The Global Warming Fraud
Well, 30 years later and the chief Global Warming alarmist, James E. Hansen, has been largely refuted by the scientific evidence. Global Warming has been a major flop. True, there have been 'changes' in the climate, hence the 'Climate Change' mantra, but climate change is just another term for weather, which is always changing.

Here's an article about the fail:




Quote:Link to Original Article


wsj.com
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?
Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue


June 21, 2018 7:24 p.m. ET
James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.

The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.


Mr. Michaels is director and Mr. Maue an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science.

Appeared in the June 22, 2018, print edition as 'A Hot Summer on Capitol Hill.'
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
 
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy
Huxley
 
The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything  
Einstein
 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain
Reply
This guy, Dr. Tim Ball, has a lot to say and he explains the how, the why, and who invented and promoted not just climate change (et al), but radical environmentalism and a few others. Ya, its long, but it is detailed as well and the whole kit and caboodle is here. I ordered his book, BTW.


One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
 
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy
Huxley
 
The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything  
Einstein
 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain
Reply
Slowly, truth begins to leak out about little scientific 'curiosities' being made known that really put a lot of pressure on the Global Warming/Change/Whatever crowd. Here's an article about a phenomena of our atmosphere that was never dreamt about, apparently, by the weather academia, until this discovery. Makes one wonder how these so-called 'experts' can pontificate on what our climate should be. After all, they only have a very few years of direct observation and those data were from highly questionably accurate instruments, until the late 1800s and even then, from that period until the 1960s, we only had analog instruments to measure temperature and these guys are going on tenths and hundredths of degrees in their computations. That's a whole lotta 'fudge' in the factors.

[BTW: The guy who invented 'The Hockey Stick' term, (The term hockey stick was coined by the climatologist Jerry D. Mahlman), has been under pressure to release his data that he used to form his theory, which led to this whole Global Whatever situation. He's having trouble finding it or something along those lines. His data, it appears, is founded on sand.]

Lets not all forget that these 'scientists', these so-called experts, using this false data, have taken action to modify our climate to end Global Warming. They have been at it for many years and in earnest in the last 15 or so. Today, one cannot see, austerely, normal developing cloud cover on our planet, at least, over the USA, but other areas are having similar experiences. Geoengineering has become common practice and it is being done at rabid pace and it is killing the planet with equal zeal...arguably. I do tend to lean toward the evidence of these sorts of activities is obvious and so common as to make people think that the clouds from the contrails are normal...they are so common they do seem normal and there is nearly a generation now that doesn't remember when the phenomena were never seen. I'd wager that most of those reading this think I am imagining all this, but they would be of those, perhaps, who aren't old enough to have ever seen the sky any differently than it is today. But, there is definitely a difference in weather patterns and the geoengineering gurus, performing all this stuff, will be the last to admit to it, because it is turning out to be a BIG fail and the earth is being permanently altered, and not for the good, by this harebrained scheme.

Think about it. We are headed into a Solar Minimum. Basically, the sun is turning in for a little nap. Its not gonna put out as much energy and that means things are gonna get COLDER and these fools with PhDs are gonna make it even colder, they already claim they have when they talk at private seminars, but one wonders why all the secrecy? Perhaps its because they don't want to be killed by an angry mob of freezing humans!?  Rolleyes

Could be.

Keyboard Warrior

Here's the article about a discovery recently made that kinda puts a bump in the Climatology mantra. I have taken the liberty to point out errors in accuracy where noted:



Quote:[Image: earth-observation-100-12.jpg]
Greenhouse gas detergent recycles itself in atmosphere
by Staff Writers
Greenbelt MD (SPX) Dec 03, 2018

[Image: greenhouse-gas-detergent-recycles-itself...ere-hg.jpg]
Model output of OH primary production over a 24-hour period in July tracks with sunlight across the globe. Higher levels of OH over populated land are likely from OH recycling in the presence of NO and NO2, which are common pollutants from cars and industry.

A simple molecule in the atmosphere that acts as a "detergent" to breakdown methane and other greenhouse gases has been found to recycle itself to maintain a steady global presence in the face of rising emissions, according to new NASA research. Understanding its role in the atmosphere is critical for determining the lifetime of methane, a powerful contributor to climate change.

The hydroxyl (OH) radical, a molecule made up of one hydrogen atom, one oxygen atom with a free (or unpaired) electron is one of the most reactive gases in the atmosphere and regularly breaks down other gases, effectively ending their lifetimes. In this way OH is the main check on the concentration of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to increasing global temperatures.[sic]

Z Wrote:*Dihydrogen monoxide, hydroxylic acid, H2O, water, is in fact, and overwhelmingly, THE most potent and abundant greenhouse gas. Very misleading statement here.

With the rise of methane emissions into the atmosphere, scientists historically thought that might cause the amount of hydroxyl radicals to be used up on the global scale and, as a result, extend methane's lifetime, currently estimated to be nine years. [yup, still guessing, ah, but it's an 'educated' guess. Dunce ]

However, in addition to looking globally at primary sources of OH and the amount of methane and other gases it breaks down, this new research takes into account secondary OH sources, recycling that happens after OH breaks down methane and reforms in the presence of other gases, which has been observed on regional scales before.

"OH concentrations are pretty stable over time," said atmospheric chemist and lead author Julie Nicely at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
"When OH reacts with methane it doesn't necessarily go away in the presence of other gases, especially nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2). The break down products of its reaction with methane react with NO or NO2 to reform OH. So OH can recycle back into the atmosphere."

itrogen oxides are one set of several gases that contribute to recycling OH back into the atmosphere, according to Nicely's research, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. She and her colleagues used a computer model informed by satellite observations of various gases from 1980 to 2015 to simulate the possible sources for OH in the atmosphere.

These include reactions with the aforementioned nitrogen oxides, water vapor and ozone. They also tested an unusual potential source of new OH: the enlargement of the tropical regions on Earth.

OH in the atmosphere also forms when ultraviolet sunlight reaches the lower atmosphere and reacts with water vapor (H2O) and ozone (O3) to form two OH molecules. Over the tropics, water vapor and ultraviolet sunlight are plentiful.

The tropics, which span the region of Earth to either side of the equator, have shown some evidence of widening farther north and south of their current range, possibly due to rising temperatures affecting air circulation patterns.

This means that the tropical region primed for creating OH will potentially increase over time, leading to a higher amount of OH in the atmosphere. This tropical widening process is slow, however, expanding only 0.5 to 1 degree in latitude every 10 years. But the small effect may still be important, according to Nicely.

She and her team found that, individually, the tropical widening effect and OH recycling through reactions with other gases each comprise a relatively small source of OH, but together they essentially replace the OH used up in the breaking down of methane.

"The absence of a trend in global OH is surprising," said atmospheric chemist Tom Hanisco at Goddard who was not involved in the research.

"Most models predict a 'feedback effect' between OH and methane. [extrapolate: most models are wrong.] In the reaction of OH with methane, OH is also removed. The increase in NO2 and other sources of OH, such as ozone, cancel out this expected effect." But since this study looks at the past thirty-five years, it's not guaranteed that as the atmosphere continues to evolve with global climate change that OH levels will continue to recycle in the same way into the future, he said.

Ultimately, Nicely views the results as a way to fine-tune and update the assumptions that are made by researchers and climate modelers who describe and predict how OH and methane interact throughout the atmosphere.

"This could add clarification on the question of will methane concentrations continue rising in the future? Or will they level off, or perhaps even decrease? This is a major question regarding future climate that we really don't know the answer to," she said.
[of course, others in her field have already assumed this system did not exist and are acting on that assumption...to the world's peril.]

The study used data from NASA's Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer instrument, the Ozone Monitoring Instrument aboard NASA's Aura satellite, the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder aboard NASA's Aqua satellite, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Cooperative Global Air Sampling Network, the Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 data set and the Global Model Initiative chemical transport model.

Research paper
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
 
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy
Huxley
 
The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything  
Einstein
 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain
Reply
In essence, the global climate is a really complex system that should be studied with no BS from either side of the aisle, since we don't know for definite whether it's going to get warmer or colder, but it's a safe bet that a shift in either direction will have impacts on society.

Also, Al Gore is a blowhard idiot. Big Grin

(12-05-2018, 09:32 PM)Zedta Wrote: Think about it. We are headed into a Solar Minimum. Basically, the sun is turning in for a little nap. Its not gonna put out as much energy and that means things are gonna get COLDER and these fools with PhDs are gonna make it even colder, they already claim they have when they talk at private seminars, but one wonders why all the secrecy? Perhaps its because they don't want to be killed by an angry mob of freezing humans!?  Rolleyes

Quote:These include reactions with the aforementioned nitrogen oxides, water vapor and ozone. They also tested an unusual potential source of new OH: the enlargement of the tropical regions on Earth.

Quote:The tropics, which span the region of Earth to either side of the equator, have shown some evidence of widening farther north and south of their current range, possibly due to rising temperatures affecting air circulation patterns.

Huh? Not trying to be snarky, but did I miss something? On the one hand it's getting cooler, but the tropics are slowly expanding, implying warmer and more moist.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
The article has editorial reorientation throughout. This was another, but one I did not illustrate. I suppose the dichotomy would be how everything is pointing to marked decreases in temperature, but the have to 'cite' some anomalous data (perhaps even purposefully misleading), in order to meet PC guidelines.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
 
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy
Huxley
 
The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything  
Einstein
 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain
Reply
And the flip side is this from NASA, discussing the decrease in the extent of arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2811/2018-...on-record/
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
I don't know that it's a deliberate fraud so much - but we don't really know if fluctuations in the climate are due to human influence or if they were going to change naturally anyway. I haven't been through the whole thread I must be honest, so I apologise if I am mentioning something that has already been referred to but at one time the River Thames used to freeze cold enough for ice fairs to be held on it - that hasn't happened for over 200 years https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25862141 which would seem to indicate a warming although it may only be slight, incrementally over the 200 years. There does appear to have been some ice melting in or near the North Pole - didn't somebody find the remains of the Franklyn (sp?) exhibition a few years ago? (Doing a quick edit because I see Jeeter has mentioned the sea ice in his post above).
Then again, things could change again and start going colder. I know that since people started using smokeless fuels rather than coal, while thick fogs can still occur there don't seem to be the "pea soupers" that there were 50/60/70 years ago - obviously I'm referring to the UK, things may be different in the USA. A lot more people use central heating now of course than all those years ago.
[-] The following 1 user Likes St Patricks Helpmate's post:
  • Zedta
Reply
St Patricks Helpmate, I write this with respect, because you appear to have a limited knowledge of this subject. Most people do. Most look at only what they can see in the palm of their hands on an electronic device that has huge controls to further limit your access to truth. You seem to have a different outlook, one not limited to bylines and news digested in the belly of 'the beast', as it were.

This is a very long thread. It is packed with volumes of information and much of it is currently ongoing in our world. The zealots of 'Global Climate Change' have gone so far as to aggressively begin, maintain and ramp up efforts to alter the atmosphere so as to change earth's climate and they are getting results, sadly, that are actually changing the climate to be worse than the natural cycle of climate would have done. In essence, the 'climate scientists' (zealots) have collectively forced earth to lean into the punch the sun is aiming at us.

The sun is deep into the beginnings of a solar minimum in activity. The decrease has a number of effects. The main one is less energy output, which means that someone turned down the Solar thermostat. This has a number of effects on earth, most of all COOLING. Additionally, less solar output of energy means less energy for the generation of our magnetosphere. That means our 'shields' are weak and radiation from deep space and even the occasional solar outbursts are not well shielded against.

Essentially, weather's main attribute is 'change'. It is ALWAYS in flux...always changing, but in the last 15 years, man's output of CO2 is not the culprit for these changes. Geoengineering is. The powers that be are creating a layer of man-made smog, made of aluminum and borate oxides, for instance, which dim the sunlight and fall on our forests, creating a chemical layer of 'kindling' which has been reported to greatly enhance the heat and severity of the forest fires we have seen out west, for one.

I have written a short primer for you here. I suggest you scan the rest of this thread for the details. Tip o' the hat
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
 
A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy
Huxley
 
The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything  
Einstein
 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)