New study of previously overlooked U.S. government records from World War Two of data of human emissions of industrial (war-time) carbon dioxide (CO2) casts further doubt on the ‘greenhouse gas’ theory promoted by climate alarmists.

Independent research by Seldon B. Graham Jr. analysed the known and vastly-increased output of industrial CO2 emissions during World War Two, as obtained via the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) to determine its impacts on climate. By comparing the data with the known levels of CO2 in the atmosphere it is shown there was neither any increase on global temperatures nor (surprisingly) any increase in measured atmospheric CO2 levels.

These findings are at odds with claims routinely made by alarmist academic climate experts who say more human emissions equals more ‘dangerous’ heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere leading to higher global temperatures.

That is what the mainstream theory of a supposed ‘enhanced’ greenhouse gas effect (GHE) due to raised emissions of industrial CO2 tells us. But no such outcome is detected for the entire wartime decade, according to NASA.

The life of a climate skeptic is no holiday. We battle against a well-entrenched public misconception that is supported by most of the media and politicians. When we are invited to lecture on our “heresy” or to debate somebody that supports the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have to be prepared with ironclad arguments and equipped with scientific sources beyond reproach—and still we are frequently perceived as loonies. To wit, there is little fun in a skeptic’s career (but, to quote Gimli the Dwarf: “Certainty of death, small chance of success … What are we waiting for?”)—and one of the highlights of mine was being invited to contribute to the Slayer volume.

Recently (in October 2010) I published a considerably less ambitious skeptic’s book of my own in Slovenian: Podnebna prevara (The Climate Fraud, www.orbis.si). I was in the final editing process when news of the forthcoming Slayer book was announced, so I sought to establish contact with the authors to get a sneak peak at the material; I wanted to check whether I had made any blatant errors in my own work (I did not). After my book was already in print, I happened to come across the following little piece of “scientific consensus” that the IPCC flies by, so my first thought was to share it with Claes Johnson.

My involvement with the isotopic argument started when a fellow skeptic from the US became involved in a debate about the causes of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) and his opponent advanced the argument that CO2 from human activity—such as coal combustion—can be distinguished from “natural” carbon dioxide even far away from its emission, citing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as the source.

The facts continue to discredit the left’s fraudulent “consensus of experts.” This time, it is in the form of a recent survey of climate scientists by George Mason University. More than four thousand American Meteorological Society (AMS) members were recently asked about their positions on global warming (or ‘climate change,’ now that we know zero actual warminghas occurred for decades). And the results predictably fly in the face of everything we have been told.

Approximately one-third acknowledged that global warming “is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half man-made … or simply think we ‘don’t know.'” This number explodes to the vast majority once climate scientists are asked about catastrophic global warming—the absurdly hysterical Al Gore branch of alarmist fear-mongering, in which liberals relentlessly insist that their ideological war on science is about a full-blown crisis that somehow urgently threatens all of humanity.

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

 The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has dominated debate on Global Warming (later Climate Change) since its creation by the United Nations in 1988. Brady’s book is largely an analysis of how they did it, and the ‘mirrors and mazes’ of the title refers to the tools used by magicians to trick their audience. He covers the scientific information and a lot more besides. I have read many books on climate change, but I found much new material here.

Chapter 1 sets the scene and reviews the climate debate. The present is not unprecedented, either in climate or alarm. 360 years ago there was panic in Europe over advancing glaciers, and in the 1970s the big scare was the coming Ice Age. The Modern panic started with increasing greenhouse gases and how it may lead to runaway Global Warming. On the way it was mixed with conservation issues, such as reducing CO2 (or even carbon) by reducing use of fossil fuel (especially coal) and introducing alternative energy. We are reminded that Warren Buffet invested billions of dollars into alternative energy, as there are tax credits to offset against other businesses. Alternative energies have failed so far because there is no suitable battery technology. Despite no warming since 1998 the alarmist message is still to curtain global warming by reducing CO2. The warming scenario is supported by charismatic prophets warning of catastrophe (floods, droughts, extinctions), who are never held responsible for failed predictions.

News outlets are reporting the Arctic is getting very warm and the surrounding sea ice is taking a hit. Temperatures are 15 degrees higher than normal, glaciers are retreating, and the north shore of Svalbard has no visible ice. There’s only one problem: that was in 1922, not 2016. So it’s surprising to read breathless accounts today of the Arctic experiencing the same issues as nearly a hundred years ago. Tony Heller, who writes regularly on the Arctic and runs the popular climate site Real Science, calls this cherry picking your data.

According to Mark Serreze, director for the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), there has never been such a “warm, crazy winter in the Arctic.” He also adds the heat has been relentless and that global warming is to blame. That’s true, Heller writes, if you consider -20 degrees Celsius ‘hot’ or overlook the historical record that goes back to when “fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers” sailed the Arctic seas (see PDF).

Sea ice extent is when the Arctic normally reaches its highest coverage, and so far it’s on track with previous years (see slideshow). With one exception being the Barents Sea, which is slightly under the mean average for 1979 to the present (when satellite tracking began). But as Heller correctly observes, the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)report included “satellite ice records back to the early 1970s – when ice extent was low.”

Now here  is a trick question for you, and so that you won’t be tricked I am going to reveal the trick so that you won’t be deceived.

If I asked you ‘Can any object heat itself?’ you might be puzzled as to what I meant. So to clarify, ‘Can a slab of cold iron heat itself and make itself into a horseshoe?’ Well, of course, your answer must be No. You know very well that the blacksmith has to heat his forge to high degree and make the iron red hot before he can shape it into a horseshoe. If someone suggested otherwise, would you not think that they were somewhat simple or even plain stupid?

So if I filled a pan with cold water and put some potatoes in and on a hob, would the water come to the boil all by itself?  Of course not, you would declare. You must light the gas or turn the electric current on in order to boil the water and cook the potatoes. But if someone put the pan on the stove and failed to light the gas or switch the electricity on, would you not think they were somewhat dim-witted?

It’s a damp, freezing cold day in January, and I’m at the bottom of a massive hole in the ground. This is one of a pair of 41-meter-deep shafts in a part of east London called the Limmo peninsula, a spit of land on the banks of the River Thames. From a drone’s-eye view, it looks as though a giant hole punch has taken two neat circles out of the silty earth.

Back in late 2012, two enormous tunnel-boring machines were lowered into these shafts. Workers fired up the 1,000-metric-ton behemoths (named Elizabeth and Victoria), and their rotating cutting heads slowly gouged their way westwards. When they finally reached Central London in May 2015, it marked the completion of the tunneling work on Crossrail, a new underground railway system that spans London.

Crossrail will be fully operation by the end of 2019, with an expected 200 million passengers carried through its arteries every year. For now, it is Europe’s biggest construction project, with a budget of £14.8 billion (about US $21 billion).

The Paris Agreement and, more generally, climate change policy, almost perfectly illustrate the contradictions of the post-modern industrialized world risk society, characterized by perceived threats confirmed by politicized science and governed by sub-politics beyond democratic control. – Lucas Bergkamp

The Journal of Environmental Risk has a special issue related the Paris Agreement [link].  There are two articles by Lucas Bergkamp, which are highlighted here.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change:  A Risk Regulation Perspective.  Excerpts:

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which was concluded at COP-21 in December 2015, . . . has been called the ‘world’s greatest diplomatic success’ and a ‘historic achievement,’ but also an ‘epic failure’ and even a ‘fraud’ and ‘worthless words.’  Disappointed with the Paris Agreement, a group of eleven climate scientists signed a declaration stating that it suffers from “deadly flaws” and gives “false hope;” they argue that the time for “wishful thinking and blind optimism” is over, and “the full spectrum of geoengineering” should be considered.

OSLO (Reuters) – Reports of a historic dip in China’s carbon dioxide emissions in the past two years are premature because of uncertainty over data showing the pace of a decline in coal use by the world’s biggest consumer, a study showed on Monday.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has been among those saying that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by China, the biggest emitter, fell in 2015 and 2014 in what it hailed as a shift to cleaner energy after years of fast growth.

“Headlines about falling emissions may be misinterpreting the numbers,” the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, (CICERO) said in a statement of a report published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

China has promised to peak its carbon dioxide emissions by around 2030 as part of a 195-nation plan agreed in Paris in December to combat climate change, blamed for stoking more downpours, heatwaves and rising sea levels.

Just when you have adjusted your daily rhythm to the Daylight Savings Time in your respective Time Zone, there comes a new proposal to do away with time zones altogether.

As the Washington Post reports, there are some thinkers that want you to get up “at midnight” rather than in the morning hours to do your day’s work. Well, I’ve exaggerated a bit. In truth, you would still get up when the sun rises but, depending on where you live, it could be any time of the day on your clock. You might rightly ask:

What’s that crazy Idea all about?

This silly idea is to have the whole world use clocks set not to any local (day/night-based) setting but to ONE ONLY setting all around the world. According to the proponents of that nonsense, the whole world would just have one time zone only, the “universal time zone.” The minds behind that idea think it would be good, perhaps even necessary, to spur global trade in these days of global markets and worldwide internet connectedness.

Much of the debate about Global Warming stems from a lack of knowledge of basic Physics. The Sun does not send ‘heat’ through space, but radiation. This is a concept that is difficult to grasp for the average layman. Likewise Outer Space is a vacuum, which is by definition empty, and therefore has no temperature, although it is given a nominal Kelvin figure owing to what strays there.

Radiation has to encounter mass for heat to be produced. The Sun sends radiation across 90 – 95 million miles. This radiation passes through the 99{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of our atmosphere, which is composed of Nitrogen and Oxygen (which are transparent to both incoming and outgoing infrared) and then strikes or encounters the substance or mass of the Earth and Oceans. The Oceans and the Earth (that is the soil, the rocks, the sands, the buildings, the lakes, rivers and seas) warm up and they warm the atmosphere from the bottom up. That is why we have Standard Atmosphere used by all Airline Pilots and the Adiabatic Lapse Rate used in Physics.

That means that the air is 2ºC. cooler for every 1,000 feet of altitude, which is also why there is snow on the tops of mountains.  Were it otherwise the summits of Mt Blanc and Mt Everest would be amongst the hottest and not amongst the coldest places on Earth.

A new map of Mars’ gravity made with three NASA spacecraft is the most detailed to date, providing a revealing glimpse into the hidden interior of the Red Planet.

“Gravity maps allow us to see inside a planet, just as a doctor uses an X-ray to see inside a patient,” said Antonio Genova of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge. “The new gravity map will be helpful for future Mars exploration, because better knowledge of the planet’s gravity anomalies helps mission controllers insert spacecraft more precisely into orbit about Mars. Furthermore, the improved resolution of our gravity map will help us understand the still-mysterious formation of specific regions of the planet.” Genova, who is affiliated with MIT but is located at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is the lead author of a paper on this research published online March 5 in the journal Icarus.

The improved resolution of the new gravity map suggests a new explanation for how some features formed across the boundary that divides the relatively smooth northern lowlands from heavily cratered southern highlands. Also, the team confirmed that Mars has a liquid outer core of molten rock by analyzing tides in the Martian crust and mantle caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and the two moons of Mars. Finally, by observing how Mars’ gravity changed over 11 years – the period of an entire cycle of solar activity — the team inferred the massive amount of carbon dioxide that freezes out of the atmosphere onto a Martian polar ice cap when it experiences winter. They also observed how that mass moves between the south pole and the north pole with the change of season in each hemisphere.

The map was derived using Doppler and range tracking data collected by NASA’s Deep Space Network from three NASA spacecraft in orbit around Mars: Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), Mars Odyssey (ODY), and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO). Like all planets, Mars is lumpy, which causes the gravitational pull felt by spacecraft in orbit around it to change. For example, the pull will be a bit stronger over a mountain, and slightly weaker over a canyon.

A handwritten manuscript from nearly 400 years ago has revealed a glimpse of the recipe for the mythical ‘philosopher’s stone.’

The 17th century document was penned by Isaac Newton, and is a copy of another known alchemist’s text.

After decades in a private collection, the text was purchased by the Chemical Heritage Foundation in the US, which has revealed the early steps in a process alchemists thought could turn lead to gold.

In the text, the alchemist describes the process for making ‘philosophic mercury,’ according to Chemistry World.

Shortened as ‘sophick,’ philosophic mercury was thought to be a key substance in the creation of the philosopher’s stone, researchers say.

‘Philosophic mercury was [thought to be] a substance that could be used to break down metals into their constituent parts,’ James Voelkel, the CHF’s curator of rare books, told Chemistry World.

If we eliminated, worldwide, all anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) the atmospheric concentration would only reduce by 11-12 ppmv taking us back to the 2003 level when it was warmer than 2008. See table below and the subsequent graph concerning this analysis. These clearly show CO2 concentration is not warming the earth. If we removed almost twice that amount (20 ppmv) we would go back to the 1998 level. It was warmer in 1998 than in 2008 (by ~0.6 C). This is so simple to see, isn’t this the first thing the UN IPCC should have looked at. However, they probably knew this because Table 1 below was subsequently eliminated from the 2001 report, even though it is still online in other reports.

Table 1. Global sources and  Absorption of CO2

tonto.eia.doe.gov – document page 6, pdf page 26, Table 3.

See www.tech-know.eu – for further references

Abstract

A paper by C. Corda (A Clarification on the Debate on “the Original Schwarzschild Solution”, EJTP 8, No. 25 (2011) 65-82) purports equivalence of Schwarzschild’s original solution (1916) and Hilbert’s subsequent solution (1917), the latter commonly but incorrectly called ‘Schwarzschild’s solution’. The derivation of Schwarzschild’s actual solution by Corda is, in fact, a copy of Schwarzschild’s original derivation with only changes in notation and equation numbering. It adds nothing new to the problem. Corda’s subsequent arguments on gravitational collapse follow those advanced by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for Hilbert’s solution, in their book ‘Gravitation’, and suffer thereby from the very same shortfalls. Consequently, Corda has failed to prove his alleged equivalence of the Schwarzschild and Hilbert solutions. Moreover, it is not difficult to prove that these are not equivalent. Furthermore, all methods employed to otherwise ‘extend’ Droste’s solution into Hilbert’s solution thus producing a black hole constitute a violation of the rules of pure mathematics and are invalid.

 

1 Introduction

One hundred years ago, on the 13th of January 1916, Karl Schwarzschild communicated his solution to Einstein’s gravitational field for a `mass point’. Then, less than five years ago, on the 25th of May 2011, a paper by Christian Corda was published which reproduced most of Schwarzschild’s paper. In a prelude on page 70 of his paper, Corda stated,

“In our approach we will suppose again that a(r,t) = 0, but, differently from the standard analysis, we will assume that the length of the circumference centred in the origin of the coordinate system is not 2πr. We release an apparent different physical assumption, i.e. that arches of circumference are deformed by the presence of mass of the central body M. Note that this different physical hypothesis permits to circumnavigate the Birkhoff Theorem [4] which leads to the ‘standard Schwarzschild solution’ [3].”