oxide and water to estimate their contribution to the global warming in 1880 – 2015. Our results suggest that the IR properties of the CO2 are responsible for ~ 20% of the mean temperature increase of the surface and notably less for CH4 and N2O.Allmendinger, 2018 Knowledge about thermal radiation of the atmosphere is rich in hypotheses and theories but poor in empiric evidence. Thereby, the Stefan-Boltzmann relation is of central importance in atmosphere physics, and holds the status of a natural law. However, its empirical foundation is little, tracing back to experiments made by Dulong and Petit two hundred years ago. … For studying the pressure dependency, the experiments were carried out at locations with different altitudes. For the so-called atmospheric emission constant A an approximate value of 22 Wm−2 bar−1 K−0.5 was found. In the non-steady-state, the total thermal emission power of the soil is given by the difference between its blackbody radiation and the counter-radiation of the atmosphere. This relation explains to a considerable part the fact that on mountains the atmospheric temperature is lower than on lowlands, in spite of the enhanced sunlight intensity. Thereto, the so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon-dioxide do not have any influence. … The time-temperature curves of irradiated gases proceed alike to those of irradiated SOBs, always reaching limiting temperatures. Analogously, it may be assumed that a limiting temperature is attained when a steady equilibrium exists between the intensity of the absorbed radiation, on the one side, and of the emitted radiation, on the other side. Thus the knowledge of the limiting temperature values enables making statements about the radiation emissivity of the respective gases. Surprisingly, any gas was up-warmed, even noble gases did so (Figure 13), while—contrary to the prediction of the conventional greenhouse theory—no significant difference could be found between pure carbon-dioxide, air and argon. … [T]he calculation of the radiative heat coefficient yielded that the amount of radiative energy being transformed into kinetic heat energy is very small. Therefore, the empiric evidence was delivered that any gas is warmed up to a limiting temperature by near-infrared light as well as by sunlight. … While a theoretical calculation of such an absorption coefficient was not feasible, at least a principal explanation may be given: There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Instead, it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, i.e. to say in all directions, before having induced a temperature enhancement. … This approach contradicts in many ways the conventional greenhouse theory: Firstly, the boundary processes at the Earth surface and at the lowest layer of the atmosphere are predominant, while the conventional greenhouse theory regards the whole atmosphere; and secondly—even more crucial—the radiation budget is solely determined by the air conditions of the atmosphere such as pressure and temperature while so-called “greenhouse gases” such as carbon-dioxide do not have the slightest influence on the climate. Besides, the atmosphere cannot really be compared to a greenhouse, not least due to the absence of a glass-roof which absorbs IR-radiation, and which inhibits considerable air convection.Glatzle, 2018 Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors. The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies. Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems. However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through scientific literature. Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.Laubereau and Iglev, 2018 The importance of the sea ice retreat in the polar regions for the global warming and the role of ice-albedo feedback was recognized by various authors [1,2]. Similar to a recent study of the phenomenon in the Arctic [3] we present a semi-quantitative estimate of the mechanism for the Southern Hemisphere (SH). Using a simple model, we estimate the contribution of ice-albedo feedback to the mean temperature increase in the SH to be 0.5 +/- 0.1 K in the years 1955 to 2015, while from the simultaneous growth of the greenhouse gases (GHG) we derive a direct warming of only 0.2 +/- 0.05 K in the same period. These numbers are in nice accordance with the reported mean temperature rise of 0.75 +/- 0.1 K of the SH in 2015 since 1955 (and relative to 1880). Our data also confirm previously noticed correlations between the annual fluctuations of solar intensity and El Nino observations on the one hand and the annual variability of the SH surface temperature on the other hand. Our calculations indicate a slowing down of the temperature increase during the past few years that is likely to persist. Assuming a continuation of the present trends for the southern sea ice and GHG concentration we predict the further temperature rise to decrease by 33 % in 2015 to 2025 as compared to the previous decade. … The spectral forcing via the changing spectral properties of the GHG with concentration is considered … A minor increase of 0.08 K is evaluated for 1955 relative to 1880 (see solid green line). A further rise of 0.18 K is computed for 1955 to 2015 because of the concentration increase of the GHG (broken green curve). Comparison with the experimental data (open dark gray circles) readily shows that the increasing far infrared absorption of the GHG with growing abundance is not the major cause for the warming of the SH surface. At this point it is interesting to compare our data with the reported spectral forcing of the GHG of 1.82 W/m2 for the years 1750 – 2015 [27]. For a CO2 concentration of 275 ppmv in 1750 we calculate a temperature rise of 0.29 K by the GHG corresponding to a spectral forcing of 1.57 ± 0.19 W/m2 in nice accordance with the published number.http://Ihttps://Image Source: Pla et al., 2017Climate alarmism versus integrity at National Academies of ScienceCharles Rotter / 6 hours ago June 29, 2020Reposted from CFACTBy David Wojick |June 28th, 2020|ClimateNational Academies of Science should speak out against climate alarmism, not support it. This is the major message in a recent letter from Professor Guus Berkhout, president of CLINTEL, to the new head of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The integrity of science is at stake.This letter is a model for how all alarmist National Academies should be addressed. For example, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is painfully alarmist. Even worse, NAS has been joined in promoting alarmism by its two siblings, the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine. The fact that these Academies have become a servant of supranational political organizations such as IPCC shows how serious the crisis in climate science really is.The Netherlands Academy is called KNAW, from its Dutch name. KNAW was established in 1808 as an advisory body to the government, a task it still performs today. NAS was established by Congress in 1868. Both NAS and KNAW derive their authority from their high profile members, rigorously selected top scientists from a large range of scientific fields. Professor Berkhout is a member of KNAW.The letter is addressed to Prof. Dr. Ineke Sluiter, President of KNAW. It begins with a clear statement of the issue:“I am addressing you in your capacity as the new President of the KNAW because the climate issue is escalating. The IPCC and the associated activist climate movement have become highly politicised. Sceptical scientists are being silenced. As an IPCC expert reviewer, I critically looked at the latest draft climate report. My conclusion is that there is little evidence of any intent to discover the objective scientific truth.Though IPCC’s doomsday scenarios are far from representative of reality, they play an important role in government climate policy. Only courageous individuals dare to point out that the predictions of the IPCC’s computer models of climate have not come to pass, in that contemporary measurements contradict them. IPCC’s confidence in its own models does not match the real-world outturn. In the past, scientific societies such as ours would have sounded the alarm. (Emphasis added.)In your interview with Elsevier Weekblad (6 June 2020) you say: “Dutch science should be proud of itself” and, a little later, “A hallmark of high-quality research must be a wide variety of viewpoints – fewer dogmas, more viewpoints.” I agree. Unfortunately, your observations do not seem to apply to climate science. There, diversity is suppressed and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dogma is promoted. That is why I am writing to you.”After discussing the well known problems with the IPCC science, Professor Berkhout states his case:“Why do scientific institutions not warn society that all these climate-change doom and gloom scenarios have little or no scientific justification? I know that there are many scientists around the world who doubt or disagree with the IPCC’s claims. I also know from my own experience and from correspondence with colleagues that there is much pressure on researchers to conform to what we are told is the climate “consensus”. But the history of science shows time and again that new insights do not come from followers but from critical thinkers. For valid new insights, measurements trump models.The KNAW, as the guardian of science, must surely take action now. The more governments invest in expensive climate policies in the name of climate science, the more difficult it becomes to point out that climate science in its present state falls a long way short of providing any justification for such policies. There are more and more indications that things are not right. If the scientific community waits for the dam to burst, the damage to science will be enormous. Society will then rightly ask itself the question: why were the Academies of Sciences silent? Surely there has been enough warning from scientific critics of the official position?The KNAW must, of course, stay clear of politics and focus on excellence in finding the truth. But I repeat that the KNAW is also the guardian of science. In climate policy in particular, science is abused on a global scale. How can one plausibly state, on such a highly complex subject as the Earth’s climate, that “the science is settled”? That is not excellence: it is stupidity.”There is a lot more and the letter ends with a specific proposal from CLINTEL:“I propose to organise an international open blue-team/red-team meeting together with the KNAW, in which both teams can present their scientific views†. These discussions could be the start of a new era in climate science. Audiatur et altera pars.”The US National Academy of Sciences is a lot worse than KNAW in this regard. Not only does NAS not speak out against the anti-scientific climate movement, it openly supports it. I know there are skeptical members of NAS, probably many. They need to speak out, just as Professor Berkhout has done.Nothing less than the integrity of science is at stake. Failure to acknowledge the scientific climate change debate is making science look like a political tool. This can only turn out badly for science.David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.For origins see The STEM Education Center For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see David Wojick, Author at CFACT Available for confidential research and consulting.Climate alarmism versus integrity at National Academies of Science

By keeping the covering air tight so the convection process of the greenhouse succeeds in trapping any incoming heat from the sun. Do not allow any holes in the structure that would cause the warmer air to escape into the much colder atmosphere.The answer to this question is the key reason that the greenhouse gas theory propounded by the UN and other alarmists is false.Here is a picture of a greenhouse that would not be warm in the winter.The panels are shattered and will not trap the heat from the sun in the winter or summer.IN FACT THE EARTH IS LIKE THE SHATTERED GREENHOUSE AS THE ATMOSPHERE IS OPEN AS THE GHG ARE TOO SMALL AT 4% AND 95% is water vapour. Co2 is near zero and impossible to have any heat trapping of back radaition effect that could matter.The earth is not under any canopy that traps heat because the alleged gases are only 4% of the atmosphere. Look at the picture below by Tammy Wylie of a Winter Greenhouse and imagine that only 4% of the house was covered. The result is not warming just as in the real world of the earth’s atmosphere does not provide a greenhouse for weather and the climate.There is no greenhouse effect to minimize! It is a delusion. The idea of a greenhouse effect first introduced in 1824 by Fourier and Tyndal 1861 was refuted by Dr. RW Wood in 1909 using a laboratory experiment. Wood was a famous American physicist and pioneer in development of infrared and ultraviolet photography. NOTE :“It is not the “trapped” infrared radiation, which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse, it is the suppression of air cooling.”https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v...Therefore, “So called greenhouse gases have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses.”Because the alleged greenhouse gases are small part of the atmosphere they provide no heat trapping cover.NASA drawing of a fake global greenhouse showing uncovered panelsHistory proves that vivid metaphors with false science in the hands of the media, politicians and mass hysteria can be devastating. The popular book, SILENT SPRING written by Rachel Carson is a tragic example of environmentalism gone mad.Bad METAPHORS from shoddy science are deadlyTHE SILENT SPRING AND THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT EXAMPLES“While excellent literature, however, Silent Spring was very poor science…Carson wrongly claimed DDT Endangered U.S. Birds with Extinction. According to Rachel Carson, DDT was so harmful to birds that someday America’s springs would be silent, as all the birds that might enliven them with song would be dead. Indeed, it was from this poignant image that she drew the title for her book.An examination of actual data, however, thoroughly debunks Carson’s claim… In the case of the robin, singled out by Carson as “the tragic symbol of the fate of the birds,”[40] the population count increased twelvefold.Many other studies show the same pattern of sharp increase of some bird populations during the DDT years.THE DDT LIE IN PHOTO BY THE NEW YORKER JUNE 23, 1962Silent Spring—IITo only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase in agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably, perhaps, scrub typhus and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that, in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable.. By some estimates, the death toll in Africa alone from unnecessary malaria resulting from the restrictions on DDT has exceeded 100 million people.[26]”Robert Zubrin is a New Atlantis contributing editor. This essay is adapted from his new book — the latest volume in our New Atlantis Books series — Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism.https://www.thenewatlantis.com/p...I submit that Al Gore’s slide show and subsequent movie, THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH is sadly a remake of Rachael Carson’s SILENT SPRING and by denying fossil fuels to > 2 billion living off the grid the result will be just as devastating..The justification to call out Canada’s erroneous website greenhouse explanation as ‘bunk” begins with the fact the earth’s atmosphere is an open, uncontrolled environment unlike a physical greenhouse. There is nothing like glass panels trapping sunlight and heat unless you believe in magic. The magic of alarmist climate scientists is to resurrect a disproven hypothesis of the 1800s that greenhouse gases, (GHG) water vapour in particular acts like glass panel or blanket and keeps the heat from escaping especially at night.Remember for every complex problem there is a simple answer and it is wrong. NASA’s greenhouse gas story aimed at kids is simple and wrong – yes it is bunk. The best way to see the error is NASA’s education brief on the subject.Scientific studies impressively and frequently demolish the alleged greenhouse effect and in particular any role for trace Co2 as a greenhouse gas pushed by alarmists.“Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate changeMartin Hertzberg and Hans SchreuderMARTIN HERTZBERG - a long time climate writer, a former U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Stanford University and holder of a Fulbright Professorship.Abstract0(0) 1–13 ! The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: Journals PermissionsDOI: 10.1177/0958305X16674637 Your gateway to world-class journal researchThe authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2. [Emphasis added]IntroductionOver the last 200 years, data show that there has been a more or less steady increase in the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), from 280 ppmv (parts per mil- lion by volume) to 400 ppmv. That is a 43% increase, from 0.028% to 0.040%. CO2 is said to be a ‘greenhouse gas,’ which traps heat or prevents infrared radiation from being lost to free space.It is argued that the increase of CO2 is caused by the human combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum products and natural gas, and that any continuing increase is a threat to the earth’s habitability. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) paradigm, increases in atmospheric CO2 precede and cause parallel increases in the Earth’s temperature.”Corresponding author:Martin Hertzberg, private consultant, USA. Email: [email protected] Energy & Environment 0(0)A large number of the world Governments, professional societies, editors of scientific journals, print journalists, TV media reporters and many corporations generally accept the validity of the IPCC paradigm. Accordingly, there is a concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions, tax such emissions and replace fossil fuel combustion by alternative energy sources.The purpose of this report is to summarise all available observations and measurements relating to the IPCC paradigm and question all aspects of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW)/ catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACG) hypothesis.“DATA TO SUPPORT THE UN IPCC PARADIGMPublished data that might appear to support the conclusion that human CO2 emissions have caused a modest increase in the average temperature of the Earth is shown in Figure 3.The average monthly surface air temperature anomaly as measured by the National Climatic Data Center is shown in blue and the atmospheric CO2 concentration in red. CO2 concentrations are the average monthly values measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The dashed gray line indicates the approximate linear trend. The boxes at the bottom of the chart indicate whether a temperature trend is positive or negative relative to the CO2 trend. The data is taken from Ole Humlum’s “climate4you” website. [2]The temperature data are shown as “anomalies” – that is, as differences in the actual temperatures from their average value base for an extended period of time. Note the anomaly values vary by about 1°C at most, whereas actual temperatures vary by as much as 50°C, reflecting their seasonal or diurnal variations at a given station.The CO2 data show a continuous increase from 1958 onward, whereas the temperature trend is downward between 1958 and 1978 (a negative correlation). Between 1978 and 2003, both temperature and CO2 trend upward (a positive correlation). From 2003 to 2010 the temperature trend is flat (a “pause” with no correlation) and 2010 to the present is again positive with the El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean being a possible influence. The entire period could end up flat, as happened after the previous El Niño event in 1998.Over the same time-span human global emissions of CO2 show a general increase from 2.5 billion metric tons in 1958 to about 10 billion metric tons currently. This generally positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 increase and the increase in human CO2 emissions may prompt one to conclude that human emissions cause a CO2 increase and, concomitantly, cause temperatures to rise. Such a conclusion is, however, contradicted by the negative correlation between temperature and CO2 during the period 1958-1978 and the “pause” from 2003 to 2010.That a parallel between anthropogenic emissions on the one hand and increased CO2 and higher temperatures on the other, constitutes a causal relationship as the IPCC asserts, is questionable.For, while a parallelism between two separate quantities does not prove that the two are causally related, the lack of parallelism proves that they are not causally related.From 1958 to 1978 the average global temperature dropped some 0.25°C while human emission of CO2 from fossil fuels tripled. This CO2 emission did not contribute to global warming over that period – eliciting suggestions of a coming ice age. Data from 1910 to 1940 indicate a similar increase in temperature as for 1970 to 2000 despite fossil fuel production at that time being around five times lower than it is today!In 1929 the production of fossil fuels was 1.17 Gigatons of carbon per year. Following the stock market crash and the depression, human production decreased to 0.88 Gigatons per year — a 30% drop. Yet during that same period both atmospheric CO2 and temperature continued to rise at around the same rate as before and in 1934 the “dust bowl” began when temperatures climbed higher than they have been since.THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHEREThus far, in our assessment of the IPCC CO2 paradigm, we’ve dealt with what we saw as a lack of objectivity and failure to apply the more important questions. We now examine the position of AGW advocates, including the IPCC, that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere lasts for centuries. Some claim it accumulates for thousands of years and would make the Earth uninhabitable.The residence time of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., its turnover rate) refers to how long it takes for a CO2 molecule to be removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks. The most authoritative study of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is that of Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo [3].A variety of methods, and a variety of researchers, consistently find short residence times.“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 CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 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 ACTUAL TEMPERATURE RECORDFigure 4 is a plot from the 1990 IPCC report which shows an early global temperature reconstruction. This depicts the well-established Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which reached its peak in about 1200 AD and then gave way to the Little Ice Age (LIA) which lasted from about 1400 to 1850. Those periods are well documented in history and accepted by climatologists. The Viking colonization of Greenland took place during the Medieval Warm Period when lush green vegetation thrived, giving it its name. The Viking settlements collapsed during the Little Ice Age, when even the Thames in London froze over.If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?John Daly [5]Like the Vostok data, this curve presented a serious problem to the supporters of AGW. The Medieval Warm Period peaked at a higher temperature than today and at a time when there was no significant human emission of CO2. This naturally raised the question: What would be so unusual about the current warming trend that necessitated the response to link it to human CO2 emissions? In return, the AGW advocates drew attention to a little known 1999 paper using tree ring data to assess past temperatures [4], eliciting memories of the now infamous presentation of the “Hockey Stick” curve.Tree rings are not a reliable temperature proxy because they are influenced by many other factors, apart from temperature: rainfall, sunlight, cloudiness, pests, competition from other trees, soil nutrients, frost, and snow duration. Nevertheless, the tree ring curve as shown in Fig. 5 was accepted by the IPCC and replaced their earlier curve. As can be seen, it has the shape of a hockey stick. Trees grow only on land and 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. The data was only from the Northern Hemisphere, yet presented as the global temperature curve. Quoting John Daly: “It was a coup: total, bloodless, and swift, and the hockey stick was greeted with a chorus of approval from the greenhouse effect supporting industry.” [5]The MWP and the LIA became non-events, consigned to an “Orwellian memory hole”. It was argued that they were strictly local European phenomena and the tree ring hockey stick was duly presented in the media as: “New studies indicate that temperatures in recent decades are higher than at any time in the past 1000 years….with the 1990’s as the warmest decade and 1998 as the warmest year”.Knowledgeable climatologists and other concerned scientists questioned these results and asked for copies of the original data to check the analysis leading to the hockey stick. The authors of the hockey stick initially resisted, delaying release of data and details of the computer program used to analyze the material and the requested E-mail communications among the various authors of the tree ring report have yet to be received. An independent committee of statisticians was appointed to evaluate the tree ring results. The conclusion was that the authors had “misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produced hockey stick shapes in the temperature history”. They also concluded that the claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade in the millennium and 1998 the hottest year could not be supported by the original data.The UN IPCC ignored the situation and did not refer to it again.Recent climatological data assembled from around the world using different proxies attest to the presence of both the MWP and the LIA in the following locations: the Sargasso Sea, West Africa,, Kenya, Peru, Japan, Tasmania, South Africa, Idaho, Argentina, and California. These events were clearly world-wide and in most locations the peak temperatures during the MWP were higher than current temperatures.This is John Daly’s conclusion on the matter:“The evidence is overwhelming from all corners of the globe, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age clearly show up in a variety of proxy indicators, proxies more representative than the inadequate tree ring data. What is disquieting about the hockey stick is not its original publication. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found flawed. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse effect industry to it – the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence that was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only – it told them exactly what they wanted to hear”.John Daly died not long after writing that. One of the notorious “climategate” e-mails mentioned his death as a “fortunate occurrence” and “some cheering news.” Daly knew that the hockey stick was inaccurate from day 1.EVASIONS AND SUBTERFUGE“Daily we see the news media presenting apocalyptic views, not backed by solid measurements or comprehensive scientific theory. When we try to correct them, our contributions are routinely rejected.” — SegalstadThe hockey stick incident is not unique. There are other instances of questionable science that have appeared, displaying the same pattern: new data surfaces seeming to challenge the IPCC paradigm, a short time later a new paper appears with a dozen or so co-authors containing a convoluted statistical analysis dismissing the challenge and reaffirming the IPCC paradigm. The statistical analysis manipulates the data, enabling conformity to the requirements of the author. The conclusion then is prominently displayed but the original data withheld.…ConclusionAs demonstrated, empirical evidence does not support the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause global warming and/or climate change. We suggest that without adequately proven evidence being demonstrated – should it exist in the first place – such a conclusion can not be adduced from the known facts.http://tech-know-group.com/paper...”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”CO2 - Love It...Hans Schreuder Ipswich, UKCARBON DIOXIDE“Really new trails are rarely blazed in the great academies. The confining walls of conformist dogma are too dominating. To think originally, you must go forth into the wilderness.” S. Warren CareyHans Schreuder is co-founder of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.CommentsJAMES MATKIN


Yes. This is an excellent article because the greenhouse effect hypothesis is a delusion and a very bad metaphor that has distorted science from the beginning. R.W. Wood dumped the hypothesis in the dustbin of history in 1909. Wood used physical lab experiments (not just ‘thought experiments’) and concluded – “To argue that an open gaseous atmosphere confines in the way that the top and sides of a greenhouse enclosure does is not valid. To the contrary, a gaseous atmosphere is conducive to the convective cooling that occurs in the absence of an enclosure. It could be argued that CO2 along with the other gaseous components of the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the Earth’s surface.” The revival in the late nineteen hundreds without physical experiments was double false as the original theory dumped by Wood only applied to the major GHG watervapor not the minuscule Co2 GHG.Principia-Scientific International...First Published April 26, 2017 Research ArticleRole of greenhouse gases in climate change - Martin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Hans Schreuder, 2017AbstractThis study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/...International Journal of Modern Physics BVol. 23, No. 03, pp. 275-364 (2009)Review PaperNo Access

We know now that Nikola Tesla was undoubtedly persecuted by the energy power brokers of his day — namely Thomas Edison, whom we are taught in school to revere as a genius. Tesla was also attacked by J.P. Morgan and other “captains of industry.” Upon Nikola Tesla’s death on January 7th, 1943, the U.S. government moved into his lab and apartment confiscating all of his scientific research, some of which has been released by the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act.Besides his persecution by corporate-government interests (which is practically a certification of authenticity), there is at least one solid indication of Nikola Tesla’s integrity — he tore up a contract with Westinghouse that was worth billions in order to save Westinghouse's’ company from paying him his huge royalty payments. (And which other corporate owner would do that?)But, let’s take a look at what Nikola Tesla — a man who died broke and alone — has actually given to the world. For better or worse, with credit or without, he changed the face of the planet in ways that perhaps no man ever has.1. Alternating Current: This is where it all began, and what ultimately caused such a stir at the 1893 World’s Expo in Chicago. A war was leveled ever-after between the vision of Edison and the vision of Tesla for how electricity would be produced and distributed. The division can be summarized as one of cost and safety: The DC current that Edison (backed by General Electric) had been working on was costly over long distances, and produced dangerous sparking from the required converter (called a commutator). Regardless, Edison and his backers utilized the general “dangers” of electric current to instill fear in Nikola Tesla’s alternative: Alternating Current. As proof, Edison sometimes electrocuted animals (Topsy the elephant, being one) at demonstrations.Consequently, Edison gave the world the electric chair, while simultaneously maligning Tesla’s attempt to offer safety at a lower cost. Tesla responded by demonstrating that AC was perfectly safe by famously shooting current through his own body to produce light. This Edison-Tesla (GE-Westinghouse) feud in 1893 was the culmination of over a decade of shady business deals, stolen ideas, and patent suppression that Edison and his moneyed interests wielded over Tesla’s inventions. Yet, despite it all, it is Tesla’s system that provides power generation and distribution to North America in our modern era.2. Light: Of course Nikola Tesla didn’t invent light itself, but he did invent how light can be harnessed and distributed. Tesla developed and used fluorescent bulbs in his lab some 40 years before industry “invented” them. At the 1883 World’s Fair in Chicago, Tesla took glass tubes and bent them into famous scientists’ names, in effect creating the first neon signs. However, it is his Tesla Coil that might be the most impressive, and controversial. The Tesla Coil is certainly something that big industry would have liked to suppress: the concept that the Earth itself is a magnet that can generate electricity (electromagnetism) utilizing frequencies as a transmitter. All that is needed on the other end is the receiver — much like a radio.3. X-rays: Electromagnetic and ionizing radiation was heavily researched in the late 1800s, but Nikola Tesla researched the entire gamut. Everything from a precursor to Kirlian photography, which has the ability to document life force, to what we now use in medical diagnostics, this was a transformative invention of which Tesla played a central role. X-rays, like so many of Tesla’s contributions, stemmed from his belief that everything we need to understand the universe is virtually around us at all times, but we need to use our minds to develop real-world devices to augment our innate perception of existence.4. Radio: Guglielmo Marconi was initially credited, and most believe him to be the inventor of radio to this day. However, the Supreme Court overturned Marconi’s patent in 1943, when it was proven that Tesla invented the radio years previous to Marconi. Radio signals are just another frequency that needs a transmitter and receiver, which Tesla also demonstrated in 1893 during a presentation before The National Electric Light Association. In 1897 Tesla applied for two patents US 645576, and US 649621. In 1904, however, The U.S. Patent Office reversed its decision, awarding Marconi a patent for the invention of radio, possibly influenced by Marconi’s financial backers in the States, who included Thomas Edison and Andrew Carnegie. This also allowed the U.S. government (among others) to avoid having to pay the royalties that were being claimed by Nikola Tesla.5. Remote Control: This invention was a natural outcropping of radio. Patent No. 613809 was the first remote controlled model boat, demonstrated in 1898. Utilizing several large batteries; radio signals controlled switches, which then energized the boat’s propeller, rudder, and scaled-down running lights. While this exact technology was not widely used for some time, we now can see the power that was appropriated by the military in its pursuit of remote controlled war. Radio controlled tanks were introduced by the Germans in WWII, and developments in this realm have since slid quickly away from the direction of human freedom.6. Electric Motor: Nikola Tesla’s invention of the electric motor has finally been popularized by a car brandishing his name. While the technical specifications are beyond the scope of this summary, suffice to say that Tesla’s invention of a motor with rotating magnetic fields could have freed mankind much sooner from the stranglehold of Big Oil. However, his invention in 1930 succumbed to the economic crisis and the world war that followed. Nevertheless, this invention has fundamentally changed the landscape of what we now take for granted: industrial fans, household appliances, water pumps, machine tools, power tools, disk drives, electric wristwatches and compressors.7. Robotics: Nikola Tesla’s overly enhanced scientific mind led him to the idea that all living beings are merely driven by external impulses. He stated: “I have by every thought and act of mine, demonstrated, and does so daily, to my absolute satisfaction that I am an automaton endowed with power of movement, which merely responds to external stimuli.” Thus, the concept of the robot was born. However, an element of the human remained present, as Tesla asserted that these human replicas should have limitations — namely growth and propagation. Nevertheless, Nikola Tesla unabashedly embraced all of what intelligence could produce. His visions for a future filled with intelligent cars, robotic human companions, and the use of sensors, and autonomous systems are detailed in a must-read entry in the Serbian Journal of Electrical Engineering, 2006 (PDF).8. Laser: Nikola Tesla’s invention of the laser may be one of the best examples of the good and evil bound up together within the mind of man. Lasers have transformed surgical applications in an undeniably beneficial way, and they have given rise to much of our current digital media. However, with this leap in innovation we have also crossed into the land of science fiction. From Reagan’s “Star Wars” laser defense system to today’s Orwellian “non-lethal” weapons’ arsenal, which includes laser rifles and directed energy “death rays,” there is great potential for development in both directions.9 and 10. Wireless Communications and Limitless Free Energy: These two are inextricably linked, as they were the last straw for the power elite — what good is energy if it can’t be metered and controlled? Free? Never. J.P. Morgan backed Nikola Tesla with $150,000 to build a tower that would use the natural frequencies of our universe to transmit data, including a wide range of information communicated through images, voice messages, and text. This represented the world’s first wireless communications, but it also meant that aside from the cost of the tower itself, the universe was filled with free energy that could be utilized to form a world wide web connecting all people in all places, as well as allow people to harness the free energy around them. Essentially, the 0’s and 1’s of the universe are embedded in the fabric of existence for each of us to access as needed. Nikola Tesla was dedicated to empowering the individual to receive and transmit this data virtually free of charge. But we know the ending to that story .Nikola Tesla had thousands of other ideas and inventions that remain unreleased to this day. A look at his hundreds of patents shows a glimpse of the scope he intended to offer.The release of Nikola Tesla’s technical and scientific research — specifically his research into harnessing electricity from the ionosphere at a facility called Wardenclyffe - is a necessary step toward true freedom of information.For additional information about the demand for release, or to use as a template to form your own demand, please visit: http://releaseteslasresearch.weebly.com/As an aside: There are some who have pointed out that Nikola Tesla’s experimentation with the ionosphere very well could have caused the massive explosion over Tunguska, Siberia in 1908, which leveled an estimated 60 million trees over 2,150 square kilometers, and may even have led to the much maligned HAARP technology.I submit that we would do well to remember that technology is never the true enemy; it is the misuse of technology that can enslave rather than free mankind from its animal-level survivalism.Source: I apologize that I lost my “source” information on this answer it was not intentional.