Evaluation Form Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

You have asked a very complex question which requires a lengthy answer to really understand why climate computer models are essentially worthless for predicting future climate. Unfortunately it requires a lot of information to counter all of the disinformation coming from so many CAGW alarmists. Therefore, I am supplying it, although in a condensed version.The IPCC uses models produced by a number of climate scientists, all of whom support the unproven hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are leading to catastrophic global warming (It has particularly relied upon models generated by the UK’s CRU, the source of the notorious Climategate scandal).While computer models can be a useful tool in scientific research, they are only as reliable as the input data (garbage in, garbage out) and the integrity of the computer program (and programmer), which can be written to conclude whatever the programmer desires. In the study of climate science, they have often been flawed and failed in many of their predictions. In particular they have frequently over-estimated temperature increases and did not forecast the pause in warming after 1998.Most of the climate models primarily use two input data sets. One is the level of atmospheric CO2 based upon past measurements and future projections (or sets of future projections). Ralph Keeling's father first started measuring atmospheric CO2 consistently in 1958, at the Mauna Loa mountaintop observatory in Hawaii. (The CO2 level stood at 316 parts per million (ppm), slightly higher than the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.) From this time to the present, CO2 values are thought to be relatively accurate, at least at certain locations. However, before that date, back to the beginning of the industrial revolution (and millions of years prior), most of the data comes from ice core measurements, not actual atmospheric measurements. This introduces the possibility of error. Some believe that ice core measurements are inaccurate due to loss of CO2 from compressive effects of the ice, which increase with depth, meaning the farther back in time, the more false reduction in CO2 levels. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (Zbigniew Jaworowski) Poland - Environmentalists For Nuclear USAOf course, future projections are just that- projections, which is fine since models are meant to provide possible outcomes considering different future levels of CO2. This is the basis CAGW believers use to determine supposedly “safe” levels of CO2 for which we should strive in order to prevent “X” amount of “catastrophic” warming.The other data set is composed of global temperature records. Unfortunately, this data set has enormous problems which likely affect the reliability of the models.First of all, the concept of accurately determining global temperature borders on fantasy.Think about it. Even trying to precisely determine the “global temperature” for “right now” is virtually impossible. At what time of day or night and at what location(s) is this temp determined? How many thermometers would one need to accomplish this? Millions?“The Earth has a total surface area of approximately 500 million km2; this means that a reliable global analysis would require at least five million sensors, which is 1,600 times more than the 3,000 stations being used at the moment. And that is simply for the calculation of surface temperatures. This distribution would have to be repeated at every layer of the atmosphere and every depth of the seas. http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM...And wouldn’t all of these thermometers need to be exactly alike and precisely calibrated (and constantly re-calibrated) to a precise reference and to one another? And wouldn’t they need to be able to measure tenths, hundredths or even thousandths of degrees with virtually no margin of error? The answer to the last two questions is “absolutely yes”.Consider that, in its 2018 Global Climate Report Summary, NOAA claims: “The yearly global land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13°F (0.07C) per decade since 1880”. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813 That would mean it had supposedly risen 0.91 degrees C by 2010 and 0.98 degrees C by 2020.But such small increases (0.07C per decade or 0.007C per year!) far exceed the margin of error for such measurements, especially considering the level of technology in the past. Is it actually reasonable to believe that, not only the US, but enormous regions around the world (such as Russia, Africa, Asia, India, etc.) had hundreds or thousands of thermometers capable of measuring hundredths or even thousandths of degrees centigrade before 1920?, 1940?, 1960? or even now? This alone makes the NOAA (and all) temp data suspect.“The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/surface-temperature-uncertainty-quantified/“In a high-quality glass environmental thermometer manufactured in 1960, the accuracy would be +/- 1.4F. (2% of range) The resolution of an astute and dedicated observer would be around +/-1F. Therefore the total error margin of all observed weather station temperatures would be a minimum of +/-2.5F, or +/-1.30c.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/Even if one assumes that, somehow (maybe alien technology), such minute measurements could be accurately made in the past and that no manipulation of temp data has occurred, the estimated total increase in global temperatures since 1880 (0.9 degrees C) falls within the range of natural variability as well as the margin of error for such a long time span. In fact, the margin of error for any temperature measurement (1.3 degrees C) exceeds the entire supposed total increase in temperature of 0.9 degrees C since 1880! Yet, alarmists demand we make prodigious, inordinately expensive and exceedingly disruptive changes in civilization based upon these dubious figures! One need not be particularly skeptical of the hypothesis of CAGW to see this is utterly illogical, if not completely absurd.Furthermore, the suspect temp data is woefully inadequate for this task. From 1960 through 1980, there were more than 6000 stations globally providing temperature information. After 1980, NOAA began cutting stations around the world. Around 1990, the number was reduced to less than 3000. “It can be shown that systematically and purposefully, country by country, they removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The thermometers kept were near the tropics, the sea, and airports near bigger cities. These data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth! | PSI IntlCurrently there are still only 3000 land-based stations spread around the globe, and half of those are in the US. A majority are located in or near cities and, therefore, affected by the urban heat island effect causing false temp elevations. This effect essentially worsens every year due to continued growth of urban areas- more concrete, more energy burn and car exhaust, more asphalt, less green space, etc. More and more stations become incorporated into these urban environments.So, how can we possibly determine global temperatures over 140 years when we have insufficient global coverage, thermometers which are technically inadequate and not precisely calibrated on a continuous basis (if ever), monitoring stations biased by continuously increasing urban heat island effect, and we are discussing changes of 0.007 C per year, 0.07 C per decade and 0.98 C for 140 years, considering the margin of error is 1.3 C for all individual measurements!? It’s actually ludicrous to believe that we can. But alarmists never address this fatal flaw.“Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the sensors and calculate the average! But this poses some serious problems. Now let us imagine that one sensor covers 1 km2, while the other covers 5 km2. The sensors give readings of 10ºC and 12ºC. How are we going to calculate the average temperature? Nobody knows!” http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf“It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure ‘anomalies’ of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent.” – Dr. Vincent Gray, PhD chemistry, IPCC reviewer THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM by Vincent Gray pdf. My annotations added.The global warming scam is the result of the widespread belief in a new religion, based on the deification of a nebulous entity, “The Environment”.But even the small alleged increase in global temps reported in its 2018 Global Climate Report Summary is in stark contrast to what NOAA claimed about US temperatures in 1989 (but no longer claims) and published in the Geophysical Research Letters: “There has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over the entire period [from 1895 to 1987] based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country.”- NYT, January 26,1989:61% Of NOAA USHCN Adjusted Temperature Data Is Now FakeSo somehow the area of the world (the US) with the most comprehensive and modern temperature measuring equipment had no warming from 1895 to 1987, but the rest of the world with much less temperature measuring capability had (too small to reliably measure) warming of 0.9 C from 1880 to 2020! Does that really seem plausible? (That’s a rhetorical question.)But that’s not all. It turns out that large amounts of the historical (and even current) temp data is estimated (often using other computer models!) due to frequent missing data from monitoring stations:“So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data.” 61% Fake Data | Real Climate ScienceAfter the 1990 cut in monitoring stations there was “a significant increase in missing monthly data in the stations that remained. (Note: This increases uncertainty – greatest in regions where they claim the warming is the greatest). There are uncertainties in ocean temperatures; no small issue, as oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface. These factors lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for over-estimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such surface data should be ignored for decision making. Numerous peer-reviewed papers have estimated that these local issues with the observing networks may account for 30%, 50% or more of the warming shown since 1880.”The graph below illustrates how inadequate global coverage is (far less than 50% with minimal ocean coverage) and how stations are biased towards warmer locations. Only the US has “adequate” coverage, but it represents a small % of the globe and has shown little warming overall. To compensate, NOAA/NASA/CRU extrapolate temps in intervening areas from surrounding areas, sometimes as far away as 1200km to the closest station! There are very few stations in the coldest portions of the world (the Arctic and Antarctic).Most stations failed to report temperature results for 1 or more months each year from 1880 to 2010. (sometimes as many as 80–90% of stations in some global regions!) And it turns out that the months most commonly absent were during the winter, reducing the accuracy of cooler temps, a huge portion of which were estimated:(Note the left vertical axis should be labeled as “Percentage of stations with one or more missing months”.) https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com › chap3-published-in-elsevierAnd multiple climate scientists admitted in the past that there was insufficient data available for nearly the entire Southern hemisphere (and the oceans) to draw credible conclusions about global temperatures.“Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible, the report says. The 30th parallel of south latitude passes through South Africa, Chile and southern Australia. The cooling trend seems to‐ extend at least part way into the Southern Hemisphere…” International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern HemisphereClimate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | ScienceIn this 2009 Climategate E-mail, Phil Jones from CRU said there was very little ship data in large areas of the Southern Hemisphere, and that the historical data in those regions was “mostly made up”.http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txtOverwhelming Evidence Of CollusionThere are still very large areas of missing land data, represented by gray in this 2018 NOAA map:Fake Data – The Basis Of Climate Science | The Deplorable Climate Science BlogIn addition, many of the stations changed locations over the decades so that they were not reading from the same location over time. So, what caused any change in measured temp- an actual change in temp or the change in location?I won’t discuss in detail all of the evidence revealing that the major temp data services have all manipulated their data, making it to appear more correlated with rising levels of CO2- that would take several pages. But here is a small portion of the evidence:In its original US data base (used until at least 1999), NOAA had an adjustment for urban heat island (UHI) effect. The data revealed a net cooling trend of 0.35 C from the late 1930s to about 1989 (although temps had started to slowly rise from their lowest point after 1980):This 0.35 C net cooling period from the late 1930s to 1989 led to the impending catastrophic global COOLING scare from numerous climate scientists in the 1970s, another failed/false prediction (and one that alarmists incessantly deny ever occurred, but can be verified here: https://www.quora.com/If-you-had-a-10-minute-appointment-with-President-Trump-how-would-you-convince-him-to-act-on-climate-change/answer/John-Walker-922/comment/123310079).But the net cooling in US temps did not correlate so well with the rising CO2, and there was concern about the differences between US and global temps. Comparing the two graphs below from 1999, the US temps show the net cooling from the late 1930s to 1989 while the global temp graph shows a net warming for the same period:1999 Graphs - 61% Of NOAA USHCN Adjusted Temperature Data Is Now FakeBut rather than assuming the global data (indisputably much less robust than US data as explained above) was incorrect (or perhaps knowing but dismayed with what the more reliable US data revealed), NOAA and NASA began re-adjusting the US data by reducing the UHI adjustments (and possibly by using different dates to calculate the time period upon which the anomalies were calculated) used in the previous years’ data. By 2009, the urban heat island adjustment had been eliminated completely from past data, resulting in a net increase of 0.3 C in warming from the late 1930s to 1989! Thus, plotted US temps exhibited an increasing rise as urbanization (and, therefore, UHI effect) increased during this same period. And voila! The resulting plot more closely correlated with the rise in CO2 and the theory of CAGW! Compare the 1999 US graph above (with the UHI adjustments) to this US graph (just below) made in 2010 without (1930s went down; 2000 went up):In addition, the 0.35 C net cooling in the US from the late 1930s to 1989 has been “disappeared” and better matches the global temp graph below! Ah, that’s much better since it better matches CO2 increase and the unreliable global record!:2010 Global Temps (See how easy that was!)And the graph below shows a side-by-side comparison of measured and “adjusted” data:NOAA US Data Tampering Update | The Deplorable Climate Science BlogAnd look what happens when the unreliable/manipulated land-based temp data is compared to the more reliable satellite data:Interactive Graphs (Green is land-based data used by NASA and forms a line similar to the business end of a hockey stick, which is much better visualized below). Red and blue are from satellite data, which has proven to be more reliable.)Are you starting to see a pattern?A more detailed discussion about the unreliable temp data can be found here: https://www.quora.com/If-temperature-records-were-to-indicate-that-there-has-been-no-global-warming-would-alarmists-be-happy-about-it-or-would-they-be-angry-about-being-wrong/answer/John-Walker-922So we see that CO2 data may not be completely reliable, and the temp data is extremely unreliable. But there is one more source of significant error built into every climate computer model used by the IPCC.That is the sensitivity of climate to changes in CO2. This is a crucial component of models, and the value has been disputed ever since Arrhenius first discussed it in 1896. He posited a logarithmic dependence of the temperature increase on the CO2 concentration C, calculated by T2 – T1 = S log2 (C2/C1). T1 and T2 represent the Earth’s equilibrium temperatures at CO2 concentrations, C1 and C2, respectively, and log2 (x) denotes the base-2 logarithm of x ( i.e., log2 (2) = 1).The parameter S is the doubling sensitivity, or equilibrium climate sensitivity. According to Arrhenius’ hypothesis, which is used by the IPCC, the Earth’s average surface temperature would eventually increase by an amount S (of the atmospheric CO2 concentration) if CO2 were to double. If a 50% increase of CO2 were to increase the temperature by 3.4 C—as Arrhenius first calculated—the doubling sensitivity would be S = 5.8 C. However, in his subsequent book, Worlds in the Making; the Evolution of the Universe (1906), Arrhenius again postulates logarithmic warming, but with a smaller climate sensitivity, S = 4 C.It is crucial to realize that Arrhenius never conducted any experiments to prove his hypothesis (and neither has anyone else since!), and he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, effects caused by oceans, and many other essential factors in his hypothesis. Thus, it is complete speculation and remains just a hypothesis, although many alarmists frequently claim that the CO2 greenhouse effect was “proved” by Arrhenius. It wasn’t and hasn’t been.The numerical value of S is influenced by complex, poorly understood interactions between the atmosphere, the surface, the oceans, water vapor and clouds, and by extraterrestrial phenomena like numerous cyclic solar activities and the cosmic ray background, that, in turn, may affect cloud formation. Arrhenius’s limited knowledge of CO2 IR radiation absorption/emission, the chaotic structure and dynamics of the atmosphere, and the above interactions, restricted him to making only educated guesses of the doubling sensitivity.More than a century after Arrhenius and the $tens of billions spent on climate research, the value of S remains an educated guess! The IPCC states: “equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C–4.5 C”, again just “educated” and widely variable guesses (usually with the aid of other computer models)! But any attempt to correctly predict the magnitude of future atmospheric warming by CO2, if any, depends critically on the PRECISE value of S.The computer models used to predict future warming are based upon this guess for the value of S. In addition, models are unable to accurately incorporate the many known, highly variable natural phenomena that significantly influence temperatures. To compensate, the models use a variety of special parameterizations, or “fudge factors”, which, again, are derived by “educated guesses”. Combine these limitations with using altered/unreliable temperature data, and it’s easy to understand why so many computer models of future climate have been wrong!Here’s another way of looking at it. Estimates of S are derived primarily from computer climate models, not from empirical data. The values of S derived by these computer models are then used in other computer models to predict future climate change! These models attempt to simulate the Earth’s climate system; however, even with the most powerful supercomputers, the models can not incorporate all of the chaotic climate processes and phenomena in a way that mirrors reality. Such models do not include natural variability and mechanisms that off-set, and greatly exceed the effects of human activities. Add in the often estimated, unreliable and altered temperature data, and we end up with inaccuracies based upon imprecisions!So with this condensed explanation of why the IPCC computer models are so often wrong, I’ll list just a few of the most flawed.—Four successive computer models over-estimated warming by a factor of 2 to 5 times the actual observed temperatures from 1990 to 2015, and failed to predict the “warming pause” after 1998 (as well as other times):—Multiple computer models greatly exaggerated temperatures of the troposphere, creating a non-existent “hot spot” signature above the equator:Also revealed here:“We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.” Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming ratesVirtually all climate computer models have shown the same flawed temperature over-estimation, primarily because these models use manipulated/unreliable temperature data input and incorrect/over-estimated climate sensitivity to CO2.“Shockingly, the models selected for use by the IPCC aren't put through any kind of hindcasting accuracy evaluation before inclusion. Seriously, the selection of models is made by the modelers themselves. They work for a few years on their models and when they are happy with it, they submit it for inclusion. To be accepted, the model has to be described in peer reviewed literature, but that is the only criteria.“The CMIP5 models were locked in place around 2010. The CMIP6 models are being locked in now. The CMIP6 models haven't been finalized, but word on the street is they project even more warming than the CMIP5 models did. At a minimum all the models that project warming 2x reality over the 2008-2018 decade should be rejected. That alone would significantly lessen the projected warming for 2100.” Greg Freemyer's answer to How long will people deny climate change?—NASA reported that, contrary to climate computer models, Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing. Paul Holland, a climate modeler with the British Antarctic Survey, has spent the last ten years studying Antarctica’s sea ice and the Southern Ocean. His and other climate scientists’ computer models have failed to predict the INCREASE in Antarctic ice over the past several decades. “To Holland, the discrepancy calls parts of the climate models into question. Modeling groups from around the world collaborate on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), which simulates Earth’s climate and predicts how it will change in the near future. World leaders and policy makers rely on it to decide how much countries should limit carbon emissions.” (What a fabulously moronic decision!) Unexpected ice | Earthdata May 15, 2019—Models failed to predict the warming pause after 1998, even though CO2 continued to rise unabated:This pause lasted at least until 2014, interrupted by El Ninos.This is a definitive article about the terribly flawed nature of climate computer models from the perspective of climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura:“In June, 2019 he put out a small book titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he 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 Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.“The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, ‘the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting. …there is no reason to trust their predictions/forecasts. It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict (even) the sense or direction of the climate change correctly.’” Read the rest here: https://www.technocracy.news/dr-mototaka-nakamura-the-sorry-state-of-climate-science/David Evans, mathematician, engineer and climate computer modeler, who worked for the Australian government determining how much reduction in CO2 emissions it should attempt, now believes there is no need to do so because alarmist computer models greatly exaggerated the amount of warming due to CO2. In this video he also discusses that fact that the oceans are NOT warming as shown by the very precise Argo buoy system:You should also read this paper by a group of French mathematicians and computer modelers describing numerous problems with climate computer models and the hypothesis of CAGW in general: The Battle Against Global Warming: An Absurd, Costly and Pointless CrusadeSeptember 2015 http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM...Here are some quotes from climate scientists, physicists and climate computer modelers about how unreliable the computer models are. If you open the links you can find additional data:“Short, medium, and long-term climate forecasts are wrong more than 50 percent of the time so that a correct one is a no better than a random event” Is It Time To Stop The Insanity Of Wasting Time and Money On More Climate Models?“Climate models fail to simulate recent air-pressure changes over Greenland” Study: Another failure of climate models – they can’t handle barometric pressure change“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeler at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again“These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.” https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf“But the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simply averages up the 29 major climate models to come up with the forecast for warming in the 21st century, a practice rarely done in operational weather forecasting. As dryly noted by Eyring and others ‘there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.’ Indeed. The authors of the new paper show that the aggregate models are making huge errors in three of the places on earth that are critical to our understanding of climate. “ Are Climate Models Overpredicting Global Warming?“The IPCC use of computer models to predict temperatures, rain fall, sea level rises and other weather related events either global or regional has comprehensively failed to predict most of the observations made in the last twenty years” The Computer says NO – The IPCC 2013 Summary for Policymakers“We have virtually no ability to run controlled experiments, such as raising and lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere and measuring the resulting change in temperatures. What else can we do? We can build elaborate computer models that use physics to calculate how energy flows into, through, and out of our planet’s land, water, and atmosphere. Indeed, such models have been created and are frequently used today to make dire predictions about the fate of our Earth.“The problem is that these models have serious limitations that drastically limit their value in making predictions and in guiding policy. Specifically, three major problems exist. They are described below, and each one alone is enough to make one doubt the predictions. All three together deal a devastating blow to the forecasts of the current models.” Flawed Climate Models and "GLOBAL WARMING MODELS COLLAPSE," Predictions fail without exception. Climate fears are political not scientific.UN IPCC admits that climate models fail.“The Klotzbach paper finds…evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record but not in the satellite data…characteristic of all of the models used in the UN IPCC”“In models, the convective adjustment is quite rigid, so this vertical response in models is forced to happen. The real world is much less rigid and has ways to allow heat to escape rather than be retained as models show.” -John Christy, UAH Satellite Analyst‘The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models’.” Climate: The Real 'Worrisome Trend' (Part I: Faulty Science) - Master ResourceThe IPCC’s only “proof” that human emissions of CO2 are causing global warming is based upon this: “when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.” Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas“Actual, original data have been changed so much and so often that they are almost unrecognizable from the original entries. For example, the 0.7 degree Celsius (1.3F) of cooling between 1940 and the 1970s – which had the world worried about another Little Ice Age – has simply ‘disappeared’ in these corrupted-computer-model re-writes of history.” - Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Climate: The Real 'Worrisome Trend' (Part I: Faulty Science) - Master Resource“Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the Société de Calcul Mathématique specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated. Now, validating a climate model requires thousands of years.” http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdfAnd read the following quote from an alarmist climate computer modeler carefully- it reveals all you need to know about climate change computer models:“In spite of its attractions for other sorts of physicists, realism seems to be an inappropriate way to conceive of climate physics: arguments regarding the truth content of our best (computer) models seem beside the point… Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University and New Zealand Royal Society. The Royal Society, Philosophical Transaction. August 2007 Volume: 365 Issue: 1857And from Freeman Dyson, mathematician, quantum physicist, and Nobel laureate: “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.” Freeman Dyson - WikiquoteIf still unconvinced, here are a few more references:The “ensemble” of models is completely meaningless, statisticallyWhy models can't predict climate accuratelyClimate Scientist: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 YearsIce-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientistNew Paper: Computer Predictions Of Climate Alarm Are FlawedGreenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth! | PSI IntlWorld's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTERClimate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren't.https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-models-co2-emissions/http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htmInconsistency between historical and future CMIP5 simulationshttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=2ahUKEwjln5ndk6nkAhVSHDQIHQ-SCfEQFjANegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegwpf.org%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fgwpf-reports%2Fmontford-royal_society.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3yYwYcaJqqfAsgezwzPJXAIPCC: Fixing the FactsPeer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible

Yes, the answer is called the Holocene Extinction. It is a global extinction event that is happening now, and has an endpoint of 300 years.Just look it up.Normally I would list, I think I have about 350 references in the public domain. However, when a topic doesn’t fit someone’s personal worldview, such as, Global Extinction, they get ticked, rather than read the references.So, to all of you Homo sapiens out there, I say, just look it up. And remember the stages of grieving, denial is that stage where you exclude those sources that say it is happening, and include those sources that say it is not.As for the numeric result of your question; 300 years, the sum is zero.Here are some graphs to upset you in the mean time:Total Global DebtSet against May’s equation as a Chaotic fractal:wherethe result:Global Commerce has already collapsed. It is only the Fractional Reserve Banking System that keeps the illusion of the digital domain seemingly real. It is actually a null domain, like a video game. In this game, you are already dead, but you have a button a hacker gave you to keep making guys. Eventually, the hacked code to do this corrupts the system so badly that it very obviously crashes, at which point, there is no faking it.This is not a prediction that Global Commerce will fail, it is a clear Chaotic Fractal that shows Global Commerce has already collapsed. The Total Global Debt is 400% of the Total Global Product. Only 3% of the Commerce on Earth is tangible. 97% is digital debt. There is no such thing as being ‘wealthy’ any more. They only possess digital debt.Commerce is the reason for the Holocene Extinction, detailed below:Ocean Dead Zones will encompass the entire planet by 2200Greenland’s Total Ice Loss:Albedo change of the polesThe North Polar Albedo Change is why the Northern jet stream has dropped to the 35th parallel.The Arctic has lost 40% of its year round ice. The Antarctic, which represents 91% of the Earth’s ice, has lost 20% of its ice. Where the topology seems similar, where it was once 4 miles thick, it is only a few hundred meters.Greenland and Antarctica make up 99% of the global fresh water ice.The global total sum current loss of permanent ice is approximately 50% between Antarctica and Greenland of the 99% global scale and irreversible.Earth’s Thermohaline System:The Gulf Stream is part of that system. The Gulf Stream takes 35 years to complete a cycle of turning warm water to the northern region (UK) then drops to several hundred meters, where it takes more than 30 years to return to the gulf. Therefore, measuring surface water temperature and air temperature is in general 35 years behind.This is the reason the data seems confusing to you. The air and surface water temperature are 35 year old data. What is really happening is on the ocean floor, and Climate Change is measured by ice loss, not air and water temperatures.At this point, the thermohaline has slowed to 20% of its deep depth surface speed (slowed by a factor of 5). The result will be a sudden flash of heat as the albedo changes, followed by a global deep freeze (Snowball Earth).The dense salt water drops below the cold fresh water before delivering its load of warm air to its destination. This is referred to as thermohaline collapse, and it is occurring at this very moment.The CO2 Myth:changing CO2 emissions will have no effect for 1000 years.However, CO2 contributes only less than 1% of the Total Greenhouse Effect:Taking the abundance into consideration:Results in the Total Contribution Factor:Half of the Total Greenhouse Gas is purely due to Animal agriculture:The ‘Crystal Serenity’The Northwest Passage was once a famed fearsome ice ridden impassable route through the arctic. The Northwest Passage was considered impassible for centuries. Now, cruise ships tour the entire passage, and as one Climatologist put it, there was not so much as an ice cube in sight. The land shown here, dirt, should be under a hundred meters of ice:The United Nations charts human population path as falling into three categories over the next century:All 3 paths are devastating. If the population increases, the result will be Global Failure by way of resources. If it remains in the middle, it will only extend those resources for 2 centuries. The lower, green path is the sum outcome, 99% certainty.Extrapolating:For anyone thinking our respite is in the Earth’s oceans as some untapped resource are neglecting the fact that ¾ of the Earth’s oceans are depleted or very nearly depleted of sea life from over fishing. That is, 75% of all of the oceans in the world have been fished to the point of becoming void of sea life. Stated clearly – 75% of our oceans are dead. That number can be seen clearly on the United Nations FAO web site. Totally depleted, fishless oceans are predicted as early as 2048. [142,143]This graph shows that the cattle we raise (Animal Agriculture) is consuming far greater resources than the human population:In order to ‘eat cows,’ they require 6x the resources a human does. This is a biological factor of mammal size vs. resources per pound as being an exponential, not a linear function.I am not a vegetarian, however, this graph shows the resources required for a non-leather clad vegan biker: (Like Judas Priest wearing cotton and eating tofu)By not going to Burger King every day for lunch, we can increase the probability of salvaging some human population 18 fold.The solution is Sheet Meat. Regardless of the cost now, every form of meat can be produced in the lab, and on an industrial scale, reduce the cost to what we see now for AA grown meat. [151–225]No one is coming to save us; not God, nor aliens from outer space. If we can salvage, I have calculated bot more than a few million humans will survive, 50% of animal and plant species, but each species will be reduced in number to a fraction. The reason is that between the Ocean Dead Zones and deforestation, the %oxygen will drop from its current 21% at sea level to about 12%. Loss of consciousness, for instance, occurs at about 10% oxygen, about the equivalent to being at 20,000 feet.The first two columns are going to zero. The ocean column will also drop to zero in less then 300 years. At that point, oxygen will have dropped to 5%.Whereas the dinosaurs survived 5 global extinctions while the Earth’s oxygen remained at about 30%, the last global extinction dropped that to 21%, and they did not survive the 5th global extinction. [2, 11–15]The first Global Extinction was Thea, about 4.5 billion years ago, (which actually brings the number to 6 prior global extinctions), where a planet sized body (named Thea) collided with Earth, blowing off the mantle, which is now the moon. It has recently been discovered that single celled life was forming. The second Global extinction occurred 650 million years ago, the Marinoan Extinction. It was a Snowball Earth scenario. [16–23] The Earth recovered because the moon was about 26,000 KM (half the distance) closer to the Earth, and able to form ice tides which brought about the reformation of liquid water. The moon has since moved too far away to form ice tides, and the Earth will not recover.Share this article. Pass it around. Make it viral. Remember, denial is merely a stage of grieving. You inherently know this planet is dying. We cannot stop it, but we may be able to salvage a portion of it.REFERENCES1.Walker, J. C. G. (1980) “The oxygen cycle in the natural environment and the biogeochemical cycles,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany (DEU)2.Peter Ward: Out of Thin Air: Dinosaurs, Birds, and Earth's Ancient Atmosphere.3.Killer Inhabitants of the Rainforests. "Killer Inhabitants of the Rainforests". Gadgets, Fashion, Automobile, Environment. Retrieved 2012-08-26.4.Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen. “Livestock and Climate Change.” Livestock Exchange, no. 3 (2011)5.Report: IPCC AR5 WG# Chapter 11, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Us (AFOLU) United Nations.6.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). June 21, 2012. Retrieved June 23, 2012.7.David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor (2008-08-15)."Scientists alarmed by ocean dead-zone growth". Home. Retrieved 2010-08-038.Diaz, R. J.; Rosenberg, R. (2008-08-15). "Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems".Science321(5891): 926–9.9.Climate change and dead zones, Andrew H. Altieri, Keryn B. Gedan, 10 November, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12754 Global Change Biology.10.Lauren Morello,Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950, Scientific American, 29 July 201011."International Chronostratigraphic Chart". International Commission on Stratigraphy. 2015. Retrieved 29 April 2015.12.Renne, Paul R.; Deino, Alan L.; Hilgen, Frederik J.; Kuiper, Klaudia F.; Mark, Darren F.; Mitchell, William S.; Morgan, Leah E.; Mundil, Roland; Smit, Jan (7 February 2013). "Time Scales of Critical Events Around the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary". Science 339 (6120): 684–687. Bibcode:2013Sci...339..684R.doi:10.1126/science.1230492. PMID 23393261.13.Fortey, Richard (1999). Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth. Vintage. pp. 238–260. ISBN 978-0-375-70261-7.14.Alvarez LW, Alvarez W, Asaro F, Michel HV (1980). "Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction". Science 208 (4448): 1095 1108. Bibcode:1980Sci...208.1095A. doi:10.1126/science.208.4448.1095.PMID 17783054.15.Vellekoop J, Sluijs A, Smit J; et al. (May 2014). "Rapid short-term cooling following the Chicxulub impact at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (21): 7537–41. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.7537V.doi:10.1073/pnas.1319253111. PMID 24821785.16.Smith, A.G. (2009). "Neoproterozoic timescales and stratigraphy". Geological Society, London, Special Publications (Geological Society, London, Special Publications) 326: 27–54. Bibcode:2009GSLSP.326...27S. doi:10.1144/SP326.2.17.Kirschvink, J.L. (1992). "Late Proterozoic low-latitude global glaciation: The snowball Earth". In Schopf, JW, and Klein, C. The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study (PDF). Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–2.18.Allen, Philip A.; Etienne, James L. (2008). "Sedimentary challenge to Snowball Earth". Nature Geoscience 1 (12): 817. Bibcode:2008NatGe...1..817A. doi:10.1038/ngeo355.19.Alderman, A. R.; Tilley, C. E. (1960). "Douglas Mawson 1882-1958". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 5: 119. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1960.001120.Kirschvink, Joseph (1992). "Late Proterozoic low-latitude global glaciation: the Snowball Earth". In J. W. Schopf; C. Klein. The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study. Cambridge University Press.21.Snowball Earth: New Evidence Hints at Global Glaciation 716.5 Million Years Ago22.Harland, W.B. (1964). "Critical evidence for a great infra-Cambrian glaciation" (PDF). International Journal of Earth Sciences 54 (1): 45–61. Bibcode:1964GeoRu..54...45H. doi:10.1007/BF01821169. Retrieved 11 March 2008.23.Eyles, N.; Januszczak, N. (2004). "'Zipper-rift': A tectonic model for Neoproterozoic glaciations during the breakup of Rodinia after 750 Ma" (PDF). Earth-Science Reviews 65 (1–2): 1–73. Bibcode:2004ESRv...65....1E. doi:10.1016/S0012-8252(03)00080-1. Retrieved 4 May 2007.24."International Chronostratigraphic Chart". International Commission on Stratigraphy. 2015. Retrieved 29 April 2015.25.“Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gas than driving cars, UN report warns.” 29 Nov 200626.See “Global Greenhouse Emissions” UN Food and Agricultural Organization 2006 FAO 201327.See EPA “Overview of Greenhouse Gases – methane”28.See FAO document “Livestock’s Role in Water Depletion and Pollution”29.Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.30.Comfortably Unaware. Oppenlander.31.NOAA, "what is a dead zone".32.Scientific America, "What Causes Ocean "Dead Zones"?".33.“What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency.34.“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.35.The Encyclopedia of Earth, "The Causes of Extinction".36.Annenberg Learner, Unit 9: Biodiversity Decline // Section 7: Habitat Loss: Causes and Consequences37.WWF, "Losing their homes because of the growing needs of humans."38.Center for Biological Diversity, "How Eating Meat Hurts Wildlife and the Planet".39.Science Direct “Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption”40.FAO, "Livestock impacts on the environment".41.“Fire Up the Grill for a Mouthwatering Red, White, and Green July 4th.” Worldwatch Institute.42.Oppenlander, Richard A. “Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification.” Comfortably Unaware. 201243.“Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.44.http://cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm45.Collins, Ronald (1998-03-23). "Veggie-Libel Law Still Poses a Threat". Retrieved 2009-12-28.46.V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 96.003, accessible at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/pdf/CP.96.pdf47.Jennings, Marianne M. (2005). Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment. Cengage Learning. p. 377. ISBN 978-0-324-20488-9. Retrieved 2009-12-28.48."Court shares light moment during Oprah jury selection". CNN. 1998-01-20. Retrieved 2009-12-27.49."Texas Cattlemen v. Oprah Winfrey". Media Libel - Bringing You The Best Every Day. Retrieved 2009-12-28.50.Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber (1997). Mad Cow USA: Could the nightmare happen here?. Madison, WI: Common Courage Press. p. 192. ISBN 1-56751-111-2.51."McLibel pair get police payout". BBC. 2000-07-05. "'McLibel' pair in fresh court bid". BBC. 2004-09-07.52."McDonald's lets McLibel case rest". AP. 1997-07-19.53.Press release issued by the Registrar. "Chamber Judgment Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom" The European Court of Human Rights, 15 February 2005. Received 1 September 2008.54.Welcome to FBI.gov55.Meier et al. 2007, Pfeffer et al. 200856.Rignot et al. 200857.Rignot et al. 201158.Rignot and Mouginot 201259.Mouginot et al. 201460.Krabill et al. 200461.Shepherd and Wingham 200762.Flament and Rémy 201263.McMillan et al. 201464.http://education.nationalgeographic.com/assets/file/freshwater_chapter5_v2.pdf65.Natural Resources Defense Council Report, “The Consequences of Global WarmingOn Glaciers and Sea Levels.”66.Global Warming and Glaciers67.Read more: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-Glaciers.html#ixzz3nAiIuRzx68.http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Global-Warming-and-Glaciers.html#ixzz3nAhjXgnH69.Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues.” BioScience 54, no. 10 (2004): 909-18.70.Barber, N.L., “Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098.”71.Pacific Institute, "California's Water Footprint"72.Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.73.Oxford Journals. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues"74.The World's Water. "Water Content of Things"75.Journal of Animal Science. "Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States."76.Robbins, John. “2,500 Gallons, All Wet?” EarthSave77.Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.78.“Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.79.Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print80.“Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.81.http://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/fixleak.html82.SAP Report: SAP 3.4: Abrupt Climate Change, Chapter 4. The Potential for Abrupt Change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.83.Loeb, N.G. et al. (2012) Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.Nature Geoscience,5, 110–113.84.NASA (2014, February 18) NASA Satellites See Arctic Surface Darkening Faster. Accessed October 13, 2014.85.NASA Earth Observatory (2011, February 24) Melting Snow and Ice Warm Northern Hemisphere.86.NASA Earth Observatory (2009, January 14) Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget.87.NASA Earth Observatory (2007, January 31) Arctic Reflection: Clouds Replace Snow and Ice as Solar Reflector.88.NASA Langley Research Center (2014) CERES. Accessed October 13, 2014.89.Stephens, G.L. et al. (2012) An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.Nature Geoscience,5, 691-696.90."Melting Greenland ice sheet may affect global ocean circulation, future climate". Phys.org - News and Articles on Science and Technology. 2016.91.James Hansen and Makiko Sato (2015). "Predictions Implicit in "Ice Melt" Paper and Global Implications".92.Jianjun Yin & Stephen Griffies (25 March 2015). "Extreme sea level rise event linked to AMOC downturn". CLIVAR.93.Mihai Dima and Gerrit Lohmann (2010). "Evidence for Two Distinct Modes of Large-Scale Ocean Circulation Changes over the Last Century". AMS. doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2867.1.94.Stefan Rahmstorf, Jason E. Box, Georg Feulner, Michael E. Mann, Alexander Robinson, Scott Rutherford & Erik J. Schaffernicht. "Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation". Nature. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..475R. doi:10.1038/nclimate2554.95.Didier Swingedouw (2015). "Oceanography: Fresh news from the Atlantic". Nature. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..411S. doi:10.1038/nclimate2626.96."Why the U.S. East Coast could be a major 'hotspot' for rising seas". The Washington Post. 2016.97.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219153611.htm98.Schiermeier, Quirin (2007). "Ocean circulation noisy, not stalling". Nature. 448 (7156): 844–5. Bibcode:2007Natur.448..844S. doi:10.1038/448844b. PMID 17713489.99.J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Hearty, R. Ruedy, M. Kelley, V. Masson-Delmotte, G. Russell, G. Tselioudis, J. Cao, E. Rignot, I. Velicogna, E. Kandiano, K. von Schuckmann, P. Kharecha, A. N. Legrande, M. Bauer, and K.-W. Lo (2015). "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous". Bibcode:2015ACPD...1520059H. doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015.100.Satellites record weakening North Atlantic Current. NASA, 15 April 2004.101.Leake, Jonathan (8 May 2005). "Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows". The Sunday Times.102.Gulf Stream slowdown?RealClimate, 26 May 2005.103.F. Pearce. Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age.NewScientist, 30 November 2005104.Quadfasel D (December 2005). "Oceanography: The Atlantic heat conveyor slows". Nature. 438 (7068): 565–6. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..565Q. doi:10.1038/438565a. PMID 16319866.105.Schiermeier, Quirin (2007). "Climate change: A sea change". Nature. 439 (7074): 256–60. Bibcode:2006Natur.439..256S. doi:10.1038/439256a. PMID 16421539. (subscription required); see also "Atlantic circulation change summary". RealClimate. 19 Jan 2006.106.Våge, Kjetil; Pickart, Robert S.; Thierry, Virginie; Reverdin, Gilles; Lee, Craig M.; Petrie, Brian; Agnew, Tom A.; Wong, Amy; Ribergaard, Mads H. (2009). "Surprising return of deep convection to the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean in winter 2007–2008". Nature Geoscience. 2 (1): 67–72. Bibcode:2009NatGe...2...67V. doi:10.1038/ngeo382.107.FishOutofWater, Diaries (6 January 2010). "Freak Current Takes Gulf Stream to Greenland". Daily Kos. Retrieved 11 January 2010.108.FishOutofWater, Diaries (30 December 2009). "Warm Atlantic Water Rapidly Replacing Arctic Sea Ice". Daily Kos. Retrieved 11 January 2010.109.Seager R (July–August 2006). "The Source of Europe's Mild Climate". American Scientist. The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth110.Rhines, P.B.; Häkkinen, S. (September 2003). "Is the Oceanic Heat Transport in the North Atlantic Irrelevant to the Climate in Europe?" (PDF). ASOF Newsletter.111."Salinity and Brine". NSIDC.112."Everything you need to know about the surprisingly cold 'blob' in the North Atlantic ocean". The Washington Post. 2015.113.Gierz, Paul (31 August 2015). "Response of Atlantic Overturning to future warming in a coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet model". Geophysical Research Letters. Bibcode:2015GeoRL..42.6811G. doi:10.1002/2015GL065276.114.Turrell, B. The Big ChillTranscript of discussion on BBC 2, 13 November 2003115.Vellinga, M.; Wood, R.A. (2002). "Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation" (PDF). Climatic Change. 54 (3): 251–267. doi:10.1023/A:1016168827653.116.Lund DC, Lynch-Stieglitz J, Curry WB; Lynch-Stieglitz; Curry (November 2006). "Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium". Nature. 444 (7119): 601–4. Bibcode:2006Natur.444..601L. doi:10.1038/nature05277. PMID 17136090.117.IPCC TAR WG1 (2001). "9.3.4.3 Thermohaline circulation changes". In Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80767-0 (pb: 0-521-01495-6)118.“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.119.http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html120.Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering; IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014121.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html122.http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm123.World Bank. "Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon”124.Margulis, Sergio. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforest. Washington: World Bank Publications, 2003.125.WORLD BANK WORKING PAPER NO. 22126.Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.127.Niles Eldredge, "The Sixth Extinction".128.Mass extinction of species has begun. Gerardo Ceballos, PaulBiological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines, R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo, PNAS 2017 July, 114 (30) E6089-E6096. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines129.Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction.130.http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html131.EPA – “Overview of Greenhouse Gases”; http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html132.Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”133.WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19.134.Animal Feed Science and Technology “comment to editor” Goodland, Anhang.135.The Independent, article Nov. 2009.136.“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.137.The source of the methane percentage produced by livestock (the methane data does not appear on the EPA web site as animal agriculture): FAO Newsroom, Christopher Mathews, 29 Nov 2006, available at http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html138.Vaclav Smil, Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613-36, December 2011. The proportions are of mass measures in dry weight.139.Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact,Vaclav Smil140.New York Times Jul 2013141.UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects, 2015 Revision142.Science, "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services".143.National Geographic, article Nov. 2006144.“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012. (pg 6, 20)145.Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic.146.A Mood and P Brooke, July 2010, "Estimating the Number of Fish Caught in Global Fishing Each Year".147.Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic.148.Batty, David. “Brazilian faces retrial over murder of environmental activist nun in Amazon.” The Guardian. 2009; 20 years ago the Amazon lost its strongest advocate.149.Animal agriculture: waste management practices. United States General Accounting Office.}150.Population Reference Bureau & The World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency151.Jha, Alok (5 August 2013). "Synthetic meat: how the world's costliest burger made it on to the plate". Retrieved 1 January 2016.152.Sheppard, Kate (7 September 2011). "Shmeat: It's What's for Dinner". Retrieved 1 January 2016.153.Siegelbaum, D.J. (2008-04-23). "In Search of a Test-Tube Hamburger". Time. Retrieved 2009-04-30.154."World's first lab-grown burger is eaten in London". BBC News. Retrieved 2 February 2016.155."Building a $325,000 Burger". The New York Times. 14 May 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2016.156.Temple, James (2009-02-23). "The Future of Food: The No-kill Carnivore". http://Portfolio.com. Retrieved 2009-08-07.157.The In Vitro Meat Consortium (March 2008). "Preliminary Economics Study" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-10-03.158.Chiles, Robert; Magneson (2013-12-01). "If they come, we will build it: in vitro meat and the discursive struggle over future agrofood expectations". Agriculture and Human Values (Springer Netherlands) 30 (4): 511–523. doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9427-9. Retrieved 18 October 2014.159.Fifty Years Hence, The Strand Magazine (December 1931)160.Ross, Russell (1 July 1971). "Growth of Smooth Muscle in Culture and Formation of Elastic Fibers". The Journal of Cell Biology. pp. 172–186. Retrieved 12 February 2015.161.Macintyre, Ben (2007-01-20). "Test-tube meat science's next leap". The Australian. Retrieved 2011-11-26.162.Webb, Sarah (2006-01-08). "Tissue Engineers Cook Up Plan for Lab-Grown Meat (The Year in Science: Technology)". Discover. Retrieved 2009-08-07.163.Benjaminson, Morris (2001-12-05). "Featured Research at Touro: Growing Fish Fillets Outside the Fish". Touro College School of Health Sciences. Retrieved 2010-01-10. Advance announcement of paper's publication in Acta Astronautica (not found there, but note Journal articles below).164.WO9931222 A1 Application WO9931222, van Eelen, Willem Frederik; Willem Jan van Kooten & Wiete Westerhof, "Industrial scale production of meat from in vitro cell cultures", published 1999-06-24165.Van Eelen, Willem (2007-12-12). "Patent holder Willem van Eelen: ‘In another five years meat will come out of the factory’". inVitroMeat Foundation, operated by Willem van Eelen, publishing what appears to be an English translation of an article in Dutch by Anouck Vrouwe (subscribers only) from Het Financieele Dagblad. External link in |publisher= (help)166."Ingestion / Disembodied Cuisine". Cabinet Magazine. Winter 2004–2005.167."Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale" (Press release). University of Maryland. 2005-07-06. Retrieved 2008-10-12.168.Levine, Ketzel (2008-05-20), Lab-Grown Meat a Reality, But Who Will Eat It?, National Public Radio, retrieved 2010-01-10169."The 50 Best Inventions of 2009". Time. 2009-11-12.170.Rogers, Lois (2009-11-29). "Scientists grow pork meat in a laboratory". The Sunday Times (London).171.Lab-Grown Meat? $1 Million Reward Deadline Nears at Food Safety News | Breaking News about Food Safety172."Lab-Grown Meat a Reality, But Who Will Eat It?". NPR. Retrieved 2011-12-08.173."Meet Shmeat: Test-Tube Meat". HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News. 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2011-12-08.174."Shmeat (sheet + meat)". 2013-03-30. Retrieved 2013-05-24.175."What does a stem cell burger taste like?". BBC News. Retrieved 2 February 2016.176."A Lab-Grown Burger Gets a Taste Test". The New York Times. 6 August 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2016.177.Fountain, Henry (May 12, 2013). "Building a $325,000 Burger". New York Times. Retrieved May 15, 2013.178.Raizel, Robin (2005-12-11). "In Vitro Meat". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-07.179.Kurzweil, Raymond (2005). The Singularity is Near. Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-303788-9.180.Artificial meat grown in a lab could become a reality THIS year at Home | Daily Mail Online181.http://www.new-harvest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MayAdamSG2013MSciComm.pdf In vitro meat habitat at Terreform182.Edelman, P. D, D. C. McFarland, V. A. Mironov, and J. G. Matheny. 2005. In vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Engineering 11(5–6): 659–662.183.Kruglinski, Susan; Wright, Karen (2008-09-22). "I'll Have My Burger Petri-Dish Bred, With Extra Omega-3". Discover.184.McFarland, D. C., Doumit, M. E., & Minshall, R. D. (1988). The turkey myogenic satellite cell: Optimization of in vitro proliferation and differentiation. Tissue and Cell, 20(6), 899–908.185.Benjaminson, M. A., Gilchriest, J. A., & Lorenz, M. (2002). In vitro edible muscle protein production system (MPPS): Stage 1, fish. Acta Astronautica, 51(12), 879–889.186.Dodson, M. V., & Mathison, B. A. (1988). Comparison of ovine and rat muscle-derived satellite cells: Response to insulin. Tissue and Cell, 20(6), 909–918.187.Doumit, M. E., Cook, D. R., & Merkel, R. A. (1993). Fibroblast growth factor, epidermal growth factor, insulin-like growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor-BB stimulate proliferate of clonally derived porcine myogenic satellite cells. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 157(2), 326–332.188.Datar, M. Betti, Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 11 (2010) at 17.189.Marta Zaraska. "Is Lab-Grown Meat Good for Us?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 February 2016.190.Despommier, D. (2008). "Vertical Farm Essay I". Vertical Farm. Retrieved 2009-06-26.191.A Practical Health Guide to In Vitro Meat from the Animal Liberation Front192.Pigott, George M.; Tucker, Barbee W. (1990). Seafood. CRC Press. p. 236. ISBN 0-8247-7922-3.193.Eating in Vitro: Magic Meatballs at Next Nature194.Tuomisto, Hannah (2011-06-17), Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production, American Chemical Society, doi:10.1021/es200130u, retrieved 2013-09-21195.A Farm on Every Floor, The New York Times, August 23, 2009196.Case Study – Landfill Power Generation, H. Scott Matthews, Green Design Initiative, Carnegie Mellon University. http://gdi.ce.cmu.edu/gd/education/landfill-case.pdf Retrieved 07.02.09197.Specter, Michael (2011-05-23), Annals of Science, Test-Tube Burgers, The New Yorker, retrieved 2010-06-28198.Lab-grown meat would 'cut emissions and save energy', 21 June 2011199.Koerner, Brendan I. (2008-05-20). "Will Lab-Grown Meat Save the Planet? Or is it only good for cows and pigs?". Slate.200.Cheng, Maria (2010-01-15). "Stem Cells Turned Into Pork".201."Livestock a major threat to environment". FAO Newsroom.202.The Vertical Farm Project. 2009. "Agriculture for the 21st Century and Beyond."203.S.L. Davis (2001). "The least harm principle suggests that humans should eat beef, lamb, dairy, not a vegan diet". Proceedings of the Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. pp. 449–450.204.Despommier, Dickson (November 2009). "The Rise of Vertical Farms". Scientific American (New York: Scientific American Inc.) 301 (5): 60–67. ISSN 0036-8733.205.Sandhana, Lakshmi. "Test Tube Meat Nears Dinner Table". Archived from the original on August 19, 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2014.206.Vein, John. "Patent US6835390". Retrieved 27 January 2014.207.Haagsman, H.P.; K.J. HelIingwerf; B.A.J. Roelen (October 2009). "Production of Animal Proteins by Cell Systems" (PDF). Universiteit Utrecht: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine: 13–14. Retrieved 27 January 2014.208.Tuomisto, Hanna L.; Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (22–24 September 2010). "Life cycle assessment of cultured meat production" (PDF): 5. Retrieved 27 January 2014.209.Alok Jha. "Synthetic meat: how the world's costliest burger made it on to the plate". the Guardian. Retrieved 2 February 2016.210."Could vegetarians eat a 'test tube' burger?". BBC News. Retrieved 2 February 2016.211."Can Vegetarians Eat In-Vitro Meat? The Debate Rages.". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2 February 2016.212.In vitro meat at Food Ethics Council213.In Vitro Meat: Power, Authenticity and Vegetarianism214.Tim Barribeau. "Is Vat-Grown Meat Kosher? We Asked A Rabbi". io9. Retrieved 2 February 2016.215.Billinghurst, Thomas (2013-05-02). "Is 'shmeat' the answer?". Gulf News. Retrieved 2013-10-10.216."Wolfram-Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine". Retrieved 2 February 2016.217.Post, Mark (26 March 2015). "Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands has developed synthetic beef patties.". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 14 May 2015.218."Stem cells promise Noah’s ark of test-tube burger choices".219."The Colbert Report: World of Nahlej – Shmeat". Comedy Central. 2009-03-17. Retrieved 2011-12-08.220.BiteLabs221."Hunger Game? Startup Whets Public Appetite For Salami Made From Celebrities". Huffington Post. 2014-03-03.222.The Guy Who Wants to Sell Lab-Grown Salami Made of Kanye West Is "100% Serious"223.No, This Website Won't Actually Make Salami Out Of Famous People". Time. 2014-02-28.224.Harris, Jenn (2014-03-05). "Ellen DeGeneres salami? One company's quest to make meat from celebrity tissue samples". Los Angeles Times.US Census Bureau, 2015

YES, the reason summer is hot is the seasonal change in the earth’s orbit around the sun that controls the temperature. Like the old saying one swallow doth not a summer make nor does one heat wave localized in the North East USA. There is no GLOBAL WARMING / climate change here. A hot summer is just normal weather and natural variability of the climate.We are in the Quaternary Ice Age and lucky temperatures seesaw back and forth although temperatures are in a long 7000 year decline.We think the alarmist big media no a reckoning of their fake news is becoming clear. They double down with exaggerated claims but the public are not duped when they go to the ballot box and vote against useless carbon taxes to make the climate cooler.The evidence mounts that the earth is cooling not becoming too hot. This so called mini heat wave is tepid compared with past summer temperatures in the USA, particularly during the dirty thirties.REFERENCESThis USA heat wave is far from unusual when you compare the data of the past and look at the scientific data of actual temperatures only in the 90s. THE COMMON DEFINITION OF A HEAT WAVE IS MORE THAN 3 DAYS OF TEMPERATURES REACHING OVER 101 * F. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN, EXCEPT WITH THE “REALFEEL” DNON SCIENCE DATA.The double counting of “REAL FEEL” Data is not recorded science. No catastrophic warming and now temperatures have plummeted with extensive flooding..July 22, 2019, 11:18 PM PDT / Updated July 23, 2019, 9:07 AM PDTBy Phil HelselFlooding hit parts of New York’s Long Island and hundreds of thousands of people in New Jersey lost power Monday after a series of storms swept through the tri-state region.The outages and flooding occurred after the city and much of the East Coast emerged from a heat wave.Thousands of people lost power due to the storms. In New Jersey, they numbered more than 300,000, Gov. Phil Murphy said.Knee-deep flooding jams transit, swamps battered Brooklyn, darkens parts of New JerseyJohn Bacon, USA TODAYPublished 8:27 a.m. ET July 23, 2019 | Updated 9:34 a.m. ET July 23, 2019CLOSECommuters navigate flooded streets in Brooklyn, New York as flash flood warnings were issued.StoryfulCONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORETrains and planes were delayed while cars and pedestrians slogged through knee-deep water in battered Brooklyn as flash flooding swept through parts of the borough following days of intense heat and power outages.The storms hit late Monday and early Tuesday. The National Weather Service posted a Flash Flood Warning that included Brooklyn and neighboring Queens. Parts of New Jersey also took the brunt of the storms, and widespread power outages were reported.The first storms hit during rush hour, and gridlock prevailed."As frustrating as this situation is (and as a commuter I share in that frustration), let's be good to one another amid the transit hell," tweeted Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams.Knee-deep rain floods a Brooklyn street. (Photo: Adrienne Zhou via Storyful)The storms broke a string of heat emergency days for the city. But Brooklyn and Queens had been hit with power outages late Sunday. Thousands remained without power early Tuesday.New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said he was "extremely disappointed" with utility Con Edison."They've been giving us consistently inconsistent information over these last days,” de Blasio said. “This was a situation we all saw coming and I don't have any good answers yet as to why this happened and why it was not prevented.”Julie Chang@BayAreaJulieOof. Photo cred: Adrienne Zhao22Oof. Photo cred: Adrienne Zhao pic.twitter.com/r4QtClpgTh— Julie Chang (@BayAreaJulie) July 22, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacySee Julie Chang's other TweetsNew York Gov. Andrew Cuomo deployed state police, generators and light towers. He agreed that the utility should have been better prepared, saying there was "no excuse" for the outages.In New Jersey, there were reports of "dime-size hail. Some roads were closed and Newark Airport warned of delays. More than 325,000 homes and businesses lost power across the state late Monday. The state Board of Public Utilities issued an ominous statement."The utilities are working to restore power as quickly and safely as possible," the statement said. "Due to the severity of the storm damage, it may take up to several days. Please check on your neighbors, particularly anyone elderly or infirm."Almost 230,000 remained without power Tuesday morning; another 30,000 were in the dark in Pennsylvania; 10,000 more in New York.Epic And Massive Flooding In Europe During The Little Ice AgePublished on June 24, 2016Written by iceagenow.orgKilled more than 500,000 people.Andrew McKillop has a new article posted at The Market Oracle. Here are some excerpts.This is the global cooling fearIntense flooding in the low countries of Europe became “darkly repetitive” during the Little Ice Age, writes McKillop. The cooling period lasted 450 years,For the Dutch, the Grote Mandrenke is nothing to do with Linux software, but means “The Great Drowning” and is named for the epic and massive flooding that occurred, more and more frequently in the Low Countries of Europe’s North Sea region as Europe’s Little Ice Age intensified.Grote Mandrenke flood killed at least 100 000Normal or predictable spring and autumn flooding was increasingly replaced by large-area and intense flooding, sometimes outside spring and autumn from about 1300, in recurring crises which lasted into the 18th century. In the Low Countries and across Europe, but also elsewhere, the cooling trend starting in the late 13th century became more intense. It brought long cold winters, heavy storms and floods, loss of coastal farmlands, and huge summer sandstorms in coastal areas further damaging agriculture. Climate historians estimate that major flooding on an unpredictable but increasingly frequent basis started as early as 1250. Extreme events like the Grote Mandrenke flood of 1362 which killed at least 100 000 people became darkly repetitive.Other giant floods probably killed 400 000Other giant floods in the region through the next 200 years probably killed a total of 400 000 persons in the coastlands of what is now Belgium, Germany and Holland. At the time, Europe’s population was at most a quarter of today’s, meaning that corrected for population size these were really catastrophic disasters. During this time, the Zuider Zee region of northern Holland was inundated and its former farmlands disappeared under water – for several centuries.Crop failures and faminesThe basic reasons was that the weather was getting colder, as well as more unpredictable. As the climate cooled, it also became wetter. Combined with the cold, this caused more crop failures and famines spread as the northern limit of farming retreated south. The start of the cooling – called Europe’s Little Ice Age by glaciologist Francois Matthes in 1939 – in the 13th century was in fact the start of a long, sometimes steep dip in temperatures that held sway on an unpredictable, on-and-off basis until at least the first decade of the 19th century. Overall, the cooling lasted about 450 years.Preceded by more than two centuries of much warmer more predictable weatherMaking things worse, the cooling had been preceded by more than two centuries of much warmer and better, more predictable weather. Farming moved northwards, seasons were predictable, food supplies had expanded. Europe’s population also grew, in some regions tripling in 200 years. The colonization of Greenland, which failed when the cooling intensified, was a well-known historical spinoff from the previous warming, but by the 16th century there was no trace of Europeans in Greenland. Only ruins of their farms and homes could be found, but with few or no tombstones dated beyond the early 15th century, leading to the theory that these early “Climate Refugees” packed their longboats and sailed south, to what is now the New England coast. Where they became easy prey for American Indian tribes along those coasts.And as more evidence shows that the Medieval Warm Period was no isolated event in Europe but was a global phenomenon, McKillop’s analysis takes on more immediate relevance:The climate historian Hubert H. Lamb in his 2002 book ‘Climate History and the Modern World’ dates the cooling to two main phases. The first leg of this change he places at about 1200-1400, but his second phase of about 1500-1825 which for some climate historians is Europe’s Little Ice Age, was marked by much steeper drops in average temperatures. Indicators used by Lamb and other climate historians like Emmanuel Leroy Ladrie and Wolfgang Behringer include food price peaks as cold summers followed cold and wet springs, with increasing examples of “climate wars”, such as Louis X’s Flanders campaign where the climate chilling was a sure factor in play.I fear that we’re headed into such a period of great cooling and repetitive catastrophic flooding right now.This while our leaders prattle on about global warming, leaving us almost totally unprepared.Andrew McKillop is former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission, and co-author of ‘The Doomsday Machine’, Palgrave Macmillan USA, 2012McKillop has more than 30 years experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has had specially long experience of energy policy, project administration and the development and financing of alternate energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy and Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary, AREC and researcher for UN agencies including the ILO.https://principia-scientific.org/epic-and-massive-flooding-in-europe-during-the-little-ice-age/Europe weather: Italy and France hit by flooding after torrential rainfall@BigJoeBastardi athttps://www.weatherbell.com/Also research studies increase showing the human emissions of Co2 have no impact on the climate. For example, A new paper published by researchers from the University of Turku in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. The team suggests that the idea of man made climate change is a mere miscalculation or skewing the formulas by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).ELECTROVERSEDOCUMENTING EARTH CHANGES DURING THE NEXT GSM AND POLE SHIFTAll-Time Record Low Temperatures set across Montana + one tied from 1898Extreme Weather GSMALL-TIME RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES SET ACROSS MONTANA + ONE TIED FROM 1898JULY 23, 2019 CAP ALLONWith the few days of ‘eastern heat’ taking all the headlines, the anomalous and long-lasting cold infecting vast swathes of North America is again being swept under the sustainably-sourced non-synthetic-petroleum-derived-fiber carpet. Record cold hit Montana over the weekend with several cities and towns setting new all-time record lows, but I’ll bet my diesel-guzzling L200 you never heard about it.I’ve listed a few of the new record lows below:Utica set a new record low of -1.1C (30F) on Saturday July 20.Kalispell’s 2.2C (36F) busted the previous record of 3.3C (38F) set in 1996 (solar minimum of cycle 22).Great Falls set a new record low of 3.3C (38F) over the weekend, beating the old 4.4C (40F) set back in 1926 (exiting solar min of cycle 15).Livingston broke it’s previous all-time record with a low of 3.9C (39F).While Helena tied its previous record low set way back in 1898 (entering solar minimum of cycle 13) with a reading of 6.1C (43F) on Saturday.In addition, Missoula’s low of 39F on Saturday was the first time since 1995 (solar min of cycle 20) that a temperature in the 30s has been observed in the last two weeks of July, and only the fifth time in the last 50 years.RECORD HEAT IN A COOLING WORLDThe sun, the oceans and a wavy jet stream are the main drivers of earth’s climate.Extreme heat and extreme cold will always occur, it’s the averages that matter.Global warming was a thing, it did happen — it was called the Grand Solar Maximum and lasted from approximately 1980 up until very recently. Global average temperatures rose by around 0.7C during this time, though the rise was natural, driven entirely by historically high solar activity, and would have occurred even if humans had never evolved to invent coal-fired power-plants and L200s.The coin has now flipped however, and solar activity is waning fast (NASA, see below) with global average temperatures responding, falling at least 0.3C since the start of 2016. This drop is expected to now pick-up-the-pace as the most up to date CFSv2 forecast for region 3.4 of the central equatorial Pacific Ocean reveals that a dramatic flip from the current El Niño setup (warming) to a La Niña one (cooling) is on the cards, beginning mid-to-late summer (NH) 2019 (click here for more on that).A few daily heat records may have tumbled in the US and Europe of late, but 1) those heat records are more often than not occurring at airports — all that tarmac and jet engines, a terrific unbiased location for a thermometer station (for more on the UHI effect, click here), and 2) as touched on above, both anomalous heat as well as cold is to be expected with a meridional (wavy) jet stream flow:During a solar minimum, the jet stream’s usual Zonal Flow (a west–east direction) reverts to more of a Meridional Flow (a north-south direction) — this is exaggerated further during a Grand Solar Minimum, like the one we’re entering now, and explains why regions become unseasonably hot or cold and others unusually dry or rainy, with the extremes lasting for an extended period of time (for more, click the link below).NBC Montana on Twitter asks, “Do you remember [Missoula’s] horribly hot summer of 2007?”The year 2007 occurred during the previous solar minimum, of cycle 23.Missoula’s record warmest-low temperature was set in the July of that year, before the winter months rolled around and dished-out one of the coldest seasons on record.NBC Montana✔@NBCMontanaDo any of you remember the horribly hot summer of 2007? A viewer recently asked what the all-time warmest low temperature was for Missoula. No surprise, from the summer of 2007! It was 71 degrees on July 24th. #mtwx #weather #Heat #Montana3Do any of you remember the horribly hot summer of 2007? A viewer recently asked what the all-time warmest low temperature was for Missoula. No surprise, from the summer of 2007! It was 71 degrees on July 24th. #mtwx #weather #Heat #Montana— NBC Montana (@NBCMontana) June 21, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacySee NBC Montana's other TweetsA wavy jet stream –associated with low solar activity– brings extremes at both ends of the temperature scale. While all the while, average temperatures slide ever-cooler:The cold times are returning, in line with historically low solar activity.NASA’s latest forecast for the next solar cycle (25) is for it to be “the weakest of the past 200 years” (www.nasa.gov):This NH is on course for an incredibly severe winter.Prepare.Grand Solar Minimum + Pole ShiftAll-Time Record Low Temperatures set across Montana + one tied from 1898 - ElectroverseHistory shows that the warmest US decade on record was the 1930sJuly 25, 2019 by RobertThis was “long before industry emitted significant amounts of carbon dioxide,” writes Steve Goreham.According to NOAA, “23 of the 50 state record high temperatures were recorded during the 1930s,” says Goreham. “Thirty-six of the 50 state record highs occurred prior to 1960.”But never mind such inconvenient facts.Seventy-four US medical and public health groups released a “U.S. Call to Action” last month, in which they declared climate change to be a “true public health emergency.” They also claimed that we urgently need to transition away from hydrocarbon energy and a move to a low-carbon economy.“(Trouble is), “actual weather and health trends don’t support either the alarm or the demanded actions.”“Last week, temperatures in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania peaked at about 100 degrees Fahrenheit. But these temperatures were far below the state record highs, which were Iowa (118oF in 1934), Illinois (117oF in 1954), Indiana (116oF in 1936), Ohio (113oF in 1934), and Pennsylvania (111oF in 1936).”Goreham goes on to eviscerate the false claims of increasing storm, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado activity – even wildfire activity.“The belief that changing light bulbs, driving electric cars, and erecting wind turbines can improve human health is as medieval as the belief that bloodletting can cure disease,” Goreham concludes.See entire comprehensive article:Never Have US Health Professionals Been So Foolish - NewsBlaze NewsCLOUDS NOT CO2 GOVERNS THE CLIMATE RESEARCH SHOWSJyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the “GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature.”Thus, in order to come to the results matching the actual climate change the IPCC has to “use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity.” In addition, Kauppinen and Malmi claim that their paper proves that “the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.”The authors argue that the IPCC has used computational results which can not be considered experimental evidence, and site this as the reason for contradictory conclusions.“The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognise that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice, write Kauppinen and Malmi. “The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1℃ because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01℃.”yrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, in their paper published on 29th June 2019 claim to prove that the “GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. They show the small amount of human Co2 means there is no man-made effect on the climate….In a separate study, Japanese scientists have also suggested a much more important role for low clouds cover caused by an increase in cosmic rays resulting form the weakening of the earths magnetic filed.Prof. Masayuki Hyodo and his team Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from the University of Kobe in Japan in their paper published this month in propose that the “umbrella effect” is the main factor behind climate change.“When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate.”“The Intergovernmental IPCC has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it”, comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificantNO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGEJ. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMIAbstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the greenhouse gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature…If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practicehttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165... (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165...)This means the references in my post about Co2 overturn the Paris Climate Accord. Here is current research that demolishes the Co2 theory partly because its percentage in the atmosphere is near zero. (Thanks for responding)Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures07/12/2019 / By Mike AdamsThe climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperaturesThis is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.Burn all the oil you want, in other words, and it’s still just a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun and other cosmic influences. All the fossil fuel consumption in the world barely contributes anything to actual global temperatures, the researchers confirmed.As they explain, the IPCC’s climate models are wildly overestimating the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures:…the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.The entire “climate change” hoax is a fraudCarbon dioxide, in other words, isn’t the “pollutant” that climate change alarmists have long claimed it to be. CO2 won’t destroy the planet and barely has any effect on global temperatures (the IPCC’s estimate of its effect is, according to Finnish researchers, about one order of magnitude too large, or ten times the actual amount).In fact, NASA was forced to recently admit that carbon dioxide is re-greening the Earth on a massive scale by supporting the growth of rainforests, trees and grasslands. See these maps showing the increase in green plant life, thanks to rising CO2:Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperaturesWhile it was hot in much of the UN for a short while is was below normal temperatures in California and most of the West. This contradiction shows alarmist contradictory hype like OBAMA during the last California drought.NO HEAT WAVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE MIDDLE OF JULY. THEY HAVE RECORD RAINFALL AND FLOODINGClimate change doesn't threaten to "destroy civilization." Misguided responses to it—including those promoted by Pope Francis—do.In reality, the postulate that CO2 is significantly trapping heat is still subject to debate (verifying the theory by measuring trapped heat can’t be done) and there are so many other factors involved in planet-wide warming and cooling that it’s impossible to say with any degree of certainty. For example, atmospheric water vapor (clouds) has a much more profound effect on temperature than CO2. The global circulation models—upon which rests the “proof” that CO2 is causing recent warming is based—don’t account for water vapor. This is one of many reasons the climate models were so inaccurate 6 years ago and why they’re even further off(p.5 graph) as time passes.Climate scientists haven’t been able to explain previous natural warming and cooling periods like the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age, which had global temperature fluctuations that rivaled the current 1° C since the end of the Little Ice Age. In other words, despite the massive collective study of global climate by climate scientists over the past few decades, and the assurance by many vocal climate scientists who are concerned about catastrophic warming, the current temperature rise appears to be mostly—if not completely—within the range of natural variability.Advanced and accurate measurements of density of the growth rings in Northern Scandinavian pine trees have formed the basis for a highly accurate modern reconstruction of temperatures over the past 2,000 years. It shows that today's warm period is colder than the medieval warming, which again was colder than the Roman era. In modern times, there have been some particularly warm years, such as 2004, but they will be much less visible after a mathematical smoothing. Probably there have always been few years with exceptional heat or cold. It also follows from the historical accounts above about particular severe winters.Sea surface temperature in the East China Sea (between Japan, Taiwan and China). It is seen that changes in temperature did not happen simultaneously over the whole Earth. The Roman Warm Period took place also in China, the cold spell of the Peoples migration period was significant, but not very long lasting, instead, it was replaced by the Sui-Tang heating period. The Medieval warm period was not particularly significant in East Asia and nor was the Little Ice Age. But the steadily falling temperature trend has been the same in China as around the Atlantic.Jan Esper and his co-authors to "Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian - -" conclude that their results "provide evidence of considerable warming during the Roman and Medieval warm period in larger scale and of longer duration than the twentieth century heating period." More specifically they identify the Medieval Warm Period to has taken place around 700 to 1300 AD and identify the warmest 30-year intervals during this period, which occurred from 918 to 947 AD in which period the June, July and August temperatures were about 0.3 degrees hotter than the hottest 30-year interval in the current warm period. Their findings differ from other researchers, who think that the Medieval Heating period began around 950 AD.If for example we have declining temperatures from the past 7000 years then the onus to rebut this cooling and declare a new weather pattern of warming that amounts to ‘climate change’ is high and has not happened since our industrializationDon't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling5/16/2018Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century."The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017).A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?In this case, it didn't warrant any news http://coverage.In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it.They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening."In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.That's not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a "Hey, what's going on here?" story.What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.Hiding The EvidenceThere was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsvilleshowing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?Crickets.Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported."He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all."Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/“We had expected more Melting” — Thick Arctic Ice forces Norwegian Research Vessel and Icebreaker to turn back at SvalbardExtreme Weather GSM“WE HAD EXPECTED MORE MELTING” — THICK ARCTIC ICE FORCES NORWEGIAN RESEARCH VESSEL AND ICEBREAKER TO TURN BACK AT SVALBARDJULY 17, 2019 CAP ALLONThe Norwegian research vessel and icebreaker Kronprins Haakon (Crown Prince Haakon) was forced to turn back north of Svalbard after meeting considerably thicker ice than expected.Thick one-year ice combined with large batches of multi-year ice have merged to form powerful helmets, and several of these are impenetrable to us, said Captain Johnny Peder Hansen.The ice is still 3m (10ft) thick, in mid-July! Even the researchers’ long special-purpose chainsaws proved hopeless, while the 20,000 horsepower Kronprins Haakon, at a cost of USD $175 million, failed miserably at attempts to push through.“In the middle of July, we saw a few signs of thawing and [assumed] that spring had come, said Captain Hansen, who for several decades has worked on various vessels in the Arctic. “We had expected more melting.”Klassekampen, a respected left-leaning Norwegian newspaper writes: “Polar bears were seen on Bjørnøya this past winter –located in the middle of the Barents Sea– which shows that the ice edge was very far south.”Extreme WeatherNorth America to see Widespread Record Low Temperatures as a Midsummer Cold Front Plunges unusually far SouthExtreme Weather GSMNORTH AMERICA TO SEE WIDESPREAD RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES AS A MIDSUMMER COLD FRONT PLUNGES UNUSUALLY FAR SOUTHJULY 24, 2019 CAP ALLONInstead of holding its usual midsummer track in the northern U.S., the jet stream is plunging unusually far south this week, likely bringing record-breaking low temperatures with it.Normally at this time of year, writes the Weather Channel’s Jonathan Erdman, only the northern tier of states enjoys heat relief, while the South continues to sear. But the weather pattern this week is anything but typical and is giving the heat-weary South something to cheer about.Dew points in the 50s (dry air) are expected to plunge as far south as the Texas Gulf Coast and possibly other parts of the Deep South — dew-point values this low in summer are incredibly rare in Houston.RECORD LOWSKansas City, Missouri already tied it’s all-time record low temperature for July 23, with many more records expected to be tied or broken as the week progresses, particularly in southern and eastern parts.Cities expected to set new daily record lows, according to the National Weather Service (NWS), include Oklahoma City, Dallas, Little Rock, Arkansas; Memphis, Tennessee; Mobile, Alabama; and Charleston, South Carolina.Houston is expected to see lows in the 60s for three straight mornings, something that hasn’t occurred during the summer for 25 years (NWS).In addition, looking at the latest GFS runs, the anomalous cold is also forecast to infect central and eastern regions too, with temperature departures of up to 14C expected to last well into the weekend:GFS TEMP ANOMALY (C) for JUNE 24As always, the brief bursts of heat steal the headlines, but it’s the persistent cold that’s proving detrimental (to growing regions, for example) — the U.S. just averaged its coldest Oct-May in recorded history, and as a result is having it’s slowest planting season ever.Historically low solar activity is disturbing the jet stream, as well as allowing an influx of cloud-nucleating and volcano-popping cosmic rays to bombard earth’s atmosphere (see below links or more)— the upshot of which is a dramatic cooling of the planet beginning in 2020 (Zharkova).Prepare for the cold times. Grow your own.Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shifthttps://electroverse.net/north-america-to-see-widespread-record-low-temperatures-as-a-midsummer-cold-front-plunges-unusually-far-south/Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.‏ @NikolovScience 18h18 hours agoMoreThe net global effect of clouds is COOLING according to NOAA's National Center for Environmental Predictions (NCEP) reanalysis data. This effect is 10 times STRONGER than the computer-generated GHG "radiative forcing". See this 2011 paper by Mueller et al: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/11/2305 …MUST READ : China And India Will Watch The West Destroy Itself – OpEdPosted: July 15, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Australia,|Leave a commentPIC source : Rising Powers in Global Governance“Those who can make you believe absurdities,can make you commit atrocities.”– Voltaire“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms ofeconomic and environmental policy.“– Timothy Wirth,President of the UN Foundation***THOSE sceptical of the “Save The Planet” inspired, mad rush into supposedly ‘green’ energy sources by the climate change theory-obsessed West, leading to skyrocketing power prices, rampant energy poverty and an exodus of jobs and industry to China, will be keenly aware of the poignant and concerning realities expressed in this must read op-ed by Todd Royal :“Without having a basic understanding that every single wind turbine and solar panel is intermittent and has to be continually backed-up by fossil fuels, the west is committing environmental degradation, and putting itself at risk against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Based on self-interest rightly understood, India will then choose aligning with countries hostile to western interests over environmental concerns.”“Without energy you have nothing…”READ it all …*China And India Will Watch The West Destroy Itself – OpEdChina and India will allow the west – led by the United States (US) and European Union (EU) – to destroythemselves through dysfunctional, domestic, and continent-wide politics. This isn’t a Donald Trump or EU issue, but electorates having a vague understanding of how societies function, particularly, when it comes to energy.The “Green New Deal” is evident of that fact, which has no chance of ever working under current technology, taxpayer monies available, and the first “New Deal” was a failure. China and India will allow the US, EU, NATO and their Asian allies to:“Muddle through endemic crises menacing to its very existence (e.g., economic stagnation, demographic decline, rising unassimilated Islamic populations in many EU democracies, high taxes, mounting debt and the fiscal unsustainability of Western European social democracy)”Without energy you have nothing. China and India understand this better than the west since their citizenry and leaders view energy through the lens of what will help over two-billion-combined-citizens; join the prosperous, western, consumer-driven world. Most western, environmentally sensitive nations believe fossil fuels are evil. Instead, western countries strive for a renewable energy, carbon-free world. Even if the US were to cut its CO2 emissions, “100 percent it would not make a difference in abating global warming.”China and India have never bought into that notion of energy, or economies based on supposedly carbon-free renewables that inspire their nations toward a cleaner world. I wish they would, but that isn’t reality. Both countries will continue importing, exporting, and excavating tankers full of coal, oil, and natural gas from countries that are authoritarian, human right abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria, Angola and Algeria.Furthermore, Chinese and Indian politics, and increasingly Africa, will never allow lack of pipelines, domestic politics, or sensitivity to western environmentalists keep them from first world status enjoyed by the US, EU, and Asian nations like South Korea and Japan.Naïve-thinking, bordering on western suicide, believes China and India will stop using fossil fuels, led by coal. Each country understands coal is plentiful (“estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide that at current rates of production will last 150 years”), and it is scalable, reliable, cost-effective to the end user, and has the best energy density of all fossil fuels or renewables available.China is currently building hundreds of new, coal-fired power plants. To counter China, “India has 589 coal-fired power plants, they are building 446 more, bringing their total to 1,036.” These figures are after both governments signed the Paris Climate Agreement, and touted their green credentials.Since the US, Russia, China and India have the largest global coal reserves, and each country is vying for geopolitical dominance, they will continue using coal in record amounts. Energy is then a geopolitical weapon. Europe does not understand this fact.Only Trump seems to have gained clarity on this issue, with the US using their newfound shale oil and natural gas power, to their geopolitical and global advantage. Daily global, media onslaughts, US Democrats, and Never-Trump Republicans constrain Trump at every turn, and facilitate the US’ waning power. China and India sit back and do nothing, knowing the west is too weak to come to the US or Trump’s rescue.Renewable energy advocates can speak, write and publicly lobby that solar and wind-produced electricity is the same cost, or dropping compared to oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear. This claim is false. Renewables cost more to ratepayers and nations compared to fossil fuels or nuclear.Without having a basic understanding that every single wind turbine and solar panel is intermittent and has to be continually backed-up by fossil fuels, the west is committing environmental degradation, and putting itself at risk against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Based on self-interest rightly understood, India will then choose aligning with countries hostile to western interests over environmental concerns.A great power struggle has broken out between the world’s largest democracy – India – and the world’s largest authoritarian state – China – and whichever country uses the most energy will win Asia for the rest of this century. National security and the competition between them over Asia are at the crutch of why they will watch the west destroy their economies over bad energy policies.Sure, India and China will use natural gas, nuclear and oil, but coal is where each economy finds its basic energy resource. Horrible for world emissions, air pollution and global health, but how do westerners, the United Nations, and environmental organizations tell both, growing countries they cannot have access to the same energy opportunities and growth the west has now had for over seventy years?It simply won’t happen; world health organizations, research universities, think tanks, and multinational corporations interested in global longevity and clean air should begin working towards clean coal technology.All great nations, including China and India, view energy as a domain of power. The west already has their power, but no longer knows how to use it the way it did during the Cold War. Global warming, abortion, gay marriage, and renewables versus fossil fuels have overtaken realism in all facets of government, military strategy, economics and countering the global threats from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea.Raw, amoral geopolitics that will grow economies, engage realist strategies, house militaries and feed energy-hungry populations is the new Cold War. Social issues are important, but unless you are talking about the unintended consequences of abortion in the US and China, these issues have no valid correlation within energy geopolitics. Energy and electricity are at the forefront, of which ideological viewpoint, will win the 21st century.Accessible energy becomes more important than ever, as the competition between China and India heats up. Unless something drastically changes the west will diminish significantly – ushering in the “Asian century” – with China and India biding their time to take over the US-led, liberal order that was created after World War II ended.China And India Will Watch The West Destroy Itself – OpEd – Eurasia Review