Google+ Followers

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Take Your Pick of Lies About Ozone, Methane or Mercury

EPA is trying to remove the tiniest amounts of mercury in the environment, Congress passed a law eliminate the incandescent light bulb and required their replacement by fluorescent lights that contain mercury

s it surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to tell big fat lies about anything it wants to ban, but is reluctant to show the “science” on which the bans are based?

There is currently a piece of legislation under consideration by Congress, the Secret Science Reform Act, to force the EPA to disclose its scientific and technical information before proposing or finalizing any regulation.

This is what Nicolas Loris of The Heritage Foundation had to say regarding the mercury air and toxics rule that the EPA claims would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. “The two studies that represent the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus should be public property.”

In addition to claims about carbon dioxide as a dreaded “greenhouse” gas, methane is also getting the attention of those opposed to “fracking”, a technique that has provided access to both natural gas and oil. James M. Taylor, a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, noted in January that “Natural gas has high methane content, but the methane is converted to energy when natural gas is burnt.” Citing U.S. Energy Information Administration data, Taylor noted “The ongoing decline in methane emissions supplements ongoing declines in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.” Since 2000 both are down between 6% AND 9%.

The EPA is forever claiming billions in “health benefits” that result from their regulations. The public never gets to see the data on which such claims are based. The regulations, however, cost billions.
The day before Thanksgiving, the EPA announced that it intends to propose an updated national standard for ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog, based in part on the enforcement of rules concerning mercury. The previous day, the Supreme Court said it would review the agency’s standards requiring reductions of mercury emissions and other elements the EPA regards as toxic air pollution

To put all this in perspective, in August CNS News’ Penny Starr reported on a study by the National Association of Manufacturers regarding the EPA’s proposed regulation of ozone. It found that “it could be the costliest federal rule by reducing the Gross National Product by $270 billion per year and $3.4 trillion from 2017 to 20140, and adds $3.3 trillion in compliance costs for the same period.”  NAM president, Jay Timmons, said “The regulation has the capacity to stop the manufacturing comeback in its tracks.”

Concurrently with NAM, the American Petroleum Institute released an analysis of the NAM study that said “The nation’s air quality has improved over the past several years, and ozone emissions will continue to decline without new regulations.” NAM’s vice president of energy and resources policy, Ross Eisenberg, said, “We are rapidly approaching a point where we are requiring manufacturers to do the impossible.”

That, however, is exactly what the ozone regulation is intended to do. This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with destroying the nation’s power producers and manufacturers, reducing vital electrical energy, and forcing factories of every description to close.

At the upper levels of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, ozone is essential to the survival of life on Earth because ozone filters harmful ultraviolent (UV) radiation from sunlight. Otherwise the radiation would damage both plant and animal life. The reason you get sunburned is that too much UV radiation has caused it. Like everything else in nature, too much or too little determines the harm or benefit it provides, but that too is largely determined by nature.

Ozone is a form of elemental oxygen, but it’s not something you want to breathe. As Wikipedia notes, “It is not emitted directly by car engines or by industrial operations, but formed by the reaction of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that react to form ozone directly at the source of the pollution or many kilometers down wind.” The initial mandate of the EPA to clean the air and water has been achieved. That is why smog is relatively rare nationwide. Further regulation is regressive.
As for mercury, in 2011 the EPA issued 946 pages of new rules requiring U.S. power plants to sharply reduce their emissions of mercury even though they were already quite low. As with the proposed ozone rules, the EPA claimed that they would cost $10.9 billion annually to implement, but would save 17,000 lives while generating $140 billion in health benefits. This is all just hogwash. Such figures are just plucked out of the air or, worse, based on “science” the public paid for but is not allowed to see!
Does anybody find it bizarre that, while the EPA is trying to remove the tiniest amounts of mercury in the environment, in 2011 Congress passed a law eliminate the incandescent light bulb and required their replacement by fluorescent lights that contain mercury?

As Willie Soon and Paul Driessen wrote in a 2011 Wall Street Journal commentary, “Mercury has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment. Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and trees, which absorb it from the environment.” They noted that “Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.”

The fundamental EPA lies about ozone and mercury involve the issue of toxicity. Since both are a natural part of the Earth, and since the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and since life expectancy has been increasing dramatically in recent decades, the likelihood that either represents a threat requiring the expenditure of billions to reduce tiny amounts of their emissions is based on environmental ideology, not on science.

Even if it was based on alleged science we would, as noted, not be allowed to see the data. If this reminds you of the way ObamaCare was foisted on “the stupid voters”, you’re right. The EPA hopes you are stupid enough not to realize that it is engaged in the destruction of the economy.

Saturday, November 29, 2014


Airplane Takeoff Wallpaper Cartoon Wallpaper
The simplest answer: for an average-sized commercial jetliner with typical fuel and payload, the "takeoff speed" is around 130-160 knots, or about 150 to 200 miles per hour. The landing speed is more or less the same, usually a few knots slower. 

Although density altitude is not a common subject for “hangar flying” discussions, pilots need to understand this
topic. Density altitude has a significant (and inescapable) influence on aircraft and engine performance, so every
pilot needs to thoroughly understand its effects. Hot, high, and humid weather conditions can cause a routine

takeoff or landing to become an accident in less time than it takes to tell about it.

Airplanes of the future will have to carry lighter loads more often thanks to global warming, according to two scientists at Columbia University, New York. They reached their conclusion by creating models which predicted that by 2060 there will be more warm days but no commensurate technological advances in the aviation industry.

The two scientists, Coffel and Horton, looked at a phenomenon known amongst pilots as ‘density altitude’, which affects a plane’s ability to take off. Essentially, on hotter days the air is less dense, making it harder to get a plane airborne. It is a particular problem at airports with short runways, as the planes will take longer to lift off.
Commercial aviation overcomes the problem by issuing weight restrictions at the airport on particularly hot days. Coffel and Horton sought to predict how many more weight restricted days there will be by 2050-2070, and decided, through use of models, that the "number of weight restriction days between May and September will increase by 50-200 percent at four major airports in the United States by 2050-2070," and that "these performance reductions may have a negative economic effect on the airline industry."
Their solution is for the aviation industry to start "planning for changes in extreme heat events" to "help the aviation industry to reduce its vulnerability to this aspect of climate change."

But as Anthony Watts of the blog Watt's Up With That points out: "Of course they are assuming that [their] models produce an accurate output, and that airplanes of the 2050-2070 era have the same airfoil efficiency and take-off power of today." Neither of which are by any means certain. 

Monday, November 24, 2014

Antarctic ice thicker than previously thought, study finds?

Groundbreaking 3D mapping of previously inaccessible areas of the Antarctic has found that the sea ice fringing the vast continent is thicker than previous thought.
Two expeditions to Antarctica by scientists from the UK, USA and Australia analysed an area of ice spanning 500,000 metres squared, using a robot known as SeaBed.
The survey discovered ice thickness average between 1.4m and 5.5m, with a maximum ice thickness of 16m. Scientists also discovered that 76% of the mapped ice was ‘deformed’ – meaning that huge slabs of ice have crashed into each other to create larger, denser bodies of ice.
The team behind the research, published in Nature Geoscience, have hailed it as an important breakthrough in better understanding the vast icy wilderness. The findings will provide a starting point to further work to discover how ice thickness, as well as extent, is changing.
Previously, measurements of Antarctic ice thickness were hindered by technological constraints. Ice breaking ships could only go so far into ice to measure depth, while no-one had drilled much more than 5.5m down into the ice to extract a core for analysis.
SeaBed, an autonomous underwater vehicle (or AUV), was used by the research team to analyse ice thickness at an underwater depth of 20 to 30 metres. Driven in a “lawnmower” pattern, the two-metre long robot used upward-looking sonar to measure and map the underside of sea ice floes. Oceanography robots are usually focused on the sea floor.

The mapping took place during two expeditions, in 2010 and 2012, that took researchers to the coastal areas of the Weddell, Bellingshausen, and Wilkes Land regions of Antarctica. The teams came from the British Antarctic Survey, the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies in Tasmania and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the US.
Dr Guy Williams, from IMAS, said the research is an important step in gauging changes to Antarctic ice.
“Sea ice is an important indicator of the polar climate but measuring its thickness has been tricky,” said Williams, the report’s co-author. “Along with the satellite data, it was a bit like taking an X-ray of the ice, although we haven’t X-rayed much of it, just a postage stamp.
“The key thing is that this is a game changer because it was previously very challenging to measure ice depth. We were limited to visual observation from the decks of ships or ice cores and take measures.
“It was a lot of hard work and quite crude, which means we were biased towards thinner ice. It was a bit like a doctor diagnosing a condition by prodding the skin.

Williams said researchers will now make routine surveys of ice thickness to determine changes over a long period of time. As well as tracking alterations due to climate change, the research will be of interest to marine biologists due to the creatures, such as krill, that inhabit the region.
“This is a big step forward in our knowledge but we’ll need to have longer missions in larger areas,” he said. “What we ultimately want is a team of autonomous robots that self deploy all across the Antarctic, like the spokes in a wheel.”
Hanumant Singh, an engineering scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution whose lab designed, built and operated the AUV, said: “Putting an AUV together to map the underside of sea ice is challenging from a software, navigation and acoustic communications standpoint.

The Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) Puma in the East Antarctic Seato mesure sea ice.
The AUV Jaguar getting deployed into the East Antarctic Sea. Photograph: Peter Kimball/WHOI
“SeaBed’s manoeuvrability and stability made it ideal for this application where we were doing detailed floe-scale mapping and deploying, as well as recovering in close-packed ice conditions.
“It would have been tough to do many of the missions we did, especially under the conditions we encountered, with some of the larger vehicles.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly assure us that today’s climate change computer models are “highly sophisticated?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly assure us that today’s climate change computer models are “highly sophisticated” and able to predict global temperature and climate events with “amazing accuracy.” In reality, they are ridiculously off the mark. They don’t even come close to forecasting what has actually been happening in the real world. And no wonder.

The assumptions and algorithms built into the computer software focus almost entirely on carbon dioxide – and almost entirely ignore the numerous, powerful, interrelated NATURAL forces that drive climate change.

My article with climatology professor David Legates explains why the models are defective, how this came about (follow the money), and what should be done to fix the problem before we spend more money and promulgate more energy-strangling, job-killing laws and regulations based on the current crop of useless and misleading computer models.

Thank you for posting our article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues. (Please be sure to include David Legates and his bio.)
Best regards,

Needed: Accurate climate forecasts
Focusing on carbon dioxide (because that’s where the money is) threatens forecasts, and lives
Paul Driessen and David R. Legates

President Obama’s agreement with China is about as credible as his “affordable care” pronouncements.

Pleistocene glaciers repeatedly buried almost half of the Northern Hemisphere under a mile of ice. The Medieval Warm Period (~950-1250 AD) enriched agriculture and civilizations across Asia and Europe, while the Little Ice Age that followed (~1350-1850) brought widespread famines and disasters. The Dust Bowl upended lives and livelihoods for millions of Americans, while
decades-long droughts vanquished once-thriving Anasazi and Mayan cultures, and flood and drought cycles repeatedly pounded African, Asian and Australian communities. Hurricanes and tornadoes have also battered states and countries throughout history, in numbers and intensities that have been impossible to pattern or predict.

But today we are supposed to believe climate variability is due to humans – and computer models can now forecast climate changes with amazing accuracy. These models and the alarmist scientists behind them say greenhouse gases will increasingly trigger more “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people, species and ecosystems,” a recent UN report insists.

In reality, carbon dioxide’s effect on devastating weather patterns is greatly overstated. We are near a 30-year low in hurricane energy (measured by the ACE index of “accumulated cyclone energy”), and tropical cyclone and storm activity has not increased globally over that period. In fact, as of November 18, it’s been 3,310 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland – by far the longest stretch since records began in 1900. This Atlantic hurricane season was the least active in 30 years.

Moreover, there has been no warming since 1995, several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, the 2013-14 winter was one of the coldest and snowiest in memory for much of the United States and Canada – and the cold spell could continue.

Accurate climate forecasts one, five or ten years in advance would certainly enable us to plan and prepare for, adapt to and mitigate the effects of significant or harmful climate variations, including temperatures, hurricanes, floods and droughts. However, such forecasts can never be even reasonably accurate under the climate change hypothesis that the IPCC, EPA and other agencies have adopted. The reason is simple.

Today’s climate research defines carbon dioxide as the principal driving force in global climate change. Virtually no IPCC-cited models or studies reflect the powerful, interconnected natural forces that clearly caused past climate fluctuations – most notably, variations in the sun’s energy output.
They also largely ignore significant effects of urban and other land use changes, and major high-impact fluctuations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Niño and La Niña) and North Atlantic Oscillation. If we truly want reliable predictive capabilities, we must eliminate the obsession with carbon dioxide as the primary driver of climate change – and devote far more attention to studying all the powerful forces that have always driven climate change, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them.

We also need to study variations in the sun’s energy output, winds high in the atmosphere, soil moisture, winter snow cover and volcanic eruptions, Weatherbell forecaster Joe D’Aleo emphasizes. We also need to examine unusual features like the pool of warm water that developed in the central Pacific during the super La Niña of 2010-2011 and slowly drifted with the wind-driven currents into the Gulf of Alaska, causing the “polar vortex” that led to the cold, snowy winter of 2013-2014, he stresses.

“The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is tremendous,” says Colorado State University analyst Bill Gray, who has been studying and forecasting tropical cyclones for nearly 60 years. Among the reasons he cites for grossly deficient models are their “unrealistic model input physics,” the “overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques,” and the fact that decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans “are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to be realistically included in the climate models.”

Nor does applying today’s super computers to climate forecasting help matters. NOAA, the British Meteorological Office and other government analysts have some of the world’s biggest and fastest computers – and yet their (and thus the IPCC’s and EPA’s) predictions are consistently and stupendously wrong. Speedier modern computers simply make the “garbage in, garbage out” adage occur much more quickly, thereby facilitating faster faulty forecasts. Why does this continue? Follow the money.

Billions of dollars are doled out every year for numerous “scientific studies” that supposedly link carbon dioxide and other alleged human factors to dwindling frog populations, melting glaciers, migrating birds and cockroaches, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions. Focusing on “dangerous human-induced” climate change in research proposals greatly improves the likelihood of receiving grants.

American taxpayers alone provide a tempting $2.5 billion annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA, Global Change Research Program and other government agencies. Universities and other institutions receiving grants take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to upset this arrangement, and all of them fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles might imperil funding from sources that have their own reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy or antipathy toward fossil fuels. Peer pressure and shared views on wealth redistribution via energy policies, also play major roles.

When Nebraska lawmakers budgeted $44,000 for a review of climate cycles and natural causes, state researchers said they would not be interested unless human influences were included. The “natural causes” proposal was ultimately scuttled in favor of yet another meaningless study of human influences.

The result is steady streams of computer model outputs that alarmists ensure us accurately predict climate changes. However, none of them forecast the 18-years-and-counting warming pause, the absence of hurricanes, or other real-world conditions. Nearly every one predicted temperatures that trend higher with every passing year and exceed recorded global temperatures by ever widening margins.

The constant predictions of looming manmade climate disasters are also used to justify demands that developed nations “compensate” poor and developing countries with tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in annual climate “reparation, adaptation and mitigation” money. Meanwhile, those no-longer-so-wealthy nations are implementing renewable energy and anti-hydrocarbon policies that drive up energy costs for businesses and families, kill millions of jobs, and result in thousands of deaths annually among elderly pensioners and others who can no longer afford to heat their homes properly during cold winters.

Worst of all, the climate disaster predictions are used to justify telling impoverished countries that they may develop only to extent enabled by wind and solar power. Financial institutions increasingly refuse to provide grants or loans for electricity generation projects fueled by coal or natural gas. Millions die every year because they do not have electricity to operate water purification facilities, refrigerators to keep food and medicine from spoiling, or stoves and heaters to replace wood and dung fires that cause rampant lung diseases. As Alex Epstein observes in his new book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:

“If you’re living off the grid and can afford it, an installation with a battery that can power a few appliances might be better than the alternative (no energy or frequently returning to civilization for diesel fuel), but [such installations] are essentially useless in providing cheap, plentiful energy for 7 billion people – and to rely on them would be deadly.”

By expanding our research – to include careful, honest, accurate studies of natural factors – we will be better able to discern and separate significant human influences from the powerful natural forces that have caused minor to profound climate fluctuations throughout history. Only then will we begin to improve our ability to predict why, when, how and where Earth’s climate is likely to change in the future. Congress should reduce CO2 funding and earmark funds for researching natural forces that drive climate change.

So now planting trees may increase global warming?

Trees affect our climate, and therefore our weather, in three primary ways: they lower temperatures, reduce energy usage and reduce or remove air pollutants. Each part of the tree contributes to climate control, from leaves to roots.

Leaves help turn down the thermostat. They cool the air through a process called evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration is the combination of two simultaneous processes: evaporation and transpiration, both of which release moisture into the air. During evaporation, water is converted from liquid to vapor and evaporates from soil, lakes, rivers and even pavement. During transpiration, water that was drawn up through the soil by the roots evaporates from the leaves. It may seem like an invisible process to our eyes, but a large oak tree is capable of transpiring 40,000 gallons of water into the atmosphere during one year [source: USGS].

Under the RCP 4.5 scenario models show planting trees can decrease albedo, thus increase global temperature.  Maybe that’s what’s causing global warming, all that silva culture that’s been going on for decades.

From,  Should the role of afforestation in climate change mitigation policy be re-evaluated?
Afforestation (planting trees) to mitigate climate change could cause warming rather than cooling globally due to non-carbon effects of land use change, according to new research from the University of Bristol. 
Global land use change and its interaction with the climate system is recognised as an important component of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s future climate scenarios.
New research led by T Davies-Barnard of Bristol’s Cabot Institute investigated the full effects of carbon and non-carbon impacts of land use change in the representative concentration pathways (RCPs), a range of socioeconomic scenarios for future climate.  

The research team used an earth system model to investigate global temperature sensitivity to land use change in the RCP scenarios.  Their study, published in Environmental Research Letters, is the first to assess the effect of land use in both afforestation and deforestation scenarios for the RCPs.
They found that in RCP 4.5, a mid-range future climate projection that includes afforestation to help mitigate climate change, the land use change resulted in a small net positive warming.
This was primarily due to the addition of new forest in mid-latitudes, which decreased the albedo (reflectivity of the earth’s surface) and increased local and global temperature.

This small net gain in could mean that RCP 4.5′s universal carbon tax, a proposed mitigation policy that incentivizes growing and preserving forest, may be counter-productive with respect to climate change.

Dr Davies-Barnard said: “Without looking at the full effects of land use change, afforestation policies to reduce could actually do the opposite.”

However, the researchers also recognise that and the avoidance of deforestation would undoubtedly have wider environmental benefits, such as preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services.

Dr Davies-Barnard said: “Our work shows a small warming from forest preservation and expansion, but is that really the most important thing when considering the loss of unique and irreplaceable tropical forests?

This study has shown that non-carbon impacts of land use change make a small but important contribution which has been overlooked in the RCPs and, thus, their effects need to be considered in future .  

Incorporating land use change in mitigation policy also requires a consideration of broader environmental aims, with impacts not necessarily acting in synergy, the research suggests.
Abstract from the Environmental Research Letters Article

Future land use change (LUC) is an important component of the IPCC representative concentration pathways (RCPs), but in these scenarios’ radiative forcing targets the climate impact of LUC only includes greenhouse gases. However, climate effects due to physical changes of the land surface can be as large. Here we show the critical importance of including non-carbon impacts of LUC when considering the RCPs. Using an ensemble of climate model simulations with and without LUC, we show that the net climate effect is very different from the carbon-only effect. Despite opposite signs of LUC, all the RCPs assessed here have a small net warming from LUC because of varying biogeophysical effects, and in RCP4.5 the warming is outside of the expected variability. The afforestation in RCP4.5 decreases surface albedo, making the net global temperature anomaly over land around five times larger than RCPs 2.6 and 8.5, for around twice the amount of LUC. Consequent changes to circulation in RCP4.5 in turn reduce Arctic sea ice cover. The small net positive temperature effect from LUC could make RCP4.5′s universal carbon tax, which incentivizes retaining and growing forest, counter productive with respect to climate. However, there are spatial differences in the balance of impacts, and potential climate gains would need to be assessed against other environmental aims.

fforestation (planting trees) to mitigate climate change could cause warming rather than cooling globally due to non-carbon effects of land use change, according to new research from the University of Bristol.

Read more at:
fforestation (planting trees) to mitigate climate change could cause warming rather than cooling globally due to non-carbon effects of land use change, according to new research from the University of Bristol.

Read more at:

fforestation (planting trees) to mitigate climate change could cause warming rather than cooling globally due to non-carbon effects of land use change, according to new research from the University of Bristol.

Read more at:
fforestation (planting trees) to mitigate climate change could cause warming rather than cooling globally due to non-carbon effects of land use change, according to new research from the University of Bristol.

Read more at:

Friday, November 21, 2014

Global Warming Is Probably Boosting Lake-Effect Snows?

In the aftermath of a massive lake-effect snowfall event in western New York state on Tuesday, it’s worth asking: Is climate change playing a role here? Because, I mean, come on. Seventy—seven zero—inches, people. And another huge round is forecast for Thursday, by the way. Buffalo deserves answers.

The short answer is: yes. Global warming is probably juicing lake-effect snows, and we’ve had the data to prove it for quite some time.

 lake effect snow formation

What causes lake effect snow?

Lake effect snow is caused when a very cold winter air mass flows over the relatively warmer waters of a large lake. Intense evaporation from the lake surface under these conditions forms convective clouds that cannot contain all of this water, and some of it falls back to the surface as snow.

Lake effect snow showers often organize themselves into bands or lines only a few miles across, with abrupt edges to the falling snow. The organization into lines is the result of wind shear (a change in wind speed or wind direction with height). If there is no wind shear, then the snow showers organize into individual snow shower clouds. The following satellite image shows lake effect snow bands flowing off of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.

 atmospheric convection forming a cloud

What is convection?

"Convection" has several, related meanings in weather....but it always involves rising air. It usually refers to "moist convection", where the excess water vapor in rising air parcels condenses to form a cloud.

The heat released through this condensation can help to sustain the convection by warming the air further and making it rise still higher, which causes more water vapor to condense, so the process feeds on itself.

But convection can also be dry, as occurs on a sunny day over the desert, or in more humid regions early in the day before the convection has become strong enough to form clouds. The sun warms the ground, and convective air currents help to remove the excess heat from the surface. Dry convection also occurs during the day even when clouds are not just can't see it.
Interesting facts: 
MAKING THE EARTH LIVEABLE: Convection (both dry and moist) help to make the Earth liveable by removing excess heat from the surface, which is where most of the solar energy is abrobed by the Earth, and transporting it high into the atmosphere. It has been calculated that, without convection, the average surface air temperature on the earth would be about 125 deg. F, rather than the current 59 deg. F. 
WHAT GOES UP, MUST COME DOWN: All of the air rising through convection must be balanced by an equal amount of sinking air elsewhere. This, clouds represent vertical circulation systems, involving rising air where the visible cloud forms, and sinking air around the cloud.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

GLOBAL WARMING’S ROUGH PATCH Climate hysterics go unheeded, ignored, frozen out.

media fanfare, Silicon Valley billionaire Tom Steyer set out earlier this year to put an end to global warming skepticism through campaign contributions to favored candidates. Estimates of what he and his PAC spent range from $57 million to $74 million. What did he get for the money? Zip. A Republican majority in the Senate, an enlarged one in the House, and more Republican governors and state legislatures than before. There will be quite a few global warming skeptics among them.

He must have been paying too much attention to some pre-election academic polls and little to what voters were saying about 2014 priorities. He and fellow Democrats were cheered by two polls that measured perceptions. One, by Stanford University last year, had 73 percent of respondents saying they believed that global warming had been taking place over the last 100 years. And, 81 percent said they think it poses a serious problem for the U.S.

A Yale Project on Climate Change Communications survey taken early this year showed that majorities of women, minorities, and young people would support candidates who strongly endorsed “climate change” action. No wonder Mr. Steyer and friends were salivating

When the campaign season opened, major professional polling organizations regularly asked those they polled what issues were most important. The economy, jobs, income, and related matters were always in the top tier. “The environment” issues never made it to the top 10

While he’s been silent since the election, Mr. Steyer can take consolation in knowing that his torrent of dollars gave increased job security to the employees of all those television stations on which he ran his ads.
Although Mr. Steyer is silent, the tribunes of global warming are anything but. President Obama returned from Asia crowing about the agreement he reached with China’s leaders to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As with most of his deals, there is less here than meets the eye. He promised to reduce U.S. emissions (already down to 2005 levels) by another 26-28 percent by 2030. Although this is only a presidential promise, he hopes future presidents will be pressured into maintaining it. 

What did he get in exchange? Like Mr. Steyer, he got Zip. That is, unless one considers China’s promise to “consider” reducing emissions after 2030 an accomplishment. By the way, the Chinese are opening a new coal plant every 10 days.

Meanwhile, the high priests of the global warming movement at the United Nations are busily preparing for a “climate change” conference in Lima, Peru, next month. Recently, they released a new “study” that reaffirmed that the sky is falling and that doom is right around the corner unless we came up with a binding global treaty to stop it.

The dire warning came at a time when Antarctic ice is at record levels, the Arctic polar bear population is growing, and there have been fewer hurricanes and tornadoes, not more (despite Al Gore’s predictions). Average global temperatures haven’t risen in 18 years.
The big meeting amounts to a paid vacation for most of the delegates. Nothing will be accomplished, but the event will have the trappings of a pep rally and, like the rally before the big game, will be intended to create a sense of inevitability that the team will win.

All this is part of the buildup for next year’s U.N. summit meeting in Paris, in which the global warming priests will attempt to sell a comprehensive climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol that was adopted in 1997 and went into effect in 2005. Currently, 192 countries have signed it. The U.S., China, and India are not among them. The Protocol rests on the twin assumptions that global warming exists and that human-made carbon dioxide emissions have caused is. Some scientists believe that; some do not. It is not, despite the propaganda, “settled science.”

Al Gore Attacks Scientist for Exposing Global Warming Lie

magine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the most wealthy and famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more.
And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House.
In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs.
You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table.
This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.
The motive: $22 billion per year.
To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amount that our government pays to stop the “global warming” epidemic.
That comes out to $41,856 every minute.
Or, to put it in perspective, that is twice as much as what our government spends on securing our borders.
Then, imagine this top U.S. intelligence agent turning to you, and asking for you to join him on a mission to out those involved in the “global warming” lie.
Doing so would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, and could cost you your reputation. But, pretending you never saw the document, and carrying on with your life, would allow the scandal to continue andactually put lives at risk.
So, imagine if you were at that table, and the scenario I just described happened to you.
My name is Tom Luongo. I am a former scientist with the University of Florida and currently run the Resolute Wealth Letterprogram.
My name is Tom Luongo, and I’ve recently had this exact experience.
In the following few pages, I am going to show you the alarming research in the document that was laid before me that night in Palm Beach.
I will tell you why this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists tried to hide this research . . . and how you can be part of a newly formed initiative with the aim of getting this research into the hands of every American.
This research proves, once and for all, that “global warming” is a sham . . . a sham perpetuated by a network of dirty government officials, greedy corporations, and bought-off “scientific” organizations.
How you respond will be up to you.
I can guarantee you one thing: After reading the next few pages, you will never look at government officials the same way . . . you will never trust what you hear in the media again . . . in fact, you will become skeptical of any and all authority figures going forward.
It’s unfortunate, but the betrayal you’re going to discover today runs very deep, and revealing the truthabout “global warming” comes with great risk.
As a scientist for over 20 years, I’ve always upheld the truth.
I’ve worked with the University of Florida to do some amazing things . . . I’ve helped make crop yields more productive for third world countries . . . I helped create an intermetallic coating for gun barrels that dropped maintenance requirements on firearms by half . . . and I’ve helped cure diseases.
I have seen a lot of research go across my desk. But none of it can compare to the 164-page document that landed in front of me that night in Palm Beach.
That’s why I’m going to lay the facts from this document before you today, and then I’m going to ask that you join me, and the man who composed this document, on our mission to defund the “global warming” sham . . .
All it will take is a click of your mouse.
With one click, you’re going to put more momentum behind what I hope to be the largest effort . . .ever . . . to annihilate the “global warming” lie and defund the government’s multibillion-dollar spending frenzy to keep it alive.
Now, before we begin, I ask that you excuse any “rough” elements in this letter. What I’m sharing with you today is so urgent that I’ve made a huge effort to get the research in this 164-page document available to you as quickly as possible . . .
With President Obama’s recent speech about getting tougher on “global warming” issues I think it’s critical that we don’t waste a minute in getting this information out.
The sooner we get this information into the hands of the public . . . your hands . . . the more informed voters will be when they cast their ballots.
First, you should know who put this document in my hands — a man whom Al Gore is personallyattacking . . .
John Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.
John is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.
In short, John is the very definition of a government insider. He spent 35 years conducting classified research, examining confidential documents, and directing critical scientific programs.
For example: In 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger tragically exploded, killing seven crew members, John testified before Congress on the cause of the accident. After the testimony, Congress instructed NASA headquarters to bring John in to chair a special internal investigation into why these critical systems failed.
Now, keep that in mind for a moment: Capitol Hill and NASA trusted John’s detailed analytical approach and his engineering credentials so much they asked him to investigate the cause of one of our nation’s greatest tragedies.
After 35 years of serving his country, John quietly retired in Florida. He planned on living peacefully, spending time with his wife, children, and grandkids.
But on one April afternoon in 2007, John made an “unfortunate” discovery that changed everything.
When the space shuttleChallenger crashed in 1986, the U.S. government asked John Casey to investigate.
The discovery would ultimately lead him to abandon his plans for retirement in order to support a cause that was bigger than himself . . . that was bigger than anything he had done in his 35-year career.
In fact, this discovery would result in him becoming hated by all those who once heralded him as their friend and adviser.
After this outright rejection, John realized that despite his science not changing, despite the thousands of pages of irrefutable data, and despite millions of lives at risk . . . he was alone.
The responsibility of letting the world know about this discovery rested solely on his shoulders, and those who would listen to him.
Indeed, what he has to say goes contrary to everything you have been told about “climate change.”
I initially rejected what John had to tell me. But when he showed me what was in his 164-page document, I couldn’t argue with him.
Facts are facts.
What John discovered that fateful afternoon was . . .
You see, John found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies — thatdestroys their argument for “global warming.”
Using their own data, John has proven, once and for all, “global warming” is a sham. And perhaps the most expensive — and lethal — sham in American history.
A sham that our government spends $22 billion a year financing. Think about that: our government spends $22 billion a year financing “global warming” initiatives.
Again, that’s almost double what the government spends on securing our borders.
Or, to break it down to real numbers . . .
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
John’s research also uncovered a different looming cataclysm that will ruin every nation that’s not prepared . . . a calamity that has been accelerating for the last 17 years . . . and brewing for over 200 years.
This impending catastrophe is as natural as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. And just as unstoppable.
I’m talking about a tectonic shift in the world’s economies that will . . .
  • Send oil to over $300 a barrel
  • Cause food prices to triple and in some places make food completely unavailable
  • Lead to violence erupting in the streets of your suburban neighborhood
  • Cause governments to topple, nations to descend into chaos, and international wars to break out.
In the 164-page document John handed me, he went to great lengths to explain exactly how serious this crisis will be. It’s going to be worsened by the fact our politicians are bullheadedly ignoring it.
The result will be every American being blindsided . . . unable to see it coming because of Al Gore and his cronies preaching false dogma.
As I said before, I didn’t believe it either until I saw the evidence in John’s dossier. And even then, it took me hours of talking to John afterward to digest it.
John’s research has now been corroborated by 17 independent scientific individuals and organizations. These are some of the top scientific minds in the field of climate science . . . in the world.
When John retired, he had many allies and supporters in the government.
However, when he turned that same analytical approach Washington loved so much on Washington itself . . .
He became, in essence, their “public enemy No. 1.”
Let me explain.
As mentioned, in April of 2007, already into a comfortable retirement, John began examining some solar and environmental physics research (these are his hobbies).
The “unfortunate” discovery he made would make any honest American sick to the stomach. John immediately took the evidence and called his colleagues and fellow government insiders to alert them to the situation.
He even sent notices to the White House warning them of the crisis.
The response?
Silence, and then rejection.
And every year since, John has continued to notify every state governor, every U.S. senator, the House of Representatives, state attorneys general, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Science Adviser Dr. John Holdren, and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, then head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
You see, all of John’s “friends” suddenly “forgot” his name and number when he revealed the inconvenient truth about Uncle Sam’s most expensive sacred cow . . . and showed them solid, scientifically sound research that obliterates the idea of “global warming.”
You’ve heard how the earth is rapidly heating up . . . causing drought and mayhem.
For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast.
But how much has the world really warmed?
Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about.
Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since!
The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.
Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.

If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense.
We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters.
Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next.
But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: the case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.
“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans.
This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . .
“The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely
      gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.
The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%.
It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%.
Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”
I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame.
Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming.
Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here.
You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you!
Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown.
Al Gore spreads “Global Warming” propaganda for his own profit.
Shame on you, right?
Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average.
Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth.
Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.”
President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
NOTE: I’ve shared a quick snapshot of the facts in John’s controversial 164-page document. Truth be told, John has 33 scientifically reviewed reasons that “global warming” is more than just a farce . . . it’s the product of bad, botched science. In John’s own words, the research in this document is “something you have not been allowed to hear for almost 20 years.” That is, the truth about our climate, the politicians manipulating the science, and the real key that controls our planet’s temperature — the sun.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.
In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
The reality is simply this: The climate changes over time.
When Alexander the Great was conquering Persia, climate change was a big factor. And we all learned in high school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival.
Were those events caused by man-made “global warming”?
Of course not.
And, the reality is, most scientists who advocate “global warming” today know mankind has nothing to do with climate change.
Remember: Temperatures have only risen .36 degrees since 1979 . . . and the bulk of that happened during the 1990s! We haven’t seen any warming for the last 17 years . . . in fact we have seen a drop in temperatures.
Well, think about it.
Every year, the temperatures rise and fall with spring, summer, fall, and winter. A year is simply a 365-day cycle.
The sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth. When its temperature changes, our temperature changes.
Every day, the temperatures rise and fall with daytime and nighttime. A day is simply a 24-hour cycle.
These two cycles happen automatically. We can neither change them nor stop them any more than we can stop the Earth’s rotation. It’s impossible. The temperatures fluctuate based on these cycles.
So clearly, the Earth’s temperatures rise and fall based on its exposure to . . . the sun.
Well, here’s the breaking news. And you must pay close attention . . . because what I’m about to tell you has been deemed a “forbidden theme” in the scientific community.
Talking about it gets you a black mark at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the World Meteorological Society.
You see, there are larger cycles of the sun . . . “solar cycles.”
This may not seem earthshattering, but solar cycles are — bar none — the most devastating argument against man-made “global warming.”
Essentially, there are times when the sun gets hotter and times when it cools off as measured by “sunspots.” And John Casey found multiple solar cycles that determine the temperatures of the Earth.
The thing about these cycles is that they are predictable, and therefore it’s not difficult to see what is coming in the years ahead.
Indeed, if scientists were paying attention to these “solar cycles” years ago, they could have told you that the Earth would get warmer during the 1990s, and then it would cool . . . just like it has.
In fact, this climate cycle, along with several other cycles, has allowed John to make 11 accurate predictions about the Earth’s climate over the past few years, and it has allowed him to make a catastrophic prediction which I will share with you in a moment.
Ironically, as John released his data on these solar cycles, the ugly lie about man-made “global warming” started leaking out.
You probably already knew somewhere deep inside that something wasn’t right about the “global warming” theory.
Sure, during the 1990s, we all noticed it getting warmer. But, to say that it is directly tied what humans are doing seemed to be a stretch, and, we have all noticed it getting a LOT cooler lately.
So it might not come as a surprise to say that “global warming” is a sham. But what does come as a surprise to many is the evidence of outright lying that is now leaking out of trustworthy scientific agencies.
Shortly after John exposed the truth about “global warming,” 1,000 emails and 2,000 documents from leading “global warming” scientists were found . . . revealing potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.
For example:
  • One leading scientist — Kevin Trenberth — admitted “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding.
  • In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading “global warming” advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph to “hide the decline” in temperature.
  • And another study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed just how ridiculous “climate scientists” can get with data manipulation. Here is what he had to say: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.”
There are several other documents just like these.
More recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — came out to Breitbart News . . . and revealed that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs!
In short, governments, and government-funded scientists, want to make sure that any “global warming” research published . . . will say exactly what they want it to say.
Now, everyone knows from their high school education that the No. 1 rule of doing scientific research is that it cannot be undertaken with an end goal in mind because you will only use the data points that support your end goal.
That’s not real science.
But that’s exactly what “global warming” scientists are doing! They are only using partial data . . . the data the supports their end goal . . . to make their point that there is man-made “global warming.”
So, we’re being told that the survival of our planet, of the human race, relies on tackling “global warming” . . . yet the whole thing is a sham.
Why would this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists do such a thing?
Well, think about it.
Our federal government spends $22 billion on “global warming” research each and every year (twice as much as we spend on protecting our border!).
Again, that is $41,856 every minute.
If government-funded scientists came out and said “global warming” didn’t exist, their funding would be cut immediately.
But “global warming” has been kept on life support for another crucial reason: It has been a practical ATM for every in-the-know political figure.
The media is catching on to Al Gore’slies, but he is not going down without a fight.
Al Gore, for example, has been one of the most vocally aggressive crusaders for “global warming.”
In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of whichreceived more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.
The Telegraph reports Al Gore could become the “world’s first carbon billionaire” thanks to his investments in green companies . . . all of which benefit from tax dollars and government loans to “prevent global warming.”
And he’s not alone.
After accepting $1.25 million in campaign contributions, President Obama made sure to include his “global warming” plans in his victory speech: “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”
You are likely familiar with the story of the failed Solyndra green energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million; President Obama took a lot of flak for that.
But here’s a little-known side of the Solyndra story I bet you haven’t heard: Obama, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign . . . by funneling it through Solyndra.
You see, when Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors . . . Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.
It doesn’t stop there.
  • In 2010, another federal loan of $400 million went Abound Solar. That resulted in a bankruptcy as well. But investors in Abound Solar seemed to do just fine . . . investors like billionaire heiress Patricia Stryker. Stryker has famously contributed $500,000 to the Coalition for Progress while throwing $85,000 toward Obama’s inaugural committee. It’s just a coincidence that the government handed a company she invested in $400 million just before bankruptcy . . . right?
  • There’s also A123 Systems, which paid one lobbying firm $970,000 to secure money from the government — and received $279 million in federal assistance. The CEO of A123 Systems went on to fund multiple Democratic senators and contributed to Obama’s campaign.
  • First Solar received $646 million in government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.
  • GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.
There are a host of other examples of liberals getting wealthy off “global warming” initiatives just like these.
You can see why green energy is such a profitable business — CEOs and executives get to rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns . . . and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going . . . all on your dime.