You can’t believe the ridiculous stuff the Alarmists and the MSM push!!

 Researchers at the University of Auckland studied aerial images (pictured) of the islands from 1945 up until 2010 and found that a new island has grown from decimated remains

Those (non) disappearing Pacific Islands: Björn Lomborg, writing for the Wall Street Journal –

Once a year or so, journalists from major news outlets travel to the Marshall Islands, a remote chain of volcanic islands and coral atolls in the Pacific Ocean, to report in panicked tones that the island nation is vanishing because of climate change. Their dispatches are often filled with raw emotion and suggest that residents are fleeing atolls swiftly sinking into the sea.

The truth is

Peer-reviewed study, published in the September 2015 issue of Anthropocene, revealed that
since the middle of the 20th century the total land area of the islands has actually grown.

. . . . . . .

The media and  Carbon Pollution. They call it carbon pollution.  This is a lie.  They are actually, non-factually referring to Carbon Dioxide Pollution. Look at this story from the Alarmist Sydney Morning Herald (SMH). (There are a zillion examples like this from the Main Stream Media (MSM).

Australia emitted 549.3 mega-tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide in 2014-15, up 0.8 per cent on the year before but down nearly 3per cent on projections. Emissions increases were recorded in the electricity, transport, fugitive emissions and industrial and power generation sectors and offset only by a strong decline in agricultural emissions.

Is the SMH ignorant? Is it really Carbon Dioxide Pollution?

Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odourless, nontoxic gas. We exhale it. Carbon dioxide is a necessary component for photosynthesis and the growth of green vegetation. (link)

What happens when they can’t get their “dirty weather,” as Al Gore calls it? Then they’ll just have define down what a disaster is.

Eleven years ago, Gore swore that “the science is extremely clear now.” Global warming was “magnifying” the “destructive power” of the “average hurricane,” he said. Man’s impact on the environment “makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”

So why does the SMH use a graphic pushing a lie? The Alarmists kept saying that man made global warming would increase Hurricanes in mainland America, but the numbers have reduced to zero. What do these clowns do? Redefine Hurricanes.

These clowns, the Alarmists supported by the MSM have pushed so many false positions and, yet, they still think that they are beyond ridicule.

No. The tide has turned. The world has turned their collective backs on the man-made global warming hoax. However, it is still costing the citizens trillions.

Read more at theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.co.uk

The Polar Vortex is on the move unusually early this year, forecasters have revealed – and say it could strike the US in January.

A recent study claimed Arctic sea-ice loss is causing the Polar Vortex to shift and as a result, winters are expected to get longer and more bitter. Now, forecasters say it is ‘unprecedentedly early’.

Sensational new study shows western government climate models rely on a fatally flawed 1920’s algorithm.  Scientists say this could be the breakthrough that explains why modern computers are so awful at predicting climate change: simulations “violate several known Laws of Thermodynamics.”

British climate researcher, Derek Alker presents an extraordinary new paper ‘Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models – Is It A Sound Basis?’ exposing previously undetected errors that government climate researchers have unknowingly fed into multi-million dollar climate computers since the 1940’s. [1] 

Alker explains:

“This paper examines what was originally calculated as the greenhouse effect theory by Lewis Fry Richardson, the brilliant English mathematician, physicist and meteorologist.

In 1922 Richardson devised an innovative set of differential equations. His ingenious method is still used today in climate models. But unbeknown to Richardson he had inadvertently relied upon unchecked (and fatally flawed) numbers supplied by another well-known British scientist, W. H. Dines.”

Unfortunately for Richardson, Dines wrongly factored in that earth’s climate is driven by terrestrial (ground) radiation as the only energy source, not the sun. Derek Alker specifically draws attention to the key fact that:

“One of the main points the paper makes is that in the Dines model each layer of the atmosphere is THE energy source, NOT the sun, which is omitted in his table, nor the earth, as the excel model proves.”

Richardson had taken the Dines numbers on face value and did not detect the error when combining the Dines numbers with his own. Alker continues: “The archives show Richardson never double-checked the Dines work (see below) and the records do not show that any one else has ever exposed it.”

The outcome, says Alker, is that not only has the original Richardson & Charney computer model been corrupted –  but all other computer climate models since. All government researchers use these core numbers and believe them to be valid even though what they seek to represent can be shown today as physically impossible.

Alker adds:

“My paper specifically describes how the theory Dines calculated in his paper violates several of the known Laws of Thermodynamics, and therefore does not describe reality.

The greenhouse effect theory we know of today is based on what Richardson had formulated from the Dines paper using unphysical numbers created by Dines. But Dines himself later suggested his numbers were probably unreliable.”

Unfortunately, Dines died in the mid 1920’s and did not inform Richardson of the error. Thereupon, in the late 1940’s, Richardson began working with another world figure in climate science – Jule Charney  as the duo constructed the first world’s first computer climate model. It was then the dodgy Dines numbers infected the works.

Alker, who studied the archives scrupulously for his research reports that there is no published evidence that Richardson understood Dines’s calculation method. And we think he and Charney put the Dines numbers into the world’s first computer model verbatim.

In essence, the ‘theory’ of greenhouse gas warming from the Dines numbers can be shown to start with a misapplication of Planck’s Law, which generates grossly exaggerated ‘up’ and nonexistent ‘down’ radiative emissions figures. Then, layer by layer, part of the downward radiation is added to the layer below, which is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Thereby, like a domino effect, this bogus calculation method becomes GIGO (“garbage in, garbage out”) to all computers that run the program. Alker adds:

“What the climate simulations are doing is creating energy layer by layer in the atmosphere that shouldn’t be there (it has no other source than of itself). It is then destroyed layer by layer (it is absorbed and then discarded – in effect destroyed). This is all presented in such a way to give the appearance that energy is being conserved, when it is not being conserved,”

****

[1] Alker D.,‘Greenhouse Effect Theory within the UN IPCC Computer Climate Models – Is It A Sound Basis?’ (October 30, 2016), principia-scientific.org;  https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PROM/GHE-UNIPCC.pdf (accessed online: November 02, 2016)

Read the full paper at principia-scientific.org

Planting trees is a cost-effective way to tackle urban air pollution, which is a growing problem for many cities. A study by US-based The Nature Conservancy (TNC) reported than the average reduction of particulate matter near a tree was between 7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and 24{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.

Particulate matter (PM) is microscopic particles that become trapped in the lungs of people breathing polluted air. PM pollution could claim an estimated 6.2 million lives each year by 2050, the study suggests. Lead author Rob McDonald said that city trees were already providing a lot of benefits to people living in urban areas.

In the IPCC’s 2001 third report (TAR), the total surface temperature increase for the 20th century was reported to be “about 0.6°C”.

IPCC TAR (2001):

“The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C.”

This Met Office graph of global temperatures for 1860-2000 was included in the IPCC’s 2001 report.  It provided visual clarification of the 0.6°C temperature increase since 1900.

Overview: The sun has been completely spotless on 21 days in 2016 and it is currently featuring just one lonely sunspot region.  In fact, on June 4th of this year, the sun went completely spotless for the first time since 2011 and that quiet spell lasted for about four days.

Sunspot regions then reappeared for the next few weeks on a sporadic basis, but that was followed by several more completely spotless days on the surface of the sun.  The increasingly frequent blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an even greater number of spotless days over the next few years.

At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir.  The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place around 2019 or 2020. The current solar cycle is the 24th since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began and is the weakest in more than a century with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dreaded-polar-vortex-may-be-shifting/?wt.mc=SA_Facebook-Share

*****

Every year it seems we get a new study linking cold winters to global warming and “melting” Arctic ice. Only last month I debunked the latest attempt, and I assumed this must be the same study. Turned out I was wrong! This is what Unscientific American has to say about the latest paper:

The polar vortex in recent years has brought the kind of miserable cold to northern states that made it hard to breathe outside. We’re probably in for more of the same.

That’s the finding of a new study published yesterday in the journal Nature that finds that as the Arctic warms, it is shifting the polar vortex to Europe. That in turn will bring more bursts of frigid cold to North America.

Those temperature drops could lead to miserable days in February and March, the research finds. Conversely, those drops in temperature could offset some of global warming’s effect in those regions, said Martyn Chipperfield, professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the paper.

“Climate change can lead to extremes; it’s not like a regular change, everyone to the same extent at all times and places,” he said. “Despite the overall warming, you can get in places like the Northeastern U.S. extreme cold events. That’s consistent with climate change and global warming.”

The polar vortex is a fast-moving band of air that encircles the frigid Arctic in winter months and traps it there. Its movement is part of a decades long change.

The polar vortex has actually “shifted persistently” away from North America and into Europe and Asia over the last 30 years, researchers found. That results in cooling over North America but warmer winters in Europe.

As global warming decreases sea ice, the sun’s warmth absorbed by the ocean is instead released from the ocean for a longer period of time, which disrupts the vortex.

When the vortex weakens, a growing number of climate scientists argue, the cold Arctic air migrates to lower latitudes, as happened in early 2014 and 2015. The sudden and somewhat prolonged burst of cold broke pipes and water mains and more than doubled energy bills in places like New York and New England as it wreaked havoc across a wide swath of the country.

Another review of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics, this one taken from an Amazon customer.

It was 7 or 8 years ago when I was sitting in my office at the university. At that time I was a Ph.D. student in the Machine Intelligence group at the computer science department. One of the department professors knocked on my door – he was looking for my supervisor because he needed advice on how to perform some test to verify some properties of his recent experiments. Well, Finn is not here, but maybe I can help. What’s your problem? He wanted to know about different statistical tests and how and why they work. Why they work? This question puzzled me immensely because I had taken many advanced classes in statistics, read countless books on the subject, but I never recalled any of them answering or discussing “why they work?”.

Now and then new results appear that suggest that the idea of cosmic ray influence on clouds and terrestrial climate does not work. “Sun-clouds-climate connection takes a beating from CERN” is the latest news story which is based on a new paper from the CLOUD collaboration at CERN [1].

It is important to note that the new CLOUD paper is not presenting an experimental result, with respect to the effect of cosmic ray generated ions on clouds, but a result of numerical modeling. CLOUD is using their experimental measurements to estimate the typical nucleation of various aerosols of small size (1-3 nm). However, for an aerosol to affect clouds (and climate) it must first grow to 50-100 nm, to become cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). CLOUD then uses a numerical model to estimate the effect of cosmic rays on the growth process, and finds that the response of cosmic rays on the number of CCN over a solar cycle is insignificant.

Sunday’s early-morning quake near the town of Norcia is the biggest in Italy since the Magnitude-6.9 Irpinia event in the south of the country in 1980.

Back then, some 2,500 people died and more than 7,000 were injured. Thankfully, we are not expecting loss of life on that scale here.In part this is because of the strides made in recent years in improving readiness and reaction. But the fact that the population of central Italy is currently living on such an acute alert status also will have further limited any dreadful consequences.

We have now seen three Magnitude-6 tremors in Italy’s Apennines region in just three months.

How did life begin? There can hardly be a bigger question. For much of human history, almost everyone believed some version of “the gods did it”. Any other explanation was inconceivable.

That is no longer true. Over the last century, a few scientists have tried to figure out how the first life might have sprung up. They have even tried to recreate this Genesis moment in their labs: to create brand-new life from scratch.

So far nobody has managed it, but we have come a long way. Today, many of the scientists studying the origin of life are confident that they are on the right track – and they have the experiments to back up their confidence.

Image copyright: GETTY IMAGES [Scientists have transformed the humble spinach plant into a bomb detector.]

By embedding tiny tubes in the plants’ leaves, they can be made to pick up chemicals called nitro-aromatics, which are found in landmines and buried munitions.

Real-time information can then be wirelessly relayed to a handheld device.

The MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) work is published in the journal Nature Materials.

The scientists implanted nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes (tiny cylinders of carbon) into the leaves of the spinach plant. It takes about 10 minutes for the spinach to take up the water into the leaves.

To read the signal, the researchers shine a laser onto the leaf, prompting the embedded nanotubes to emit near-infrared fluorescent light.

Laboratory experiment devised by scientists in Ireland appears to demonstrate that the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming is wrong.

The theory states that adding more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causes higher temperatures. But skeptics point to global thermometers that have been flat-lining this century – all despite ever-rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This inconvenient truth, they claim, discredits the greenhouse gas theory (GHE), which is the scientific cornerstone of man-made global warming fears promoted by the United Nations and most western governments.

But now added to the debate comes a simple laboratory experiment developed by scientists in Ireland. This straight-forward test can even be performed by schoolchildren. It is causing a stir insofar as it appears to support the skeptics; it indicates (contrary to what climate scientists tell us) our gaseous atmosphere is likely the most efficient mode of cooling the planet. If correct, this is the exact opposite of the main claim of the GHE which tells us such atmospheric gases keep us “warmer than we would otherwise be.”

As the Daily Mail reports: “SpaceX founder, Elon Musk, wants to send a MILLION people to live in glass domes on Mars within ’40 to 100 years’.” I hope Elon lives long enough to partake of his dreams himself. What better way to get into the (future) history books than “leading the charge” oneself.

Of course, if the current projections as the size of world’s population by the year 2050 are even vaguely realistic, then there will already be close to 5,000 million people in Africa alone. That could then be approximately one third of the world’s population of, perhaps, 15,000 million. From that perspective, a million (more or less) inhabitants on Earth are not going to make a significant difference to the total of the human population on this planet.