The recent strong El Niño caused the temperature spiked which showed up, not only on temperature stations, but also on satellite and weather balloon measurements. Some climate activist scientists claimed that only about 0.2-0.1 C of the peak was due to the El Niño but the rest was caused by human greenhouse gases. This was the proof they have been waiting for. Now the anthropogenic global warming at last is taking off, as they had predicted.
This is all nonsense of course.
In fact, nearly all of the temperature spike can be directly attributed to the recent El Niño which was also long lasting with a weak mid Pacific centered El Niño the year before. Because of this long lasting El Niño forcing, which also affected the tropical waters of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean, the temperature spike created a record spike. Similar ENSO mechanisms exist in the Indian Ocean and in the Atlantic although with other response time and with weaker temperature forcing.
This created a huge reaction by the media, among climate activists and among climate scientists as this article pointed out that the cause of the warming was the El Niño. To claim this was regarded as heresy and a challenge against their narrative. So, the accused this article to be full of lies, while in fact it just presented facts.
The British newspaper The Guardian has become a fake news outlet for the green agenda. Yes, they admit this themselves as they have abandon journalism and changes their policies to green advocacy. They claimed falsely that the recent temperature spike was mainly caused by human causes.
Note: the temperature graph they use in the guardian is from NASA/GISS which use temperature surface station which has a lot of problems and are open to manipulations. So, for example, there has not been any measured temperature increase since 2000 if the effect from the recent El Niño is removed. This conclusion is based on data made from satellite and from weather balloon. So, this show no statistical temperature increase for this century so far. Note however that we are talking about small temperature changes which is within statistical noise. According to satellite measurement, the recent temperature spike that was about 0.02 C “earth shattering” warmer compared to the temperature spike during the 1997-98 El Niño.
Temperature comparison between different temperature sets. Here you can see NASA/GISS temperature is higher than the other sets in what is called the divergence problem and recent temperature manipulation of the NASA/GISS record.
Here is additional information on the recent temperature manipulations.
After all, El Niño is the most influential weather phenomena on Earth and it should be a vital component in making valid climate models. But, despite massive research into the El Niño phenomena and its index or what it is also called ENSO “El Niño southern Oscillation”, the forecast capability of dynamic and statistical ENSO models is limited to only a few months, at the most.
However, ENSO has a semi oscillation dynamic feature. The basic mechanism of ENSO is that heated surface water is drifted by wind and sea currents to the western tropical Pacific Ocean where warm water over time accumulates down to several hundred meters beneath the surface creating. This over time, forms a pocket of warm water. Normally the trade wind is blowing in an easterly direction pushing up the sea level about half a meter in the Western Pacific. Eventually, the trade wind in the western part of the tropical Pacific slackens or change direction. This then push back some of the warm water which then moves under the surface to the east. After about 2 to 3 months this warm water may resurface at or near the South American coast which then act as a fuel for an El Niño.
Scientists use buoys that are positions along the equator to monitor movements of this water and can therefore make predictions a few months in advance what is likely going to happen. But, sometimes this water is dispersed and never reach the surface.
El Niño thus act as a ventilation mechanism, releasing heat which originate in the western pacific by moving this warm water to the eastern pacific surface. This heat then warms the atmosphere over the pacific. The conclusion made by scientists working is this field is that the triggers for ENSO variations is caused from chaotic weather fluctuations, which can’t be predicted.
This is talked more about in this Congressional briefing. At about 26 minutes in this video Clara Deser declares that long term ENSO forecasting is impossible.
However, her conclusion is wrong. Don’t get me wrong, the dynamic models are working quite well in describing the dynamic features of ENSO. It’s just that they don’t include the triggers. They don’t have a clue, yet these triggers are the dominant underlining drivers of ENSO variability.
Who has discovered what triggers ENSO variations? I have!
Here is my latest ENSO forecast, based on my findings.
The question then arises, why haven’t they discovered these fundamental drivers, despite all the money and manpower used in El Niño research?
I think, that one reason is that these drivers which are external to internal dynamic weather fluctuations is outside the area of expertise for most climate scientists.
Also, it appears that it is a sort of taboo to look for outside forces relating to gravitational and solar effects.
Both dynamic ENSO and climate models are suffering from what I call “the black box syndrome”. What I mean with that is that they ignore data coming from outside of Earth. In other words, their models are incomplete and thus wrong. It doesn’t matter if they use more powerful computers with smaller increments in both time and space. They still get the wrong answers.
Because they have missed to discover these drivers for ENSO, the questions become why haven’t they included these forces in GCM climate models that are supposed to calculate global temperatures 100 years into the future?
When I started to consider climate science I noted their reliance on computer models. But for me, because of my background, I have built computer models in other fields, the idea that these models were reliable seemed to me to be a bit bizarre. There are too many unknown factors for that. It took me a long time before I realized to computer models for most people means something reliable and trustworthy and that these models are one reason that so many people believe in the dangerous human caused global warming theory.
Computer models can’t be wrong, can they?
There are other reasons for many people to believe in AGW, trust in authority. Also people need paychecks, especially in academia.
It’s not a smart career move in academia to put a question mark of the validity on the theory dangerous human caused global warming. Your academic credibility then will become in question.
Can the main drivers for ENSO be identified and established?
These are some of the questions I have spent on researching in recent times.
First I examined the forcing factors for global temperature as measured from satellite.
As you can see from my research, variations in the solar wind seem to be one of the most important temperture drivers. However it is possible that this correlation I got could also be caused by the sensor equipment on the satellite.
To my surprise I found that the main driver for ENSO variations is from small variations in the tidal force.
Because the tidal force for the future is known it is possible to know whether ENSO is going to be in an El Niño phase, La Niña or in a neutral phase at a specific time in the future and long range predictions into the future can now be made.
Here is a video which describes vividly how global warming science has been able to capture the world and how climatologists with the help of the peer-review process has distorted the science.
Worth looking at.
I showed in the previous post about an article describing dr Roy Spencer’s new paper which shows that the atmosphere releases more heat into space than what is expected by climate models. This shows that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is low.
Here is an interview with dr Spencer
Not only is the climate sensitivity to human released greenhouse gases low, but humans contribution to the registered increase of CO2 is probable also low.
According to dr. Murry Salby the indication of the recent increase in CO2 is that it’s mostly natural. He is about to release a paper which shows just that. In this lecture he describes how.
The amazing conclusion from his talk is that not only do humans not only not affect the climate, humans don’t even have any important influence on the CO2 level.
That start me thinking. How much do human contribute to the yearly release of CO2 compared to the natural release?
According to Wikipedia the atmosphere’s weight is about 5×1015 tons. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.04%. The weight of the atom such as Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen are almost the same. The atom numbers of carbon is 6, Nitrogen is 7 respectively Oxygen is 8. Most of the atmosphere is either Oxygen or Nitrogen. CO2 is composed of 3 atoms, Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules both are composed of 2 atoms. CO2 is therefore about one-third heavier than both O2 or N2. So the weight part of the atmosphere of CO2 is not 0.04% but 0.06%. This is not an exact calculation but an approximation, assuming that the data from Wikipedia is right.
The weight of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0006 × 5×1015 tons which is 3×1012 tons. According to Tom Segerstad of Oslo University the average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years. I give it 10 years in this calculation.
The amount of CO2 which is recirculated from nature, generated from fossil fuels or volcanoes in any one year is about 3×1011 tons. According to Wikipedia the amount released from burning of fossil fuels each year are 21.3×109 tons which is 2.13×1010 tons.
Humans yearly CO2 contributions is according to this calculation less than 10%. According to the life time of CO2 that Tom Segerstad calculated it should be less than 5%. This does not tell you anything about how much CO2 is recirculated in nature from vegetation or from absorption and release from the oceans.
Shutting up, blocking peer-review papers and blocking scientists from funding when scientists come up with results which is threatening to a scientific consensus or a paradigm is not something which is unique to climate science. Not at all!
I think that too many established scientists in academia is in a collegial comfort zone. I like to describe them as they are being in love with their own expertise. They therefore are reluctant to think outside the box as they believe they already know what there is to know of the fundamental basis of their respective scientific field. However, this may not always be true.
I want to show two examples of two other such field here.
One is the big bang theory. The big bang theory which estimates that the universe was created in a big bang some 13 or 15 billion years ago, is of course at the outer limits of human knowledge, literary speaking. Interestingly, there exist groups of theoretical physicists which put out PhD thesis and meet at seminars to discuss what exactly happened a few fractions of a seconds after the big bang. I’m sure that there are a lot of interesting mathematics involved for those participants during these meetings, but I very much doubt that it has much to do with reality. Nevertheless this is exactly what they try to convince people that it is, reality.
It has become more difficult to justify the big bang theory over time. Astrophysicists have been forced to include something they call dark matter to make it work.
A few astronomers who have been looking into quasars that have strong redshift which according to the Hubble Law indicates that they are located at great distances and therefore release huge amounts of energy, which would make them the most energetic objects in the universe, noted that many of these quasars seem to be connected to galaxies located much closer. They have even discovered a quasar in front of a galaxy which according to the redshift for the quasar should have been behind it and blocked out of sight.
There are all in all 9 part of this video on YouTube. I suggest you check them out on YouTube. You should view these videos even if you aren’t interested in cosmology. Because, if you do view them you are going to get a deja vu experience. You will find many striking similarities between what is happening regarding the big bang theory and the human caused global warming theory. Plus it gives interesting insights into the academical environment of cosmology.
I’m both a big bang and a steady state universe agnostic. The important difference between the big bang controversy and the CAGW is that with the big bang controversy ordinary people are not affected by any economic policies based on that particular theory. There are no political ambitions by environmental organisation or by politicians and there are no rent seeking business interests associated with it all. It is purely an academic pursuit.
However, for this the next case there may be big implications for humanity and this may also get an impact on the climate debate as this is potentially connected to energy production. I know that by taking up this case I may upset some of my readers. I will talk about what has been called “Cold Fusion”. Because this term has been so tainted it is now called low-energy nuclear reactions or LENR for short. You may remember that little over 20 years ago two researchers Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons presented what came to be known as cold fusion to the public. They claimed that they could create fusion energy by using palladium, deuterium “heavy hydrogen”. They claimed that by letting a current go through the metal palladium they could create excess heat.
As most nuclear physicists already know, the thought of creating fusion by working with metals, heavy hydrogen and letting a current running through it all in some kind of bottle is just pure fantasy. I mean, this idea is just preposterous. Nevertheless this concept was tested by several groups soon after it was announced.
Nobody could reproduce the process and get any form of excess heat. Nor could they register any nuclear radiation in the form of gamma rays or any neutron radiation. Therefore it was pure bunk. Case closed. Cold Fusion became a joke and synonymous with pseudo science. No respectable physicists would after this science incident want to having anything to do with “Cold Fusion”, period.
The Hot Fusion scientists could now breathe a sign of relief. Hot Fusion is the process which tries to simulate the same processes that is going on in the Sun using hot plasma of hydrogen and from this process create electric power for the grid. The Hot Fusion research field is in the same way as the global warming research field a multi-billion reasearch industry. If fusion cold be created efficiently with Cold Fusion technology then many Hot Fusion researchers could soon find themselves out of a work.
The official story was that Cold Fusion was bunk and the story of Cold Fusion apart from being a practical joke was soon forgotten by most scientists.
Meanwhile a band of mostly elderly metallurgists and chemists was intrigued by the concept and started to do their own research in this field, in most case without any form of funding. And indeed, many were able to reproduce this concept and to get excess heat. In the US, Canada and most of Europe public funding became blocked for anything remotely connected to the term Cold Fusion. In other parts of the world where academia in this field has been more free things have been different.
In what in practice has become a parallel universe these researchers have their own peer-review literature and their own seminars. The two communities never meet.
After reported progress in 2004, DOE the US Department Of Energy again put up a review panel which looked into some of the research that had been done. After a hastily presentation of evidence by cold fusion researchers, none of the reviewers could find any evidence for fusion processes. However, half the panel concluded that there were evidence for anomalous production of excess heat.
Despite that half of the panel thought that there existed evidence for anomalous heat generation, they all still recommended that no public research funding was to be allocated for research on any LENR projects.
Today both side of this issue claim to have evidence to support their view.
Proof that it is not nuclear fusion is derived from the fact that no gamma rays or neutron radiation has been detected nor has any persons in their labs ever registered any radiation burns.
Proof that nuclear fusion is happening can be derived from the fact that elevated levels of either Helium or Tritium atoms has been registered when anomalous heat have been created.
Lets examine this conflict. First let me tell you that I have specialized in Material Science. I think a key to all this is to understand a little bit of what a metals really are and what is nuclear fusion.
The nuclear fusion we are taking about here is fusion of Hydrogen atoms into Helium atoms. This causes release of energy. There are 3 forms of Hydrogen. Ordinary Hydrogen which has one Proton but no Neutron. Deuterium which has one Proton and one Neutron. Tritium which has one Proton and two Neutrons. Deuterium and Tritium are both what is called heavy Hydrogen. Deuterium exists as a stable form in nature and on average 0.016% of all Hydrogen is Deuterium. Tritium is not stable in nature and weakly radioactive. It does exist in nature in extremely small amounts while it is produced naturally in the upper atmosphere from interaction with cosmic radiation.
Here is a little crash course on metals: All metals we see are composed of little microscopical small grain of crystals. In each crystal grain inside the metal, atoms are arranged orderly in successive layers in a lattice. However in almost all these crystal lattices there are irregularities. This can be from a layer which is disturbed by a different type of atom and in some layers some of the atoms in the layers can be missing. These irregularities are called dislocations. Individual crystal grains are kept together by electrostatic forces. The reason that metal look and shine as they do is because of free moving electrons which move about inside the crystal lattice. This is because the outer electrons of metal atoms in the crystal are not bound to single atoms, instead they float around in what is called an electron cloud within each individual crystal lattice.
The only way by which either elevated amounts of Hydrogen or Tritium can be measured in a cold fusion experiment is if there any form of nuclear processes going on which involves hydrogen. There is no away around that! If you get elevated amounts of Helium or Tritium then these gases are produced by nuclear processes, period. Neither Tritium or Helium atoms can be created out of nothing.
Of course measurements can be made incorrectly, the measured gases can be contaminated or these claims can be right out frauds.
Now, there are many people involved in these measurement in LENR experiments, which make it highly unlikely that severe error has been made.
If we accept that these nuclear produced gases was measured correctly then the only conclusion can be that we are dealing with some form nuclear process. If this is true then the requirement that gamma and neutron radiation must be present in the experiment when nuclear processes are occurring must be false.
While the energy and momentum must be preserved in any nuclear process it is important to point out that the process inside a crystal follows the rules of quantum mechanics. The energy inside crystal lattices are quantified in discrete vibrations called phonons which has similar characteristics to photons except the energy of these vibrations are mechanical heat vibrations, not electromagnetic waves.
Hydrogen atoms, whether they are heavy or not behave much like electrons inside the crystal lattice. The main difference is that they are heavier and positively charged. It isn’t a far fetch to assume that hydrogen atoms can interact inside a dislocation or at an anomaly near edges of the crystal grains.
Of course the density and distance between individual atoms inside a metal lattice is much higher than in a plasma. I find it plausible that a nuclear process becomes possible through quantum couplings to the atoms in the crystal lattice so that the energy from the nuclear process is dispersed inside the crystal as heat instead of being released as gamma rays or released as neutron radiation.
Just two years before Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons press conference a new form of superconductivity was discovered at temperatures near room temperatures. This was not anything which was theoretical expected. The unique effect is caused by wave functions which has a much larger distance reach than is the case for the previous known form of superconductivity. Because something is believed to be theoretic impossible doesn’t mean that this necessary is the case, especially when it comes to quantum mechanics.
A few years ago at SPAWAR a navy research institute in San Diego researchers could by the help of a special gel-like detector called CR-39 detect tracks of alpha particles in cold fusion experiments. Alpha particles are the same thing as helium nuclei which are the end product of nuclear fusion. Here is a paper on this experiment,
A video about Cold Fusion
I suggest you watch this space. One day what is called Cold Fusion or LENR could change how we produce energy and to do this in an environmental friendly way. Common water hold small amounts of heavy water in the form of Deuterium. If this process could be harnessed enormous amount of energy are available as common water contains 300 000 times more energy than what is contained in the same volume of gasoline/petrol. If we could use this process for energy production then an energy supply for the human population for the remaining time this planet is habitable would be secured. The Earth is expected to be habitable for another 5 or 7 billion years.
In universities around the world in laboratories dedicated to material science and within the semiconductor industry there are many qualified experts and very sophisticated equipment which can be used to solve the LENR question and help scientists to understand what is going on theoretically and in helping to transform this phenomenon from a lab stage to commercial cheap and environmentally friendly power station production. So far while cold fusion or LENR is not a phenomenon which is accepted within mainstream science, meeting between LENR researchers and main stream material scientists seems to be far off in time. But, things can change.
Ever since the discovery was made by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons I have followed the issue. Shortly after it was “debunked” I found information that some researchers did find Tritium, which is something that can only be created by some form of nuclear process. Before the Internet became widespread I used CompuServe. On CompuServe they had a group dedicated to Cold Fusion and I found information which showed quite clearly that this was a new nuclear phenomena that generated anomalous heat. This was despite problems in trying to reproduce the process. This plagued the research and blocked it from being accepted by mainstream science. Problems with reproducing the process, I think has to do under which conditions the metal was formed that was later used in the experiment. This then affects the condition of the individual crystal lattices in the metal.
It now appears that what is called Cold Fusion is not a traditional fusion process but instead single Hydrogen atoms interact and causes nuclear transmutation with single metal atoms in the crystal, transforming metal atoms into a new type of metal atoms while releasing energy in the process.
Eco-fascism as a label is what some call the radical part of the environmental movement.
Is the radical part of the environmental movement a totalitarian movement?
I don’t suggest that we sceptics are soon to be sent to concentration or gulag camps. However some radical environmentalists want to send somebody like me on trial.
Here are some similarities.
They want censorship on this subject because there is only one accepted view-point. Therefore they don’t allow debate.
They have a utopian goal which has to be met sometime in the future. They want to change from mainly fossil fuel energy consumption to low energy, dispersed, intermittent and much more expensive energy production based on what is called green renewable energy. This is what in their propaganda is called a low carbon economy. They ignore how this change is affecting ordinary people.
They have a simplified view on the world and simplified belief system how thing works. Among the things they believe in is an imminent ecological collapse and they believe in catastrophic human caused global warming. There is no evidence for any of these catastrophes. Any changes in nature are by them attributed to human activities.
They want to break down the old so that they can build something new from scratch to reach their utopian goals, without take into account the consequences. They want to stop us using fossil fuel and replace it with something which doesn’t work or work poorly.
They want to take control of the next generation by taking control of children. A whole new generation of children in the western world are taught to feel eco-guilt and taught to believe in human caused dangerous global warming.
Watch this interview with Pachauri from the IPCC and the children in the propaganda videos. It’s scary.
When the children grow up brainwashed are the results going to be a new Timothy McVeigh or a new Anders Behring Breivik? This idea may seem far fetch, but look at the next video, you may change your mind.
Deep green resistance
You can learn more about Deep Green Resistance on this link. While this group are one of the more extreme of green movement, other groups and environmental NGO’s also hold deeply anti-human and anti-democratic views. While listening to what is going on inside the UN and its branches of IPCC and UNEP where it is by these people in these organizations self-evident that any extreme weather event is attributed to the sinful industrial consumption of the west and for them there is proof that people in the industrial world now is causing increased temperature, increase in sea level rise, more ice melting and all sorts of bad weather. I feel they have an eco-fascist agenda. They propagate this propaganda without any challenge from the media and without any accountability.
This last week the ENSO index has drop to La Niña conditions after have been in a neutral conditions for the past 3 months. Before that it was in a La Niña condition for almost a year. The returning La Niña can be seen as a blue streak in the Eastern Tropical Pacific at the Equator.
What is going to happened next with the sea level change the coming year should be interesting to watch. Sea level changes is indicative of changes in the global sea temperature.
The effect from the solar slowdown is now showing up in the southern hemisphere. Some would say this is weather and not climate, but trends for more severe winters in both hemisphere is becoming more common.
While here in Norway nothing has happened, (weather-wise). Of course the maniac who went on a rampage the other day is something completely different.
But sticking to the weather, the weather here has not been unusual, although somewhat rainy. Some part of the country has suffered from flooding.
Because there’s a heat wave going on in Washington, New York and in large sections in Central and Eastern US, although not record-breaking, the US media is going full throttle in claiming that this is proof of global warming and anyone who questions this or remember the previous cold winters is an idiot. Of course there is a world outside of the US. Among them is the southern hemisphere. Many places down under suffers from a severe winter. This bode well for us, if we like severe winters, on the upper part of the planet because this points to yet another coming snowy and cold winter.
Here a list of cold snaps in the southern hemisphere.
BTW! It has come to my attention while looking at blogs that Anders Breivik the norwegian mass murderer according to his manifesto also is a “global warming denier” or as I would prefer to call it a climate realists. I share his view on this particular subject. That said, I haven’t even the slightest remote sympathy with his inhuman act.
Of course. the global warming propaganda machine are going to use the fact that he doesn’t believe in dangerous human caused global warming and link other “deniers” view to his, thereby linking global warming skepticism to nutters.
They will conveniently omit to mention that both Usama Bin Laden and Charles Manson did turned out to be climate alarmists. But, this is no longer or to be more correct this has never really been about the science, instead this is now a full fledge ideological propaganda war.
At the end, what is important is which side has the real science on its side based on real evidence, not who is associated with whom or who get the most money or from whom.
The global warmers has two type of evidence they claim to be on their side, sort of, computer models and call for believe in authority.
Neither is of course represent any form for proof for the CAGW narrative. The only way for them to succeed in proving CAGW is if they can convincingly with scientific proof show that there is a high positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor. Nothing else matter!