Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Earth - Air, Soil & Oceans

Rising Temperatures/Heat



"Unrelenting heat from India to Brazil


This week, the heat index in Rio de Janeiro reached 144 degrees Fahrenheit, or 62 Celsius, the highest ever measured in the city. The national government issued health warnings because of extreme heat in multiple cities.

In South Sudan, temperatures were forecast to reach 113 degrees Fahrenheit, far above the 90-degree highs typical of the dry season from December to March, as my colleague Abdi Latif Dahir reported.

In Bengaluru, India, water supplies are running low, and last month Ghana and Nigeria issued heat warnings to the public.

We don’t yet know whether all these events were caused or worsened by climate change. But we do know that human-caused global warming was behind many of the extreme heat events that helped make last year the hottest on record. A recent study also concluded that climate change made the extreme heat West Africa experienced in February 10 times as likely, my colleague Delger Erdenesanaa reported."

https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Climate Change- The Cold Truth
This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past. Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’? The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis.

It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism. But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government. This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become is a breach of social etiquette. The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph), Willie Soon and several others. The film was written and directed by the British filmmaker Martin Durkin and is the sequel of his excellent 2007 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Tom Nelson, a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades, was the producer of the film. ClimateTheMovie is now available for free at many online locations.

Enjoy!

[Sid Belzberg]

Temperature Bands - Moving North

The Warming of Earth

https://www.audubon.org/news/spring-...t-newtab-en-us

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

There is nothing new here, Bob; some species evolve and adapt, others do not. That has been going on since time immemorial. Try lowering the carbon in the atmosphere from an infinitesimal .04% to .02%, and all plants and vegetation, along with the rest of humanity, will die. That, by the way, will have ZERO impact on the climate. It's the sun... duh!

[Bob Armstrong]

Temperature Bands - Moving North

The Warming of Earth

https://www.audubon.org/news/spring-...t-newtab-en-us

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hey Bob,
While Daylight Saving Time was originally introduced to reduce candle consumption, presently it leads to excessive gas and electricity consumption. Do you want to start a campaign against the DST? It would have a better chance of success than your Democratic Marxism campaign :-) ...

[Sid Belzberg]

The mainstream temperature data is "corrupted" only in the calculations of the "Natural Negative Climate Changers".

What do you mean by "mainstream" Bob? The majority of the scientific community supports solar activity as the source of climate change despite your past idiotic
parroting the debunked "mainstream claim" of "97 percent scientific consensus".

The majority of inhabitants of the Earth are seeing warmer temperatures move north, and higher temperatures in their locality over time. They are not hallucinating.

Who said they were hallucinating? This is an argument about .04% and a far tinier percentage of methane and nitrogen having an impact on a star that is 100 times the size of the earth. You are completely delusional and scientifically ignorant.
As you pointed out cities are at most 4 percent of the earths
surface area. My point exactly, when Dr.Soon omits urban data from the IPCC estimates we are at the same rate of warming we have been for over three centuries.5 degrees per century as per the thermometer UK data already shows.

[Bob Armstrong]

World Temperatures & Sid's Post # 1930 (24/2/28)



Sid: "[Re entanglement & quantum mechanics] - "Note that the model Alicia and I posted offers a proposed experiment that can easily prove our model to be wrong. That makes it a much stronger hypothesis, and that is the essence of what science is about! "

Bob: I know little about quantum mechanics, but this statement seems true re science in general.

Sid: "Dr. William Soon painstakingly took out urban areas and only looked at temperature data for rural areas and found that the average temperature increase per century is indeed only.55 degrees compared to the grossly inflated IPCC estimates of .8 degrees plus per century This, lines up well with the UK temperature that I showed earlier, which goes up only .5 degrees per century...... this new study [37 researchers from 18 countries - Know how many "researchers" (Not necessarily "accredited scientists") there are in the world? The UN consists of 193 member states - the majority of whom support "Mainstream Science"] suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850."

Bob: The argument that Earth's average soil/atmosphere temperature rise is mainly generated by "urban" heat is faulty. As Sid noted, urban areas represent only 3% of the soil of earth, and none of the atmosphere. There is no proof that Solar Heat has increased over time...in fact, stars die as their energy is emitted. The mainstream temperature data is "corrupted" only in the calculations of the "Natural Negative Climate Changers". The majority of inhabitants of the Earth are seeing warmer temperatures move north, and higher temperatures in their locality over time. They are not hallucinating......seems that some of us (the minority) are looking at a "Reality over-layed by their arguments".

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)
-
P.S. CO2 & Sid's Post # 1930 - answered in my Post # 1933 - there is lots of evidence in mainstream science for my explanation of the "egg shell".

[Sid Belzberg]

Earth's Rising Temperature Continues

"Last month was hottest February ever recorded. It's the ninth-straight broken record."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...mhAW4S4QM2hoOG

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

This "estimate" is based on IPCC corrupted data as described in post-1930. But as usual, you ignore whatever goes against your idiotic climate alarmist narrative.

[Bob Armstrong]

Earth's Rising Temperature Continues

"Last month was hottest February ever recorded. It's the ninth-straight broken record."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...mhAW4S4QM2hoOG

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

CO2 & Climate Change



Sid: Post # 1930

"The hypothesis is that even though the Sun is 100 times larger than the Earth, we can somehow modulate the climate by reducing or increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it is a thermostat button (CO2 only forms .04 percent of the atmosphere.). The problem with this hypothesis is that it can neither be proven nor disproven that this tiny percentage of the atmosphere (.04 percent) is a thermostat button."
[A side issue, though an important one: "One easy hypothesis to prove or disprove is that if we go below .02 percent, all vegetation on Earth dies, including all humans, as a result."

Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change Response

Statistics Lie

I assume Sid is correct that given the Earth's atmosphere from soil to space, the AVERAGE proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 4%.

So what.........?

Averages destroy the fact of concentrations existing in reality, as opposed to pure mathematics creating a totally uniform model.

So what is in fact happening is not THROUGHOUT the whole atmosphere! There is a problem due to concentration of CO2 (And other greenhouse gases) at a particular level of Earth's atmosphere.

What man is doing, is, approximately half-way up the atmosphere, creating a concentration of certain gases. And so half-way up the atmosphere, encircling the whole earth, is the start of the "egg shell" - this is a belt or canopy that is being generated that is "different" from the rest of the diffuse atmosphere. This shell is transparent but of a higher density than the atmosphere below it and above it, re the particular gases of concern.

It is an agglomeration of gases (Methane, CO2, etc.) which allow through the solar energy of the sun. This solar energy heats the atmosphere and Earth's soil. In the past, the heat energy has then been reflected back into the vacuum of space. So there was relative stability of Earth's temperature re solar energy........we did have different long ages of rising and falling temperature, but this was due to other factors.

What is new, since the dawn of human industrialization (Around 1850), is the introduction of, and greater local intensification of, the "egg shell", the greenhouse gas canopy.

Consequence

Now what is happening is that the Earth's reflected heat is escaping LESS than it did into space. Very slowly and incrementally, the Earth/Atmosphere within the "egg shell/Greenhouse Gas Canopy" experienced rising heat/temperature, that was being TRAPPED!!

Conclusion

1. Man must pinpoint his human activities that are generating the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
2. He must, at some cost, but without total destruction of society, cease those activities which are producing these greenhouse gases.
3. Science (Mainstream) tells us that Earth has a "Tipping Point" with respect to the combination of factors that make Earth's Environment hospitable to man (And most other Earthly life). If man causes "CHANGE" to some of these factors, there comes a point at which Nature can no longer RETURN to its former state. In other words, a new PERMANENT Environment will be created.
4. Should man succeed in creating such a new, permanent Earthly environment, then man is on a slow suicidal curve towards extinction. Mainstream science says that humans (And much other life) will find that the new environment is totally HOSTILE to their continued existence on this planet.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

assume Sid is correct that given the Earth's atmosphere from soil to space, the AVERAGE proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 4%.

So what.........? .

First of all you misquoted me the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 PPM or .04% not 4%! If you want to debate me learn to count!

There is a problem due to concentration of CO2 (And other greenhouse gases) at a particular level of Earth's atmosphere.

You have ZERO evidence to prove this is a "problem." The evidence you have relied on is completely debunked in peer-reviewed papers. Besides learning to count
you need to learn to read If you want to have a rational debate. Read my post-1930 again and tell me what is wrong with Dr. Soon's paper. I am all ears!!!!!

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...039#post232039

[Bob Armstrong]

CO2 & Climate Change



Sid: Post # 1930

"The hypothesis is that even though the Sun is 100 times larger than the Earth, we can somehow modulate the climate by reducing or increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it is a thermostat button (CO2 only forms .04 percent of the atmosphere.). The problem with this hypothesis is that it can neither be proven nor disproven that this tiny percentage of the atmosphere (.04 percent) is a thermostat button."
[A side issue, though an important one: "One easy hypothesis to prove or disprove is that if we go below .02 percent, all vegetation on Earth dies, including all humans, as a result."

Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change Response

Statistics Lie

I assume Sid is correct that given the Earth's atmosphere from soil to space, the AVERAGE proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is 4%.

So what.........?

Averages destroy the fact of concentrations existing in reality, as opposed to pure mathematics creating a totally uniform model.

So what is in fact happening is not THROUGHOUT the whole atmosphere! There is a problem due to concentration of CO2 (And other greenhouse gases) at a particular level of Earth's atmosphere.

What man is doing, is, approximately half-way up the atmosphere, creating a concentration of certain gases. And so half-way up the atmosphere, encircling the whole earth, is the start of the "egg shell" - this is a belt or canopy that is being generated that is "different" from the rest of the diffuse atmosphere. This shell is transparent but of a higher density than the atmosphere below it and above it, re the particular gases of concern.

It is an agglomeration of gases (Methane, CO2, etc.) which allow through the solar energy of the sun. This solar energy heats the atmosphere and Earth's soil. In the past, the heat energy has then been reflected back into the vacuum of space. So there was relative stability of Earth's temperature re solar energy........we did have different long ages of rising and falling temperature, but this was due to other factors.

What is new, since the dawn of human industrialization (Around 1850), is the introduction of, and greater local intensification of, the "egg shell", the greenhouse gas canopy.

Consequence

Now what is happening is that the Earth's reflected heat is escaping LESS than it did into space. Very slowly and incrementally, the Earth/Atmosphere within the "egg shell/Greenhouse Gas Canopy" experienced rising heat/temperature, that was being TRAPPED!!

Conclusion

1. Man must pinpoint his human activities that are generating the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
2. He must, at some cost, but without total destruction of society, cease those activities which are producing these greenhouse gases.
3. Science (Mainstream) tells us that Earth has a "Tipping Point" with respect to the combination of factors that make Earth's Environment hospitable to man (And most other Earthly life). If man causes "CHANGE" to some of these factors, there comes a point at which Nature can no longer RETURN to its former state. In other words, a new PERMANENT Environment will be created.
4. Should man succeed in creating such a new, permanent Earthly environment, then man is on a slow suicidal curve towards extinction. Mainstream science says that humans (And much other life) will find that the new environment is totally HOSTILE to their continued existence on this planet.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Dutch political commentator, Eva Vlaardingerbroek: Unelected globalists are using the pretext of "reducing nitrogen emissions" to shut down the global farming industry, so people will have no choice but to eat insects and lab-grown "meat", under the banner of UN Agenda 2030. "The people behind this want to establish a one world government, a 'New World Order', in which they decide what we eat, when we eat, where we travel, when we travel, who we meet, and what we are allowed to spend our money on. Basically, control over every single aspect of our lives." "They don't want us to eat foods that make us strong. They want us to eat synthetic meat created by Bill Gates. They want us to eat bugs, they want us to drink soy milk, so that we become weak and obedient, and we do as they say."

[Bob Armstrong]

Well documented, as usual, Sid.

I'll work my way through it as best I can; I appreciate the thoroughness of your responses (You have an amazing archive system!).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Earth's Oceans & Negative Climate Change

"For the past year, oceans around the world have been substantially warmer than usual. Last month was the hottest January on record in the world’s oceans, and temperatures have continued to rise since then. The heat wave has been especially pronounced in the North Atlantic.

“The North Atlantic has been record-breakingly warm for almost a year now,” McNoldy said. “It’s just astonishing. Like, it doesn’t seem real.”

Across the unusually warm Atlantic, in Cambridge, England, Rob Larter, a marine scientist who tracks polar ice levels, is equally perplexed.

“It’s quite scary, partly because I’m not hearing any scientists that have a convincing explanation of why it is we’ve got such a departure,” he said. “We’re used to having a fairly good handle on things.But the impression at the moment is that things have gone further and faster than we expected. That’s an uncomfortable place as a scientist to be.”"


https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Bob,
In your other thread, I recently posted a hypothesis involving a theoretical model in explaining a phenomenon of pairs of sub-atomic particles that tend to instantaneously correlate (i.e., spin in opposite directions) no matter what distance they are apart. They could be lightyears apart, yet one spins in one direction, and its partner billions of miles away spins exactly the opposite instantaneously. Correlation is many times faster than the speed of light; according to Einstein, it is a physical impossibility, and this perplexed him until the end of his life.

A few models have offered to explain this, but none can be proven or disproven. One idea was that the pairs are preprogrammed to spin at certain times opposite each other with no \communication at all. The problem with this idea is they would have to be preprogrammed with infinite scenarios for this to work. They would have to know in advance when exactly the other is going to change its spin. The main weakness is that this hypothesis can neither be proven nor disproven.

The great philosopher Karl Popper posited that the strongest hypothesis is easily falsifiable. Anyone can make up a model to fit the data, but as in the example above, if it is not easy to disprove, the model is of very little value. Note that the model Alicia and I posted offers a proposed experiment that can easily prove our model to be wrong. That makes it a much stronger hypothesis, and that is the essence of what science is about!

The hypothesis is that even though the Sun is 100 times larger than the Earth, we can somehow modulate the climate by reducing or increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it is a thermostat button (CO2 only forms .04 percent of the atmosphere.). The problem with this hypothesis is that it can neither be proven nor disproven that this tiny percentage of the atmosphere (.04 percent) is a thermostat button. One easy hypothesis to prove or disprove is that if we go below .02 percent, all vegetation on Earth dies, including all humans, as a result.

So now let me give you an example of a climate change hypothesis that has been proven last year. The IPCC estimates of temperatures consist of gathering temperature in a mix of urban and rural weather stations. This tends to skew the average temperature upwards; urban areas are always warmer because of the man-made energy generated to heat them. Yet urban areas only cover around 3% of the earth's land surface at a maximum.

Dr. William Soon painstakingly took out urban areas and only looked at temperature data for rural areas and found that the average temperature increase per century is indeed only.55 degrees compared to the grossly inflated IPCC estimates of .8 degrees plus per century This, lines up well with the UK temperature that I showed earlier, which goes up only .5 degrees per century. Not only that but this rural data showed that during some period in the mid-twentieth century when CO2 was going up temperature was going down. No correlation was found with CO2 emissions and temperature data that is non-urban.
in other words attributing global warming to CO2 emissions when it is puffed up data by artificially heated cities is a gross misrepresentation of the data.


New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem


Updated: Oct 3, 2023



A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.


The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.


It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.



Source: Maps taken from NOAA Climate.gov.


The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.


When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused. However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.


The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings,

“For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.”

Another author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, the Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained:

“This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.”

This study finds similar conclusions to another study that was recently published in a separate scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. This other study involved many of the same co-authors (led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, also at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences). It took a different approach to analysing the causes of climate change – using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates.




For media inquiries, please contact Dr. Ronan Connolly (Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences) at ronan@ceres-science.com.




Links to both studies mentioned:

• W. Soon, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, S.-I. Akasofu, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, A. Bianchini, W.M. Briggs, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, M. Crok, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, F. Gervais, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, A.R. Lupo, S. Maruyama, P. Moore, M. Ogurtsov, C. ÓhAiseadha, M.J. Oliveira, S.-S. Park, S. Qiu, G. Quinn, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, J. Steele, L. Szarka, H.L. Tanaka, M.K. Taylor, F. Vahrenholt, V.M. Velasco Herrera and W. Zhang (2023). "The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data", Climate, 11(9), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access).
• R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, A.G. Elias, V. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, V.M. Velasco Herrera, H. Yan and W.J. Zhang (2023). "Challenges in the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature trends since 1850". Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23(10), 105015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Open access).

[Bob Armstrong]

Earth's Oceans & Negative Climate Change

"For the past year, oceans around the world have been substantially warmer than usual. Last month was the hottest January on record in the world’s oceans, and temperatures have continued to rise since then. The heat wave has been especially pronounced in the North Atlantic.

“The North Atlantic has been record-breakingly warm for almost a year now,” McNoldy said. “It’s just astonishing. Like, it doesn’t seem real.”

Across the unusually warm Atlantic, in Cambridge, England, Rob Larter, a marine scientist who tracks polar ice levels, is equally perplexed.

“It’s quite scary, partly because I’m not hearing any scientists that have a convincing explanation of why it is we’ve got such a departure,” he said. “We’re used to having a fairly good handle on things.But the impression at the moment is that things have gone further and faster than we expected. That’s an uncomfortable place as a scientist to be.”"


https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)