Almost 300 Graphs Undermine Claims Of Unprecedented, Global-Scale Modern Warmth

Non-Hockey-Sticks-2015

Hundreds Of Scientific Papers Challenge ‘Global’ Warming

Recently, an article citing over 80 graphs from scientific papers published in 2017 — and another 55 graphs from 2016 — established that modern “global” warming is not actually global in scale, and that today’s warmth is neither unprecedented or remarkable when considering the larger context of natural variability.

Here, an additional 140 non-hockey stick graphs taken from papers published in 2015 and earlier have now been made available. With this latest installment, graphical temperature reconstructions challenging the conceptualization of global-scale or unprecedented modern warming are rapidly approaching 300.

Catalog of Charts: Global Warming Disputed: 300 Graphs

Read More: Almost 300 Graphs Undermine Claims Of Unprecedented, Global-Scale Modern Warmth

Related Topic: Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Congress Should Break Up Hatebook into Independent Identity Facebooks

James-t-Hodgkinson-alexandria-shooter-ap-photo-640x480

Break-Up The Censorship Monopoly:

Just recently I wrote a post about being censored on Facebook for doing nothing more than being critical of the AGW theory. This following quote is my best guess at what got the article banned:

The more scientifically illiterate you are, the more convincing the Climate Alarmists’ arguments become. Climate Alarmists know that and that is why they usually only provide half the story at best, and as we all know, “half the truth is often twice the lie.” No matter if it is Coral Reefs, Sea Ice, Global Temperatures or other claims, the Alarmists’ arguments simply don’t hold up under even the most simple of analysis.

Here is the full article: Facebook Censorship; Congress Should Investigate Anti-Conservative Bias

Today in the news we get reports of what the left is allowed to publish uncensored and unharassed by Hatebook.

The gunman who opened fire this morning on Republican congressmen and staffers recently declared in a Facebook post that, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

The accused shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, 66, posted a link to a Change.org petition in late-March that included the notation that, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Hodgkinson’s Facebook page includes numerous photos of Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Hodgkinson appears to have strongly supported during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. In posts last August, Hodgkinson wrote, “I want Bernie to Win the White House” and “Bernie is a Progressive, while Hillary is Republican Lite.”

Hatebook will allow leftists to spew hate and incite violence against Republicans, but it won’t allow debate critical of global warming. It is time for Congress to break up Hatebook. Hatebook should be broken apart based upon members self-identifying with the desired “identity” Facebook. Facebook should be broken into Political Facebook with Conservative and Liberal, Gender Facebook  Men and Women, Marriage Status Facebook Married and Single,  Nationality Facebook, Hobby/Special Interest Facebook, Religious Facebook, etc etc.

Each individual “Identity” Facebook would be publically traded, and run by like-minded people that share the values and beliefs of the “identity” community. No longer would Orwellian, sociopathic, leftist censors get to pick and choose what is appropriate to post across all of Facebook.  Each “Identity” Facebook would, of course, be allowed to cross communicate, but the regulation of content would no longer be centralized and run by Orwellian totalitarian misguided social justice warriors. It is time to make Facebook a vehicle to promote the 1st Amendment, not suppress it. The various “Identity” Facebooks would have to compete to get more members, and oppressed/censored members would have other Facebooks to join where they would find their views welcomed.

BTW, this call to break up Facebook is being promoted by the New York Times. They, of course, want to break- up and have the Government regulate Facebook. I promote breaking up Facebook and allowing self-governance of the separate “identity” facebooks. It is time to break the Facebook censorship monopoly. “Identity” facebooks will allow “safe spaces” for people like myself that get bullied and censored by Facebook leftists. It would also promote “diversity” of thought, allow greater “equality,” encourage “tolerance,” and end the systemic and systematic “discrimination” against groups like skeptical scientists.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

The True Face of Science Denialism: NASA Geologist “Scientist” Denies 600 Million Years of Geologic History

ellen_stofan.jpg

Ellen Stofan holds master and doctorate degrees in geological sciences from Brown University in Providence, R.I., and a bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist

Fake news spread by those with a profit motive is leaving many people oblivious to the threat of climate change, says former head of US space agency.

Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
@hannahdev

Friday 9 June 2017 00.15 AEST

Americans are “under siege” from disinformation designed to confuse the public about the threat of climate change, Nasa’s former chief scientist has said.

Speaking to the Guardian, Ellen Stofan, who left the US space agency in December, said that a constant barrage of half-truths had left many Americans oblivious to the potentially dire consequences of continued carbon emissions, despite the science being unequivocal.

“We are under siege by fake information that’s being put forward by people who have a profit motive,” she said, citing oil and coal companies as culprits. “Fake news is so harmful because once people take on a concept it’s very hard to dislodge it.

During the past six months, the US science community has woken up to this threat, according to Stofan, and responded by ratcheting up efforts to communicate with the public at the grassroots level as well as in the mainstream press.

“The harder part is this active disinformation campaign,” she said before her appearance at Cheltenham Science Festival this week. “I’m always wondering if these people honestly believe the nonsense they put forward. When they say ‘It could be volcanoes’ or ‘the climate always changes’… to obfuscate and to confuse people, it frankly makes me angry.”

Stofan added that while “fake news” is frequently characterised as a problem in the right-leaning media, she saw evidence of an “erosion of people’s ability to scrutinise information” across the political spectrum. “All of us have a responsibility,” she said. “There’s this attitude of ‘I read it on the internet therefore it must be true’.”

Read more: Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist

This Climate Alarmist/Climate Activist masquerading as a Geologist and “Scientist” appears to be completely ignorant of the 600 million year geological history of the earth. Never, I repeat Never with an N, over 600 million years has CO2 ever caused catastrophic warming. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 parts per million, almost 20x the level of today, and the Earth never experienced catastrophic warming. In fact, SEA LIFE thrived during the Cambrian era when CO2 was highest. During the Triassic and Jurassic era, when CO2 was 3,000 parts per million, the largest animals to ever exist roamed the earth. The earth fell into an ice age during the Carboniferous era when CO2 was 4,000 parts per million. The basic physical properties of CO2 and the physics supporting the greenhouse gas effect simply don’t support the CAGW theory, especially when put in the context of the range of atmospheric CO2 possible on earth, ie the pure CO2 atmosphere of Venus can never happen here on earth. The unfortunate truth is that a real understanding of the CO2 molecule and greenhouse gas effect is demonstrated.

The unfortunate truth is that a real understanding of the CO2 molecule and greenhouse gas effect is demonstrated in the geological record. The marginal impact of CO2 DECREASES with each additional molecule. CO2 has a natural “off switch” and is designed to NEVER cause catastrophic warming. That is why earth’s temperatures appear to peak out at approximately 22° C regardless of the level of CO2. That is the real story, the story the climate alarmists will never explain to the public or press. Instead, they hide behind phony liberal academic degrees and titles at once prestigious scientific organizations like NASA. NASA should have all its “scientists” study this following chart and stop allowing ex-employees from further tarnishing their already greatly diminished reputation. Denying geologic and physical science and history isn’t a position NASA should be promoting.

geological

Related Topic: Click the link to read more about the GEOCARB model that supports the above graphic.

H/T Watts Up With That

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

NASA’s “Adjusted” Temperature Charts Prove CO2 Driven Warming is a Hoax

NASAp024841d.jpg

It appears that NASA, the organization that once put a man on the moon, has devolved so much that they don’t even appear to understand the meaning of the charts that they produce. The Political Correct Fever that inspired the canceling of the Space Shuttle program, and redirecting NASA’s efforts towards “Muslim outreach” and Climate Change, has exposed NASA as conspirators in the greatest scientific fraud in history.

As a refresher, the theory behind “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” or CAGW is that man produces CO2, CO2 “traps/thermalizes” outgoing infrared (IR) radiation between the wavelengths of  13 and 18 microns, the “thermalization” of those IR wavelengths results in atmospheric warming. NASA knows this, and if fact uses the Airforce’s program MODTRAN to model the atmosphere. The key point here is that it is the “thermalization” of the outgoing radiation that causes the warming, not the level of CO2. I use the term “global warming” because the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change in by thermalization, ie warming.

As with any cause and effect relationship, one needs a “differential” to measure the change in Y (Dependent Variable) CAUSED by the change in X (Independent Variable), ΔY=mX+b. CO2 has a differential over time, but at any moment in time, CO2 evenly blankets the globe. What this means is that CO2 can’t CAUSE regional differences in temperature and that its impact would be a parallel shift in the temperature graph over time. CO2 is 405 parts per million (ppm) at the N Pole, S Pole, Equator, over land and over sea, it is an even blanket, and therefore can’t cause differences in one place compared to another. The following is the atmospheric CO2 graph, and here is the location to download the data. Note: This is NOAA, not NASA data and graphics.

NOAA3

No one disputes that CO2 evenly blankets the globe. No one disputes that CO2 can thermalize IR radiation with wavelengths between 13 and 18 microns. Those two facts, however, would result in parallel shifts in the temperature graph. The NASA graphics tell a different story, a story inconsistent with the underlying physics of the greenhouse gas effect and the physical properties of CO2.

NASA Charts for Land Only and Land and Sea Global Temperatures:

NOAA2aNOAA1a

Problems with the above graphics if CO2 is the CAUSE of the warming:

  1. FACT: Between 1880 and 2017 Land Temperatures increased by approximately 1.75° C, Land and Sea Temperatures increased by approximately 1.20° C. CO2 is 405 ppm over both land and sea so CO2 CANNOT explain the 0.55°. Something other than CO2 MUST be CAUSING the differential between land and sea and land only. The differential is even greater when comparing land only to sea only.
  2. FACT: Both charts “dog leg” at 1960. The slope between 1880 and 1960 is approximately 0.007° C/Year for land only and 0.005° C/Year for land and sea. The slope between 1960 and 2017 is approximately 0.028° C/Year for land only and 0.019° C/Year for land and sea. CO2 has been gradually increasing since 1880, and did not suddenly accelerate post-1960. CO2 CANNOT explain the sudden acceleration in temperatures that occurred post-1960.
  3. FACT: Land only, Land and Sea and Sea only temperature charts all have different slopes. Constant CO2, and a constant rate of change in CO2 CANNOT explain a difference in slope between those three charts. Constants CANNOT CAUSE a differential, that is why they are called CONSTANTS.

The Physical Properties of CO2 don’t support NASA’s Charts or the CAGW Theory:

co2_modtrans_img1

CO2 doesn’t CAUSE warming, CO2’s reaction with IR radiation between 13 and 18 microns CAUSES the warming. The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 and the resulting “Net Downward Forcing (w/m^2)” is the important metric, not CO2 concentrations in ppm. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are near linear over time, the “Net Downward Forcing” of CO2 is logarithmic (see chart above).

The Problems that creates for NASA and the CAGW Alarmists:

  1. Extrapolating the atmospheric CO2 chart one finds CO2 to have been about 240 ppm in 1880. NOAA, however, states that the pre-industrial level was 275 ppm. Using 275 ppm, Net Downward Forcing of CO2 increased from 257.5 w/m^2 at 275 ppm to about 258.5 w/m^2 at the 1960 level of 315 ppm. An increase in 40 ppm resulted in a net increase in downward forcing of 1 w/m^2. Depending on the chart, temperatures either increased approximately 0.04° C or 0.05° C over that time period. Note: if pre-industrial CO2 was 240 ppm as the extrapolation suggests, the case is even worse for the climate alarmists because the w/m^2 would be much greater for the slight temperature change of 0.04° C or 0.05° C.
  2. In 1960, CO2 was 315 ppm, and depending on the chart temperatures increased between 1.1° C or 1.6° C by 2017. While the temperature increase between 1960 and 2017 was approximately 4x the increase between 1880 and 1960, the increase in w/m^ was about equal, and the marginal impact of any additional CO2 is rapidly DECLINING.
  3. The NASA temperature charts post-1960 are near linear, and cannot be explained by the diminishing marginal w/m^2 that define the physical properties of CO2. If CO2 is driving temperature, the temperature chart slope wouldn’t be linear, the slope would gradually falling towards zero, just like the CO2 w/m^2 graph does.
  4. In reality, the temperature charts post-1960 appear to be accelerating (slope steepening) and are certainly accelerating post-1880. There is nothing in the physical nature of CO2 that can explain accelerating marginal temperatures with equal increases in w/m^2. The molecular/quantum physics related to the CO2 molecule are FIXED. Real sciences don’t deny the laws of quantum physics to make their case.
  5. Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in the labs of NASA, NASA’s own research and publications debunk the CAGW theory.

Please like, share, comment and subscribe.

President Obama Mis-Directed Billions of Tax Dollars Away from Real Energy Solutions

renewable-green-energy-solyndra-green-obama-fraud-politics-13307715941

Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion in expected costs from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to a new audit Monday that suggests the controversial projects may not pay for themselves, as officials had promised.

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration has approved, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in its audit.

The hefty $2.2 billion price tag is actually an improvement over initial estimates, which found the government was poised to face $4 billion in losses from the loan guarantees. But as the projects have come to fruition, they’ve performed better, leaving taxpayers with a shrinking — though still sizable — liability.

Read More: Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole

Those numbers don’t include the opportunity costs of killing job producing projects like the Keystone Pipeline and supporting job-killing EPA regulations intended to kill the coal industry. They don’t include the real cost of every American having to pay higher priced for their energy.

President Obama’s main focus was on energy sources that have little to no chance of ever really contributing to the global energy demand. Wind and Solar are way too expensive, unreliable, inefficient, and have way too low energy density. As I like to say, “you will never fly a jet using wind power, and you will never power your home at night using solar power.” For all of 2016 non-hydro renewable energy accounted for 9.2% of all US energy production, and almost all of that production required a coal or natural gas powered plant as a back-up.

According to data released on Aug. 24 by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), renewable energy in the U.S. through the first half of 2016, including hydro-electric power, biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar (including distributed solar), provided 16.9 percent of electricity generation. In all of 2015, that number was 13.7 percent. Non-hydro renewable energy was 9.2 percent of U.S. electric generation through the first half of 2016. For all of 2015 it was 7.6 percent.

Wind and solar require reinventing the wheel, rebuilding the electrical grid and infrastructure, are highly speculative, and simply don’t have the physics or economics backing them…ever. Solutions like the Fischer-Tropsch Process are commercially viable proven solutions and produce “drop-in” fuels. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel and make major changes to the existing infrastructure, all you do is build the plant. Everything works within the existing system.

There is also promising solutions like the one developed by a now bankrupt company named KiOR. It was Silicon Valley’s major attempt at producing a renewable fuel. Countless certain to eventually fail wind and solar projects were funded, yet President Obama let KiOR, with its extremely promising technology, die. Why? I can only speculate that it was because it wasn’t focused on the PC solution of wind and solar, and continued to support the dreaded internal combustion engine.

Read More: Vinod Khosla’s Open Letter to 60 Minutes and CBS

Over the last 8 years, had the Nation’s Energy Policy focused on real commercially viable solutions like the Fischer-Tropsch, built pipelines like the Keystone, embraced fracking, coal, and petroleum, and fully funded promising speculative technology like KiOR’s that worked well withing the existing infrastructure, it is highly likely America would be totally energy independent today. Instead, we are stuck with environmentally unfriendly, uneconomical eyesores killing birds and destroying sensitive desert habitats. It’s time we get serious about solving our energy problem, and wind and solar are more an obstacle than an assistance.

Related Topic: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
Related Topic: Shocker: Government mandated trillions in global renewable investment tally

clip_image0025

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Fischer-Tropsch, the Real Alternative Energy Solution for America

1-s2.0-S2095495613600030-gr1

Wind and solar will never power much of the world’s economy. The energy density, variability, and unreliability of these sources simply aren’t practical. The real solution to America’s energy problem is to produce fuel using our abundant renewable biomass, natural gas, and coal resources. Believe it or not, that ability already exists in a commercially viable and proven method called the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) Process. The FT Process first turns a carbon source into a “syn-gas,” and then recombines that short carbon chain into longer carbon chains like gasoline and diesel fuel.

synthetic-petrol-7-638

Qatar has the largest F-T plant in existence called the Shell Pearl Gas-to-Liquid plant.

Developed in partnership with Qatar Petroleum, Pearl Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) is the world’s largest GTL plant and one of the world’s largest, most complex and challenging energy projects ever commissioned. From the origins of Shell GTL technology nearly 40 years ago, to its first commercial debut in Shell’s Bintulu GTL plant in Malaysia in the early 1990s, to the creation of the world’s GTL capital in Qatar today – the delivery of GTL on such a vast scale as Pearl GTL brought together almost every aspect of Shell’s technical and project management capabilities.

Here in American, the DOE found the economics of an F-T plant to be very favorable.

•Project viability depends heavily on crude oil price scenarios. The base case, tied to a crude oil price of $61/bbl, provides a 19.8% ROI. At crude oil prices greater than $37/bbl, the project would achieve ROIs greater than 10%, and a 15% ROI can be achieved at crude oil prices greater than $47/bbl.
• Policy actions impact expected ROIs. Federal loan guarantees have the largest ROI impact, increasing the ROI by more than 11 percentage points from the base case. F-T subsidies provide a 9 percentage point increase in ROI.

That report was produced in 2007, a year before President Obama became president. With such a convincing commercially viable and proven, job-creating energy solution being available, what did President Obama focus his 8 years on? The non-commercially viable and highly speculative wind and solar. Had American focused its efforts on building F-T plants instead of wasting all her money on climate “scientist’s” salaries and research, ineffective, expensive and inefficient wind and solar, it is likely we would be totally energy independent today. Instead, we spent 8 years making nothing but symbolic wasteful efforts that accomplished nothing and left us greater in debt.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory

This linked article make many of the arguments that have been promoted on this blog.

“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.” – Allmendinger, 2017

“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.” – Blaauw, 2017

“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.” -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

“The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.

Read more: 17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.