Thursday, February 18, 2016

Flashback 1903: CO2 theory

Flashback 1903: Scientists were aware of Arrhenius’s theory but CO2’s effect ‘was assumed to be benign’

By:  - Climate DepotFebruary 15, 2016 12:13 PM
Father Of Global Warming (Prof. Arrhenius) Believed That Doubling CO2 Was A Good Thing – Flashback 1910: It ‘has been called to our attention by Prof. Arrhenius….that the present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500. This would be about doubled, if it were not modified by vegetable life, by the consumption of the present known coal deposits, and it is stated that a doubling of the quantity in the atmosphere would more than double the rate of growth of plant life’
‘Electrified children’: 1911: The Father of global warming Prof. Svante Arrhenius thought exposing children to electricity would make them smarter – Rodney and Otamatea Times – October 25, 1911: ‘Electricity And The Growth of Children’: ‘At the suggestion of Prof. Svante Arrhenius, an experiment is being tried in Stockholm on fifty school children. The children are divided into two groups identical in point of health, height, weight, etc. and are placed in two class-rooms of the same dimensions, and similarly situated as regards exposure of light. In each class-room, exactly the same teaching is given, but one of the class-rooms is subjected to electricity, while the other is not. As yet, the experiment has not drawn to a close, but it is reported that the ‘electrified children’ have shown a greater mental and physical development than those in the other classroom.’
1910: Father of global warming Prof. Svante Arrhenius believed that doubling CO2 would be a good thing – North Otago Times – April 16, 1910: ‘As has been called to our attention by Prof. Arrhenius, the consumption of coal at present is returning to the stmosphere the carbon dioxide of which it was robbed when the deposits  of carbon were stored away in the coal beds during the carboniferious period…a doubling of the quantity in the atmosphere would more than double the rate of growth of plant.’

Read more:

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

2015 not the hottest year

The media is playing up the report that 2015 is the hottest year in recorded history, but that claim is based on so many assumptions that it is, at most, a theory. The temperature of most of Earth's surface is not even measured, and even less was measured in the past.

If the government was using actual historical temperatures, we'd have a different story, too.

The U.S. has by far the most comprehensive temperature measurements, and these show the U.S. was warmer in the past.

Here are some of Tony Heller's observations:

2015 Was One Of The Least Hot Years On Record In The US

NOAA claims that 2015 was the second hottest year on record in the US.
Screenshot 2016-01-20 at 07.05.14 PM
In fact, it was one of the least hot years on record in the US, ranking in the bottom ten of areal coverage of hot weather. During the 1930’s ninety percent of the US reached 95 degrees. Last year only 65% of the US made it to 95 degrees.
Screenshot 2016-01-20 at 07.01.11 PM
Last year also ranked near the bottom for frequency of hot days, which have also plummeted since the 1930’s.
Screenshot 2016-01-20 at 06.54.30 PM
This data is not in dispute and is not subject to any NOAA adjustments. Claims that 2015 was a hot year in the US are simply fraudulent.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No Pause In NASA Climate Science Corruption

Gavin thinks he can massively tamper with data, and no one will notice.
He has doubled global warming by simply altering his own data over the past 15 years.
2016: Fig.A.gif          2001:
He also ignores satellite data which shows that his temperature data is complete garbage, and that temperatures have not risen this century.
The fact that the US space agency is ignoring satellite data, is a pretty strong indication that the agency has collapsed into a hopelessly corrupt and decadent state.
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Twenty Years Of The Same Climate Stupid

Exactly 20 years ago, the East Coast was hit by a huge blizzard similar to what is forecast this weekend. Climate experts immediately blamed it on global warming.
Four years later, experts said that children just won’t know what snow is.
Monday 20 March 2000
the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Five years later the IPCC said that global warming will reduce cold and heavy snowstorms.
BepTksDCMAEkCHw (1)
In 2008, Robert Kennedy Jr. blamed the demise of snow on Sarah Palin.
Palin’s Big Oil infatuation
Los Angeles Times
September 24, 2008
In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today’s anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.
Residents of McLean, Virginia will be astonished to be under two feet of snow Sunday morning.
After the 2010 blizzard, progressives became very angry that nature wasn’t cooperating with their scam.
Two Saturday’s ago I did my favorite bike ride up the Potomac to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. They are expecting about two feet of snow this weekend.
The New York Times and Washington Post will of course blame it on global warming. If they had a repeat of the 1888 blizzard, they would say scientists are 99% certain of the human CO2 footprint.
We are truly dealing with the stupidest people who ever lived – also known as climate experts.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

This Week’s Glimpse At The Mind-Blowing Stupidity Of Progressives

Wired thinks that a small wave along the Pacific Coast in January is an indication of sea level rise.
There has been little or no sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay since the start of records in the 1930’s. Sea level was higher there during the 1941 El Nino than the 2015 El Nino.
We used to go to the coast just south of San Francisco during the winter to watch the 10-20 foot waves crashing into the rocks. It is an incredible sight. That pathetic little wave was the best the geniuses at Wired come come up with for their brainless propaganda?

Monday, January 4, 2016

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

I came across this helpful analysis of the climate change data and am posting it here in its entirety. From everything I've been able to learn about the topic, he is accurately stating the facts here.

The title of his article is hyperbole--this is far from the most comprehensive attack on the global warming agenda--but he does cover the main points pretty well.

Here's the link:

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

Mike van Biezen 
Dec. 23, 2015

I made sense.  Knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that our industrialized world is adding a large amount of it to the atmosphere on a yearly basis, I accepted the premise that this would cause global temperatures to rise.  But one day about 7 years ago, I looked at the ubiquitous graph showing the “global” temperature of the last 150 years and noticed something odd.  It was subtle, and as I found out later, disguised so that it would be overlooked.  There appeared to be a period of about 40 years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit.  As a data analysis expert, I could not ignore that subtle hint and began to look into it a little more.  Forty years is a long time, and while carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing exponentially over the same period, I could not overlook that this showed an unexpected shift in the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Thus I began to look into it a little further and here are some of the results 7 years later.

Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct.  The global average temperature has increased since the 1980’s.  Since the 1980’s glaciers around the world are receding and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980’s, especially during the summer months.  The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980’s. The global warming community has exploited these facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures.  But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.  The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.
Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:
1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.
The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983.  By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records.  In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records.  When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago.  This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.
2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:
Starting at the end of 1978, satellites began to collect temperature data from around the globe.  For the next 20 years, until 1998, the global average temperature remained unchanged in direct contradiction to the earth-bound weather station data, which indicated “unprecedented” temperature increases.  In 1998 there was a strong El Nino year with high temperatures, which returned to pre-1998 levels until 2001.  In 2001 there was a sudden jump in the global temperature of about 0.3 degrees centigrade which then remained at about that level for the next 14 years, with a very slight overall decrease in the global temperatures during that time.
3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:
If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing remarkable.  For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100 years, including those found in Greenland.  Comparing today’s temperatures to the 1980’s is like comparing our summer temperatures to those in April, rather than those of last summer.  It is obvious why the global warming community does this, and very misleading (or deceiving).
4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:
Many places around the world experienced a quite significant and persistent cooling trend to the point where scientists began to wonder if the world was beginning to slide into a new ice age period.  For example, Greenland experienced some of the coldest years in 120 years during the 1980’s, as was the case in many other places around the world.  During that same 40-year period, the CO2 levels around the world increased by 17%, which is a very significant increase.  If global temperatures decreased by such a significant amount over 40 years while atmospheric CO2 increased by such a large amount we can only reach two conclusions: 1. There must be a weak correlation, at best, between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, 2. There must be stronger factors driving climate and temperature than atmospheric CO2
5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations: It has been shown that nighttime temperatures recorded by many weather stations have been artificially raised by the expulsion of radiant heat collected and stored during the daytime by concrete and brick structures such as houses, buildings, roads, and also cars.  Since land area of cities and large towns containing these weather stations only make up a very small fraction of the total land area, this influence on global average temperature data is significant.  Since the daytime and nighttime temperatures are combined to form an average, these artificially-raised nighttime temperatures skew the average data.  When one only looks at daytime temperatures only from larger urban areas, the “drastic global warming” is no longer visible.  (This can also be seen when looking at nearby rural area weather station data, which is more indicative of the true climate of that area).
6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:
Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching An Inconvenient Truth, higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.  Any college freshman chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is colder.  That is why the CO2 level during the ice ages was so much lower than the levels today.  That doesn’t take away the fact that we are artificially raising the atmospheric CO2 levels, but just because we do, that doesn’t mean that this will cause temperatures to increase in any significant way.  The 40-year cooling period between 1940 and 1980 appear to support that premise.  What we can conclude is that the ice ages were not caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2 levels and that other stronger factors were involved with these very large climate changes.
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface.  The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers.  Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth.  However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2.  It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth.  That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.
8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:
Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced.  But it is hard to convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval warm period.  Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods during the last 10,000 years.  There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder.  The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline.  Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter cold winters.  The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our recent history.
9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years
The notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific basis.  Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years.  It is no secret that glaciers advanced to unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age.  Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps saw their homes threatened and fields destroyed by these large ice masses.  Pleas went out to local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance.  Around 1850, the climate returned to more “normal” temperatures and the glaciers began to recede.  But then between 1940 and 1980, as the temperatures declined again, most of the glaciers halted their retreat and began to expand again, until warmer weather at the end of the last century caused them to continue the retreat they started 150 years earlier.  Furthermore, we now know that many of the glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago.  As a case in point, there is a glacier to the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen Glacier.  It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick.  A Scandinavian research team bored ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist.  It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist but have returned because of the onset of colder weather.  Today’s temperatures are much lower than those that were predominant during the Holocene era as substantiated by studying the many cores that were dug from Greenland’s ice sheet.
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country.  After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.”  Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database.  (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute).  There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data.  The results were astounding.  I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true.  Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment.  When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening.  Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.
There are many more specific areas that I have researched and for which I have compiled data and presentation material, equally compelling regarding at exposing the fallacies of global warming.  A new twist has swept the global warming movement lately, especially since they had to admit that their own data showed that there was a “hiatus” on the warming, as illustrated in the 2014 IPCC report; their data showed an actual cooling over the last 10 years.  The new term: “climate change” is now taking over, such that unusual events of any kind, like the record snowfall in Boston, can be blamed on the burning of fossil fuels without offering any concrete scientific data as to how one could cause the other.
Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The end of oil

Most of my life I've been told we're going to run out of oil in the near future. The facts are otherwise. Stephen Moore did a good job summarizing the data here. However, I disagree with his point that President Obama is more wrong than anyone else; Obama merely repeats what he hears from his advisers.

Experts across the spectrum have been wrong; it is not merely the "green doomsayers" as Moore calls them.

Dead wrong on oil

The green doomsayers have repeatedly claimed the fuel is disappearing

Chart to accompany Moore article of Dec. 28, 2015

- - Sunday, December 27, 2015
It would be hard to find anyone in all of America who has been more wrong on the American energy story than Barack Obama.
Oil prices have fallen from $105 a barrel in the summer of 2014 to hovering at $35 a barrel today. That’s a two-thirds reduction in the price and the biggest factor is shale oil brought to you by fracking. In many areas of the country gas is now less than $2 a gallon and it could fall further in the weeks ahead.
The falling price means, of course, an expanded supply. But now listen to President Obama, who has lectured the nation on energy as if he were one of the top experts for the last eight years.
In a 2008 Speech in Lansing, Michigan, presidential candidate Obama was all doom and gloom about oil, advising: “We cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing.”
Then in 2010 from the Oval Office he solemnly declared: “We’re running out of places to drill,” and he jeered that the oil and gas industry might want to start pumping for oil near the Washington Monument.
During a 2011 weekly address he referred to oil and gas as “yesterday’s” energy sources.
Then during a speech at Georgetown University, he pontificated: “The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity, our long-term security on a resource (oil) that will eventually run out.”
By the way this discredited Malthusian belief that we are running out of oil is still widely believed by many scientists and pundits as well. Paul Krugman of The New York Times wrote in 2010 that “the world is fast approaching the inevitable peaking” of global oil production and that “world commodity prices are telling us that we’re living in a finite world.”
That was when prices were abnormally high. So if high prices tell us we are running out, then obviously low prices must tell us supply is rising.
These stupid predictions of the end of oil have been going on for most of the last century. Just over 100 years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimated total future production at 6 billion barrels, yet we’ve produced more than 20 times that amount. In 1939 the Department of the Interior predicted U.S. oil supplies would last 13 years. I could go on.
The wonder is that smart people like Nobel prize winners Krugman and Obama haven’t learned anything from history and instead keep regurgitating these myths about “running out.”
The folks at the Institute for Energy Research .recently published a study showing three data points: first, the government’s best estimate of how much oil we had in America 50 years ago.
The second was how much U.S. oil has been drilled out of the ground since then. And the third is how much reserves there are now. See chart. Today we have twice as many reserves as we had in 1950. And we have already produced almost 10 times more oil than the government told us we had back then.
Technology and innovation account for the constant upping the amount of “finite” oil we can produce. We discover new sources of oil much faster than we deplete the known amount of reserves and so for all practical purposes, oil and natural gas supplies are nearly inexhaustible. Fracking is the latest game changer and the access it gives us to shale oil and gas resources has virtually doubled over night. And this technology boom in drilling is just getting started.
My point is how absurd it is for Americans to blindly trust any “scientific consensus” on any of these natural resource or environmental issues. The credibility of the alarmists is just shot. In 1980, hundreds of the top scientists in the United States issued a report called “The Global 2000 Report to the President” — which was a primal scream that in every way life on earth would be worse by 2000 because the world would run out of oil, gas, food, farmland and so on.
My mentor Julian Simon and Herman Kahn challenged this conventional wisdom. Today they would be disparaged as “deniers.” Yet on every score these iconoclasts were right and the green scientific consensus was wrong.
Lately, even Mr. Obama doesn’t make the ridiculous claim that we have to use green energy because we are running out of oil.
Instead he now says we should keep our super-abundance of oil “in the ground,” even as he tries take credit for the low prices.
In reality, if we do what Mr. Obama wants, gas at the pump and electricity are going to be more expensive. If you don’t like $1.89 gasoline at the pump, you’re probably a big fan of the Obama energy/climate change agenda.
Hopefully, the neo-Malthusians like Mr. Obama will stop resorting to the century long false fear that we are running our of oil as an excuse for using much more expensive and much less efficient “green energy.”
Many years ago I was quoted in The New York Times as making this point about our infinite oil supply and a high school science teacher wrote me and huffed: “Even my 14 year olds know that oil is finite.”This teacher is probably now a top science advisor to Mr. Obama.

• Stephen Moore is an economic consultant with Freedom Works and a Fox News contributor.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Christmas 2015 or 1955?

Normally, I like the Drudgereport as a source of news, but sometimes he gets as sensationalistic as the Enquirer. Lately he's been hyping the warm winter weather in the east, but Tony Heller points out it was warmer 60 years ago.

My students usually cite the weather as evidence of climate change, and sure enough, some of them pointed to this warm Christmas as proof. As always, they don't know what the history is, and many of them don't care. They just want to believe humans are destroying the planet.


Drudge is touting the “record heat” forecast for Christmas Eve, even though most of the country will be below normal temperature.  The best Drudge could come up with was 86 degrees at Orlando.
Christmas Eve 1955 was much warmer. Three fourths of the country was over 60 degrees, and Ashland Kansas,  Geary Oklahoma and Encinal Texas were all over 90 degrees. Fort Lauderdale was 85 degrees. All of the stations below were over 60 degrees on Christmas Eve, 1955.
Last winter, the East Coast had record cold. That was ignored because it was “less than 1% of the Earth.”  But this week, the Eastern US defines the global climate.
In Irving Berlin’s 1954 musical “White Christmas” – the story line was 70 degrees in New Hampshire on Christmas eve and no snow. That was why they were “Dreaming of a White Christmas”