The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) delivered a letter to the White House this morning for President Obama, in which it warned of the dangers expected from the ongoing climate change to decades of record cold weather.
This predicted historic event is caused by a rare, yet repeating 206-year cycle of the Sun which the SSRC calls a “solar hibernation.” During these hibernations, the Sun dramatically reduces the energy by which it keeps the Earth warm. In past occurrences of these solar hibernations, the Earth was struck by two of the worst cold climate periods ever recorded, each of which witnessed global crop devastation, civil and political strife, and warfare. One historian classified the last hibernation from 1793 to 1830, as the world’s “last great subsistence crisis.” That period was also called the Dalton Minimum, because of the scientist who kept track of temperatures then and the reduced energy output of the Sun as measured by a low number of sunspots during that period. The previous hibernation from 1615 to 1745 was called the Maunder Minimum and was far worse than the last hibernation both in terms of the depth, and extent of the cold epoch but also in the global crop devastation. Russian scientists are saying we are heading into another Maunder class solar hibernation starting this year.
On April 25, 2014 prominent skeptic climate scientist, Dr Roy Spencer published his defense of the so-called greenhouse gas effect (GHE) titled, 'Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water.' It came in the form of a 10-point veiled attack against the organization that represents critics of such junk climate science. Below we publish Dr Pierre Latour's rebuttal to Spencer’s arguments.
Not referring to Principia Scientific International (PSI) by name Roy asserted we had been the cause of “the proliferation of bad arguments” the he found “almost dizzying.” Roy then set out his “Top 10 list” of key points raised by PSI that he then attempts to attack. But Roy omits posting a detailed version of the ‘theory’ he defends so we may critique it. This is a crucial issue, as readers need bear in mind there are over 63 competing official versions of the GHE. Indeed there are 'Almost as Many Greenhouse Gas Theories as Clueless Climate Scientists.' So much for “settled science.”
In rebuttal to Roy’s Top Ten PSI’s Chairman, Dr Pierre Latour replies below in a thorough point-by-point fashion. These very same points were posted by Pierre on Roy’s blog more than two days ago without reply. Will Roy now run shy of open debate?
A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.
Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.
He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.
Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.
Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.
Prof Stavins, Harvard’s Professor of Business and Government, was one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of a key report published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this month.
His chapter of the 2,000-page original report concerned ways countries can co-operate to reduce carbon emissions.
IPCC reports are supposed to be scrupulously independent as they give scientific advice to governments around the world to help them shape energy policies – which in turn affect subsidies and domestic power bills.
Prof Stavins said the government officials in Berlin fought to make big changes to the full report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. This is the condensed version usually cited by the world’s media and politicians.
A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.
Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. (h/t Climate Depot)
Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:
"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
One simple statistic is perhaps the sorriest indictment of the credibility of government climate ‘science.’ Did you know that the number of official greenhouse gas theories almost matches the number of government climatologists spouting them?
We were told “lower your carbon footprint!” We had to cut our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pay more taxes or face “tipping points” of “runaway” human-caused environmental disasters.
All because of a hypothesis about an invisible “heat trapping” blanket of CO2 that was going to fry us with higher global temperatures. But this century Nature hasn’t cooperated with the climate “experts.” If anything – quite the reverse has been happening – despite massive increases in human emissions of CO2 global cooling now seems a real threat.
Where it all went Horribly Wrong
So, we all know the basics of the global warming “theory.” We are told industrial emissions of burnt hydrocarbons are adding “man-made” CO2 to the atmosphere creating a potent chemical cocktail that dangerously “traps” more heat energy making our planet warmer. In a nutshell that’s the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHE) in play.
After 30 years of these ‘Chicken Little’ alarmist scare stories independent scientists, specialists in a myriad of related disciplines, are speaking out about what they see is junk science. The “experts” - those generalists that dominate the undeniably infant field of research that is climate science – are finally being called to account. Climate realists are increasingly telling the alarmists to stop computer-modeling Earth as if it were a greenhouse! The reason is two-fold: first, it is obvious to experts from the “hard” sciences that Earth's atmosphere does not act in any way like a greenhouse. Second, and more embarrassing for the “experts,” despite a huge increase in human CO2 emissions over recent decades our planet stubbornly refuses to get any warmer. In short, the real world shows no proof of any CO2-driven GHE whatsoever.
Earth ‘Laboratory’ Proves No Greenhouse Gas Warming
For years now the scientifically illiterate mainstream media has been hyping government-sponsored man-made global warming alarm. Government-paid climate researchers were not subjected to the old-fashioned rigors of journalistic scrutiny. Instead, skeptics were ostracized and open debate eschewed because the science was somehow deemed “settled” and doomsayers of the cult wallowed in almost god-like eminence. Nowhere did we see investigative journalists probing the glaringly obvious fact that in the broader scientific community climatology is regarded as an infant field of study. As such, it is a field in which few, if any, aspiring first rate talented physicists, mathematicians, etc. would ordinarily choose as a career path.
Now let’s rewind to the 1980’s. Back then there were no university climatology faculties or academically qualified and trained climate scientists per se. But as climate change became a political hot issue a rag-tag array of third rate self-described experts - who invariably had little if any training in thermodynamics - came to the fore.
Built on a foundation of sand, the Leaning Tower of Pisa would have toppled over long ago, if not for ingenious engineering projects that keep it from tilting any further. The same thing is true of ethanol, automobile mileage, power plant pollution and many other environmental policies.
Not only are they built on flimsy foundations of peak oil, sustainability, and dangerous manmade climate change. They are perpetuated by garbage in-garbage out computer models and a system that rewards activists, politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations that support the hypotheses and policies.
At the heart of this system is the increasingly secretive and deceptive U.S. Environmental Protection Administration. Among its perpetrators are two ideologically driven regulators who are responsible for many of today’s excessive environmental regulations. When the corruption is combined with the EPA’s history of regulatory overkill and empire building, it paints a portrait of an agency that’s out of control.
EPA's culture of misconduct has already raised congressional hackles over the misuse of government credit cards (a recent EPA audit found that 93% of purchases were personal and contrary to agency guidelines); former regional EPA administrator (and now Sierra Club official) Al Amendariz wanting to “crucify” oil companies to make examples of them; and former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who masqueraded as “Richard Windsor” to avoid revelation and oversight of her emails with activists.
Explosive volcanic eruptions apparently shaped Mercury's surface for billions of years — a surprising finding, given that until recently scientists had thought the phenomenon was impossible on the sun-scorched planet.
This discovery could shed new light on the origins of Mercury, investigators added.
On Earth, explosive volcanic eruptions can lead to catastrophic damage, such as when Mount St. Helens detonated in 1980 in the deadliest and most economically destructive volcanic event in U.S. history. [The 10 Biggest Volcanic Eruptions in History]
Explosive volcanism happens because Earth's interior is rich in volatiles — water, carbon dioxide and other compounds that vaporize at relatively low temperatures. As molten rock rises from the depths toward Earth's surface, volatiles dissolved within it vaporize and expand, increasing pressure so much that the crust above can burst like an overinflated balloon.
Mercury was long thought to be bone-dry when it came to volatiles. As such, researchers thought explosive volcanism could not happen there.
However, in 2008, after the initial flyby of Mercury by NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft (short for MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging), researchers found unusually bright reflective material dotting the planet's surface.
This stuff appears to be pyroclastic ash, which is a sign of volcanic explosions. The large number of these deposits suggested that Mercury's interior was not always devoid of volatiles, as scientists had long assumed.
THE 'TREASON OF THE INTELLECTUALS'
What stops the Earth from looking like Pluto is energy from the Sun. The quantity and type of energy coming from the Sun varies over cycles that range up to 1,500 years long.
This Earth Day, Tuesday, April 22, three former NASA astronauts will present new evidence that our planet has experienced many more large-scale asteroid impacts over the past decade than previously thought… three to ten times more, in fact. A new visualization of data from a nuclear weapons warning network, to be unveiled by B612 Foundation CEO Ed Lu during the evening event at Seattle's Museum of Flight, shows that "the only thing preventing a catastrophe from a 'city-killer' sized asteroid is blind luck."
Since 2001, 26 atomic-bomb-scale explosions have occurred in remote locations around the world, far from populated areas, made evident by a nuclear weapons test warning network.Pictured (right) is the bolide that impacted the atmosphere over Chelyabinsk in Feb. 2013 detonated with the equivalent of 530 kilotons of TNT, injuring over 1,200 people. In a recent press release B612 Foundation CEO Ed Lu states:
"This network has detected 26 multi-kiloton explosions since 2001, all of which are due to asteroid impacts. It shows that asteroid impacts are NOT rare—but actually 3-10 times more common than we previously thought. The fact that none of these asteroid impacts shown in the video was detected in advance is proof that the only thing preventing a catastrophe from a 'city-killer' sized asteroid is blind luck. The goal of the B612 Sentinel mission is to find and track asteroids decades before they hit Earth, allowing us to easily deflect them."
The B612 Foundation is partnered with Ball Aerospace to build the Sentinel Infrared Space Telescope Mission. Once positioned in solar orbit closer to the Sun from Earth, Sentinel will look outwards in infrared to detect hundreds of thousands of as-yet unknown near-Earth objects over 140 meters in size.
Al Gore, known for wild rants about global warming, including one where his foul language earned him the description “mentally unstable,” is at it again.
Only this time he’s complaining about those who put up “barriers” to his agenda that critics say includes cracking down on carbon emissions, buying and selling credits for that activity and putting the American coal industry out of business.
“The ‘barriers’ to doing something about climate change are business and political interests that profit off of fossil fuels – ‘dirty energy that causes dirty weather,’” he said, according to an online report about a recent speech he made.
“He compared fake science from polluters stating that humans are not to blame for the climate to tobacco companies that used to hire actors to play doctors who denied cigarettes were dangerous,” the report said.
“That’s immoral, unethical and despicable,” he said of both.
Gore spoke recently to a crowd at the Stan Sheriff Center at the University of Hawaii.
Speaking largely to supporters and fans, Gore said climate change, the newest evolution of what started out as global warming, is getting worse.
The Civilbeat blog that reported on his visit to the island state said, “Gore’s talk was an updated version of the one he’s been giving for years and that he first laid out in his 1992 book ‘Earth In the Balance.’ The planet is in trouble because humankind burns too much coal and oil, which is trapping greenhouse gases and raising temperatures.”
Gore blamed that for “famine, drought, floods, refugees, species extinction, to name just a few.”
Gore claimed that the number of hotter days over the past 80 years has been growing “alarmingly disproportionate to the number of cooler days and days with average temperatures,” the report said.
Ancient plant material has been preserved in the glass formed by asteroids hitting the Earth, scientists report. The "frozen in aspic" appearance of what are apparently fragments of grass is spectacular enough.
But a team writing in Geology journal says that delicate organic chemicals have also been conserved inside.
Incredibly, the searing heat generated by the impacts was responsible for the remarkable preservation.The findings could even point to a new way of searching for past life on Mars.
The impact glasses examined in this study come from the Pampas of Argentina and have a range of dates under 10 million years old - in the Miocene and Holocene periods.
When objects from space slam into the ground they melt the target rocks. Hot material gets thrown out of the craters and, in these cases, it captures and traps shards of vegetation.
Scientists say the plant remains look very similar to the Pampas grass that still grows in the region today.
Prof Peter Schultz, from Brown University in Rhode Island, US, presented the work at last month's Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC) in The Woodlands, Texas.
In their scientific paper, the Brown University geologist, R Scott Harris, Marcelo Zarate and others write that while space collisions can destroy life on local or global scales, "it can also preserve components of the local biology present at the time of impact".
Had this comment on the “about” page:
I wandered onto this blog from a twitter link about Antony Watts. Still somewhat befuddled because I was under the impression he hunted down alarmists, not reinforced them. However what really felt like coming home (I’m a Physics grad) was the return to first principles with the laws of thermodynamics in that article – which seem to have been ditched in the climate cacophony. A perfect example of this prostitution of science is this classic from (un)skepticalscience.com:
It is stunning that they parallel CO2 with a blanket, when anybody with a basic grasp of physics knows that the effect of a blanket, and indeed an actual greenhouse, is to block CONVECTION, which is a major process of cooling.
I still regularly have to reinforce the point that they are thermodynamic LAWS and anything in climate is a THEORY. Most don’t get it, and the BS touted by the likes of the link above are not going to make it easy to get the point across.
My reply (plus some more elaboration):
Well this may sound ridiculous, but you have to consider the scope of what we’re dealing with here. Read my “Religion of Climate Change” series. And watch Star Wars episodes 1 – 3. Seriously. Crazy, I know.
They’re creating a false reality. Outright alarmism is an obviously false reality, to anyone with the slightest sense of reason. Well, just think of the operation and the forces mustered to establish that false reality, promote it, fake it, have people running websites promoting it, having James Hansen promote it, etc. It’s kind of a big deal.
It all rests on the alarmist version of the greenhouse effect (see here for clarification). There is a real greenhouse effect inside a real greenhouse, and then there is the fake “alarming” greenhouse effect of climate pseudoscience, something pretended to be the same or similar to the real thing, but which it is not, and is not real in its own right either.