Global warming

eng news
https://nippybox.com/v/986189 Article by Dr.Klemm on sunspot activity and warming cycles. http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=144110 Huge sigh of relief as sunspot appears Published: 10 Oct 08 - 0:00 A sunspot has just appeared on the sun and many people are breathing a sigh of relief. Why? Well firstly, what is a sunspot? A sunspot is actually a huge magnetic storm on the sun, which, when one looks at the sun, appears as a darker spot on the bright surface. Do not look at the sun with binoculars or a telescope, as doing that will probably destroy your eye – there are ways of projecting the sun's image.The sun has a well-known 11-year cycle, during which it moves from Solar Max to Solar Min; this means from a state of many sunspots, or solar storms, to few.

Sunspot data has been collected since 1749, and 100 or more ‘spots' can occur during a single month of the maximum portion of the cycle. We have just been through Solar Min, and the return of sunspots is late. During the last few months, there have been virtually no spots, and a month with no spots at all is very rare. It has been found that there is a direct correlation between the number of sunspots and global warming, and, consequently, the state of the climate. The last time the sun was as quiet as it is now was 400 years ago, and that signalled the onset of a period of global cooling, the coldest point of which is known as the Maunder Minimum. At that time, New York harbour froze to such a degree that people could walk from Manhattan island over to the island on which the Statue of Liberty stands today. In London, the Thames froze, and ice fairs were held on the river.

There has been no global warming since 1998; in fact, there has been a slight cooling. In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabilullo Abdusamatov predicted that the state of the sun could trigger a rapid cooling if it stayed this way. So it is with relief that the current sunspot has made its appearance – maybe more will follow.

Dr Timothy Patterson, director of the Geosciences Centre at Carleton University, has found "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations and global temperature, whereas he says there are no such correlations with the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Patterson says there is no surprise in this, since "the sun is the ultimate source of energy on this planet". Sunspot climate research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) released a study showing that world temperatures over the last several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. Further research, led by the DMI's Dr Henrik Svensmark, has revealed what appears to be happening. The temperature of the planet is related to how much cloud cover there is. Fewer clouds mean a warmer planet, since sunlight strikes the earth and warms it up. More clouds mean that the tops of the clouds reflect the sun's heat back into outer space. The amount of cloud cover is related to the quantity of cosmic rays coming into the atmosphere. Cosmic rays are energetic nuclear particles that originate in the stars and constantly hurtle through space. While you read this article, a few cosmic rays will pass through your body.

As the cosmic rays race through the atmosphere, they strike atoms and molecules in the atmosphere, and this gives rise to nucleation points, which induce clouds to form, from the water vapour in the air. This is the same mechanism that drives the formation of the long trails of cloud that appear behind the engines of high-flying jet aircraft. The specs of soot and ions in the jet exhaust provide the nucleation sites for droplets of water to form, which are then seen as the familiar ‘contrails'. But the earth has protection. This protection is provided by the magnetic field around the planet. This field extends out a great distance, and its effects are seen half way to the moon.

The earth's magnetic field acts as a shield, preventing many cosmic rays from getting through to our atmosphere. Then there is another phenomenon, which is known as the Solar Wind. The sun blasts out a huge stream of nuclear particles, including charged particles, which race away from the sun and impact the earth.The charged particles interact with the earth's magnetic field, giving rise to, besides other effects, the awe-inspiring northern and southern lights, which look like gossamer curtains of coloured lights in the polar skies. As the magnetic storms on the sun's surface vary in number, which we see as the sunspot count, so the intensity of the Solar Wind alters. As the wind alters, so it alters the magnetic protection around the earth. When there are many sunspots, a stronger magnetic field develops around the earth, and this shields the planet from the cloud-forming cosmic rays. The result is less cloud cover and so a warmer planet. A quiet sun, like we have now, results in more clouds covering the earth, and so a cooling climate results.

During the Little Ice Age of 400 years ago, the Solar Minimum stayed for years, and one could walk across New York harbour. Dr Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher at Canada's National Research Council, has said that if we do not get some sunspots soon, we could be heading for an extended chilly period.

https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/extreme-weather-is-not-caused-by-climate-change-2017-10-27 27th October 2017 Kelvin Kemm

A few days ago, I was quite horrified to watch a fellow from the South African Weather Service (SAWS) explaining on TV that the recent large hailstorm that struck Krugersdorp and parts of Johannesburg was the result of climate change. He also claimed that the Durban floods a few days after the hailstorm were also the result of climate change. If anybody should know the difference between climate and weather, it is the TV weatherman, who is a staff member of the SAWS. Worldwide, there is no evidence of increased weather events as a result of man-induced ‘climate change’.

You will find from the SAWS’s own records that snow fell in Springbok on July 29, 1953, which was the first time since 1927. If snow fell in Springbok now, would the TV weatherman gleefully explain that the 2017 snow was as a result of climate change, but the 1927 and 1953 falls were not? On October 28, 1917, extreme rain and gale-force winds struck Durban and surrounding areas. The Umgeni valley was flooded for several kilometres. The Umgeni railway bridge was washed away and houses were damaged. Lives were lost. Now, how does this differ from Durban 2017? Climate change?

In 1891, on March 15, heavy rain fell in Durban, accompanied by strong winds. Rainfall of 190 mm was recorded. Climate change again? These weather events have always occurred – they are nothing new and not related to human activities. Okay, the SAWS fellow may have been spurred on to heights of climate enthusiasm by his American counterparts. We have heard so much lately about the hurricanes which struck the US coast. But they are nothing unusual either. If one looks at the US hurricane record from 1851 to the present, the decade with the most hurricanes was 1941 to 1950; second was 1891 to 1900 and a close third was 1881 to 1890. The lowest for the entire period was 1971 to 1980, and the hurricane incidence for 1991 to 2000 was almost as high as 1861 to 1870. Stories about more hurricanes or more powerful hurricanes striking the US are just plain and simply not true. I am so tired of people who should know better claiming that man-made climate change even exists, let alone that it is responsible for ‘extreme weather events’.

Do readers know that there has been no global warming this century. In fact, since 1998, the atmospheric temperature has not risen. But are we told this in the newspapers? No. Why not? In fact, the warmest enthusiasts say that the flat temperature signature since 1998 is ‘a pause’. The term ‘pause’ is supposed to say that it really is happening, but that you just cannot see it at the moment. This is like saying aliens from deep outer space are regularly landing on Table Mountain. This really is true, but you just cannot see them because they are temporarily invisible, but give it time and the temporary invisibility will go away. They will then be there in all their glory.

Get the picture? Well, I guess I mean: Get the nonpicture? We even have characters internationally who claim that earthquakes and tsunamis are the result of climate change. In the face of such claims, the claim of aliens on Table Mountains is totally reasonable. The pattern is worldwide. In Australia, the pattern of regional tropical cyclones shows that the incidence of such storms from 1970 to 1985 was far higher than in the last 15 years – over 50% higher, in fact. Last thought: if any climate change brings about changes in the weather, why should all such changes be negative? Think about it. Basic stats says that this cannot be the case. If you flip a coin 50 times, you will not get 50 ‘heads’.

''Dr Kemm is a nuclear physicist and is CEO of Nuclear Africa (Pty) Ltd as well as chairperson of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation. He sits on the board of advisers of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, based in Washington DC. He is also a board member of GoNuclear Inc and EFN: USA, both based in Colorado, US – exec@nuclearafrica.co.za ''

Global warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvVephTIHU Prof. Lindzen from MIT atmospheric science stating that global warming is a non issue. (video got canned by google). See https://www.bitchute.com/video/9FYcULPJtjOw/

http://technutnews.com/

http://jwbats.blogspot.com/

http://www.newscientist.com/, http://www.newscientist.com/topic/quantum-world

peak oil
http://www.platts.com/weblog/oilblog/2008/12/one_economists_dire_prediction_1.html#more

The myth of Peak Oil
http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2008/06/oil-myth-new-oil-is-plentiful.html#comments and https://archive.md/fKsP Fertilizer costs are directly related to the supply of Oil. Read these links which explains that there is infinite oil in the mantel of the earth that gets pushed to the surface by the extreme pressures inside the planet. Oil is manufactured in the heart of the earth by the compression of hydrogen and carbon to form a hydrocarbon and not by dead dinos. Plant matter can't form oil, it is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. We have a food crises not an oil crises. Links to https://www.rawstory.com/2009/11/we-entered-peak-oil-iea-source-reportedly-claims/

Natural gas makes nitrogen
https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news-fast-news/europes-energy-woes-hit-fertilizers-in-another-threat-to-food/

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4485#more Myth: "...I don't think that peak gas will be very relevant, as the price of gas is coupled with the price of oil..."

"...Not in the US, and long term differentials are wide enough that we could easily see LNG offtake capacity built to transfer a huge North American oversupply to world markets..." Natural gas is used to create nitrogen fertilizer.

Nuclear power - millions of years
Myth: Even proponents say there is a need to move to centrifuge enrichment because the energy return is so low.

"...Gas diffusion enrichment uses fifty times as much energy as centrifuge enrichment. The only reason the gas 'diffusion is used at all is that it is a legacy of World War II and the Cold War when those plants were built. No one will ever build another gas diffusion plant. That is why energy return estimate for future reactors should only use centrifuge enrichment. The current gas diffusion plant will supply some current reactors but all future reactors will use centrifuges. That is why it is so dishonest for the anti-nuke to still talk about gas diffusion enrichment. What is so surprising to have a new, better technology after fifty years? ..."

Myth: Standard estimates for nuclear fuel availability stand at about 70 years at the present rate of use.

"...Those mistaken claims that fission fuels are in short supply result for misunderstanding what “reserves” mean and thinking that because the reserves for an resource like oil which is in short supply, closely approximate the resource base, this must also be true for Uranium. The only way to estimate the Uranium resource base is to look at what is known about its distribution in the crust. This, Thorium and the possibilities of other fuel cycles show that there are at least millions of years of supply...."


 * http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
 * http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm
 * http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7276986
 * http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4485#more
 * http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution
 * http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/how-long-can-uranium-last-for-nuclear.html
 * http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
 * http://canteach.candu.org/
 * http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t-boone-pickens/stimulus-and-energy_b_161957.html Put US trucks on natural gas and off oil
 * 1) http://co2sceptics.com/forum/
 * 2) http://www.wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html

Salt distorts seismic waves
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/02/245-where-is-undiscovered-oil.html

But there are many areas that have not been explored, on the continental shelf and continental margin, of the world.

True, it's not cheap to "lift" the oil, it averages around $70 a barrel, but expensive is different from not being there at all. Also, the depth of exploration is increasing substantially. The subsalt depth was not explored at all -- it was labelled on old seimic maps as "the salt abyss," now we know there are large oil deposits, via Brazil. This is true all over the world, but more acutely in the continental margin. So you ask me where the undiscovered oil is, and I will point to the subsalt depths. And finally, why the delay? Because, until recently, it was almost impossible to get resolution below the salt, as salt absorbs and distorts energy waves. So, Peak oil pushers are talking old news, when they say "all the world has already been explored" -- it hasn't.

Greenpeace
https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/greenpeace-disappears-a-founder-much-like-the-commissar-vanishes-in-soviet-russia/ founder of greenpeace calls global warming a hoax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5K5i5Wv7jQ Climate change has been at the forefront of political, cultural and social battles for the last 40 years. Patrick had a front-row seat as he organised the environmental movement's first ever major demonstration, but now he has some real problems with the direction it's heading in. Expect to learn Patrick's thoughts on humanity's impact on global warming temperatures, his opinion on Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg, what people mean when they say we've only got 50 harvests left, whether we should be worried about rising sea levels and much more...

links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ui92cPxueM In today's video we look at Jordan Peterson, which looks at how politics influences science steel production in green economy needs carbon(world steel association) and https://archive.ph/3yLEg IEEE article https://www.zerohedge.com/political/obamas-chief-energy-scientist-disputes-climate-change-propaganda-peddlers https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.zerohedge.com/health/sun-has-gone-lockdown-and-strange-behavior-could-worsen-global-food-shortages Well, every once in a while a very deep solar minimum that lasts for several decades comes along, and when our planet has experienced such periods in the past the consequences have been quite dramatic. For example, the New York Post is claiming that NASA scientists fear that we could potentially be facing “a repeat of the Dalton Minimum”… NASA scientists fear it could be a repeat of the Dalton Minimum, which happened between 1790 and 1830 — leading to periods of brutal cold, crop loss, famine and powerful volcanic eruptions. Temperatures plummeted by up to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over 20 years, devastating the world’s food production.

Even worse would be a repeat of the Maunder Minimum which stretched from 1645 to 1715. It came as the globe was already in the midst of “the Little Ice Age”, and it caused harvest failures and famines all over the globe… The Maunder Minimum is the most famous cold period of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures plummeted in Europe (Figs. 14.3–14.7), the growing season became shorter by more than a month, the number of snowy days increased from a few to 20–30, the ground froze to several feet, alpine glaciers advanced all over the world, glaciers in the Swiss Alps encroached on farms and buried villages, tree-lines in the Alps dropped, sea ports were blocked by sea ice that surrounded Iceland and Holland for about 20 miles, wine grape harvests diminished, and cereal grain harvests failed, leading to mass famines (Fagan, 2007). The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands froze over during the winter (Fig. 14.3). The population of Iceland decreased by about half. In parts of China, warm-weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/you-may-not-understand-this-now-but-you-need-to-get-prepared-for-the-food-shortages-that-are-coming https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/ http://globalwarmingracket.blogspot.com/ and backup (https://archive.is/d9xkR site got yanked by google) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/germany-disappoints-announces-massive-climate-plan-fiscally-neutral see links to links : http://web.archive.org/web/20190804055711/http://drtimball.ca/ https://www.thegwpf.org https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/26431-controversy-in-the-climate-science-trial-of-the-century