Active Minds Changing Lives: Fill & Download for Free

PART IWIND AND SOLAR ARE FALSE ENERGY ALTERNATIVESClimate change is a hoax because wind and solar fail to replace fossil fuels notwithstanding public subsidies. The reason is intermittency causing double costs for the electric grid from fossil fuel backup. Energy markets are controlled by price and reliability because these renewables are unreliable when needed most during hurricanes, tornados or severe cold with no wind or sun they suffers a terminal cancer from their intermittency.Renewable energy is caught in a vicious circle. The more we rely on renewable energy, the more we need non-renewable energy.Electricity markets buy electricity from the cheapest supplier first. This means that renewable sources are pushing fossil fuels out of the market. This looks sunny-but the sun doesn’t shine always. As the renewable sources of electricity are intermittent, fossil fuels are needed to cover up and cope with the demand. However, falling prices and low demand for fossil fuel energy means that these plants are not feasible to maintain. They need government subsidy-called Capacity Payments. So at least for now, countries need to maintain and run the fossil fuel plants if they wish to keep the lights on.Himanshu Sharma,THIS CHART SHOWS WIND AND SOLAR CAUSE BIG PRICE INCREASEBernie Sanders’s magical thinking on climate changeByFareed ZakariaColumnistFeb. 13, 2020 at 4:15 p.m. PSTThe prospect of Bernie Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee has startled many people who worry that his brand of democratic socialism won’t sell and would pave the way for a second Trump term. This might well be true, but it considers Sanders solely through the lens of electability. Surely the more important question is not whether his programs would be popular but whether they are good. It’s time to stop grading Sanders on a curve and to start asking what the country would look like if he were to become president.Let’s consider the topic that he argues is “the single greatest challenge” facing the United States and a “global emergency”: climate change. Sanders wants to commit the country to achieving 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030, and the total decarbonization of the economy by 2050. These are laudable though ambitious goals. The question is, how will the United States go about meeting them?Under President Barack Obama, the United States reduced emissions more than any other country. It did it through many paths, but the biggest one was — fracking.U.S. carbon emissions fell almost 15 percent from 2005 to 2016. According to Carbon Brief, the single largest cause was the shift from coal-fired power plants to natural gas ones, making up 33 percent of the reduction. Adoption of solar power accounted for 3 percent. (Natural gas has much lower rates of carbon emission than does coal. It also produces much less pollution than coal, saving thousands of lives in the United States every year.)Nevertheless, Sanders is opposed to natural gas. He opposes all new fracking and seeks to ban it nationwide within five years. He also intends to rapidly shut down all gas plants.Natural gas accounts for about 30 percent of the energy consumption in the United States today. Wind and solar are under 5 percent. So the plan would require an exponential jump in renewables — in just a few years.And even if that happened, it would be extremely difficult to replace gas as a source for electricity. Talk to any electric utility company and they will explain. Because solar and wind are intermittent sources, they require a backup source to provide electricity to homes, offices and factories 24/7. That raises the costs associated with solar and wind.Sanders has a solution: storage. If we had the means to store electricity on a massive scale, such as batteries, there would be no need for backup power. But we are not even close to having the kind of storage capacity we would need to make this work. One example: The Clean Air Task Force, an energy policy think tank, calculated that for California to reach 100 percent electricity from renewables, it would need 36.3 million megawatt-hours of energy storage. It currently has 150,000 megawatt-hours of storage. In other words, the state would need to increase storage by 24,000 percent in a matter of years. Batteries are getting cheaper, but not quickly enough.There is another path to clean energy, a source that has zero carbon emissions and provides a continuous flow of electricity: nuclear power. It generates about 20 percent of the electricity in the United States. It is the largest source of power in France and provides 40 percent of power in Sweden, two countries with carbon emission rates that are among the lowest per person in the industrialized world.But Sanders opposes nuclear power. In fact, he plans to shut down all of the country’s nuclear power plants within 10 years. Fears about nuclear power, which Sanders clearly shares, are largely based on emotional reactions to the few high-profile accidents that have taken place over the past few decades. Such anxiety also ignores the millions of people who die each year because of fossil fuels. Our World in Data, an Oxford University publication, released a comprehensive accounting of the safest sources of energy, considering all harmful effects, including accidents. Nuclear energy was 250 times safer than oil and more than 300 times safer than coal.Let me be clear. Natural gas and nuclear power have drawbacks and costs. There is no perfect energy solution on hand today. But I believe we do face a global emergency and need every means possible to reduce emissions — now. Not tomorrow, not in theory. Now.The Sanders green energy “plan” is based on magical thinking. It presumes that we can reduce emissions in electricity and transport to zero in 10 years while simultaneously shutting down the only two low-emission, always-available sources of power that together provide nearly 60 percent of our country’s electricity. And that makes me wonder: Is the real problem that Sanders will lose — or that he might win?https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-magical-thinking-on-climate-change/2020/02/13/3944e472-4ea5-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.htmlBill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’February 18, 2019 by stopthesethings 21 CommentsBill says it’s time to stop jerking around with wind & solar.When the world’s richest entrepreneur says wind and solar will never work, it’s probably time to listen.Bill Gates made a fortune applying common sense to the untapped market of home computing. The meme has it that IBM’s CEO believed there was only a market for five computers in the entire world. Gates thought otherwise. Building a better system than any of his rivals and shrewdly working the marketplace, resulted in hundreds of millions hooked on PCs, Windows and Office. This is a man that knows a thing or two about systems and a lot about what it takes to satisfy the market.For almost a century, electricity generation and distribution were treated as a tightly integrated system: it was designed and built as one, and is meant to operate as designed. However, the chaotic delivery of wind and solar have all but trashed the electricity generation and delivery system, as we know it. Germany and South Australia are only the most obvious examples.During an interview at Stanford University late last year, Bill Gates attacks the idiots who believe that we’re all just a heartbeat away from an all wind and sun powered future.Gates on renewables: How would Tokyo survive a 3 day typhoon with unreliable energy?Jo Nova BlogJo Nova14 February 2019Make no mistake, Bill Gates totally believes the climate change scare story but even he can see that renewables are not the answer, it’s not about the cost, it’s the reliability.He quotes Vaclav Smil:Here’s Toyko, 2p7 million people, you have three days of a cyclone every year. It’s 23GW of electricity for three days. Tell me what battery solution is going sit there and provide that power.As Gates says: Let’s not jerk around. You’re multiple orders of magnitude — … — That’s nothing, that doesn’t solve the reliability problem.Bill GatesDuring storms, clouds cut solar panel productivity (unless hail destroys it) and wind turbines have to shut down in high winds.The whole interview was part of a presentation at Stanford late last year:Cheap renewables won’t stop global warming, says Bill GatesThe interview by Arun Majumdar, co-director of Stanford Energy’s Precourt Institute for Energy, which organized the conference, can be watched here.When financial analysts proposed rating companies on their CO2 output to drive down emissions, Gates was appalled by the idea that the climate and energy problem would be easy to solve. He asked them: “Do you guys on Wall Street have something in your desks that makes steel? Where is fertilizer, cement, plastic going to come from? Do planes fly through the sky because of some number you put in a spreadsheet?”“The idea that we have the current tools and it’s just because these utility people are evil people and if we could just beat on them and put (solar panels) on our rooftop—that is more of a block than climate denial,” Gates said. “The ‘climate is easy to solve’ group is our biggest problem.”If he only looked at the numbers in the climate science debate…PART IINO GLOBAL WARMING AND NO HUMAN CONTROL OF CLIMATEEVIDENCE refuting the claim that trace amounts of human emissions of Co2 from fossil fuels are the control knob of global warming.EVIDENCE that because Co2 always follows and does not precede temperature rises this means there is no correlation of Co2 as a cause of temperature change.EVIDENCE that the atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 0.8% argon leaving only trace amounts of Co2 at 0.039% too minute to effect the climate.EVIDENCE that Co2 from fossil fuels is hard to measure and water vapor is 95% of the so called greenhouse gases irrelevant.EVIDENCE that Co2 from fossil fuels is at best only 4% of the total Co2 atmospheric 0.039% and that does not mix well with the other gases and that it is heavier than air.EVIDENCE that Co2 is heavier than air meaning human emissions fall to the ground while emissions from wildfires and volcanos are dominateEVIDENCE about temperatures not rising more than can be easily explained by natural climate variability.EVIDENCE the earth is cooling as we are in the Quaternary Ice Age interglacial and glaciation to follow unless the earth warms up enough to melt polar ice.EVIDENCE that the UN climate mission ignored the primary role of solar radiation in oscillations of temperature from time immemorial.EVIDENCE of data corruption including the fact NASA is guilty of tampering with data to boost temperature beyond.EVIDENCE “global warming and climate change alarmism was never about the science – it was always a false narrative, a smokescreen for the totalitarian objectives of the extreme left.EVIDENCE frmo many studies refuting the radical greenhouse gas theory from the 1800s by Savant Arrhenius .EVIDENCE from many peer reviewed studies demolishing any role of humans or Co2 in changing the climate.EVIDENCE the climate changes on a long time scale so no person living or dead has ever seen climate change, but many have been duped by alarmists into thinking the random oscillations of temperature from hot to cold are anything to worry about.EVIDENCE that the earth’s climate changed 2.5 million years ago into the Quaternary Ice Age, as a result the climate now changes from livable and warmer interglacial periods (like the current Holocene Optimum) to the unlivable glaciation where the past shows all of Canada and much of the US become inhospitable under miles of ice.REFERENCESThis graph shows Co2 lags temperature change refuting correlation.Most important is the simple fact temperatures have not increased for the past 150 years. NASA finds only 0.8 ‘ C increase. Think about it how can we fear climate change if temperatures are not increasing. Remember we are in an ice age called the Quaternary where the previews climate change was the devastating Little Ice Age.Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 according to University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), USA. This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The cooling and warming periods directly influenced by the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the 1998 El Niño, respectively, are clearly visible. Reference period 1981-2010. Last month shown: August 2019. Last diagram update: 11 September 2019.climate4you GlobalTemperaturesNO GLOBAL WARMING AS TEMPERATURES NOW RISE ONLY 0.3* C.NO WARMING IN THE US FOR THE PAST DECADESThis small increase is easily explained by solar activity and natural variability. Measuring global temperatures at this level of precision is not credible and it is certainly not cause for concern as climate always seesaws hot and cold everywhere so the range of statistical error must be very high.Figure 1: The world's surface air temperature change ("anomaly"), relative to the world's mean temperature of 58° F or 14.5° C, averaged over land and oceans from 1975 to 20082. Inset are two periods of no warming or cooling within this overall warming trend.Many more studies find humans have little if any effect on temperatures and the climate because the greenhouse theory is unproven and false.The UN claim that human industry Co2 emissions are causing runaway global warming that will end in catastrophe if not arrested with renewables and carbon taxes was only a thought experiment without any physical observation. Think about this - the UN said there was no historical precedent for the rapid rise in temperatures after industrialization therefore increased Co2 must be the culprit. This is both false logic and untrue. A raft of studies about temperature variability from ocean currents or changes in solar cycles evident in rising or falling sunspots easily explains the temperature rise.Today with the benefit of hindsight there never was any fast rising temperatures needing explanation. In fact temperature’s rise of less than 1 ‘ C over the past 140 years and now falling 0.4 ‘ C in the past three years means no global warming now or in the past.Because the climate changes over a long period of time no one living or dead has actually looked out the window and observed climate change. You see weather and it may be a heat wave, snow storm or record rainfall, but one weather event is never a new pattern of changing weather because that must be a statistical analysis.CLIMATE HISTORY FROM BILLIONS OF YEARS AGOWe see the rain, the snow and wind blowing the trees, but this is just weather not climate change.Climate change is any significant long-term change in the expected patterns of average weather of a region (or the whole Earth) over a significant period of time. W.Watching hurricanes and other severe weather is REAL and is over a long time scale the evidence for climate change which is only an unreal statistical fiction. No one living or dead has ever seen climate change. Therefore climate change is an invisible macro phenomena and must be studied through proxies as an indirect science similar to the invisible world of molecules and atoms at the micro level.What does this mean? First climate science is perhaps the most complex science of all. In fact so far unlike all other physical sciences there is no theory of climate science. There is no climate formula or calculus like E=MC 2 discovered to explain the universe. Does this also mean climate science is so primitive that it is wrong to call it science? Maybe not but what is certain is without the structure of a climate theory scientists like the bunch leading the UN IPCC can make wild claims without falsifiable proof just like astrologists. Their claims cannot be falsified against some E=MC2. This analysis is sourced from a powerful book, TAKEN BY STORM by Dr. Essex and McKitrick.We think in pictures not words and the most important pictures in our minds are metaphors. Sadly the climate debacle has suffered from the bad metaphor of a GREENHOUSE fooling the public and many scientists as well.Why a greenhouse is not a true metaphorThere is a mountain of evidence that global warming from trace amounts of human emissions of plant food non-polluting carbon dioxide is not happening because at 0.1% of the atmosphere it is impossible. There is no cover of the earth to trap heat like the cover of a real greenhouse. The mislabeled ‘greenhouse gas effect’ is bunk no more effective than this shattered real greenhouse.Now French Scientist Trashes Greenhouse Gas Theory | PSI IntlLike this smashed greenhouse from vandals in Scotland the greenhouse effect is literally and figuratively full of holes.I will add peer reviewed climate research from around the world with my own choice of art metaphors that seem relevant and introductory.Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordNew research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. I will summarize leading science paper that do not support the deniers of natural variability from CHINA, FRANCE, CANADA, GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES.First China scientists with new research with the longest instrumental temperature record thus far.Hisorical Chinese Painting.The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.James Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/...JAMES MATKIN•2017-08-23 10:03 PMThe great failure of the Paris accord is the failure to accept that the IPCC Al Gore hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is not settled science. Indeed, none of the predictions of doom have occurred. New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. The “driving force” of climate change is natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming. The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院 Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NOT ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are “the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.” The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record This means that climate change cannot be stopped as Paris attendees believed. Co2 is very beneficial plant food and we need more not less. Why climate change is good for the world | The Spectator It is good news for civilization that the Paris targets are not being met around the world.https://www.nature.com/news/prov...Genghis Khan established what would later become the largest contiguous empire in history.IPCC FUDGED Data in 2001 to remove the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD to make today seem unprecedented.MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD CHANGED WORLD ECONOMIC HISTORYGenghis Khan sweeps across the lands, conquering and subsuming all who stand in his way." the tree-rings showed that the years between 1211 and 1225—a period of time that coincided with the meteoric rise of Genghis Khan, who died in 1227—were marked by unusually heavy rainfall and mild temperatures.Eventually the Mongols would establish the largest land empire in history, ruling over modern Korea, China, Russia, eastern Europe, southeast Asia, Persia, India and parts of the Middle East.[1] W.“Human CO2 at only 0.01% of atmospheThe entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.Don J. Easterbrook, PhDProfessor Emeritus of GeologyWestern Washington UniversityWhat we have found1. We are not warming the planetFor several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.Our research has convinced us that this man-made global warming theory is wrong. We will explain why we have come to this conclusion on this website.It is true that humans have been increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because of our use of fossil fuels. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide seems to have been about 0.03% of the atmosphere, while it is now about 0.04%.However, our research has shown that:It doesn’t matter whether we double, treble or even quadruple the carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide has no impact on atmospheric temperatures.We carried out new laboratory experiments, and analysed the data from millions of weather balloons, to calculate exactly how much global warming carbon dioxide was causing. When we did this, we discovered that the answer was zero.It turns out that some of the assumptions used in man-made global warming theory (and in the current climate models) had never actually been tested. When we tested them, we discovered that they were invalid.See the link below for a discussion of why:Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere I-III”In addition, we have also shown that:The “unusual global warming” that has caused such concern is not unusual, after all.We found that the world naturally switches between periods of global warming and periods of global cooling, with each period lasting several decades.We also identified a number of serious mistakes in the studies which had claimed that there has been unusual global warming. These mistakes meant that the amount of warming in the last global warming period (1980s-2000s) was overestimated and the amount of cooling in the last global cooling period (1950s-1970s) was underestimated.When these mistakes are corrected, it turns out that it was just as warm in the 1930s-1940s as it is now.See the following links for our global temperature analysis:• Summary: “Urbanization bias I-III”• Summary: “Has poor station quality biased U.S. temperature trend estimates?”Summary: “Global temperature changes of the last millennium”Start Here - Global Warming SolvedDon J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology| WWUWill HapperWill Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.DR. ANTHONY LUPOGlobal Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Madeby Anthony Lupo(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice sys- tem is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is up to doubters to prove otherwise.To complete the analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a “guilty” verdict convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes.Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be groundless.First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability. That is also not true.Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the media as if it were the main stream prediction is an extreme scenario.Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their output.No one advocates destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care of our environment for future gen- erations. At the same time, we need to make sound decisions based on scientific facts.My research leads me to believe that we will not be able to state conclusively that global warming is or is not occurring for another 30 to 70 years. We simply don’t understand the climate system well enough nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial impact on climate change.Anthony R. Lupo is assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at Columbia and served as an expert reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archi...It is essential to understand the complexity of measuring human made Co2 emissions and to realize at a detail level the trace amounts are indistinguishable from natural sources of co2.Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So whatdo the alarmists conclude from this:“0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate changes.The sun, oceans, volcanoes and other poorly understood major varying factors are ignored. Does all that sound plausible?Yeah right, and the price of tea in China drives the global econoBy P. Gosselin May 26, 2018Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So what do the alarmists conclude from this:“0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate changes.The sun, oceans, volcanoes and other poorly understood major varying factors are ignored. Does all that sound plausible?Yeah right, and the price of tea in China drives the global economy.”By P. Gosselin May 26, 2018CO2 and temperature decoupling at the million-year scale during the Cretaceous Greenhouse.Barral A1, Gomez B2, Fourel F2, Daviero-Gomez V2, Lécuyer C2,3.Author informationAbstractCO2 is considered the main greenhouse gas involved in the current global warming and the primary driver of temperature throughout Earth's history. However, the soundness of this relationship across time scales and during different climate states of the Earth remains uncertain. Here we explore how CO2 and temperature are related in the framework of a Greenhouse climate state of the Earth. We reconstruct the long-term evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration (pCO2) throughout the Cretaceous from the carbon isotope compositions of the fossil conifer Frenelopsis. We show that pCO2 was in the range of ca. 150-650 ppm during the Barremian-Santonian interval, far less than what is usually considered for the mid Cretaceous. Comparison with available temperature records suggest that although CO2 may have been a main driver of temperature and primary production at kyr or smaller scales, it was a long-term consequence of the climate-biological system, being decoupled or even showing inverse trends with temperature, at Myr scales. Our analysis indicates that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is time scale-dependent at least during Greenhouse climate states of the Earth and that primary productivity is a key factor to consider in both past and future analyses of the climate system.PMID:28835644 10.1038/s41598-017-08234-0https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub...Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate changeMartin Hertzberg and Hans SchreuderMARTIN HERTZBERG - a long time climate writer, a former U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Stanford University and holder of a Fulbright Professorship.Abstract0(0) 1–13 ! The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: Journals Permissions DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16674637 Your gateway to world-class journal researchThe authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2. [Emphasis added]IntroductionOver the last 200 years, data show that there has been a more or less steady increase in the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), from 280 ppmv (parts per mil- lion by volume) to 400 ppmv. That is a 43% increase, from 0.028% to 0.040%. CO2 is said to be a ‘greenhouse gas,’ which traps heat or prevents infrared radiation from being lost to free space.It is argued that the increase of CO2 is caused by the human combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum products and natural gas, and that any continuing increase is a threat to the earth’s habitability. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) paradigm, increases in atmospheric CO2 precede and cause parallel increases in the Earth’s temperature.Corresponding author:Martin Hertzberg, private consultant, USA. Email: [email protected] Energy & Environment 0(0)A large number of the world Governments, professional societies, editors of scientific journals, print journalists, TV media reporters and many corporations generally accept the validity of the IPCC paradigm. Accordingly, there is a concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions, tax such emissions and replace fossil fuel combustion by alternative energy sources.The purpose of this report is to summarise all available observations and measurements relating to the IPCC paradigm and question all aspects of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW)/ catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACG) hypothesis.DATA TO SUPPORT THE UN IPCC PARADIGMPublished data that might appear to support the conclusion that human CO2 emissions have caused a modest increase in the average temperature of the Earth is shown in Figure 3.The average monthly surface air temperature anomaly as measured by the National Climatic Data Center is shown in blue and the atmospheric CO2 concentration in red. CO2 concentrations are the average monthly values measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The dashed gray line indicates the approximate linear trend. The boxes at the bottom of the chart indicate whether a temperature trend is positive or negative relative to the CO2 trend. The data is taken from Ole Humlum’s “climate4you” website. [2]The temperature data are shown as “anomalies” – that is, as differences in the actual temperatures from their average value base for an extended period of time. Note the anomaly values vary by about 1°C at most, whereas actual temperatures vary by as much as 50°C, reflecting their seasonal or diurnal variations at a given station.The CO2 data show a continuous increase from 1958 onward, whereas the temperature trend is downward between 1958 and 1978 (a negative correlation). Between 1978 and 2003, both temperature and CO2 trend upward (a positive correlation). From 2003 to 2010 the temperature trend is flat (a “pause” with no correlation) and 2010 to the present is again positive with the El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean being a possible influence. The entire period could end up flat, as happened after the previous El Niño event in 1998.Over the same time-span human global emissions of CO2 show a general increase from 2.5 billion metric tons in 1958 to about 10 billion metric tons currently. This generally positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 increase and the increase in human CO2 emissions may prompt one to conclude that human emissions cause a CO2 increase and, concomitantly, cause temperatures to rise. Such a conclusion is, however, contradicted by the negative correlation between temperature and CO2 during the period 1958-1978 and the “pause” from 2003 to 2010.That a parallel between anthropogenic emissions on the one hand and increased CO2 and higher temperatures on the other, constitutes a causal relationship as the IPCC asserts, is questionable.For, while a parallelism between two separate quantities does not prove that the two are causally related, the lack of parallelism proves that they are not causally related.From 1958 to 1978 the average global temperature dropped some 0.25°C while human emission of CO2 from fossil fuels tripled. This CO2 emission did not contribute to global warming over that period – eliciting suggestions of a coming ice age. Data from 1910 to 1940 indicate a similar increase in temperature as for 1970 to 2000 despite fossil fuel production at that time being around five times lower than it is today!In 1929 the production of fossil fuels was 1.17 Gigatons of carbon per year. Following the stock market crash and the depression, human production decreased to 0.88 Gigatons per year — a 30% drop. Yet during that same period both atmospheric CO2 and temperature continued to rise at around the same rate as before and in 1934 the “dust bowl” began when temperatures climbed higher than they have been since.THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHEREThus far, in our assessment of the IPCC CO2 paradigm, we’ve dealt with what we saw as a lack of objectivity and failure to apply the more important questions. We now examine the position of AGW advocates, including the IPCC, that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere lasts for centuries. Some claim it accumulates for thousands of years and would make the Earth uninhabitable.The residence time of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., its turnover rate) refers to how long it takes for a CO2 molecule to be removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks. The most authoritative study of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is that of Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo [3].A variety of methods, and a variety of researchers, consistently find short residence times.“Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth’s interior.”THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURE RECORDFigure 4 is a plot from the 1990 IPCC report which shows an early global temperature reconstruction. This depicts the well-established Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which reached its peak in about 1200 AD and then gave way to the Little Ice Age (LIA) which lasted from about 1400 to 1850. Those periods are well documented in history and accepted by climatologists. The Viking colonization of Greenland took place during the Medieval Warm Period when lush green vegetation thrived, giving it its name. The Viking settlements collapsed during the Little Ice Age, when even the Thames in London froze over.If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also? John Daly [5]Like the Vostok data, this curve presented a serious problem to the supporters of AGW. The Medieval Warm Period peaked at a higher temperature than today and at a time when there was no significant human emission of CO2. This naturally raised the question: What would be so unusual about the current warming trend that necessitated the response to link it to human CO2 emissions? In return, the AGW advocates drew attention to a little known 1999 paper using tree ring data to assess past temperatures [4], eliciting memories of the now infamous presentation of the “Hockey Stick” curve.Tree rings are not a reliable temperature proxy because they are influenced by many other factors, apart from temperature: rainfall, sunlight, cloudiness, pests, competition from other trees, soil nutrients, frost, and snow duration. Nevertheless, the tree ring curve as shown in Fig. 5 was accepted by the IPCC and replaced their earlier curve. As can be seen, it has the shape of a hockey stick. Trees grow only on land and 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. The data was only from the Northern Hemisphere, yet presented as the global temperature curve. Quoting John Daly: “It was a coup: total, bloodless, and swift, and the hockey stick was greeted with a chorus of approval from the greenhouse effect supporting industry.” [5]The MWP and the LIA became non-events, consigned to an “Orwellian memory hole”. It was argued that they were strictly local European phenomena and the tree ring hockey stick was duly presented in the media as: “New studies indicate that temperatures in recent decades are higher than at any time in the past 1000 years….with the 1990’s as the warmest decade and 1998 as the warmest year”.Knowledgeable climatologists and other concerned scientists questioned these results and asked for copies of the original data to check the analysis leading to the hockey stick. The authors of the hockey stick initially resisted, delaying release of data and details of the computer program used to analyze the material and the requested E-mail communications among the various authors of the tree ring report have yet to be received. An independent committee of statisticians was appointed to evaluate the tree ring results. The conclusion was that the authors had “misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produced hockey stick shapes in the temperature history”. They also concluded that the claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade in the millennium and 1998 the hottest year could not be supported by the original data.The UN IPCC ignored the situation and did not refer to it again.Recent climatological data assembled from around the world using different proxies attest to the presence of both the MWP and the LIA in the following locations: the Sargasso Sea, West Africa,, Kenya, Peru, Japan, Tasmania, South Africa, Idaho, Argentina, and California. These events were clearly world-wide and in most locations the peak temperatures during the MWP were higher than current temperatures.This is John Daly’s conclusion on the matter:“The evidence is overwhelming from all corners of the globe, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age clearly show up in a variety of proxy indicators, proxies more representative than the inadequate tree ring data. What is disquieting about the hockey stick is not its original publication. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found flawed. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse effect industry to it – the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence that was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only – it told them exactly what they wanted to hear”.John Daly died not long after writing that. One of the notorious “climategate” e-mails mentioned his death as a “fortunate occurrence” and “some cheering news.” Daly knew that the hockey stick was inaccurate from day 1.EVASIONS AND SUBTERFUGE“Daily we see the news media presenting apocalyptic views, not backed by solid measurements or comprehensive scientific theory. When we try to correct them, our contributions are routinely rejected.” — SegalstadThe hockey stick incident is not unique. There are other instances of questionable science that have appeared, displaying the same pattern: new data surfaces seeming to challenge the IPCC paradigm, a short time later a new paper appears with a dozen or so co-authors containing a convoluted statistical analysis dismissing the challenge and reaffirming the IPCC paradigm. The statistical analysis manipulates the data, enabling conformity to the requirements of the author. The conclusion then is prominently displayed but the original data withheld.…ConclusionAs demonstrated, empirical evidence does not support the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause global warming and/or climate change. We suggest that without adequately proven evidence being demonstrated – should it exist in the first place – such a conclusion can not be adduced from the known facts.http://tech-know-group.com/paper...FRENCH SCIENTIST RESCUES THE WORLD FROM THE DEADLY HEAT POVERTY OF FOLLOWING THE PARIS ACCORDFamous RAFT OF MEDUSA historical painting at moment of rescue!Remarking on the contrast between the dying figures in the foreground and the figures in the mid-ground waving towards the approaching rescue ship, the French art historian Georges-Antoine Borias wrote that Géricault's painting represents, "on the one hand, desolation and death. On the other, hope and life."WikipediaFrench scientists demolish the weak greenhouse gas theory of global warmingGreenhouse Gas TheoryPublished onSeptember 12, 2018Written by Camille VeyresThe Co2-driven radiative greenhouse gas theory can be demonstrated to be a fraud. A fresh analysis of the statistical trickery and misrepresentation of the physical properties of this benign trace atmospheric gas are examined herein.Summary:(1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the air in a consequence of the surface temperatures of the inter-tropical zone where most of the out-gassing takes place; it is a consequence (an integral over time) of past temperatures, and hence cannot cause the temperatures; 6% of the CO2 of the air is anthropogenic and 94% from natural out-gassing.(2) The so-called greenhouse effect exists only in vacuum and cannot exist in the atmosphere neither on Earth nor on Venus: a polytropic relation between pressure and temperature explains the surface temperatures; the Earth’s atmosphere is, due to its water vapor, extremely opaque to thermal infrared and cannot carry heat radiatively outside the water vapor window; the thermal infrared radiation of the troposphere (90% of that of the globe) is controlled by the water vapor content at say 300 mbar; changes of the carbon dioxide content of the air have no effect because water vapor is in control.Carbon cycle:Carbon dioxide is exchanged between oceans (39000 Gt-C), air (850 Gt-C) and vegetation and soils (2500 Gt-C) (figure 6-1 of IPCC-AR5-WG1). Cumulative anthropogenic emissions since 1751, 430 Gt-C, are about one percent of the total. Each year one fifth of the CO2 of the air is absorbed (discounting the daily respiration of the vegetation) by cold surface oceans (80 Gt-C/yr) and by plants (90 Gt-C/yr). From 1900 to 1999 the global terrestrial photosyntheticprimary production increased by 30% [1] as did the absorption by oceans; IPCC figure 6-1 underestimate by a factor three the exchange of carbon between surface ocean and deep ocean.Fact 1: The partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in sea water is driven by the temperatures and increases by 3.6 times between the border of the ice pack (200 µatm) that sucks CO2 from the air (400 µatm) and the inter-tropical zone (600 µatm) which belches CO2 into the air.Frauds and obfuscations: Revelle’s 1965 report [2], Bolin’s papers of the 1960s and IPCC use two main tricks to exclude oceans from the carbon cycle and to conceal the effect of temperatures; with only air and vegetation (no soils!) left, half of fossil fuel stays forever in the atmosphere (the “airborne fraction”) and half in vegetation. Trick 1: They say there is almost no exchange of carbon between the surface ocean (900 Gt-C) and the deep ocean (Revelle 1965: no exchange; IPCC 1990: 35 and 37 Gt-C/yr; IPCC 2013: 90 and 101 GtC/yr).Trick 2: Revelle’s equation dpCO2/ pCO2 = {8 to 12} d DIC/DIC is said to describe a static “equilibrium” between air and surface ocean.Fact 2: Quote from [3]: at temperate latitudes the subduction of dissolved inorganic carbon DIC and to a lesser extent the sinking particles maintain CO2 under-saturation, and hence absorption of carbon dioxide from the air. In the tropical band and in the Southern Ocean Dissolved Inorganic Carbon is obducted back to the surface. The 275 Giga ton per year supply by obduction and the 265 gigaton per year removal by subduction are 3 to 5 times larger than previous estimates.Comments: Revelle’s equation or “buffer factor” applies in a bottle with sea water and air but cannot be used globally: ocean water is moving, has surface temperatures between -1.5°C and 33°C and the carbon of the surface ocean is renewed continuously by intertropical obduction and middle latitude subduction.Fact 3: the CO2 content of the air is a consequence of past intertropical temperatures, their time-integral. See figure above: the time derivative of the ppm in grey, a linear function of the intertropical UAH-MSU temperature anomaly AT(t) in yellow-green. Hence d[CO2] (t)/dt = 1.7 (AT(t) – (-0,8°C)). Unit root tests on time-series (Dickey Fuller) require the ppm curve to be derived once w.r.t. time before attempting a correlation with the temperatures.The autocorrelation functions of times series “AT(t)” and “increments at Mauna Loa” are completely different of that of “anthropogenic emissions”. Subtraction of linear trends from the time series of the Mauna Loa increments and of the anthropogenic emissions kills any fictious (common “trend”) correlation: R² = 0.014 [see professor Munshi’s papers].Hence the ppm are the integral over time of the temperature anomaly of the intertropical zone where outgassing takes place, a consequence of past temperatures; CO2 ppm cannot control the temperature.Fact 4: As one fifth of the CO2 content of the air is absorbed every year, the carbon content of the air y(t) is a solution of dy/dt = f(t) – y(t)/5 or y(t) = 5 f(t) – 5 dy/dt, with f(t) input. This applies to both components, the natural and the anthropogenic (f(t) = 10 Gt-C/yr) parts of the carbon of the air.The anthropogenic component of the air is 5 yr x 10 Gt-C/yr – 5 yr 0,4 Gt-C/yr = 48 Gt-C = 23 ppm or 6%; the component from natural outgassing is 94%. The natural outgassing, since 1958, went up from 62 ppm/yr to almost 80 ppm/yr, while anthropogenic emissions went from 1 ppm/yr to 4.5 ppm/yr. Natural climate cycles drive the temperature that drive the natural outgassing, that provides today’s 94% of the CO2 of the air, and the total CO2 of the air drives the absorption, always (1/5) of it.Fact 5: 13C is 1000 ((13C/12C) /0,0112372 – 1), a linear function of the ratio of the number of atoms 13C and12C; the 13C of fossil fuels reflects the changing mix of coal, oil and gas; today, only 6% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: 6% (-30) + 94% (-7.1) = (-8.5) is the observed 13C.The naturally outgassed carbon (green curve) has the 13C signature of the ambient air some sixty years before; it displays some ups and downs because during El Niños, more carbon with a more negative 13Cis released; the 13C of the CO2 in sea water is about 1.5 per mil below that of the air.Deceptions and frauds: see IPCC FAR (1990) page 14, § 1.2.5 and IPCC AR4 p 139.Deceptions and frauds: Bern and Hamburg impulse responses: A compartment model is a set of linear equations solved by Laplace transform; its impulse response is a weighted sum of exponential time decays, with, here, eight free parameters tuned to make the convolution of the impulse response with the time series of anthropogenic emissions look like a heavily massaged version of Maona Loa ppm, with a 100 years 1/e decay time.This is based on the A PRIORI hypothesis that all change of ppm is from fossil fuels. The impulse response for a “airborne fraction” of 50% of fossil fuels that remains forever in the air is half a Dirac! Those tales have been debunked by observations: the doubling of the production of coal between 2000 and 2010 with +40% on anthropogenic emissions had no visible change on the derivative or slope of the Mauna-Loa ppm (grey line on figure above) . In the 2013 IPCC reports, Bern formula disappeared from the WG1 report, but was still used by WG3.came from 400 Gt-C released by fossil fuels and 520 Gt-C released by the oceans. The non-linear transfer of carbon from oceans to vegetation and soils was properly discussed in 1956 by Eriksson & Welander, a decade before Revelle’ report.Fact 7: The deep ocean carbon turnover time seems to be one or two centuries (270 Gt-C / yr obducted and subducted divided by 38000 Gt-C or by part of it). 60 meters of ice divided by Antarctic precipitations of 5 mm per year is 10 000 years. On a slice of ice-core the paths between different bubbles in the slice and the surface, say 80 meters above, close at different times due to the progressive and random closing of the pores in the firn. The moving-average time smoothing over millennia removes all trace of the oceanic century-long carbon cycles in the deep ocean.Hence ice cores cannot record century long changes of carbon dioxide in the air; their records below 300 ppm are a consequence of the time averaging by the physics of the closing of the pores. More: splicing the heavily time averaged ice core data to Mauna Loa instantaneous data is a fraud.Water vapor and elementary atmospheric physics:Fact 8: The simple diabatic model d’Q= Ch dT and the barometric relation prove the polytropic relation T(P)/T(P0) = (P/P0) R/(Cp- Ch) in the troposphere and the equivalent gravitational g/(Cp- Ch) temperature lapse rate. On Earth 288 K = 223 K + 10 km x 6,5 K/km = 223 K (1 atm /0,26 atm)0,19 while on Venus 735 K = 230 K + 63 km x 8 K/km = 230 K (92 atm /0,1 atm)0,17Frauds and obfuscations: Radiative heat trapping? No! The tropospheric temperature is an effect of the pressure! A runaway greenhouse effect on Venus? No! It is a straight consequence of the mass of the air, one thousand tons per square meter and of the polytropic relation. There is almost no light from the Sun on the surface of Venus.The diabatic curve above in black is warmer than the green adiabatic; water vapor absorbs solar infrared and releases heat by condensation. The tropospheric water vapor and the clouds provide the bulk of the global thermal radiation almost 200 W/m²; the top or skin of water vapor that radiates from the troposphere toward the cosmos is fed by evaporation-condensation and by convection, not-at-all by radiation from the surface. Stratospheric CO2 and ozone radiate the heat of solar UV absorbed by stratospheric oxygen and ozone. Surface-to-cosmos: 22 W/m² [4] onlyescape absorption by water vapor and clouds.Frauds and obfuscations: the surface is a blackbody (No! Kiehl & Trenberth schemes overestimate by 10% the thermal radiation from the surface); solar heat is released by thermal infrared emission of the surface (No! Only some 22 W/m² of 160 W/m²); the back-radiation of the air warms the surface (No! A heat transfer by thermal infrared radiation between A and B is: (radiated by A and absorbed by B) minus (radiated by B and absorbed by A) with is about zero between surface and air)Fact 9: There exist a greenhouse effect, but only in vacuum! On the Moon, under the pane with Sun at the zenith, the surface temperature would increase by some 75°C. But on Earth, the turbulent air with water vapor is an excellent heat pipe that carries heat from the surface to the top layer of the tropospheric water vapor; as water vapor is quite opaque the radiative net balance is zero between surface (A) and air (B).Fact 10: A pellicle or skin of optical thickness 1.07 transmits 20% and absorbs 80% of the incoming thermal infrared; hence it produces about 80% of the thermal infrared radiated by the body. The water vapor window from 28 THz to 39 THz is often closed by clouds. For an optical thickness of 100 and 30 kg/m², a layer or skin of 300 grams of water vapor, 1 km thick near 9 km and 40 m thick near the surface is the source of 80% of the radiation from the atmosphere.The lower limit of the radiating layer or skin is pictured in blue for water vapor, red for today’s CO2 ppm, brown for doubled CO2. CO2 radiates from the stratosphere except near 18.4 THz and near 21.6 THz. Doubling the CO2 content of the air pushes the radiating pellicle upward around those two absorption lines from 350 mbar to say 250 mbar, from red to brown, hence a “higher and cooler” effect in the troposphere, that reduces the OLR by some 1.6 W/m² for a test-profile, less than one percent of the water vapor tropospheric OLR.The blue curve shows that between 200 mbar and 400 mbar water vapor radiates over about 40 THz, almost 40 times the band of tropospheric CO2 at the same altitude.Frauds and deceptions: There exist a radiative forcing of 2.5 W/m² from a decreasing OLR due to more CO2 in the air. 93% of it goes into the oceansComments: OLR observed from satellites increased since 1979 by 1.1 W/m²/decade; Ocean Heat Content increases by some 0.25 W/m² since the 1970s. Radiative forcing is like the new clothes of the Emperor, made from nothing: no chemical reaction, no nuclear reaction, only by quackery.Fact 11: The Water vapor content of the air near 300 millibar is dynamic, extremely variable and regulates the Outgoing Longwave Radiation of the globe; the relative humidity is there from 20% to 50%. It wipes out in hours or days any tropospheric effect of more CO2 in the air.[1] J. E. Campbell et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary productionNature volume 544, pages84–87 (06 April 2017) Nature[2] http://climateandcapitalism.com/...published by the White House Washington DC Nov. 1965[3] M. Levy et al. 2013, Physical pathways for carbon transfers between the surface mixed layer andthe ocean interior, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 27, 1001–1012, doi:10.1002/gbc.20092[4] Costa S.M.S., Shine K.P. Outgoing Longwave Radiation due to Directly Transmitted SurfaceEmission J. Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 69, 2012 pp. 1865-1870The above content is compiled from the original presentation, ‘Eleven facts you must know to avoid being deceived by the AGW’ author, Camille Veyres, the Porto Climate Conference 2018 September 7 and 8, at Porto University (Porto, 2018)Now French Scientist Trashes Gr“Human CO2 only 0.01% of atmosphereThis paper has been updated in 2017.The Wright Flyer was the first successful heavier-than-air powered aircraft. It was designed and built by the Wright brothers. They flew it four times on December 17, 1903, near Kill Devil Hills, about four miles south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, US. WikipediaThe greenhouse hypothesis was demolished by a famous American Physicist and inventor, Dr. RW Wood in 1909 and trashed many times since by leading climate scientists.American scientists dispute any role of greenhouse gases in climate change beginning with the famous Physisist, R.W. Wood in 1909 -R W WOOD(1868 – 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He wrote a standard textbook on Physical Optics50.He presented a theory of the operation of a greenhouse in the Philosophical Magazine in 1909 (Vol. 17, pp. 319-320)51XXIV. Note on the Theory of the GreenhouseBy Professor R. W. Wood (Communicated by the Author)There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy.As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 o C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 oC., it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.Wood showed that internal convection warms the air which cannot escape to be cooled by the outside climate. He does not mention evaporation of water which also cools the surface. In common with Fourier and the others he does not mention what happens at night or when the sun is not present: when the whole frame cools by external convection combined with deposition of dew internally.Hertzberg et al., 2017This study examines the various definitions of the greenhouse effect for compatibility with the laws of physics.Definition 1A greenhouse is a glass/plastic enclosure, warmed by sunlight, facilitating plant growth. Several definitions argue that the effect in the atmosphere is analogous to a greenhouse. It is stated that sunlight transmitted into an enclosure through transparent glass warms the interior of the enclosure, increasing the Infra Red (IR) radiation. As glass is partly opaque to IR radiation, it cannot freely pass outward through the glass and is thus retained within the enclosure. Several definitions infer the radiation is being ‘trapped’ and it is argued that atmospheric gases such as CO2 are analogous to the glass pane action of a greenhouse and this serves to ‘trap’ IR radiation within the atmosphere and obstruct radiative cooling.The CritiqueAn early test of the ‘trapped’ radiation theory was conducted by R. W. Wood. He constructed two enclosures, one covered with a glass plate and the other covered with an IR transmitting rock salt plate. When adjusted so that both were exposed to the same solar input radiation, they both reached the same temperature of 55°C with ‘scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures’. His experiment clearly showed that it was the presence of the enclosure itself that enabled the warming. Therefore, it is the heat generated by absorbed sunlight that becomes ‘trapped’. In the absence of an enclosure, the warmed air near the ground would rise by buoyancy and be replaced by cooler air from the surroundings thus cooling it. This natural convective cooling process is restricted and suppressed by the enclosure. It is the same process that generates a cooling afternoon sea breeze on a beach with cooler air from the ocean replacing rising warmer air over land. To argue that an open gaseous atmosphere confines in the way that the top and sides of a greenhouse enclosure does is not valid. To the contrary, a gaseous atmosphere is conducive to the convective cooling that occurs in the absence of an enclosure. It could be argued that CO2 along with the other gaseous componRespected Scientist & Democrat: Trump Correct On ‘Hoax’ Global WarmingPublished onFebruary 9, 2017Written by Dr Martin HertzbergRespected former American government scientist and life-long Democrat explains why Donald Trump is correct in calling man-made global warming a “hoax.”The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a great number of establishment groupthinkers tell us carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming and that this is ‘established science’ – it is not.Dr Martin Hertzberg, a retired U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry writes:Shocking isn’t it? You might ask, how can a lifelong Democrat like myself reject my party’s position on global warming and join the camp of the skeptics, virtually all of whom are Republicans or http://neocons.So, I’ll tell you how it all started for me. My involvement in this issue of global warming started in 1986 at a NATO-sponsored meeting on coal combustion that was held in the French Alps. A colleague from MIT, actually solicited my opinion on the subject of global warming.Now, just being asked for an opinion by someone from MIT is a great honor. I had given a paper at a Combustion Symposium at MIT in which I had used the infrared emissions from CO2 to measure explosion temperatures, so I was familiar with its spectrum, and he knew that I had once been a meteorologist, so he solicited my opinion.Shortly thereafter, a colleague from New Zealand, who had worked in our lab while on his sabbatical, wrote to me about the subject, and we proceeded to collaborate on a study of the problem. We confined our attention to item 3 of the Gore-IPCC argument which dealt with the infrared absorption of atmospheric CO2 and the atmospheric heating that would result.ents of the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the Earth’s surface.“ In comparison to water in all of its forms, the effect of the carbon dioxide increase over the last century on the temperature of the earth is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane!”Respected Scientist & Democrat: Trump Correct on 'Hoax' Global Warming | PSI IntlFamous German scientists Guss.“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.A brilliant Danish scientist PROF HENRIK SVENSMARK explained this reality as follows:Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”Anthony Watts / September 10, 2009UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – AnthonyWhile the sun sleepsTranslation approved by Henrik SvensmarkWhile the Sun sleepsHenrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, CopenhagenThe star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger."The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjælland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image.It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds. [EMPHASIS ADDED]When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.Correlation between variations in cosmic ray flux (red) and change in sea temperature (black).Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.SUNSPOTS DECLINE AS SOLAR RADIATION DECLINESThe outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)https://principia-scientific.org...GERMAN CLIMATE RESEARCH PAPERFalsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, [Emphasis added] in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)PEER REVIEWIzvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes 75 reviewers, both internal and external (90%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 30 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 20%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial BoardTrace amounts of Co2 plant food in Green House Gases have a negligible effect on the climate.Historical painting by Paul Peel CalgaryCanadian scientist Tim Ball demolishes greenhouse gas effect.Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse GasWRITTEN BY: DR. TIM BALL SEPTEMBER 13, 2018The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ TN EditorThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation. Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said,“No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics. Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world; e = mc2. You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is he didn’t say what they claim. Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results.a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said,“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because 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.An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1) To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.Figure 1In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase.In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Novaexplains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.UGLY FACTSThomas Huxley said,“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.”The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing.NO WARMING CENTRAL ASIA 1580 – 2012“THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY COOLING”Global Temps Continue Century-Record Plunge, Despite Rising Co2 Emissions!NO CLIMATE CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.Temperature increases over the past 140 years at 0.8*C are too small and within the range of natural variability to constitute human made global warming.NASA Goddard Institute finds warming of 0.8* Celsius (1.4* Fahrenheit) since 1880. This means an average of only 0.0175 degree Celsius temperature increase annually. This minute amount is within the statistical error of the http://data.No weather by itself is evidence of global warming/ climate change as the test is whether the weather adds to a new weather pattern over many years even millennia.Monday, 01 October 2018NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun ActivityWritten by James MurphyThe climate alarmists just can’t catch a break. NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind.So, start pumping out that CO2, everyone. We’re going to need all the greenhouse gases we can get.“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.Who knew that that big yellow ball of light in the sky had such a big influence on our climate?There’s a bit of good news in all of this. When the thermosphere cools, it literally shrinks, therefore reducing aerodynamic drag on satellites in low Earth orbit. In effect, the shrinking thermosphere increases a satellite’s lifetime.But that appears to be where the good news ends, unless you prefer cold weather and increased space junk. “The bad news,” according to Dr. Tony Phillips, editor of SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, is: “It also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.”Mlynczak and his colleagues have created the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI), which measures how much NO is dumped from the Thermosphere into outer space. During Solar Maximum the TCI number is very high. At times of Solar Minimum, TCI is low.“Right now, (TCI) is very low indeed,” said Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s ten times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle."SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, but Mlynczak and the scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center have been able to recreate TCI measurements back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us how to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output — things that have been measured for decades,” said Mlynczak.In fact, TCI numbers now, in the closing months of 2018, are very close to setting record lows since measurements began. “We’re not quite there yet,” Mlynczak reports. “but it could happen in a matter of months.”The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate. God — and that big yellow ball of light in the sky — have much more impact on our climate than we ever could.James Matkin • 6 months agoThe earth is actually cooling and NASA grudgingly begins to admit reality over the fiction of failed computer modelling by the iPCC. So much waste and damage from the futile attempt to reduce our Co2 emissions for a colder climate. The climate alarmists have ignored solar natural variability not because of the science but because of their left wing economic agenda. They have ignored leading science papers like the 400 page study THE NEGLECTED SUN Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, by Professor Fritz Vahreholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. This study demonstrates that "the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity." As NASA admits the sun is in a cooling phase and the solar cycles make impossible "the catastrophic prospects put forward by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the alarmist agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics."https://www.thenewamerican.com/t...Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global CoolingInconvenient 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 coverageOther ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)Figure 2The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).Figure 3The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius. He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour. The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2. If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.Figure 4Leading German research concludes anthropogenic global warming AGW from fossil fuels as nothing more than “meritless conjectures.”3. The Ambassadors by Hans Holbein the Younger (1533)One of the most famous paintings of the Renaissance, The Ambassadors was actually painted in England. Born in Augsburg, Holbein was German, but also one of the painters that revolutionized art in Britain, bringing the country up to compete with the rest of Europe. W.—“Greenhouse Effect Based On ‘Physically Irrelevant Assumptions’Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation.They conclude that this “though experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.Gerhard KrammScrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quantifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONRandy A. StadtWith Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017Format: PaperbackThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.James Matkin

Hi Cadenc Madsen,I love this subject — thank you for posting your question. I remember at age 11, visiting the traveling Vatican Collection and being transfixed by the statue of Apollo as head of the Muses. He was wearing the clothes and hair of a woman of Ancient Rome. I actually thought it was a statue of a goddess until I read the plaque. Already having a deep, albeit confused, awareness that I was transgender, I keenly remember visiting that exhibition with my Catholic school and that after I saw that statue, I began intermittently praying to Apollo, Hera and Athena to turn me into a girl — Just an aside. There are many greco-roman works of art depicting people who were intersex and often the phenomenon was also mythologized in their religious beliefs and story telling.(above) Satyr caressing Hermaphrodite, a Roman erotic fresco painting from Pompeii, 50-79 AD , from the tablium of the Casa di Epidio Sabino, inv no 27875 ,Secret Museum or Secret Cabinet, Naples National Archaeological Museum(above) Roman Fresco of a Hermaphrodite Fragment of a wall fresco dated to the second half of the third century depicting a hermaphrodite (the mythological offspring of Hermes and Aphrodite, who bears both male and female anatomical features). From Capua, Campania, Italy. Now in the Museo di Scultura Antica Giovanni Barracco. Inv. MB 214.What we today call gender, “the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity,” comes from the Latin word ‘genus’ meaning race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species.[1] As it relates to religious belief and myth, is deeply, deeply fascinating to me. I think it goes back to seeing that statue of Apollo. Like language, and religion itself, our understanding of gender morphs, it changes through time and culture and again, it reflects our cultural values. People often claim that transex/gender issues are a new phenomenon brought about by liberal thinkers and feminists but really, we are as old as humanity. We almost all know the Deuteronomy 22:5 injunctions against wearing the clothes of the opposite sex in the Torah/Old Testament.“5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”It seems odd to me that people wold create laws and punishments to deal with crossing gender boundaries just for the hell of it; some people were surely already engaging in such activity to have upset authorities and as we know, the issue continues strongly to be a point of contention to this day. Mind you, the sort who buy into these cherry-picked biblical rules would claim God is all knowing and he wrote that passage specifically for us today. Once someone has their mind made up, there is rarely any convincing them otherwise.The prohibition of cross-dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5 as a basis for the controversy among churches in Nigeria on female wearing of trousershttp://welcomingresources.org/graceofgod8.pdfThe ancient Greek fascination with gender/sex anomalies is well-documented in their art and literature as we see in the story of the god Hermaphroditos fusing bodily with a sea nymph at a well in which he bathed. After the transformation, he prayed to his parents and cursed the well so that anyone who bathed in it entered either man or woman but came out both.Later philosophers of antiquity and even some Christian writers cited androgyny like this as representing human-kind’s original state of perfection, and some even viewed Hermaphroditos as representing the perfect union of marriage. Going even deeper into history, the Greeks may well have encountered this sociocultural acceptance and empowerment of the hermaphrodite nature from Eastern religions sometime around 5 BC.- Fluidity models in ancient Greece and current practices of sex assignmentThe story of Tiresias, a man transformed into a woman by Hera as punishment for parting and wounding mating snakes is another such story, as is Apollo’s female presentation as the head of the muses. The Greeks saw beauty in androgyny and often spiritual giftedness and wisdom in those who straddled the opposite poles of the sexes; they had an honoured place in Greek myth.(above) Changing Sex and Bending Gender, Alison Shaw, Shirley Ardener(Above) Tiresias, splitting the mating snakes and being transformed into a woman by Hera as punishment. She was a woman for 7 years during which time she married and had children. The Myth of Transgendered Tiresias in Ovid's MetamorphosesAlas, for those who were intersex in the Greek world, it was generally not a matter of full social inclusion for these individuals and as Vivienne Marcus points out in her answer to this question, portraits such as the one you saw were discovered in brothels indicating that:“For such an individual growing up, it’s probable that they would be recognised as no good for man’s work, and no good for childbearing either. Opportunities were few, except (as today, sadly) to go into sex work…Perhaps some of them managed to live happy, fulfilled lives, with a degree of self-determination. But probably they were treated roughly, at least some of the time.”— Vivienne MarcusIn fact,“The Romans were unaware of the different conditions which cause individuals to display both male and female attributes. They believed those born with physical variations were signs of natural corruption. As such, intersex people could be considered as punishments or warnings from the gods.”This article I’ve quoted from has a fantastic list of precisely how intersex individuals were viewed and treated by the ancient Romans, Ancient Rome and Intersex People, Those Known to the Romans as HermaphroditesBut regardless to how they responded to it, they nevertheless acknowledged that there was a known grey area between the poles of entirely masculine end entirely feminine, man and woman. Moreover, as we are still familiar with today and has been the case for millennia, their attitudes toward women typically left a lot to be desired. (https://www.atiner.gr/journals/h...)The Romans, as I understand it, were much less tolerant of intersexuality than the Greeks, who couldn’t have been called particularly accepting either, but they still found the subject fascinating none-the-less (not unlike today). Roman copies of original ancient Greek, now lost, sculptures of hermaphrodites were PROLIFIC. It was a sign of one’s great taste, to have one of those copies in your villa. For well-to-do romans, evoking Greek culture was another way of showing off, probably like having a Jeff Koons today.[2] What the Sleeping Hermaphrodite Tells Us About Art, Sex and Good Taste.And was there A trans soldier in the ancient Roman army?(above) Apollo as Head Muse. The Vatican Collection. Apollo was often depicted wearing a woman’s chiton, his hair done up in a woman’s hair style, in this context.(above) Eros resembling Hermaphroditos, Apulian red-figure lekythos C4th B.C., Rhode Island School of Design MuseumGreek God of Hermaphrodites & EffeminatesThe Sites of Hermaphrodites: Intersex in the Greco-Roman World(above) Credit Richard Perry/The New York Times(above) Credit Credit Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome- The figure is ancient Roman unearthed there in the 17th century.But it would be a mistake to interpret the popularity of these works as a sign of ancient tolerance, Mr. Picón said. The birth of intersex people was seen as a bad omen; those born with ambiguous genitals were usually killed.So, if you are interested in hearing from living intersex people, here are two interesting videos (below) of women who are intersex. I’d like to think we are evolving to embrace people who’s sex and expression of that fall within the vast array of gray produced by nature. Nature is nothing if not diverse and full of beautiful anomalies.(above) The Way We Think about Biological Sex is Wrong, Emily Quinn, TEDDid you know that almost 150 million people worldwide are born intersex -- with biology that doesn't fit the standard definition of male or female? (That's as many as the population of Russia.) At age 10, Emily Quinn found out she was intersex, and in this wise, funny talk, she shares eye-opening lessons from a life spent navigating society's thoughtless expectations, doctors who demanded she get unnecessary surgery -- and advocating for herself and the incredible variety that humans come in. (Contains mature content)(above) Intersex People and the Physics of Judgment Cecelia McDonald, TEDx BoulderWhat is intersex, is it the same as being transgender, and how are intersex people treated around the world? 1-2% of the population is intersex, often that is compared to the population of Jewish people in the US or the prevelance of ginger hair in the world. The population of the Russian federation is about 2% of the world population. So we’ve doubtless met and interacted with intersex individuals but few realize that or can name a personal friend who is open about this identity. I’m thinking now if all the ginger-haired, Jewish and Russian people I’ve met. In the modern era, there has historically been a tremendous amount of socially reinforced shame around being intersex, as shown by the very few intersex people who have "come out." The discussion on what it's like to be diagnosed, what it's like to date and tell people about being intersex, and some ways to own your medical care and make sure that you get the help you need is important. Cecelia McDonald, in the video above, is the CEO of Bird Meets Bee, helping people find egg donors, sperm donors, and surrogates. She is an entrepreneur, songwriter, traveler and Intersex advocate.(above) Intersex is Awesome Kristina Turner and Ori Turner, TEDx WWUOri Turner is ten years old and is Kristina Turner’s middle child. Ori has an intersex condition which has led them to transition genders. They are currently using gender neutral pronouns (per their request) Ori has a fondness for the How to Train Your Dragon Series and American Girl dolls. They are in 5th grade and homeschool as well as attending some classes at the Bellingham Family Partnership Program.Footnotes[1] Origin and meaning of gender by Online Etymology Dictionary[2] Artist Jeff Koons Installs A Giant Inflatable Ballerina In The Heart Of New York

NOT MUCH. The sun drives warming or cooling not us. The theory of plant food Co2 emissions from fossil fuels controlling the climate like a greenhouse does is a hoax. All evidence from the past shows Co2 always lags the rise in temperatures and never precedes it so this lack of correlation demolishes any blame for climate effects by Co2.Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordNew research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. I will summarize leading science paper that do not support the deniers of natural variability from CHINA, FRANCE, CANADA, GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES.First China scientists with new research with the longest instrumental temperature record thus far.The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.James Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/...JAMES MATKIN•2017-08-23 10:03 PMThe great failure of the Paris accord is the failure to accept that the IPCC Al Gore hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is not settled science. Indeed, none of the predictions of doom have occurred. New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. The “driving force” of climate change is natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming. The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院 Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NOT ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are “the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.” The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record This means that climate change cannot be stopped as Paris attendees believed. Co2 is very beneficial plant food and we need more not less. Why climate change is good for the world | The Spectator It is good news for civilization that the Paris targets are not being met around the world.https://www.nature.com/news/prov...Genghis Khan established what would later become the largest contiguous empire in history.IPCC FUDGED Data in 2001 to remove the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD to make today seem unprecedented.MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD CHANGED WORLD ECONOMIC HISTORYGenghis Khan sweeps across the lands, conquering and subsuming all who stand in his way." the tree-rings showed that the years between 1211 and 1225—a period of time that coincided with the meteoric rise of Genghis Khan, who died in 1227—were marked by unusually heavy rainfall and mild temperatures.Eventually the Mongols would establish the largest land empire in history, ruling over modern Korea, China, Russia, eastern Europe, southeast Asia, Persia, India and parts of the Middle East.[1] W.“Human CO2 at only 0.01% of atmospheThe entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.Don J. Easterbrook, PhDProfessor Emeritus of GeologyWestern Washington UniversityWhat we have found1. We are not warming the planetFor several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.Our research has convinced us that this man-made global warming theory is wrong. We will explain why we have come to this conclusion on this website.It is true that humans have been increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because of our use of fossil fuels. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide seems to have been about 0.03% of the atmosphere, while it is now about 0.04%.However, our research has shown that:It doesn’t matter whether we double, treble or even quadruple the carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide has no impact on atmospheric temperatures.We carried out new laboratory experiments, and analysed the data from millions of weather balloons, to calculate exactly how much global warming carbon dioxide was causing. When we did this, we discovered that the answer was zero.It turns out that some of the assumptions used in man-made global warming theory (and in the current climate models) had never actually been tested. When we tested them, we discovered that they were invalid.See the link below for a discussion of why:Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere I-III”In addition, we have also shown that:The “unusual global warming” that has caused such concern is not unusual, after all.We found that the world naturally switches between periods of global warming and periods of global cooling, with each period lasting several decades.We also identified a number of serious mistakes in the studies which had claimed that there has been unusual global warming. These mistakes meant that the amount of warming in the last global warming period (1980s-2000s) was overestimated and the amount of cooling in the last global cooling period (1950s-1970s) was underestimated.When these mistakes are corrected, it turns out that it was just as warm in the 1930s-1940s as it is now.See the following links for our global temperature analysis:• Summary: “Urbanization bias I-III”• Summary: “Has poor station quality biased U.S. temperature trend estimates?”Summary: “Global temperature changes of the last millennium”Start Here - Global Warming SolvedDon J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology| WWUWill HapperWill Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.DR. ANTHONY LUPOGlobal Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Madeby Anthony Lupo(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice sys- tem is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is up to doubters to prove otherwise.To complete the analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a “guilty” verdict convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes.Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be groundless.First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability. That is also not true.Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the media as if it were the main stream prediction is an extreme scenario.Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their output.First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability. That is also not true.Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the media as if it were the main stream prediction is an extreme scenario.Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their output.No one advocates destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care of our environment for future gen- erations. At the same time, we need to make sound decisions based on scientific facts.My research leads me to believe that we will not be able to state conclusively that global warming is or is not occurring for another 30 to 70 years. We simply don’t understand the climate system well enough nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial impact on climate change.Anthony R. Lupo is assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at Columbia and served as an expert reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archi...It is essential to understand the complexity of measuring human made Co2 emissions and to realize at a detail level the trace amounts are indistinguishable from natural sources of co2.Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So whatdo the alarmists conclude from this:“0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate change.” ???Charles Tips QUORA writer and former Science Editor organized these facts.]“Fact 1: We are in an ice age, the Quaternary to name it, and have been for 2.58 million years. Given that the previous four ice ages lasted for right at 30 my, we likely have more than 27 my to go (the two ice ages that kicked things off were of snowball-Earth proportions and lasted much longer. Ice ages occur every 155 my, and we don’t know why. That’s a much longer cycle than Milankovitch cycles can account for. Those tell us things like why North Africa has been a desert for 5 ky when before that it was a populated savanna.“Fact 2: We are in an interglacial, the Holocene epoch to give it its name, a respite from glaciation. During an ice age, interglacials occur at 90 to 125 ky intervals and last approximately 7 to 14 ky. The Holocene is 11.7 ky old, but there is new evidence that the Allerød oscillation 13.9 ky ago was the actual start with a meteor strike 1 ky in producing the Younger Dryas cooling.* If we are actually, 13.9 ky into our interglacial, then natural cycles tell us we will be rapidly descending back into glaciation in 5… 4… 3…“The combination of glacials and interglacials looks like this:THE sun continues to be very quiet and it has been without sunspots this year 62% of the time as we approach what is likely to be one of the deepest solar minimums in a long, long time.Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1977 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis CenterNew research shows fear of global warming is bad science.Marine species evolved, thrived, and diversified in 35 to 40°C ocean temperatures and CO2 concentrations “5-10x higher than present-day values” (Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).(Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth.Jun 20, 2008THE Insane Result Of The Mad Switch To Costly, Symbolic, Unreliable Energy – Wind and SolarPosted: October 11, 2017 | Author: Jamie Spry |PAYING YOU TO USE LESS OF THE GREEN POWER THEY FORCED YOU TO PAY FORPaying you $36 million to use less, not spending our money instead to provide more:“Few things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles ColsonWE really are living in the age of collective, global warming climate change insanity. We will look back on this era of “save the planet” virtue-signalling and wonder what the hell were we thinking…The federal government will pay households and businesses across three states to turn down their air conditioning, furnaces and cool rooms to stave off blackouts during peak demand.Under a $36 million program to be launched today by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, thousands of households in NSW, Victoria and South Australia will also be ­invited to voluntarily cut their ­energy use in return for incentives such as rebates on power bills.SO they’ve spent your money on subsidising green power, and having run short of electricity will now spend your money to use less of it. Meanwhile your power bills keep rising.AND remember: none of this will cut the world’s temperature. It’s all for nothing.DOESN’T this strike you as stark, staring, raving mad?Also the cost of subsidizing renewables in the vain hope of changing the climate like witches of old burned at the stake for failing is devastating both economically and socially. Research for example shows 50% increase in electricity costs in the UK from subsidies is causing heat poverty and loss of life greater than road accidents. Seniors must chose heat or eat?THE Insane Result Of The Mad Switch To Costly, Symbolic, Unreliable Energy – Wind and SolarFuel poverty kills more people than road accidentsAT least 2,700 people die every winter because they can’t afford their soaring heating bills.AT least 2,700 people die every winter because they can’t afford their soaring heating bills.More people lose their lives because they are too poor to heat their homes than are killed in road accidents, a Government-commissioned report has revealed.Professor John Hills of the London School of Economics, who led the study, said the figure was a “conservative estimate” and could be much higher.The damning report comes after £30billion profits made by the Big Six power companies over the last five years were exposed. But while the energy companies have been making a fortune, fuel poverty in the UK has soared.In 2004 1.2 million people were living in fuel poverty – defined as where more than 10% of a person’s income is spent on heating their home – but this year the figure has jumped to 4.1million.Between 2004 and 2009, the fuel poverty gap – the extra amount families in badly insulated and poorly heated homes would need to spend to keep warm – increased by 50% from £740million to £1.1billion.Professor Hills said: “The evidence shows how serious the problem of fuel poverty is, increasing health risks and hardship for millions, and hampering urgent action to reduce energy waste and carbon emissions.”Caroline Flint, Labour’s Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, added: “This report lays bare the dire situation facing millions of people this winter, and the urgent need for action on spiralling energy bills.“But this Government is so out of touch and unable to stand up to vested interests in the energy industry that its only answer is to lecture people about shopping around for a better deal and cut help for pensioners.“Warm words will not do. The Tory-led Government needs to get a grip and demand energy companies use their profits to cut bills now.”Sally Copley, Save the Children’s head of UK poverty, urged the Government to deal with the crisis before it is too late.She said: “No parent wants their children doing their homework or going to bed in a freezing cold house, yet this is the reality for many families and it badly affects health and education.“Poorly insulated houses and outdated heating systems mean many families will never be able to afford to keep their homes warm.”And there was an icy blast from the economy last night as Vince Cable admitted that a double-dip recession could not be ruled out. Speaking exactly a year on from George Osborne’s spending review which laid out massive cuts, the Business Secretary said the “brutal reality” was that the economy is in worse shape now.Asked to rule out a slump, he told ITV News: “I can’t do that.”His comments came as a ComRes poll found 67% of people are pessimistic about the future of the economy and almost half (48%) felt their standard of living fell in the last year.Energy Secretary Chris Huhne also appeared to attack the Government when he praised a Labour motion which said: “With a cold winter forecast and Government support cut millions of families will struggle to heat their homes.” Mr Huhne said: “There is nothing we disagree with in the motion.”Britain has had enough of power companies raking in massive profits while the elderly and hard-up struggle to heat their homes.Back our campaign today and send a message to the government and fuel bosses that it is time for a fair price on fuel.1. Pledge to drop bills as soon as wholesale energy prices fall2. Cut gap between standard and other tariffs3. Use cold weather payment data to target rebates at vulnerable households4. Launch Competition Commission inquiry into market5. Limit number of tariffs firms can offer and simplify themhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-...It is therefore most foolish to hide behind the idea that the hoax causes no harm and reduces pollution. BUNK!Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment of the current state of climate science, describing it as a "Joke".As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.Mullis earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta in 1966, he then received a PhD in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1973.His Nobel Prize was awarded in 1993.Climatology is a "Joke" - Nobel Laureate Dr Kary MullisNobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever brilliantly destroys the global warming (aka climate change) scientific consensus in his Laureate speech below. He saves us from the fear mongering of Al Gore and his like.Skeptics of global warming are increasing with more than 60 other Nobel Prize winners denying human caused climate change. Demonizing Co2 is no match on its merits for the extensive peer reviewed research confirming that unstoppable solar cycles and the impact of diminishing sunspots are far more reliable answer to the mysteries of climate change.Partial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.Names of scientists are an APPENDIX to this answer.Famous British meteoroligist Freeman Dyson says Climate Change Predictions Are "Absurd""We don't only have to worry about warming," the physicist argues. "It could very well be the climate gets colder. Nobody knows"—and we waste time arguing when we should be preparing. His view in the video below is more relevant everyday as we suffer long brutal winters and no sunspots to keep us warm.Prof. Henrick Svensmark explains why cloud formation is a driving force of temperature.The experts explain the global warming myth: John ColemanWhat They Haven't Told You about Climate Change Dr. Patrick MooreHow The Climate Mafia Corrupted The Surface, Radiosonde And Now Satellite DataPiers Corbyn; There is No Such Thing as Man-Made Climate Change‘Never mind the heat, climate change is a hoax by gravy-train scientists'C02 has nothing to do with climate.The sun is best indicator of the weather.Wisdom LandPublished on 12 Dec 2016SUBSCRIBE 19KOn Dec. 27, 2010 - Piers Corbyn predicted Europe's winter of discontent. Astrophysicist and meteorologist, Piers Corbyn, has a prediction success rate of roughly 85%...better than any of the "man made" climate change activists and proponents in the field of climate science. He obtained a first-class honours degree in physics at Imperial College London....He's not your everyday weatherman: the conspicuously displayed photocopy of a check for £2,291 hanging on the wall. Unique among meteorologists, Corbyn bets on his forecasts. Unusual among bettors of any stripe, he wins regularly. The check on the wall is a payout from London bookmaker William Hill on one of their monthly bets. It is said book makers will not take his bets any longer for fear of losing. Corbyn is well known for his opposition to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. On his website http://www.weatheraction.com/ he writes about his views, which include the idea the that the world is experiencing cooling. He says proponents of "man made "climate change theory are using "junk" science and that their theory is "rubbish".The TRUTH about carbon dioxide (C02): Patrick Moore, Sensible EnvironmentalistAPPENDIXPartial list of 150 + scientists who do NOT support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Scam:(includes ~60 Nobel Prize winners)Sceptical list provided by David Harrington of leading scientists. They all have many excellent published papers on the AGW subject.A.J. Tom van Loon, PhDAaron Klug, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics)Adolph Butenandt, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Al Pekarek, PhDAlan Moran, PhDAlbrecht Glatzle, PhDAlex Robson, PhDAlister McFarquhar, PhDAmo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics)Andrei Illarionov, PhDAnthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics)Anthony R. Lupo, PhDAntonino Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists.Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics)Arthur Rorsch, PhDAsmunn Moene, PhDBaruj Benacerraf, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bert Sakmann, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Bjarne Andresen, PhDBoris Winterhalter, PhDBrian G Valentine, PhDBrian Pratt, PhDBryan Leyland, International Climate Science CoalitionCesar Milstein, Nobel Prize (Physiology)Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics)Chris C. Borel, PhDChris Schoneveld, MSc (Structural Geology)Christian de Duve, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Christopher Essex, PhDCliff Ollier, PhDSusan Crockford PhDDaniel Nathans, Nobel Prize (Medicine)David Deming, PhD (Geophysics)David E. Wojick, PhDDavid Evans, PhD (EE)David Kear, PhDDavid R. Legates, PhDDick Thoenes, PhDDon Aitkin, PhDDon J. Easterbrook, PhDDonald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics)Donald Parkes, PhDDouglas Leahey, PhDDudley R. Herschbach, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Edwin G. Krebs, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Erwin Neher, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Frank Milne, PhDFred Goldberg, PhDFred Michel, PhDFreeman J. Dyson, PhDGarth W. Paltridge, PhDGary D. Sharp, PhDGeoff L. Austin, PhDGeorge E. Palade, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Gerald Debreu, Nobel Prize (Economy)Gerhard Herzberg, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhDHans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hans H.J. Labohm, PhDHarold E. Varmus, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Harry M. Markowitz, Nobel Prize (Economics)Harry N.A. Priem, PhDHeinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Hendrik Tennekes, PhDHenrik Svensmark, physicistHerbert A. Hauptman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Horst Malberg, PhDHoward Hayden, PhDI. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ian D. Clark, PhDIan Plimer, PhDIvar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics)James J. O’Brien, PhDJean Dausset, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Jennifer Marohasy, PhDJerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Joel M. Kauffman, PhDJohan Deisenhofer, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)John Maunder, PhDJohn Nicol, PhDJon Jenkins, PhDJoseph Murray, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Julius Axelrod, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics)Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of SciencesKlaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics)Gerhard Kramm: PhD (meteorology)L. Graham Smith, PhDLee C. Gerhard, PhDLen Walker, PhDLeon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics)Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (ChemistryLord Alexander Todd, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics)Lubos Motl, PhDMadhav Khandekar, PhDManfred Eigen, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Marcel Leroux, PhDMarshall W. Nirenberg, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Ned Nikolov PhDNils-Axel Morner, PhDOlavi Kärner, Ph.D.Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Prize (Physics)Pierre Lelong, ProfessorPierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics)R. Timothy Patterson, PhDR. W. Gauldie, PhDR.G. Roper, PhDRaphael Wust, PhDReid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Page on Shave and Grooming Made Simple. D.Engr.Richard Laurence Millington Synge, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard Mackey, PhDRichard R. Ernst, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Richard S. Courtney, PhDRichard S. Lindzen, PhDRita Levi-Montalcini, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert H. Essenhigh, PhDRobert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Robert M. Carter, PhDRobert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics)Roger Guillemin, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Ross McKitrick, PhDRoy W. Spencer, PhDS. Fred Singer, PhDSallie Baliunas, astrophysicist HarvardSalomon Kroonenberg, PhDSherwood B. Idso, PhDSimon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics)Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir James W. Black, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Kendrew, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir John R. Vane , Nobel Prize (Medicine)Sir John Warcup Cornforth, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics)Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhDStanley Cohen, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Stephan Wilksch, PhDStewart Franks, PhDSyun-Ichi Akasofu, PhDTadeus Reichstein, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas Huckle Weller, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Thomas R. Cech, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Timothy F. Ball, PhDTom V. Segalstad, PhDTorsten N. Wiesel, Nobel Prize (Medicine)Vincent Gray, PhDWalter Starck, PhD (marine science; specialization in coral reefs and fisheries)Wibjorn Karlen, PhDWillem de Lange, PhDWilliam Evans, PhDWilliam Happer, physicist PrincetonWilliam J.R. Alexander, PhDWilliam Kininmonth Page on http://m.sc., Head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for ClimatologyWilliam Lindqvist, PhDWilliam N. Lipscomb, Nobel Prize Winner (Chemistry)Willie Soon, astrophysicist HarvardYuan T. Lee, Nobel Prize (Chemistry)Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhDKarl ZellerZichichi, PhD