Latest Indian floods are being dishonestly linked to supposed ‘human caused’ climate change, says a prominent Indian environment scientist.  Dr Madhav Khandekar, a former research scientist from Environment Canada asserts that there “no evidence” to link the recent flooding in the Kashmire valley (Sept 2014) to humans. In what is increasingly being seen among independent scientists as alarmist propaganda Dr Khandekar adds that the UN’s Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change “should now be closed down.” 

“These extreme weather events are governed by natural variability and reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would be a complete waste of time,” Khandekar told Principia Scientific International.

“I have presented my latest report on Indian monsoon floods and droughts and am asking unbiased news reporters to make the facts known, added Madhav, who is presently on the editorial board of the Journal of Natural Hazards (Kluwer) and has authored other well-received scientific reports on global warming (e.g. see here and here). Like other independent climate researchers he finds that recurring extreme floods and droughts are linked to large-scale atmosphere-ocean cycles like the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the equatorial Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD).

In recent years, the summer monsoon has become weaker with frequent droughts (e.g., 2002, 2004, 2009 2012 and 2014). “The observational evidence it at odds with most climate model projections that predict the intensification of the monsoon with increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2,” said Dr Khandekar.

The consensus science view that man-made global warming is caused by increased emissions of carbon dioxide (the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect’) is under increased attack. The numbers from both thermometer readings and the very latest revised calculations by scientists show that the ‘theory’ has come unstuck.  Despite decades of higher CO2 emissions allegedly impacting atmospheric temperatures, the thermometers have been stuck on a 16-year plateau. Climate scientists have been at a loss to explain the “pause.”

According to the ‘experts’ more CO2 is supposed to mean more warming, but it just isn’t happening. So then, what gives? Is the ‘theory’ now busted? Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma explains below:

Joe Postma: I, and fellow Principia Scientific International (PSI) researchers, can offer a quick summary of our reasoning why the ‘greenhouse effect’ from atmospheric gases is junk science. Apart from the disproof offered by the thermometers themselves (which show no warming despite ever-rising CO2 levels), judicious examination of the numbers in the physics is needed to explain the flow of energy entering and leaving Earth’s climate system.

The key number for our starting point is the actual energy scientists agree which is measured to be coming from the sun. This is known to be 1370W/m2.

 Now we reduce 1370W/m2 for albedo and adsorption effects, this gives 960W/m2   

Question: Can you explain in more detail where the figure of 960W/m2 come from? 

Joe Postma: The figure of 960 comes from 1370 * 0.7, where 0.7 is the absorptivity (one minus the albedo). As such, 960 equates to 88 degree Celsius of heating directly under the sun, i.e. on the equator plus or minus, say, ~15 degrees.

Question:  Now please explain where the IPCC get their ‘33 degrees colder’ assumption (climate scientists assume Earth is 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, because of the supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect.’

Joe Postma: 33 degrees colder’ is simply the difference between the near-surface air temperature, and the effective blackbody temperature of the earth.  However the bottom of the atmosphere is always expected to be higher in temperature than the effective blackbody temperature in any case, independent of any greenhouse effect.

In recent weeks, we’ve learned some very disturbing truths about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is generously doused on genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready crops. GE crops are typically far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they’re engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed.A new peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum, and  Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), reveals how glyphosate wrecks human health.In the interview above, Dr. Seneff summarizes the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet:

• Nutritional deficiencies
• Systemic toxicity

Their findings make the need for labelling all the more urgent, and the advice to buy certified organic all the more valid.

The honeybees have a problem: they are confused. More specifically, they wonder whether their primary task is to produce honey or to pollinate plants. 

A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period. 

“We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T  [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun’s role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year “pause” of global warming).

Abstract

The solar impact on the Earth’s climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO₂ concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO₂ and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO₂ and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok’s local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.

 

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the “sunspot integral.” The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

 

Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the “pause” and cooling since.

 

We have thus shown

• Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
• The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature

What more proof do you need that it’s the Sun!

 

 Read more at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible (full article here).

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

RE<C was a failure, and Google closed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.

The two men write:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

In California’s sunny south is the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility (ISPF). It’s a massive structure in the Mojave Desert that was supposed to deliver an energy output of approximately 1.7 million MWh (megawatt-hours) of electric energy annually.  The ISPF uses 173,500 heliostats (adjustable mirrors to follow the sun) that reflect the sunshine onto boilers located on centralized power towers. 

I already debunked the steel greenhouse idea, but here I will simplify it all to one crystal clear concept.  Won’t bother with quotes from these people etc. since that has all been covered previously.  Let us just look at their pictures:

Science is supposed to take place by the use of the “Scientific Method” defined in the following way.

THE FREE DICTIONARY

“The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis”

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY

“a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. 

For most of us the scientific method is what is described in official scientific publications. Yet PB Medawar in his “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_2927.html  argues that:

“The scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific thought.

The conception underlying this style of scientific writing is that scientific discovery is an inductive process. What induction implies in its cruder form is roughly speaking this: scientific discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory, starts with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence of the senses. It starts with simple observation – simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent observation – and out of this sensory evidence, embodied in the form of simple propositions or declaration of fact, generalizations will grow up and take shape, almost as if some process of crystallization or condensation were taking place.

The world’s largest telescope has gotten its official construction go-ahead, keeping the enormous instrument on track to start observing the heavens in 2024. 

The European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT), which will feature a light-collecting surface 128 feet (39 meters) wide, has been greenlit for construction atop Cerro Armazones in Chile’s Atacama Desert, officials with the European Southern Observatory (ESO) announced Thursday (Dec. 4).

“The decision taken by Council [ESO’s chief governing body] means that the telescope can now be built, and that major industrial construction work for the E-ELT is now funded and can proceed according to plan,” Tim de Zeeuw, ESO’s director general, said in a statement. “There is already a lot of progress in Chile on the summit of Armazones, and the next few years will be very exciting.” [Photos: World’s Largest Telescope Being Built in Chile]

E-ELT construction was first approved in June 2012, but on the condition that contracts worth more than 2 million euros ($2.48 million at current exchange rates) could be awarded only after 90 percent of the total funding required to build the telescope (1.083 billion euros, or $1.34 billion, at 2012 prices) had been secured. An exception was made for “civil works,” including the leveling of the site and a road up Cerro Armazones, ESO officials said.

Monash University’s work on a direct wireless sensor-to-brain interface to bypass optic nerve damage has had a boost with donations totalling AU$2 million that will help get the technology ready for human trials. 

The university has announced that Marc Besen and Monash chancellor Alan Finkel have each chipped in AU$1 million, to which the university will add a million of its own, enough to cover “critical development costs” of the project.

The Monash Vision Group’s (MVG) project is working to couple external vision sensors – a digital camera in glasses – via wireless to a brain implant. The idea is that the implant will stimulate the brain’s receptors directly, rather than via the optic nerve, so the system could help people not only with eye damage, but also with patients suffering nerve degeneration.

Prove: If atmospheric non-radiating O₂ is exchanged for radiating (absorbing/emitting) CO₂, emissivity, e, of planet to space must increase and corresponding global radiating temperature must decrease. More generally, if any “greenhouse” gas displaces a “non-greenhouse” gas, planet will cool.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of radiation intensity emitted by all matter in the universe is:

I = σ e (T/100)⁴

If e increases at constant I, T goes down, by algebra. Therefore if CO₂ increases e at constant I, T goes down, causes global cooling.

I = intensity of any radiating body, w/m² of its spherical surface, Earth emits and transfers radiant energy to outer space surroundings at average rate I_o = 239. This is measured by satellite spectrophotometers.

T = temperature of radiating body, K

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Perfect reflector e = 0.

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

NASA uses this relationship with an undisclosed estimate of e to measure (deduce) average global temperature.

The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today (November 20, 2014) an important set of climate change predictions dealing with the coming cold climate epoch that will dominate global temperatures for the next thirty years. 

According to analysis of the most reliable solar activity trends and climate models based on the Relational Cycle Theory (RC Theory), the SSRC concludes the following:

1.      The Earth is about to begin a steep drop in global temperatures off its present global temperature plateau. This plateau has been caused by the absence of growth in global temperatures for 18 years, the start of global cooling in the atmosphere and the oceans, and the end of a short period of moderate solar heating from an unusually active secondary peak in solar cycle #24.

2.      Average global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures will drop significantly beginning between 2015 and 2016 and will continue with only temporary reversals until they stabilize during a long cold temperature base lasting most of the 2030’s and 2040’s. The bottom of the next global cold climate caused by a “solar hibernation” (a pronounced reduction in warming energy coming from the Sun) is expected to be reached by the year 2031.

3.      The predicted temperature decline will continue for the next fifteen years and will likely be the steepest ever recorded in human history, discounting past short-duration volcanic events.

4.      Global average temperatures during the 2030’s will reach a level of at least 1.5° C lower than the peak temperature year of the past 100 years established in 1998. The temperatures during the 2030’s will correspond roughly to that observed from 1793 to 1830, shortly after the founding of the United States of America. This average lower global temperature of 1.5° C on average, translates to declines in temperatures that will be devastating for crop growing regions in the mid latitudes of the planet.

Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? 

What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?

The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”

NASA has released computer simulations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world’s air. The National Geographic magazine website allows you to look at it in all its glory; see “Stunning NASA Visualization Reveals Secret Swirlings of Carbon Dioxide.” CNET, calling it a “hypnotic video” and other media outlets have picked it up and re-distributed it too. If you want to see it action and listen to it, just click on the video below.

{youtube}x1SgmFa0r04{/youtube}