Mv 82 Ton: Fill & Download for Free

The Sherman is superior here, although in open country the Tiger is going to make mincemeat of either opponent. Of course, on a billiard ball playing field, the Tiger’s life can be made a misery with artillery etc.Two reasons for the Sherman’s superiority:Better armour penetration- see below, this is quite complicated and depends on which ammunition type is used, but there is little doubt that the Sherman is the better bet here. With “normal” ammunition, the T-34 struggled to penetrate the side superstructure or turret of the Tiger at 100 m.Considerably better ergonomics - the T-34/76 had a 2 man turret with the commander aiming the gun: if he had a broom up his arse he could have swept the tank floor as there was no turret basket. The T-34 has worse vison devices and the intercom is a lot worse than the Sherman so the crew in the cramped tank have relatively poor situational awareness. he Sherman has a faster traverse and engage targets quickly. The Sherman, in contrast, was one of the best laid-out tanks of the war. Of course, it looked like a teapot but looks aren’t everything!The only advantage I can see for the T-34 is in mobility on soft ground owing to better floatation on its wide tracks.Armour PenetrationBritish tests in Tunisia (above) firing 75 mm M61 APCBC penetrated the 62 mm thick lower side armour at 30 degrees from 100 yards. The upper side could only be penetrated at an angle of 16.5 degrees and could not be penetrated at an angle of 18.5 degrees. The testers estimated the critical angle of penetration to be 17.5 degrees.Above a summary chart produced for British tankers.The superior AP performance of the Sherman against Tiger I is confirmed on the Russian Tank Archives site. [1]1.2 Russian Test of Sherman 75 mm against captured Tiger ISide, shell type M-61, distance 400 m. Result: penetration, spalling inside in an area of 300 mm by 300 mmSide, shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: penetration, minor spalling on entrance and exit.Side: shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: same as above.Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650 m. Result: dent 50 mm deep, 140 mm diameter. Penetration of the turret platform.Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: dent 40 mm deep, 120 mm diameter.Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: Penetration. Shell knocked out a cork-like section of armour.Side: shell type M-61, distance 650 m Result: same as above.1.3 Russian Tests of 76.2 mm against captured Tiger IShots from the distance of 600 meters with the 76mm gun ZiS-5, (armour piercing) 18 shots in total, 16 hits registered, Side hitsShots 1-2-3 went into the turret, no penetrations (a few dents)Shots 4-16 left larger indentations on the (hull) side plateShots from a distance of 400m with the 76mm ZiS-5, AP:10 rounds, 10 hits on the side plate (refer to the drawing for the distribution, red represents a penetration, blue merely a dent)Shots from a distance of 300m with the ZiS-5, sub caliber2 Shots fired, 2 hits, side plateYellow color: First hit, projectile appears to be stuck in the lower part of the turret ring, 2nd projectile hit the mantlet and immobilized the cannonThe T-34/76 with the ZiS-5, can achieve success from a distance of 400m, when engaging the Tiger from the flank. Beyond 400m, shelling might result in minor damage/dents, which could potentially incapacitate the crewAbove, the winning entries in the Russian worst drawing of a Tiger tank contest! I think this shows side hitsSo we can see that the Sherman is getting results at 650 m that the T-34 is getting at 400 m. This appears to be with “special” ammunition. Some Russian tests showed the T-34 could not defeat the side of a Tiger I beyond 100 m- see Annex A.2. Ergonomics & Comment on ScenarioNow if the battle is in an open field and the Tiger spots the enemy, then the ergonomics isn’t going to be all that relevant.However, not all fights were on the Steppes. In Normandy 14–16 Shermans could match 10 Tigers because there were a lot of short-range combats. Here, the Sherman’s ergonomics, and faster traverse should help and surprise flank attacks are likely which obviate the Tigers advantages such that, ton for ton, the M4 Sherman is better. See links at footnotesTon for ton, the T-34/76 is worse than Tiger owing to its cramped turret and over busy commander/gunner, poor intercom and less satisfactory vision. Rouble for Reichsmark, the T-34 was probably better value for money, but economics between totalitarian states cannot be compared in a sensible way as far as I can see.I hope that helpsAnnex A. Penetration of 76.2 mm & 75 mm GunTaken from Bird L and Livingston R (2001) WWII Ballistics Armor and Gunnery. RHA = rolled homogeneous armour, FH face-hardened. This data is based on some input from Prof. Miles Krogfus. It shows the normal BR-350B will not defeat the Tiger beyond 100 m but the BR350B special round would defeat the Tiger side at 400 m. Either gun could defeat the lower hull, but that is mostly protected by the road wheels.Annex B Estimates of Sherman v Tiger side Armour (my data)Green = penetratesLight green = more than likely to penetrateOrange = probably failRed = failNote most of the Tiger’s hull is protected by road wheels.Annex C Comment by Prof Miles KrogfussWhen the ZIS-3 was introduced in 1942, the new APBC projectile BR 350 A also had begun production, having a normal APBC round with 1080 grams of 9/7 propellant giving a 662 m/s muzzle velocity, and a "Special" round UBR 354 S using the BR 350 A APBC and 1400 grams of 9/7 propellant with a 745 m/s mv. Its mm penetration with a DeMarre 2450 K factor and the following 0 and 30 degrees deflection at these ranges and velocities:100 meters 735 m/s 90/73 mm, 500 meters 696 m/s 82/67 mm, 1000 meters 646 m/s 74/60 mm, 1500 meters 596 m/s 66/54 mm, 2000 meters 549 m/s 59/48 mm. However when the Summer 1942 Eastern Front campaign went on and no new really thick armored Panzer appeared, it was decided to stop production of this special round.FootnotesTank Archives: Sherman vs TigerZaloga S (2009) Duel: Panther v T-34 Ukraine 1943 OspreyGee H Army (1952) Operation Research Memorandum , A Survey of Tank Warfare from D Day to 12 Aug 1944 Army Operation Research Group Appendic B serials 1–19(1) Ian Holloway's answer to Are there any recorded cases of a M4A1 Sherman tank defeating a Tiger tank in combat? - Quora(1) Ian Holloway's answer to Who would win in a one-on-one engagement, an M4A3E8 (76) W or a Tiger 1? - Quora(1) Ian Holloway's answer to How many Sherman tanks did it take to take out a Tiger tank? - Quora(2) Ian Holloway's answer to Did Sherman tanks battle Tiger tanks during WW2? - QuoraJentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 20

Warning: I’m not exactly the greatest at physics (particularly orbital mechanics), which is ironic, as my major requires it. So, I’m probably way off on these calculations and assumptions. That being said, I’ll try my best.We have a few problems.So we know that your asteroid is a mile across. So its radius is 0.5 miles, or about 0.8 km, which is about 800 meters in radius.So, what’s the asteroid made of exactly? Does it mostly contain Iron, is it a “rubble pile”, is it just made of dense rock? This matters, because it affects the mass of the asteroid. An asteroid that has rocks with a density of 3 grams per cubic centimeter weighs much less than an asteroid with materials of 8 grams per cubic centimeter.You said that the terrorists are moving this thing from low-Earth orbit. How high are we talking exactly? Low Earth orbit is defined as being between Earth’s surface and 2,000 kilometers above Earth’s surface. At an altitude below 500 km (310 miles), it’ll experience some drag from Earth’s atmosphere.So, we need a few more details before we can help you out.Why do we need this? Well, we need this because we need to figure out the asteroid’s mass and velocity.Asteroids can kill for the same reason that a bullet kills: If it’s massive enough and traveling fast enough, it has a lot of Kinetic Energy (KE), the energy a moving object has.It’s represented by the formula KE=1/2 mv^2, where “m” is the mass of the asteroid, “v” is the velocity of the asteroid, and “KE” is the asteroid’s Kinetic Energy.First, we need the mass of the asteroid. And that’s easy. If we assume that the asteroid is a perfect sphere (in reality, that’s not likely, but I don’t want to kill myself here), then we can find the asteroid’s volume, which the volume of a sphere is V = 4/3 (pi) r^3, where “V” is the volume, and “r” is the asteroid’s radius.If we know the asteroid’s density (how much mass per unit volume in the rock), then we can use m = dV, where “m” is the mass, “d” is density, and “V” is volume.Now, we need its velocity, and that’s a bit harder, since orbital mechanics is a pain. But I have a trick. It’s a stupid trick that will probably make me very wrong, but I’m going to use it anyways.Let’s suppose that our terrorists attach rockets in such a way so as to basically cause the rocket to “stop moving.” Pulled downward by gravity, it drops straight down. This causes our asteroid to drop like a baseball released from the palm of your hand.Why do I mention this? Because this allows me to do this:Our asteroid is hanging (orbiting, really) at a certain height above the Earth. If our asteroid stopped moving and yet didn’t fall to Earth, it would have potential energy (PE), which is PE = mgh, where “PE” is potential energy, “m” is mass, “g” is the acceleration due to gravity of the Earth, and “h” is the height of the object’s position compared to the Earth’s surface.In theory, the PE of the asteroid when it’s not moving should equal the KE of the asteroid when it drops from a certain height, i.e. PE (before) = KE (after). We know the two equations, so if we’re looking for velocity, we just manipulate the equations and voila, we get v = sq root (2gh). I don’t need to explain the variables.Okay, so with these formulas, we now can insert them into the KE equation. It becomes KE=1/2 (dV) * (2gh). The (2gh) comes from the fact that the square cancels the square root.Got that? Good, ’cause now we can do the work.Thanks to what I did, I might be able to help you out. But I’m going to have to put in some variables for you, whether you like it or not.So, I’m assuming that you want the worst-case scenario, because that makes the terrorists just a bit more scary. So, our asteroid is a 1-mile-wide asteroid, made of Iron and other dense materials (this gives it a density of 8 grams per cubic centimeter, or 8000 kg/m^3, and a radius of 800 meters). It hangs at an altitude of about 2,000 km (2*10^6 meters) above the Earth’s surface, in order to minimize drag on it (because science). We’ll also round the acceleration due to gravity, to around g = 10 meters per second squared.Okay, so, knowing the density. We need the volume. Using the formula for volume, we have V=2.14 * 10^9 cubic meters. Multiplied by density, we get a mass of m=1.71 * 10^13 kg, or around 17 trillion kilograms (that’s 17 billion metric tons) of space rocks right there.Next, we have the velocity. Finding the velocity gives us around v = 6.3 km/second, or around Mach 18 (18 times faster than sound).Putting this into our KE equation gives us around KE=3.45 * 10^20 Joules, or a 3 followed by around 20 zeroes. Put into perspective, 1 megaton of TNT is equal to 4.184 * 10^15 Joules, so our asteroid is packing a whopping 82 gigatons (or 82,000 megatons of energy).To put into perspective, this asteroid is around 1,700 times more powerful than the Tsar Bomba. If this asteroid hit the Earth, it would blow out a crater of around 13 miles (21 km) in diameter and over 2,400 feet (750 meters) deep. The impact would smash buildings to pieces as far as 200 km from impact, and as far as 400 km from impact, the air blast would shatter windows and potentially damage wooden structures. If it impacted the ocean at a depth of 2,000 meters (6,600 feet), the asteroid would generate very large tsunamis. These tsunamis would be so large, in fact, that coastal areas 100 km from the impact would see waves in excess of 600 feet (180 meters). Even as far as 6000 km away, tsunamis would reach heights in excess of 20 feet (6 meters), the equivalent of a huge storm surge.In other words, if it impacted New York City, it would literally turn the entire city into a crater. The blast wave would shatter concrete structures as far as Philadelphia. As far south as Washington, D.C. and as far north as Boston, wooden structures would receive moderate damage and windows would shatter. Casualty count: In excess of 20 million.If it impacted 100 kilometers off the NYC coast, the city would see a literal mountain of water washing over all but the tallest skyscrapers. The entire East Coast would see waves in excess of 40 to 70 feet (12 to 21 meters), so most of the East Coast will be underwater. As far away as Lisbon, Portugal and London, England, the tidal waves could reach as high as 10 to 20 feet, so it’d appear as though a sudden storm surge had just hit those cities.Estimated casualties: Around 50 million or so. And that’s ignoring the millions more that would die in the rest of the Atlantic Ocean.In other words, if these terrorists were able to divert a 1-mile-wide asteroid to Earth, they wouldn’t just destroy a city; they’d destroy a country, if not entire coastlines.Unless you ask me to, I won’t do the estimated size required for a 50-megaton blast, but I will tell you that the asteroid would likely be around 100 to 150 meters wide, just by guessing.Earth Impact Effects Programhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

OUTLINEDream of wind and solar renewables saving the climate and ending polluting fossil fuels is becoming a deadly nightmare.Adding renewables causing major cost increase in electricity.Fuel poverty from increased costs kills more than fatal road accidents.Freezing winters everywhere, not moderate without snow as alarmists predicted makes keeping warm a matter of life or death.The fears from predicted catastrophic global warming all fail as 90% of glacier ice expands, Pacific islands rising not sinking, SEA LEVELS STABLE OR FALLING mm of change (7″ in 130 years), fewer hurricanes, floods, tornadoes. wild fires and droughts.Coal is necessary for > 2 billion living without electricity in China, India etc.China opens new coal power every week wiping out all other Co2 cuts.Scientific consensus crumbles as more leading scientists discredit one trick pony hypothesis of weak amounts of CO2 in green house gases.Public opinion shifts against taking action on climate change.Fudging data by UN scientists brings climate science into disrepute.Earth’s climate is too chaotic, nonlinear and unpredictable to know the future more than a few weeks out.Compter models run too hot as researchers fail to mimic reality.US withdraws from Paris accords meaningless carbon targets.Australian political coalition rolls back energy targets and decides to build coal power plants for more cost efficient energy.Yes, we have reached a tipping point about the unreasonable expectations that wind and solar renewables would make any difference to fossil fuel energy consumption and the earth's climate. The large subsidies to renewables in the past decades are failing to create cheap, reliable electricity and they are pushing up the cost of electricity to consumers with devastating consequences for poor consumers.The climate change debate has suffered too much politics and too little science with over the top fear mongering that unsettles the public’s common sense. My comment on Academia.edu - Share research is relevant.https://www.academia.edu/19108426/We_fail_to_act_humanely_or_to_think_sanely_mesmerized_by_fears_like_politicians_demonizing_Syrian_refugees_and_human_made_C02._Philosopher_LUDLOW_-_NYTimes_OP_ED_My_COMMENTFor example, in the UK the winters are getting colder with snow unlike the alarmists predicted. Heat poverty is reaching a crisis causing many fatalities.FREEZING BRITAIN: Bitter polar air to bring COLDEST winter for more than FIVE YEARSHere is a recent damming government report by Professor John Hills of the LSE about the rise of “fuel poverty.” -“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.AT least 2,700 people die every winter because they can’t afford their soaring heating bills.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.”Fuel poverty kills more people than road accidentsDenmark faces first ‘summer-less’ July in 38 yearsThe [email protected] July 2017Let’s face it, this has hardly felt like summer. Now we’ve got the numbers to prove it.According to the Danish Meteorology Institute (DMI), July is likely to end without a single ‘summer day’, which is defined as any day in which temperatures top 25C (77F) at least somewhere in Denmark.If the next five days come and go without hitting 25C as predicted, it will mark the first time that Danes will have suffered through a summer-less July in nearly four decades.“There are only three years in our records in which July contains a big fat zero when it comes to summer days and temps above 25C. That’s 1962, 1974 and 1979,” climatologist John Cappelen said on the DMI website.DMI’s database goes back to 1874.The warmest day thus far this month was July 19th, when an almost-yet-not-quite-there 24.6C was recorded. There were only two days in all of June that qualified as a summer day, while May had five.But meteorologist Klaus Larsen said that all hope is not yet lost.“The prognoses for the last day of the month - Monday the 31st – are hopping back and forth over the magic point. Until then there are no real signs that we will get over 25C so no matter what we are looking at a meteorological photo finish,” he said.Before banking on Monday to break July’s sad streak, perhaps it’s worth a reminder that DMI wrongly predicted we would top 25C last week.Oh well, we can always hope against hope that August is better.MY COMMENTJames Matkin • 20 hours agoSummerless summers happened in Europe during the Little Ice Age, but Denmark's bleak weather is not climate change. It is weather AND WILL CHANGE. World wide the climate is getting colder. The primary driving forces are solar cycles and ocean currents not human activity. We are in a solar minimum cycle.. Because the climate system is non-linear and unstable we cannot predict future weather more than a couple or weeks ahead. The greatest economic travesty and social reversal is the Paris Accord vanity and conspiracy that governments can change the climate and make it colder by reducing life giving CO2. RUBBISH.https://www.thelocal.dk/20170726/denmark-faces-first-summer-less-july-in-38-yearsAl Gore Humiliation: NASA Study Confirms Sea Levels Are FALLINGWhen we look back on this period of history, we’ll say climate change was one of the greatest hoaxes. Politician-turned-environmental activist, Al Gore has become wealthy beyond his wildest dreams (and intelligence) thanks to pushing the “big lie.”A new study from NASA confirms sea levels are falling — not rising.iceagenow.info reports:NASA satellite sea level observations for the past 24 years show that – on average – sea levels have been rising 3.4 millimeters per year. That’s 0.134 inches, about the thickness of a dime and a nickel stacked together, per year.As I said, that’s the average. But when you focus in on 2016 and 2017, you get a different picture.Sea levels fell in 2016, and with all of this winter’s record-breaking snowfall, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decline again this year.I clicked and zoomed on the above chart as NASA suggested, and obtained a closeup screen shot of sea levels from Jan 2016 to March 2017. This clearly shows the decline.Al Gore has falsely predicted that sea levels would rise by 20 feet, with some of the world’s largest cities underwater.World Tribune reports:Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water, Booker noted.“We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.”All of the talk about the sea rising “is nothing but a colossal scare story,” Booker said, citing Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change, who “for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe.”Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” Morner says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that “the apocalypsehttp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/al-gore-humiliation-nasa-study-confirms-sea-levels-falling/Glaciers expanding not melting as predicted.“A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than LossesThe driving force of climate change is not anthropogenic warming from Co2.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.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My COMMENTJames 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/srep46091Wind and Solar will not replace fossil fuels due to intermittency.A comprehensive report energy economist Robert Lyman, May 2016, about the issue of when renewables will replace fossil fuels is instructive. Reality of the analysis shows no light at the end of the current renewable tunnel. The wind and solar paradigm is a therefore a fantasy only to make us feel good. Lyman explains -“WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050Contributed by Robert Lyman © May 2016EXECUTIVE SUMMARYRobert Lyman is an energy economist with 27 years’ experience and was also a public servant and diplomat.A number of environmental groups in Canada and other countries have recently endorsed the “100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS)” vision articulated in reports written by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucci and others. This vision seeks to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in the world by 2050. Jacobson, Delucci et. al. have published “all-sector energy roadmaps” in which they purport to show how each of 139 countries could attain the WWS goal. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the 100% goal is feasible.While a range of renewable energy technologies (e.g. geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and wave energy) could play a role in the global transformation, the world foreseen in the WWS vision would be dominated by wind and solar energy. Of 53,535 gigawatts (GW) of new electrical energy generation sources to be built, onshore and offshore wind turbines would supply 19,000 GW (35.4%), solar photovoltaic (PV) plants would supply 17,100 GW (32%) and Concentrated Solar Power plants (CSP) would supply 14,700 GW (27.5%). This would cost $100 trillion, or $3,571 for every household on the planet.Western Europe has extensive experience with investments in renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. By the end of 2014, the generating capacity of renewable energy plants there was about 216 GW, 22% of Europe’s capacity, but because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy production, the actual output was only 3.8% of Europe’s requirements. The capital costs of renewable energy plants are almost 30 times as high as those of the natural gas plants that could have been built instead; when operating costs are also taken into account, onshore wind plants are 4.6 times as expensive as gas plants and large-scale PV plants are 14.1 times as expensive as gas plants. Wind and solar energy is not “dispatchable” (i.e. capable of varying production quickly to meet changing demand), which results in serious problems – the need to backup renewables with conventional generation plants to avoid shortfalls in supply, and the frequent need to dump surplus generation on the export market at a loss. The current energy system in the United States, Canada and globally is heavily dependent on fossil fuels – they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries and over 87% in the world as a whole. Currently, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of one per cent of global energy supply.The financial costs of building the 100% renewable energy world are enormous, but the land area needed to accommodate such diffuse sources of energy supply is just as daunting.Accommodating the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the U.S. in the WWS vision would take up 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the lower 48 states. This is close in size to the combined areas of Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada.A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant.To meet 8% of the U.K.’s energy needs, one would have to build 44,000 offshore wind turbines; these would have an area of 13,000 square miles, which would fill the entire 3000 km coastline of the U.K. with a strip 4 km wide.To replace the 440 MW of U.S. generation expected to be retired over the next 25 years, it would take 29.3 billion solar PV panels and 4.4 million battery modules. The area covered by these panels would be equal to that of the state of New Jersey. To produce this many panels, it would take 929 years, assuming they could be built at the pace of one per second.The WWS roadmap for the U.S. calls for 3,637 CSP plants to be built. It would be extremely difficult to find that many sites suitable for a CSP plant. Packed together, they would fill an area of 8,439 square miles, about the area of Metropolitan New York. They would require the manufacture of 63,647,500 mirrors; if they could be manufactured one every ten seconds, it would take 21 years to build that many mirrors.A central component of the WWS vision is the electrification of all transportation uses. This is technically impossible right now, as the technologies have not yet been developed that would allow battery storage applicable to heavy-duty trucks, marine vessels and aircraft. Even in the case of automobiles, despite taxpayer subsidies of $7,500 per vehicle and up, the number of all-electric vehicles sold has consistently fallen far short of governments’ goals.The costs of electrifying passenger rail systems are so high that no private railway would ever take them on. Electrification of a freight railway system makes even less sense, and would cost at least $1 trillion each.The diversion of crops to make biofuels already is raising the cost of food for the world’s poor. The World Resources Institute estimates that if this practice is expanded, it will significantly worsen the world’s ability to meet the calorie requirements of the world’s population by 2050.Scientists and governments have been guilty of the “Apollo Fallacy”; i.e. of thinking that the space race is a model for the development of renewable energy. The Apollo program cost billions of dollars to demonstrate U.S. engineering prowess during the Cold War; costs, and commercial considerations, were secondary considerations, if they counted at all.The proponents of WWS grossly under-estimate the costs of integrating renewable energy sources into the electricity system. The additional costs of backup generation, storage, load balancing and transmission would be enormous.The WWS scenario calls for 39,263 5-MW wind installations in Canada at a cost of $273 billion for the onshore wind generation alone. Building a national backbone of 735 kV transmission lines would cost at least CDN $104 billion and take 20 years to complete.The WWS includes a call to shut down all coal, oil and natural gas production. It implies the closing of all emissions intensive industries, such as mining, petrochemicals, refining, cement, and auto and parts manufacturing. The political and regional backlash against such policies in a country like Canada would threaten Confederation. In short, the WWS vision is based on an unrealistic assessment of the market readiness of a wide range of key technologies. Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic or political terms.”CONCLUSIONThe WWS vision is not feasible in economic, technological or political terms. Its only purpose, it seems, is to offer the pretense that a credible path to a non-carbon world exists in the period to 2050. The sooner this reality is exposed and confronted, the better. Report, WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050 A REALITY CHECKhttps://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Renewable-energy-cannot-replace-FF_Lyman.pdfThese graphs of world energy consumption show the reality of renewables failure over the past 40 years to reduce fossil fuel burning.Australia is a good harbinger of the future on this issue. While they repealed their job killing carbon tax this has not helped arrest rising electricity costs. A new coalition is ready to reduce the carbon targets.“For the past decade in Australia it has been political blasphemy to not only question the science of climate change but to not support some form of government forced transition to currently expensive and unreliable renewable energy.Even though the carbon tax was repealed in 2014 by the Abbott Coalition government it didn’t signal the end of high electricity costs in Australia. This was because it was still a bipartisan policy of having a mandated renewable energy target for Australia forcing businesses and consumers to have more of their power from renewable energy sources which is currently 20% by 2020. There are also still massive subsidies to the renewable energy funded through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.The left, media, Labor and Greens love pushing climate change alarmism for many reasons, first it gives them the appearance of helping to save the planet and is another form of virtue signalling. It is also an opportunity for those on the left who hate western civilization and capitalism to go about dismantling the industries we have built and also feeds into their belief that humanity has a negative impact on the world.The end result of this climate change dogma has been for the poor citizens in Australia to see their household electricity prises constantly rising year after year. The rise of electricity prices has also impacted business and industry and has led to the continuing offshoring of our manufacturing operations which has contributed to our high unemployment rate especially amongst the youth. For a movement that is supposed to be about children’s future, climate change programs are doing a good job destroying our children’s economic future.But as the lights are now starting to go out the public will no longer sit back and let politicians collude together to push for more renewable energy. Over the past week in parliament Coalition politicians have talked about building new coal fired power stations to satisfactorily meet energy demands. State Liberal parties have promised to roll back state Labor governments’ renewable energy targets.”Have We Reached a Turning Point in the Climate Change Debate?A final point is that the alarmist crusade vilifying Co2, the essential plant food on earth is weak because the global warming of the past is from natural climate variation and not man made. Leading scientists around the world discredit the warmest theory and scare mongering. See for example -'Climate change' is meaningless, global warming is nonsense - former NASA scientist29 April 2014, 16:51"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis," says former NASA scientist, Professor Dr. Leslie Woodcock, challenging the theory promoted by left-leaning Democrats, some in the US government, and President Obama that increased global warming is caused by man, Breitbart News reports.A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense" saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity."It's absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don't blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors."DR. LESLIE WOODOCK former NASA SCIENTISTProfessor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as "anecdotal" and therefore meaningless in science."Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it's completely unpredictable beyond around five days," he said.Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people."The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent, Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post, adding "Even the term 'global warming' does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's not permanent and it's not caused by us."Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation.According to him, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather "since records began" is that records only began about 100 years ago."The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather."When asked how can say this when most of the world's scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly: "This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it's not up to me to prove it does not exist, it's up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming."This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however, he said, arguing that at the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive."...the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity."Professor Woodcock is not the only scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a "green guru", earlier this month said that climate scientists "just guess", and that no one really knows what's happening.Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was "duped into supporting the IPCC" and added "If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic."The issue of so-called man-made global warming has been a topic of liberals for several years who use such false hypothesis in advancing their causes that has caused millions of people economic hardship when data proves otherwise, not to mention, failed alternative energy companies, some scientists claim.While environmentalists and left-wing liberals continue to state that man is the cause of the global warming, the data is proving otherwise. Several scientists as well as others, have pointed out through scientific facts, not theories, that the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its heat from the sun, not from humans and the only exit for this heat to take is through the form of radiation.In 2012, Robert W. Felix, author and owner of the website, OfIceAgeNow, said and presented visual data of climate change over the past 10,000 years and that it has been warmer in the past than it is today and that warming and cooling cycles have gone on throughout that time.Felix said, “GISP Greenland Ice Core Data shows that it has been warmer than today for almost all of the past 10,000 years. Not only warmer, it shows that temperatures have been declining in a zig-zag fashion for several thousand years.”“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It is an industry, which creates vast amounts of money for some people,” said Woodcock“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather,” Woodcock concluded.Olga Yazhgunovichhttps://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2014_04_29/Climate-change-is-meaningless-global-warming-is-nonsense-former-NASA-scientist-2998/Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Madeby Anthony Lupo(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system 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 human- ity 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.Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate AlarmBy Kenneth Richard on 2. January 2017Climate science is supposed to be settled, right?We are told that there is an overwhelming agreement, or consensus, among scientists that most weather and climate changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century have been caused by human activity — our fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions in particular. We are told that natural mechanisms that used to dominate are no longer exerting much of any influence on weather or climate anymore. Humans predominantly cause weather and climate changes now.For example, we are told that extreme weather (hurricanes, droughts, floods, storms) frequencies and intensities have increased since about 1950 primarily due to the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since then. Humans are now melting glaciers and ice sheets and (Arctic) sea ice at an alarmingly accelerated rate — reminiscent of an impending “death spiral“. Humans now heat up and acidify the oceans down to depths of thousands of meters by burning fossil fuels. Humans are now in the process of raising sea levels so that they will catastrophically rise by 10 feet in the next 50 years. Because of our CO2 emissions, humans are now endangering the long-term survival of 100s of thousands of animal species (especially polar bears), and climate models say we will cause a million species extinctions over the next 33 years with our CO2 emissions. The Earth is even spinning slower, or faster, no, slower, well, faster — due to human activities. Again, this is all settled science. Only those who possess the temerity to deny this science (“climate deniers”) would disagree, or refuse to believe.But what if much of what we have been told to believe is not actually true? What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that humans have dominated (with ~110% attribution) weather and climate changes since about 1950, which is what we have been told by the UN IPCC? What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that natural factors exert effectively no influence on weather and climate changes anymore — now that humans have taken over?These are compelling questions. Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability. Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection.Because of the enormous volume of new papers available that support a skeptical position on anthropogenic climate change alarm, the list of 500 scientific papers with links has been divided into 3 sections, each with its own page (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). There are 68 graphs included in the volume, most of which are used to demonstrate that “hockey-stick” reconstructions of past temperatures and sea levels relative to today are not supported by available evidence.Despite its size, this list will hopefully be user-friendly and easy to navigate as a bookmarkable reference volume due to its outline (below) and organized categorization. Each paper has an embedded link under the authors’ name(s).Finally, there are 132 papers linking solar activity to weather and climate change (in addition to another ~90 that link natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [ENSO, NAO, etc.], clouds, volcanic activity . . . to climate change). This is of special note because the IPCC has, since its inception, insisted that solar factors play almost no role in modern climate change. Apparently scientists agree less and less with that “consensus” position.Click any of the 3 links belowPart 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change (236 papers)Part 2. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (152 papers)Part 3. Unsettled Science, Ineffective Climate Modeling (112 papers)Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate ChangeI. Solar Influence On Climate (132)II. Natural Oceanic/Atmospheric Oscillation (ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO, AMOC) Influence On Climate (45)III. Natural Ozone Variability and Climate (3)IV. A Questionable To Weak Influence Of Humans, CO2 On Climate (11)V. Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity (4)VI. Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (17)VII. Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (14)VII. Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Forcing (9)Part 2. Natural Climate Change Observation, ReconstructionI. Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise/Mid-Holocene Sea Levels Meters Higher (34)II. Warmer Holocene Climate, Non-Hockey Sticks (40)III. No Net Regional Warming Since Early- Mid-20th Century (15)IV. Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (D-O Events) (8)V. The Uncooperative Cryosphere: Polar Ice Sheets, Sea Ice (34)VI. Ocean Acidification? (14)VII. Natural Climate Catastrophes – Without CO2 Changes (4)VIII. Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic (3)Part 3. Unsettled Science, Ineffective Climate ModelingI. Failing/Failed Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (10)II. Climate Model Unreliability/Biases and the Pause (34)III. Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Raises Crop Yields (10)IV. Wind Turbines, Solar Utilities Endangering Wildlife (7)V. Less Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (15)VI. Heat Not Hazardous To Polar Bears, Humans (3)VII. No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (3)VIII. No Increasing Trends In Drought Frequency, Severity (7)IX. Urban Surfaces Cause (Artificial) Warming (4)X. ‘Settled’ Science Dismantled (3)XI. Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Humans (3)XII. Fires, Anthropogenic Climate Change Disconnect (5)XIII. Miscellaneous (4)XIV. Scientists: We Don’t Know (4)- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/comment-page-1/#comment-1155753Climatologists are at the centre of climate science. They study the myriad factors that influence weather and the climate, particularly ocean currents, atmosphere, solar radiation, cloud formation, earthquakes and palaeontology and geology. Climatology studies all of these things over the course of time, typically a 30 year cycle. The American Association of State Climatologists Unlike geologists, astrophysists, chemists and ecologists climate science is the full time primary interest and research of climatologists. Therefore, when the climatologist science organization denies thee man-made unprecedented global warming theory this is very relevant.American Association of State ClimatologistsState Climatologists are Skeptical of Global Warming“Having just returned from the annual meeting of the American Association of State Climatologists (for which I will be President for the next year), I can tell you that there is a great deal of global warming skepticism among my colleagues. For every outspoken scientist like Pat Michaels there are dozens of less verbose but equally committed men and women who do not buy into the Administration's point of view. Far from being a "done deal," the global warming scenarios are looking shakier and shakier. I have encouraged the other state climatologists to speak up on this issue and intend to be a spokesman myself (see, for example, July 25 1998 Science News). It's interesting to me that the tactics of the "advocates" seems to be to 1) call the other side names ("pseudo-scientists") and 2) declare the debate over ("the vast majority of credible scientists believe..."). I'm grateful for those who are running top-notch Web sites (SEPP, junkscience, John Daly, Doug Hoyt, Pat Michaels, etc.) to keep the dialogue open and enable us to share relevant information and scientific data (and also provide encouragement).”George Taylor, State ClimatologistOregon Climate Service316 Strand HallOregon State UniversityCorvallis OR 97331-2209http://www.ocs.orst.eduJapan Society of Energy and Resources was founded in 1980. (1791 MEMBERS)It is an academic society to promote the science and technology concerning energy and resources, and thus to facilitate cooperation among industry, academia and governmental sectors for coping with the problems in this field.“Subcomittee of Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources disses the IPCC – says “recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity”By Andrew Orlowski The Register UK (h/t) from WUWT reader Ric WermeExclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.SummaryThree of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue…Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”apan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-madeClimate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report”Anthony Watts / February 25, 200925 Feb 2009 at 12:23, Andrew OrlowskiKey Passages TranslatedWhat is the source of the rise in atmospheric temperature in the second half of the 20th century?Shunichi Akasofu[Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)Introductory discussion.Point 1.1: Global Warming has haltedGlobal mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most part, to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.) This quasi-periodic cycle fluctuates 0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50 years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely pronounced in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand. The previous quasi-periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940 and negative from 1940 to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions rapid increase after 1946).Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase). Since 1975 the chances of increase in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration) are high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative. For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after that, the negative cycle will probably continue.Regarding the current temporary condition (la Nina) JPL observes a fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note: this book is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for "truth". This truth is not observationally accurate testimony. This is sidestepping of global warming theory with quick and easy answers, so the opinion that a great disaster will really happen must be broken.It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is "hibernating". The end of Sunspot Cycle 23 is already two years late: the cycle should have started in 2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot appeared in the sun's northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished completely (new sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern hemisphere). At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no spots in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is worrisome.American Institute of Professional Geologists: your local geoscientistsDecember 13, 2013“American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) national president Ronald Wallace and Tennessee Section president Todd McFarland (Nashville office of AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc.) visited Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) on December 5th for an AIPG section meeting. ..“From an education perspective, one of the differences between AIPG and two of the other major geoscience societies, the Geological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union, is that a substantial number of AIPG members have expressed skepticism about the extent to which human activity is to blame for global warming during the last 150 years. In contrast, the Geological Society of America (position statement) and the American Geophysical Union (position statement) follow the lead of most climate scientists in attributing most of the warming to human activity.”“I do not know a single geologist who believes that (global warming ) is a man-made phenonomon.”Peter Sciaky Senate testimony, Oct. 29, 2007, Congressional Record, Senate, Vol. 153. Pt. 20The Paris climate accord fails on all accounts as first the targets are not tough enough to make much difference if carbon is the problem. If the hypothesis is wrong and the earth’s climate is not controlled by the one trick pony of weak CO2 increases in Green House Gases from fossil fuels then Paris is a disaster for > 2 billion living in the dark without electricity and needing more coal powered energy for centuries to come. This CNBC article puts the case for exiting Paris as a benefit to the environment. Sadly, Trump may be on the right track scientifically, but his lack of political credibility weakens his action.Trump's Paris accord exit will save the environmental movement from itselfPresident Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal is good for the environment.The truth is the Paris accord is all words, and little action.To save our ecology and our freedoms, we need fewer treaties and less government.Jake Novak | @jakejakenyWednesday, 31 May 2017 | 1:22 PM ETPresident Donald Trump is expected to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.Environmentalists should rejoice!That's right, rejoice. Because by getting the world's largest economy, (that's us), out of yet another amorphous and unenforceable international climate deal, President Trump has likely saved the environmental movement from itself. And now there's also a much better chance that millions of conservative and center/right Americans can rejoin the environmental fold.The green movement in the U.S. and around the world has been off the tracks for decades mostly because of its faulty belief in globalist politics and big government as the solution to environmental challenges. In fact, big government and centrally-planned schemes like the Paris deal are the problem.The first problem with the Paris deal is that, like an OPEC production quota, it's really hard to enforce and cheating is likely to be rampant. As many experts analyzing the agreement have noted, there are no explicit enforcement mechanisms in the accord. So nothing would happen to a country that even just ignored its contribution commitments. That leaves the countries that are more likely to adhere to the climate deal rules, like the U.S., at a distinct economic and political disadvantage.It appears that the supposed triumph of the Paris agreement is that every nation coming into it publicly acknowledged the reality and challenges of climate change coming into the negotiations. Like so many other things in politics, words have become more valuable than deeds. And with no real mechanism to punish countries that cheat on this agreement, there's a chance that the Paris deal could lead to more environmental pollution, not less.People who are really concerned with lowering emissions worldwide need to come to grips with the fact that international agreements where bad actors can't be effectively punished aren't the way to go. It may be intoxicating to see their activism rewarded with the pomp and ceremony of an accord like the Paris climate deal, but they're ultimately meaningless.If the U.S. government wants to do something about the environment, it doesn't need to collude with foreign nations. It would be much better if it started with fixing its own house in a series of moves that conservatives and libertarians could join with liberals to support. They include:·Stop having all taxpayers subsidize and otherwise bolster expensive and environmentally harmful home building in coastal areas. The national flood insurance program, long opposed by liberals and anti-crony capitalist conservatives, does exactly that.·Government at all levels continues to build more roads when more and more evidence shows that no new roads are needed and money would be better spent on repairing old ones. Liberals have long decried the government's anti-environmental road obsession along with conservatives who oppose the continued deficit spending needed to build them.·Excessive regulation has basically killed new nuclear-power plant construction in this country, although nuclear power is safer and pollutes less than many traditional power sources, including coal and natural gas.What's much more meaningful than almost any government program or regulation is the free market's own incentives to clean up the environment. Groups like the Property and Environment Research Center, (PERC) have long explained that less government, not more, is the answer.Their cogent argument is that expanding the amount of privately-owned lands worldwide will increase responsible stewardship as opposed to continued unaccountable government ownership. And they trust the markets to reward and foster more environmentally friendly innovations and practices, as opposed to governments that rely on different levels of taxation and punishment to meet politically-influenced goals.In real terms, America has seen the free market's more effective leadership role time after time. It was the explosion in gas prices, not government rules, that played the biggest role in the auto industry's push to make more fuel-efficient cars in the late 1970s and hybrid cars over the last 15 years. And most experts rank free market innovations and other non-government created developments as the reason why the price of solar panels is now less than half of what they were in 2008, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.The Paris climate deal is one of the most prominent liberal/big government vanities in history. There is simply no evidence that it would be any more effective than the Kyoto or Copenhagen deals, and it unnecessarily raises the hackles of conservatives and moderates who fear a loss of American freedoms and sovereignty. It's agreements like these, often enforced by un-elected and even anonymous bureaucrats that fuel Brexit-like sentiments around the world.The real disaster for the ecology is the environmental movement's decision to push for these kinds of shaky international agreements that could end up harming the environment more and angering a great deal of American voters in the process.President Trump is nixing this latest example of a bad deal for the environment and our Constitutional freedoms and both of those precious American treasures are better off for it.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-paris-accord-exit-is-good-for-the-environment-commentary.html“Trump's Paris Accord Pullout Applauded by Policy ExpertsPromise Kept to Protect Economy, Safeguard Jobs and Make America a Leader in Energy ProductionNational Center Provides Diverse Perspectives on Trump Action: Scientific, Regulatory, Business and from the African-American CommunityWashington, D.C. - President Donald Trump's decision to remove America from the Paris climate accord is being applauded by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a free-market think-tank which has - for over 25 years - actively opposed anti-competitive regulations that damage the economy and deprive Americans of affordable energy. National Center experts offering a wide array of perspectives on the issue are available to speak about how this action by the Trump Administration will benefit the nation."We applaud President Trump for having the courage to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. It was a bad deal for the U.S. worker, a bad deal for U.S. industry, a bad deal for the environment and a bad deal for our system of government," said National Center President David A. Ridenour, an environmental expert who has attended past United Nations meetings on climate regulation. "Despite requiring a wrenching transformation of our economy that would cost millions of jobs, it would accomplish next to nothing even if you buy into all the dubious science upon which it is premised. Trump made the right choice for the economy, the environment and for constitutional government."Ridenour's full statement is available here."In fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, President Trump has struck a blow for millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on having ready access to affordable and reliable energy," said National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., an expert in regulatory and energy issues. "By targeting our use of fossil fuels under the wholly specious claim of protecting the climate, the Paris accord was specifically designed to shackle the U.S. economy. Elites here and abroad see our recent emergence as a global energy powerhouse as a threat to their ability to micromanage our lives through transnational agreements and regulations imposed by Washington bureaucrats. With one mighty stroke, President Trump stood up for those who have had no voice for too long.""Trump fixed an Obama error. In honoring his commitment to cancel America's participation in the Paris climate accord, Trump is helping save an estimated 6.5 million jobs and $3 trillion in our national economy," said Stacy Washington, co-chairman of the National Center's Project 21 black leadership network. "The Paris climate accord is unfair and unworkable. While America bears a severe financial burden, countries that pollute as a matter of course such as China are not required to reduce emissions until 2030. This detail alone calls into question the benefit of agreeing to what amounts to the utter destruction of our coal industry. Thank God President Trump said no."Earlier this week, Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper criticized the Paris climate accord on the RT network's "The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann." Cooper noted: "The very same studies that were claiming alarmist predictions say that the Paris treaty doesn't make that much of a difference, and that those same alarmist outcomes are going to occur.""President Trump's decision to exit the Paris climate accord is a victory for the free market and a defeat for rent-seeking corporations," noted Justin Danhof, Esq., the National Center's general counsel and director of its Free Enterprise Project (FEP). "Many corporate leaders became accustomed to the Obama leadership style of selecting winners and losers. In the energy market, Obama rewarded certain green energy providers and users with lavish taxpayer subsidies. It proved detrimental to the American people, especially low-income Americans paying more of their incomes for energy. Appeals by corporate leaders from companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Salesforce to remain in the accord were likely in hopes of keeping this taxpayer-funded gravy train rolling. President Trump showed real leadership, signaling that the corporate welfare state that flourished during the past eight years may be a thing of the past."FEP has challenged corporate leaders at companies such as Apple, Google (now Alphabet Inc.) and Exelon at shareholder meetings about the sustainability of their support for risky regulatory regimes and alternative energy schemes.The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 60,000 active recent contributors. Contribute to our impact by donating here. Sign up for email updates here. Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.”Trump's Paris Accord Pullout Applauded by Policy ExpertsFinal point is that as the scientific consensus for the carbon dioxide hypothesis of global warming crumbles likewise public support for government taking action on climate change deteriorates.https://www.academia.edu/30183146/Leading_scientists_discredit_CO2_theory_of_global_warming_and_repudiate_CO2_is_a_toxin._The_Lessons_Of_Lysenko_shows_distorting_climate_science_will_end_in_tragedyThe United Nations survey of all countries for what are the priorities to make the world a better place finds 97% put climate change at the very bottom when compared with 15 other priorities like a good education, better health care and clean water for example. This means the climate alarmists have only 3% of public support which is as it should be in my opinion because their crusade is based on pseudo-science.http://MYWorld2015 Analytics