Monthly Archives: September 2014

We are Being Led Toward a Fantasy Future While We Should Be Preparing for a Different Deadly Climate

Written by Paul Litely at

The idea of “Energy Storage” in the oceans, or anywhere else on Earth without increased Solar heating at the surface is not evident. What is evident is that The Earth’s 97% Dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. It is so dominant that it is the only significant greenhouse gas.  It is not controlled by trace greenhouse gasses such as CO2.  I understand this is not what we have been told, but bear with me here.  Because water vapor transforms into clouds, it is impossible for the Earth’s temperature to runaway. More heat makes more clouds, and that makes more shade, to keep it in balance.

The dissipation of heat in the Earth’s atmosphere by upward radiation to space is enormous. The reflection of the Sun’s energy  off of clouds, back out into space is enormous. This heat has to be replaced daily by the Sun to keep the Earth from cooling. The dissipation of heat can only be balanced when the Earths “Venetian Blinds”, meaning the Cloud Cover, opens up so the surface of the Earth’s land and oceans can be absorb the Sun’s direct infrared radiation and be warmed

Today’s very low and rapidly declining activity of the Sun is indirectly increasing the Earth’s average cloudiness, driving us into a very cold future climate. The mechanism for this has only recently been understood. Cloud cover will be shading us increasingly Until the Sun finishes flipping North and South poles, as it does approximately every 200 years. It will take a while to finish the flip it has started. It may take 70 years, as it did in the 1600’s. Many, many people will freeze and starve unless we can have inexpensive energy for heating and to transport food from warm climates to our cold latitudes. Canada and Northern Europe will have great difficulty, as well as Russia, and the Northern US.

All types of Fossil Fuels will be essential to survival, but Clean Burning may still be a priority, increasing the cost of that energy. Nuclear energy may make a resurgence, fulfilling the promise made decades ago. Of course, the same powers that are sucking us of our treasure today may be selling the fuel and food at higher prices, at the exaggerated and unfortunate expense of those who can least afford it. Political unrest may be inevitable as patience becomes opposite to survival. Benevolent leaders may prevent this, especially if they get a head start.

It is so obvious that our greedy political leaders and “Scientists”, led by those at the UN, continue the spread of misinformation and misdirection through the popular media for their own personal gain, They all want to get paid as long as possible before the weather proves the “Emperor Has No Clothes”. Major industries have been created with subsidies and grants and tax credits based on fears of the non-existent dominant CO2 Global Warming. Those industries, too, will feed the fairy tale until they can no longer hold on to what will be obvious lies.. Their credibility will be lost.
Without credible traditional political and scientific leaders, the public may go random or be susceptible to radical ideas. The anarchy desired by anti-establishment activists may come to pass, with disastrous consequences for us AND them. Look at what filled the vacuum left behind when stable governments and societal structures were shattered in the Middle East. Activists, just like terrorist extremists, believe they can step into the vacuum and establish a society based on THEIR utopian ideas. That is their stated and unstated goal. However, Utopias are inherently unstable and doomed to failure because they attempt to enforce the denial of some elements of human nature and enforce the cultivation of other elements of human nature. They become manipulative.
All of human history has shown that all elements of human nature will always express themselves. Thank you, Shakespeare for your illuminating plays of passion. Totalitarian societies can be stable, while being undesirably intolerant and abusive, OR they can be benevolent. An unstable disorderly uncivilized undemocratic environment gives room for the worst elements of human nature to get a foothold by force or fiat, and be similarly intolerant and abusive. Unfortunately, self-serving or messianic characters are frequently successful in the struggle for dominance and power.
Truly democratic societies are flexible living things, and may swing from moderate extreme to moderate extreme, but they tend towards freedom of expression with protection from physical harm. What we have in the United States is not perfect, but is more perfect than what else is out there, and it deserves patience as it glacially moves to the will of the people, and hopefully to the vision of wise leaders. Of course, we get impatient. Bless us with wise leaders.
Hopefully, enough of those political and scientific leaders will see the light and
Then, those leaders can lead with informed clarity and dignity to help us prepare for the difficult and deadly climate future we have already entered.
We are being prepared by our leaders for the opposite of what we should be preparing for. We are facing Decades of deadly cold weather. Shame on them and God save us all. We have to prepare ourselves in spite of the misdirection and the ongoing waste of vast amounts of capital, both financial and human. We have to raise our own individual awareness of the misdirection by looking out the window at the weather and discovering indisputable facts. Then, we must question why it does not match up with the “Official” predictions. It is possible to question raw authority and make up our own minds from ALL the information available. We need to select leaders (VOTE) who are curious and informed and objective to be truly responsible for the welfare of their constituents. Dogmatism leads to dog days. Dishonest leaders take us to destinations of their benefit, not ours.
Earlier, Colder, Longer Winters have already begun. This means by definition that the Earth is cooling, regardless of occasional Summer heat spikes. Summer may all but disappear, as it did 200 years ago and 400 years ago, when the Sun previously flipped North and South poles. More ice is rapidly accumulating at the Earth’s poles. Let’s continue to watch them and other indicators of the Cooling of the Earth, while beneficial CO2 accumulates to fertilize green plants and trees. CO2 will ironically help to solve the world’s coming food crisis from shorter and colder growing seasons.


UNfortunate for the GOP if they Cave In to Globalwarming Activists

Written by Paul Litely at

Re the article:

Unfortunate for the GOP if they cave in to the Global Warming alarmists.  Then THEY TOO will be shown to be wrong in the next few years as the climate turns colder and colder in the “Landscheidt Minimum” little ice age.  If they just adhere to their position, supported by real science, then they will be able to overturn the Democrats credibility as the charlatans they are on this topic.

I have come to the conclusion that all these “Climate Actions” are ways to create a cash slush fund that the public has to swallow or be unresponsive to the shrill climate activists claims and statements.  This applies from the very top at the UN, down through the countries to the states to the counties to the individual cities and beyond.  What is being done now at the UN to get commitments from countries for 10+ Billion dollars, along with this article you brought up shows this.  Fortunately, there is some rebellion, particularly by Austrailia, who is saying NO, we don’t have money to hire people to look for ways to make life more difficult and expensive, but we do have money to save the reefs and the rainforests by stopping them from being despoiled by illegal logging and dredging.  Hopefully, the taxpayers, who have to pay for all these slush funds, will be asking questions about what they get for the $.  So far, nothing has been done to change the weather, and the weather is fixing itself despite claims to the contrary.  The more obvious this becomes, the more the public will call for a stop to the waste of their tax dollars, as is being done in Austrailia.  The next few years will be colder and colder, making it undeniable that humans are not changing the weather as claimed by the beneficiaries of the slush funds.  So many jobs and budgets depend on the sharade that it will not go quietly, that is for sure.

The Best Short Summary of Today’s Climate Science

Here is a very accurate summary of today’s climate science with the latest developments.–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Christopher Richey Post 1 on

Christopher Richey12 hours ago

“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.” says Hans Von Storch – Director of the Institute for Coastal Research

Click to access 060619_ushouse_energycommercehvs.pdf

“Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”

However, he calls into question the methodology of many others and their interpretation of the data.

How valid are the regression-type methodologies for reconstruction of actual historical climates?

“Regression-type models are designed so that they return only part of the full variability of the variable of interest, namely that part which can be traced back to the proxies. Not all of the variability can be accounted for in this way. The difference in variability of temperature and of proxy-derived temperature is dealt with by “scaling”, i.e., by applying a suitable normalization. If “scaling” is used, then the basic principle of regression is violated, as the part of variability in the predict and (temperature), which can not statistically traced back to the predictor (proxy), is nevertheless related to predictor-variability.”

How relevant are these reconstructions for claims that we presently experience a climate change outside the range of what we consider as “normal?”

“One would expect it to manifest itself with a higher “than normal” rate of change. Thus, the signal is expected to be a rapid warming in the most recent past. The method to test this hypothesis is to find out if we have a “steeper-than-normal” recent upward temperature trend.”

“According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.”

Did you get that?


It’s in the IPCC June 2014 Fifth Assessment report AR5:
“…the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence). The decline in the rate of increase in ERF is primarily attributed to natural (solar and volcanic) forcing but there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.” (AR5 Chapter 11).

The Solar Forcing Trend is indirect, so they do not consider it to be significant, and it fooled them, even though it turns out to be dominant by regulating cloud formation.

Christopher Richey Post 2 on

Christopher Richey12 hours ago
Dr. Vahrenholt expects the world to get cooler in the future for three reasons: (1) we are or soon will be beginning on the downward flank of the Sun’s Gleissberg and Suess cycles; (2) solar activity during the next cycle may extend our current very weak one; and (3) ocean cycles will be in cooling phases over the next decades as well.A research team in Sweden which analyzed patterns of solar activity at the end of the last Ice Age around 20,000 – 10,000 years ago concluded that changes in solar activity and their influences on climate are nothing new, especially on a regional level. – See more at:

Christopher Richey Post 3 on

Christopher Richey12 hours ago
The scientists reporting in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 report of Sept. 27, 2013, actually said “confidence in attribution to human influence remains low due to modelling uncertainties and low agreement between scientific studies.”

Pages 114 and 115 of the Technical Summary of the September 2013 IPCC Working Sciences Group I report show that the scientists make no predictive forecasts of catastrophe, stating they do not have sufficient long-term data.

“In other words, the NODC’s ocean heat content data for depths of 0-700 meters is primarily a Northern Hemisphere dataset before the early-to-mid 2000s. Or to phrase it another way, there was basically no coverage of the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere before ARGO.”

So, the reason these charts were based on ‘Average Pentadal’ research, is because that is all that they have…5 years of data…which they have ‘reverse engineered’ into other non-existent data back to the beginning of the century.

By the way, the writer of this article didn’t bother to analyze the VAST amount of information that goes along with it…all, also, reverse engineered to fit their models, not observations.

And while we are at it, how about using numbers that HAVE actually been collected for more than 5 years:

And this illustrates the full measure of the farce. GLOBAL means EVERYWHERE! But, none of the ‘Warmers’ have data to support ANY global correlations. It is not possible to have before 5 years ago…and what they are measuring now is completely explained by El Nina…

Christopher Richey Post 4 on

Christopher Richey12 hours ago

I make three very clear and specific points:

1. The simulations were guesswork based on assumptions.

2. They don’t really know what is going to happen.

3. What they DO know is that the models are wrong and there is no actual warming.

These quotes below, directly from the IPCC report 2013/2014 verify my position. Phrases like ‘presupposed’ ‘my instincts tell me’ ‘need to make adjustments’ ‘failed to predict’ ‘very little doubt’ (followed by) ‘doubts will grow stronger’ ‘If global warming continues to STAGNATE’ (and my favorite) ‘a great number of highly subjective assumptions’

“The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.”

“There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.”

“That’s what my instinct tells me, since I don’t know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions.”

Not only does this discredit much of the climate ‘research,’ but, it also undermines the integrity of many of the scientists themselves:

And my favorite:

Look at the chart.

Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content – Slide #9

Notice anything?

1 .The ‘consensus’ doesn’t talk about the degree of uncertainty. When taken into account, they could all be flat out wrong about all of this.

2. THEIR OWN DATA DOESN’T AGREE! Is it .35*C to 1.5 *C or is it .28*C to .38C???

The ‘uncertainty’ is a measure of ‘”We don’t know.” Look at the top of the ‘uncertainty’ adjustments. In the last 50 years, it appears that, from their own data sets, that the temperature could actually have been COOLER and is just now on an upward trend. Of course, 1960 could hardly be called the low-point in industrial pollution but we could just as well have been in a cooling cycle since then. Their own numbers reveal the degree of uncertainty involved.

They don’t know.

The science is not settled. NOAA cannot go back in time and measure anything. So, they ‘homogenize,’ ‘normalize’ and ‘politicize’ their data. After all, they ARE run by the government.

This type of ‘science’ is not science. Drawing conclusions based on incomplete data is theory. The Scientific Method is that the overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct. No one has PROVEN anything.

So, what’s the problem then? It’s not a problem as long as no one acts on the research as if it is settled. But, that is exactly what they are doing. It has been turned into a revenue machine. Trillions of dollars are being (or trying to be) to be spent on an unproven theory. It’s the same sales pitch used with the political urgency of the Affordable Care Act. “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it!”

There are some other theories that make solid use of the actual data:

Consider this:

CO2 fluctuates.

“In his overdue-glaciation ‘hypothesis’ Ruddiman states that an incipient glacial would probably have begun several thousand years ago, but the arrival of that scheduled glacial was forestalled by the activities of early farmers.”

Ruddiman, William F. (2003). “The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago”. Climatic Change 61 (3): 261–293. doi:10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004577.17928.fa

Galactic Positioning

“CO2 does not drive temperature. Game over for global warming.”

I have been asked for a simple explanation of the science in the Global Warming Debate

Written by Paul Litely at

            (Follow the companion twitter site or @paullitely)

Follow this link to a current article that very accurately summarizes today’s Climate Science Debate

Mail OnLine article 22 September 2014

I have been asked for a simple explanation of the science in the Global Warming Debate. After Six years of following it, I do understand, so here it is in simple terms.

The global Warming “scientists” would have you believe that the simple basic water cycle you learned about in Elementary School or Kindergarten breaks down and works differently with the introduction of a tiny bit of warming from the human caused 10% of the Green House Gas (GHG) effect of Carbon Dioxide.

Green House Gasses are called that because they absorb and hold heat, then can send that heat back out as radiation. Anyone in hot and humid weather feels as if they are inside a greenhouse, with the water vapor in the air itself radiating heat, because it does.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) only accounts for 0.6% of the Green House Gas effect in our Earth’s Atmosphere. 97% of the Green House Gas effect is from water vapor.  Water Vapor is not wet, it is humidity, it is a gas.

The Global Warming THEORY (GWT) proposes that if heat comes from CO2, then this 97% of GHG effect from Water Vapor can behave differently from what naturally happens… without proof or experiment.  This is a surprisingly unscientific claim.

The natural water cycle is described as the sun heating seas, evaporating water into vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere. When water is evaporated, it absorbs heat, cooling everything around it, and this slows the evaporation so it takes more and more heat to continue evaporating. The water vapor is lighter than air, so it rises until it reaches an altitude where the air is naturally much cooler, and there it condenses.  When water vapor condenses, it returns to water form as clouds, fog, or mist, rain and snow.  When water condenses, it releases heat into the clouds, warming the clouds, and this slows the condensation. The clouds radiate much of that heat up into space,never to return, and the cold air up there carries away even more heat.  Clouds continue to form, until finally the tiny water droplets combine and get heavy, to fall as rain or snow.  The clouds also reflect the sun’s radiation with their bright white tops.shading and cooling the seas or land underneath. The cycle is repeated, and the water that fell as rain or snow is then heated and evaporated and becomes clouds, then rain and snow and round and round. Solar energy can only push temperatures so far, because heat is lost by radiation into space by the clouds, and clouds themselves reflect as much as 400 watts per square meter back towards the sun and space. The atmosphere will continue cooling by itself unless the Sun adds more heat. This natural temperature limiting is called a “Negative Feedback” System, and is responsible for stable temperature ranges by heating the land and seas when the sun is not blocked by clouds, and cooling when there are clouds.

The First unnatural and Fatal Assumption of GWT is that the warming from CO2 can cause a dramatic increase in the evaporation of water from the Earth’s seas into the atmosphere and add significantly to the water vapor that is there. This does not happen, because CO2 is only responsible for 0.6% of the Earth’s Green House Gas effect. This unnatural assumption goes on to say that the heating from the CO2 causes evaporation, making significant amounts of added water vapor. GWT assumes that the added water vapor continues to accumulate as a green house gas without forming clouds or rain or snow. This assumption is known in the theory as amplification, and is the very basis for identifying CO2 as making Global Warming. But CO2 is so weak as a Direct Green House Gas that it does little to significantly increase the water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere.

The second unnatural and Fatal Assumption is that the Earth’s Atmosphere can absorb huge amounts of Water Vapor without making more clouds and Rain or Snow. Air that is already saturated with Water Vapor cannot absorb more… it just condenses into clouds, rain or snow. GWT assumes that this extra water vapor goes into the upper atmosphere above the clouds to act as a greenhouse gas where the air is drier. This has never been observed. This does not happen, and in fact, the upper atmosphere has been getting dryer over the last twenty years. GWT claims that this would happen especially at the Earth’s equator, where the intensity of the sun is nearly constant with the seasons. What has been observed instead is warmer water makes  more clouds, and rain, and in fact, that is the source of tropical storms. There has been no observed increase in water vapor at higher altitudes, even in between the clouds.

The Third unnatural and fatal assumption is that this additional water vapor in the upper atmosphere will act as a greenhouse gas, increase the warming below, causing more evaporation of the seas. They say that more evaporation makes more water vapor, and that makes for more warming, making more water vapor, and around and around in a runaway heating cycle without making more clouds or rain or snow. If this did happen, we would be in a very hot and humid atmosphere everywhere that would not need any help from CO2. CO2 would be even more insignificant. This is called a “Positive Feedback” System, where the sun could go away entirely, but the atmosphere would keep on getting warmer or stay hot. Is this a likely scenario? No. Clouds are the automatic regulator against runaway heating.

The Fourth Unnatural and Fatal Assumption is that the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is mostly increasing because of humans burning Fossil Fuels, and it is a dangerous, even poisonous gas. In fact, over 90% of the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is continually turning over, being made and absorbed by natural processes. All green plants need and want CO2 for healthy growth. It is estimated that less than 10% of the CO2 is man made, but the exact amount is unknown. GWT accountants add it up, and others estimate the CO2 emitted from known sources, including power plants and transportation.
The level of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is about 400 parts per million. It has been as high as 2200 parts per million in the Earth’s past, and from experiments, the ideal level for plants is 2000 parts per million. Greenhouses in Canada direct the exhaust from their heaters directly into their greenhouses to double the plant growth and health from the added CO2.. Humans do not notice concentrations as high as 800 Parts per million unless doing strenuous exercise. High CO2 levels in the bloodstream give us our breathing reflex. We put CO2 in sparkling drinks.  How poisonous is that?

Why would scientists, who are expected by everyone to be objective in their research and their work, propose that the well known natural water cycle behaves differently if a little bit of heat comes from CO2 as a greenhouse gas?

Why would scientists who may lead boring and underpaid lives support the obviously flawed GWT in response to Billions of dollars offered by the United Nations, and the governments of developed countries?
Why would politicians support GWT so they can tax and spend and create whole new industries and businesses for their friends and supporters, and get re-elected boasting about their accomplishments?
Why WOULDN’T They? Besides, they can be  justified by the agenda of the Global Warming Theorists, appealing to many scientists who believe in less industrialization and less consumption of Fossil Fuels. The goal is to make Humans Change their behavior and burn less Fossil Fuels. If it means bending natures laws without her permission, being paid well, traveling the world, being recognized favorably by politicians and heads of state, being published and peer reviewed by like minded scientists and non-scientists, and declaring in unison that increased CO2 is hazardous according to their MODEL so be it. They are said to be on the “Cocktail Shrimp Tour” within their own ranks.  Climate Research had an annual budget of $50 Million Dollars in the 1970s.  Today, its over $30 Billion.  It is so big it is no longer science, it is international politics and employment.
However, Scientists and Politicians who promote GWT live in daily fear of losing their grants and their paychecks and their positions of personal status.  The actual weather has turned opposite to what has been predicted by GWT. It is getting much colder, not much warmer. The CO2 Global Warming promoters are fighting and clawing and getting aggressive and louder and even more outrageous in their claims and explanations, to try to align PERCEPTIONS of their theory to the actual weather. At some point soon, all credibility will be lost. Cold is not hot. Black is not the new White.

Australians are known for being shrewd judges of character. Australia lead the way on Global Warming by instituting Carbon Tax laws.  Australia lead the way again two years later by repealing all twelve of them and electing a new government on that promise in 2014. More than half of the Australian population polled in 2014 thinks what is being done in the name of “Carbon” will make little or no difference in the Earth’s climate. They elected a new government on promises to repeal the Carbon Tax laws, done, and the new Australian Prime Minister Abbott sacked the head of the “Climate Office”, sacked all the employees, and closed the “Climate Office”   .

In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron saw evidence that over 30,000 pensioners died last winter from having to choose to pay to either eat or heat. Some did not get enough of either. The pursuit of “Carbon” has raised the price of food and energy. This is very unpopular for those who live on fixed incomes and vote.  David Cameron has seen what happened in Australia, and he wants none of it. David Cameron is quoted as saying privately “We’ve got to get rid of all this green crap”. After the UK, we could be next, if the US begins carbon taxes, driving up the price of essentials such as rent, fuel and food for everybody.

This agenda against burning fossil fuels is obvious because they make no mention of the vast amounts of Carbon Dioxide generated by humans in lesser developed countries that have no big power plants or cities teaming with fossil-fueled traffic.
Over half of the human population on Earth burns wood or dung or peat for heating and cooking and sets fires for land clearing and flushing out game for hunting. The vast amounts of CO2 from these sources is ignored by the GWT.  They just count the known estimated tons of CO2 “Carbon” from power plants and vehicles and demand a reduction. (BTW, The use of the term “Carbon” is totally unscientific. Carbon is a solid, is in every living thing, and has none of the characteristics of CO2.)

Just the CO2 and pollution from Sumatra alone in one year exceeds the CO2 and pollution from all the Cars and Trucks in the US.  A family of four in Africa burns 14 Kilos of wood a DAY for heating and cooking. Vast areas of organics are burned by Humans, or are naturally set on fire by lightning every year. The quest for more things to burn, results in a desert landscape and the obliteration of Greenery that keeps CO2 and Oxygen in balance.

Viewed this way, it is obvious that the GWT agenda is to reduce industrialization and burning of Fossil Fuels, while ignoring the possibility of making a huge difference in lesser developed countries  Burning wood, dung, or peat results in awful pollution that is truly dirty, sooty, ash filled smoky and hazardous to human health.  If CO2 reduction and atmospheric pollution reduction were the goal, it is even more important to attack those sources of CO2. Some of those lesser developed countries are doing a good job on their own. Dominican Republic, next to Haiti has banned burning wood or using fires for land clearing. Other countries require at least one tree to be planted when one is cut down. Consequently, their air is cleaner, and they have much more greenery to absorb CO2 and release oxygen.

Reducing air pollution, and preserving or restoring nature is a noble and worthy effort. I am an environmentalist and a nature lover. However, making life more expensive, inconvenient uncomfortable, and difficult, even to the point of death from having to choose between eating or heating in the winter is immoral when the stated goal is to control the Earth’s weather.  It is simply impossible for humans to control the weather on a global scale. It is a political agenda of lies, and an impossible science. It has created whole new industries that, like the fossil fuel industry are supported by extravagant tax subsidies. Is it worth it?

Renewable energy is a great idea, if practical. Fossil fuels from dastardly dirty recovery techniques such as “Fracking” are sacrificing our natural future with irretrievable underground pollution. Windmill farms will be even more unsightly when they are no longer economical to maintain. Solar panels may not work as well in the coming longer colder winters caused by increased cloud cover.

GWT promoters said at the beginning they MAY BE WRONG, but just in case, we should do something about it.  The recent weather shows they were clearly wrong when theorizing that CO2 in the atmosphere dominates the Earth’s climate future.  Heating from CO2 greenhouse gas effects is not amplified by the dominant Greenhouse Gas, Water  Vapor as if there were no limits.  Water Vapor continues to act normally.  Water Vapor still absorbs the sun’s energy and makes clouds and rain and snow in response to Solar energy. Clouds reflect nearly all Solar Infrared (heating) energy.  The absorption of heat by evaporation to be released back into space by clouds, and reflection of Solar heating energy by clouds limits temperature rises. Solar Energy is continually being heavily “Grounded”, and cannot possibly go into runaway warming. Clouds are the reason, and the thermostat effects of clouds were left out of the GWT model.

The GWT model was blindsided dramatically by an unexpected indirect effect of the Sun’s Activity on clouds.  The Sun’s Activity is measured by the numbers of Sunspots.  Since the Sun’s infrared (Heating) radiation only varies by about 3%, GWT discounted the effects of the Sun’s Activity on Global Climate.  They said this is not enough to compete with the AMPLIFIED greenhouse gas effects of CO2.  What fooled them is that there is an indirect effect of the Sun’s activity… it changes the amount of clouds covering the surface of Earth.  They were focused on CO2, and could not explain why a clear relationship between the Sun’s activity and the formation of clouds has been observed in the Earth’s historical record.  So, they left it out.   What was needed was an explanation.  The clue came from another observation in the Earth’s historic record.  The Earth’s temperature record is almost exactly opposite to the amount of Cosmic Rays that have reached Earth.   It is such a tight match that it is obvious there is a simple mechanism.  Experimental results have confirmed THIS theory.  Here is how it works.  When the Sun is quiet, the Sun’s magnetic field is only strong close to the sun and does not extend out to Earth.  This allows Cosmic rays (loose high-energy protons and neutrons and electrons) to enter the Earth’s atmosphere and assist in the formation of clouds.  This cools the Earth.   When the Sun is Very active, the Sun’s magnetic field deflects cosmic rays away from the Earth’s atmosphere.  This prevents the formation of some of the Earth’s clouds, allowing the Sun’s heating radiation to the surface of the land and oceans.  This heats the Earth. Basically, the activity of the sun controls the blinds (clouds) that block the Sun’s infrared (Heating) energy from reaching the surface of the Earth.

Active Sun opens the blinds.  Calm Sun closes the blinds.  Now THIS IS AN AMPLIFICATION.

This Video explains the MULTIPLE ways we know the Earth’s climate closely follows the activity of the Sun (spots).

Why is it important that an active Sun or an inactive Sun causes an amplified effect on the Earth’s temperature?  It is EXTREMELY  important today.  For almost two hundred years, since the last deep cold period on Earth, the Sun’s activity has been doing it’s usual 22-year long cycles, with the peak high cycles about the same strength.  THEN, the peak in 2003 was 30% lower.  AGAIN, next peak in 2014 is 30% lower.  This means the current Sun activity peak is 60% BELOW NORMAL.  It appears that the next peak could be lower still, as the Sun’s magnetic poles reverse. This is happening right on time according to historic records of long term solar cycle variations, and is much more serious than the last deep cold period 200 years ago.  So, just what is happening on time?  A mini ice age, as the Sun’s extremely low activity allows cosmic rays through to form clouds on the Earth, blocking the Sun’s heating radiation.  This is scary.  The high speed of the cooling has been obvious since 2012.  Global temperatures are headed downward fast.  Polar Ice came back almost to normal in two years. Antarctic ice is at the highest in recorded history. The great lakes froze over in the winter of 2013-2014.

Cold temperature records are being set, Winter AND Summer.

Global cooling is happening, and, according to Russian Climate scientists who are not being paid to promote GWT, it will go on for 30 years or more.

German Climate Scientists have joined in saying we are already into a deadly Global Cooling cycle.

Australian Climate Scientists were way ahead of them all.

In the US, with two more long and very cold winters, and two more cold summers ahead, coupled with implementing “Carbon Taxes” could result in a new government being swept into power by public opinion as happened in Australia.  It could result in a Republican president and majority in both houses of congress in 2016. Citizens and voters will not be very kind to their leaders for increasing the cost of food and fuel and general living while preparing them for a future of increasing heat, when the opposite is happening, increasing cold, deadly cold, leading to decades of more cold, where energy for heating means life or death and food is scarce. The credibility lost for Politicians may also be lost for science itself for selling itself out. I hope not. I hope I am wrong, but I have a 97% consensus within myself that I am right from watching the weather, and reviewing ALL the science in open debate.

  • Paul Claeyssens
    Write a comment…