An effort to understand Earth’s past climates uncovered a history of wild temperature shifts and offered a warning on the consequences of human-caused warming.
Video Excerpt “This information from the US parallels what we learned in late November from the huge leak at the East Anglia University Climate Center in England.
“There are four key revelations about the US data centers: First, the computer programs used at those centers to calculate world temperature averages have been dramatically altered so that the final computer product no longer averages actual temperatures from actual locations. Instead, those researchers are pulling numbers from locations which may be hundreds of miles away and applying them to that area.
“Secondly, the number of weather observation points has been dramatically reduced from about 6,000 [in the 70’s] to only about 1,000 [in the 90’s]
“Third, the vast majority of the weather stations that were eliminated were those in cooler locations at higher latitudes and elevations.
“And fourth, the temperatures themselves are being altered by so-called homogenization, a process that seems to always result in warmer output readings.
So, who are the men behind these stunning discoveries? E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer from San José, California, and certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph Deo from Hudson, New Hampshire.
Michael, you apparently have really discovered some significant problems with the American temperature data set, the one that our US government uses to proclaim that this month or this year is the first, or fifth, warmest in all history. Are you telling me that those proclamations are based on bad data?
“Yes, largely because the cold thermometers have been removed from the temperature data series.”
(Cont…) “Yes. So, for example, in California, in the GHCN data set, there are four surviving thermometers: one at San Francisco Airport, and three down near LA. How do you measure the snowy Sierra Nevadas when your thermometer is on the beach in San Diego, or the temperature in Fresno, Bakersfield, or Death Valley, or any of them? Yes, they simply do not exist in the data set.”
And is this true all around the world?
“They exist in the baseline, but they don't exist in the current temperatures, and yes it's true around the world.
“One of the more startling ones I ran into is Bolivia. There's a wonderful baseline for Bolivia - a very high mountainous country - right up until 1990, when the data ends. And, if you look on the November 2009 anomaly map, you'll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia. How do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven't measured the temperature for 20 years?
Well, how do you?
“They take the temperature from places up to 1200 kilometers away, and copy it in. They fill in with what they've got and what they've got is the beach in Peru, and the Amazon jungle.”
Climate change would be with or without humans, Science has known this since 1987. Check out Gregg Braden he has deep knowledge f climate cycles and more.
I do not believe that is in our food, but, the jabs do have nano particles that I have seen under a microscope that look like nano robots. DARPA and other nasties like Universities are using this in Vitro ( Or were) to control certain parts of your brain. Will the jabbed attack us? I do not know, maybe they will just be obedient to the elitist, I really don't know. Our taxes are funding this enslavement. Watch The End of Covid and you too can se those slides of the jabs.
I remember Silent Spring. I remember The Population Explosion. I remember Global Warming. I remember Climate Change. I remember all the name brands of mass hysteria by social scientists who got other disciplines to join their pop culture cat-ass-trophy du jour. Like sex, FUD also sells.
And yet the role of pesticides such as DDT, lead aresnate (Not kidding, they used that), and most important of all, lindane, in the poliomyelitis "epidemic" of the mid 20th century was covered up, and a typically harmless enterovirus scapegoated.
Yeah, sometime in the 1970s I read a book on 1080. The book basically laid out how it worked ( I get why it would be bad to leave it laying around ) but the people who used it were really villainized in that book. Ranchers were trying to protect their animals and yesyesyes, coyotes have a role in the animal kingdom and the food chain blahblahblah (they live in my neighborhood and I kind of like them), but they are dangerous, vicious wild dogs and I don't blame ranchers for trying to do *something*. Did it kill a few eagles? Yeah.....so what. Eagles kill things all the time and have no predators. And they really aren't endangered. Where I live we see them ALL the time and have at least two eyries within a five mile radius of my house.
Telling the truth about stuff is just never going to happen at this point in our epoch. The media and academia are the enemies of the people. Were this not so, we would not have such hideous politicians at large.
The dark message of the WaPo article is still false. CO^2 increases in the paleo record always followed warming in the record. NOAA and now NASA have erased that observation. The authors attempt to insert some new means of measurement. Oceanic sea levels provide the best measurement of global warming. CO^2 levels have minimum affect, it is the bright thing in the sky. Milutin Milankovic!
You still want us to trust any scientist? No thanks. I will judge the climate or global warming right where I have been living for the last 70 plus years. As of today, there are fewer storms, no increase in heat, spring and fall are a bit shorter and from year to year, the temps don't do anything they haven't done before. Global warming inflicted by man upon the planet is a NO GO and always will be. It's the cycles of the sun that matter more than anything.
Science observations as to the real culprit for a blip in overall surface temp increases. This is why you never ever want to give emergency powers to globalists generating fear. The first is Hunga Tonga. The second, on western US droughts imo may very well have been precipitated by China deliberately geoterraforming the western Taklamakhan AND by geoengineers here deliberately spewing sulfur particles impacting K-feldspar over the western USA. On the second I can say China is building some of the largest windbreaks ever. I even asked a great atmospheric chemist about the sulfur impacts not once but twice and received no response.
Geophys Res Lett. 2022 Jul 16; 49(13): e2022GL099381.
Published online 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099381
PMCID: PMC9285945
PMID: 35865735
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
L. Millán, 1 M. L. Santee, 1 A. Lambert, 1 N. J. Livesey, 1 F. Werner, 1 M. J. Schwartz, 1 H. C. Pumphrey, 2 G. L. Manney, 3 , 4 Y. Wang, 1 , 5 H. Su, 1 L. Wu, 1 W. G. Read, 1 and L. Froidevaux 1
Abstract
Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17‐year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.
I would rate the Washington Post on a par with The Guardian on most subjects, especially climate change. It’s strange that their 485-million-year temperature graph bears almost no resemblance to the well-known and much more plausible Greenland ice-core reconstruction going back 400 million years. It shows that we are currently living precariously in a fifth short period of inter-glacial warmth and that most of the entire 400-million-year span has been spend in glacial cold: https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/screen-shot-2014-03-19-at-16-28-43.png.
Oops, my linked reconstruction goes back 400 thousand years, not 400 million! The last 40 million of the WaPo graph shows no indication of the short peaks of interglacial warm periods, including the current one which mankind has enjoyed for the last twenty thousand or so years. I suppose they got lost in their resolution smoothing. I find it strange that WaPo put out such a study when they are usually partisan cheerleaders in the crusade against alleged man-made global warming.
Also note that the phrase ‘global warming’ has been replaced gradually by ‘climate change’. Which is a misleading phrase. We still have a sea climate in western europe. Temps somewhat higher than in the past. But still the same clinate.
Your information is fascinating and it pleases me to see it because it supports my personal opinion. However, I’m an electrical and mechanical engineer with a minor in statistics and I was trained in the 1970s and 1980s so I was taught to be skeptical and ask questions. Therefore, I would appreciate knowing the source of this data so I can review it more in depth.
Ask any reputable and knowledgeable meteorologist or research physicist (and hasn't been "bribed" or "threatened") will inform you that the climate hysteria agenda droned by main$tream media (M$M), UN governments, WEF, etc. on "carbon dioxide (CO2) caused climate change/global warming" is misinformation. Propaganda. Fiction. See this essay: https://x.xyz/cl.pdf , which examines the science in detail - as well as the hype/propaganda.
Carbon dioxide is a tiny component of Earth's atmosphere, less than 1 part in 2000 (0.04%) - a minor "greenhouse" gas. On a scale starting at 0 for vacuum, CO2 is 1, compared to 25 for natural gas or ranging between 1 and 10,000 for water/water vapor, depending whether water vapor is transparent, cloudy white, grey or black, or liquid water.
The goal of the 0.000001%, in collusion with central bankers (like the FED), M$M, government and big business, is to use Fear to convince the general population that climate change is real -- so that those in collusion will "borrow" astronomical sums of "money" to "save the planet." It's a sad time when an uneducated teen actress like Greta Thunberg is given a decade of 100% accolades by M$M while Nobel Laureate scientists are tarred and feathered 100% of the time by M$M.
What I see here is SCIENCE™ using dubious techniques that make way to many assumptions based on more assumptions which have been "proven" by use of other assumptions.
On the plus side, things like these help shutdown the globalist scenario that we are "killing the planet", and "we are all going to die if we don't (insert some lunatic plan, or your choice)".
On the realistic side, these assumptions based on assumptions, with foundational assumptions are complete nonsense. No one knows what the climate was like 500, 5,000 let alone 5,000,000 years ago.
PS: I am old enough to know, and I have lived in essentially the same part of the world the whole time, the sea level has not risen, has not warmed, the storms are not stronger, more frequent or more deadly. That, is fact. That is observational science.
If one reads history ... the periods of warming were prosperous... harvests were bountiful... when the climate cooled... starvation followed...
The Global Warmer Groopies like the cold so much ... maybe they could spend their next holiday on a beach on Baffin Island. I will help them www.stupidtours.com
Great post! Especially the poll you made shows how we transformed in our reactions towards the irrational. And thats starting to show its effects towards all the chaotic events which are in direct contradiction with the bubbles of interpretations the blob is trying to force down our throats... Clearly, with less and less efficiency.
Anybody know how to get the attention of state legislature re: the obvious Chem trails, SAI ( or as I like to call it- “ planes farting all over the sky”. Somebody has to de incentivize the pilots ?
For the last 30 years after reading the following I have been suspicious of Climate Change promoters. We are supposed to be dead by now according to Ehrlich.
In 1968, Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon was highly skeptical of such claims, so proposed a wager, telling Ehrlich to select any raw material he wanted and select "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.
Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price increases: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon.
Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.[2]
As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.
For the purpose of demonstrating why Global Warming Groopies are TFIs, let’s pretend the burning of fossil fuels will eventually destroy the planet driving every species to extinction. It was already supposed to happen, according to Al Gore, but let’s repeatedly move the date forward another decade when it doesn’t happen.
Oh but the end of days is imminent... for good reason ...
Conventional Oil Sources peaked in 2008 and the Shale binge has now spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article: Read More
The Precarious State of the Shale Oil Industry:
Try to get your head around the idea that by 2027, US tight oil production might be 12 MM BOPD, not the 9 MM it is now, which is what cheerleaders say it will be, and that means we'll actually have to find and extract 12 MM BOPD... before we can ever grow the new 3 MM. Man, that is a slew of new wells! Thats gonna take like...four times the HZ wells we've already drilled in the US.
Where? Read More
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources. Read More
Shale boss says US has passed peak oil | Financial Times Read More
The lesson of the Ehrlich - Simon wager is that man will always overcome. In the case of the metals in the bet, the reason they did not skyrocket in price is because metals companies developed cheaper alternatives such as boron to strengthen steel and replacing the tin in tin cans with plastic (BPA but that is a different story). The world as we know it could continue for many more decades, fuelled by oil. As fuel becomes more expensive new more remote reserves become economical and will become be tapped. As the price of fuel rises then other fuel sources become economical. The current price of oil at $70 per bbl average is not high enough to fuel more exploration and development.
The Western government pushing electric cars doesn't inspire oil exploration either.
According to the OECD Economics Department and the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf
HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH
[9] We don’t often think about the fact that oil prices need to be both high enough for producers and low enough for consumers.
Economists would like to think that oil prices can rise endlessly, allowing more oil to be extracted, but history shows that this is not what happens. If there are too many people for the available resources, wage and wealth disparity tends to increase, leading to many more very poor people. Lots of adverse things seem to happen: the holder of the reserve currency tends to change, wars tend to start, and governments tend to collapse or be overthrown.
[10] Simply because crude oil is in the ground and the technology seems to be available to extract the crude oil doesn’t mean that we can necessarily ramp up crude oil production.
One of the major issues is getting the price up high enough, and long enough, for producers to believe that there is a reasonable chance of making money through a major new investment. The only time that oil prices were above $100 for a sustained period was in the 2011 to 2013 period. On an inflation-adjusted basis, prices also exceeded $100 per barrel in the 1979 to 1982 period based on Energy Institute data. But we have never had a period in which oil prices exceeded $200 or $300 per barrel, even after accounting for inflation.
The experience of 2014 and 2015 shows that even if oil prices rise to high levels, they do not necessarily remain high for very long. If several parts of the world respond with higher oil production simultaneously, prices could crash, as they did in 2014.
There is also a need for the overall economic system to be available to support both the extraction of and the continuing demand for the oil. For example, much of the steel pipe used by the US for drilling oil comes from China. Computers used by engineers very often come from China. If China and the US are at odds, there is likely to be a problem with broken supply lines. And, as I said in Section 8, disruption of demand affecting even one major importer, such as China, could bring demand (and prices) down significantly.
You are taking the position of Paul Ehrlich of a gloomy future whereas my position is that of Julian Simon, optimistic that when left alone, man will find a way to overcome their problems.
“As free as the wind” is a nice cliché for writers and the composers of song lyrics, but the hard reality is that wind-power isn’t remotely “free”. To harness wind energy, we need to construct wind turbines, grid systems and storage capacity, and these are very far from free.
The same principle applies to all forms of energy, including fossil fuels, solar power, and electricity from hydro and nuclear sources. The construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of this infrastructure is the real ‘cost of energy’.
It’s a mistake, though, to try to calibrate this cost in money. Every component of the energy-delivery system – every wind turbine, solar panel, grid, battery, mine, well, refinery or pipeline – is a material product, and no material product can be created without using energy.
In short, putting energy to use is an in-out equation, in which we have to “use” energy to “get” energy. The Energy Cost of Energy (ECoE) expresses this relationship as “that proportion of accessed energy which, being consumed in the energy access process, is not available for any other economic purpose”.
Without energy, there can be no material economy.
Without the infrastructure represented by ECoE, there can be no supply of energy.
ECoE, then, is the first call on the economic output delivered by the use of energy. It can be thought of as the economic rent levied on our activities by the resource characteristics of available energy.
The role of ECoE is illustrated in Fig. 3. First, trend ECoE has long been rising exponentially, primarily reflecting the depletion of the qualities of available oil, natural gas and coal. Trend ECoEs from all sources of energy have increased five-fold, from 2.0% in 1980 to a projected 10.6% this year. They are likely to reach 14% by the end of this decade, and 18% by 2040.
This is why most of the remaining oil will remain in the ground... the return on the energy does not justify extracting it ... i.e. it is too costly to extract...
Civilization runs on the net energy available after extraction inputs are subtracted...
Think of it this way... you are doomsday prepper --- you live in the bush... you cut the trees next to your cabin and use them for heating cooking and building stuff... every year you have to cut trees further from the house and drag them back... eventually the trees are too far from the house to bother cutting and dragging them
And if you want more proof of the climate 🤡 fear scam your Govt & WHO are using as an excuse to end your freedoms: https://youtu.be/2jasZcNQqsw?si=CWOQWTNXVpx-BFHt
Video Excerpt “This information from the US parallels what we learned in late November from the huge leak at the East Anglia University Climate Center in England.
“There are four key revelations about the US data centers: First, the computer programs used at those centers to calculate world temperature averages have been dramatically altered so that the final computer product no longer averages actual temperatures from actual locations. Instead, those researchers are pulling numbers from locations which may be hundreds of miles away and applying them to that area.
“Secondly, the number of weather observation points has been dramatically reduced from about 6,000 [in the 70’s] to only about 1,000 [in the 90’s]
“Third, the vast majority of the weather stations that were eliminated were those in cooler locations at higher latitudes and elevations.
“And fourth, the temperatures themselves are being altered by so-called homogenization, a process that seems to always result in warmer output readings.
So, who are the men behind these stunning discoveries? E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer from San José, California, and certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph Deo from Hudson, New Hampshire.
Michael, you apparently have really discovered some significant problems with the American temperature data set, the one that our US government uses to proclaim that this month or this year is the first, or fifth, warmest in all history. Are you telling me that those proclamations are based on bad data?
“Yes, largely because the cold thermometers have been removed from the temperature data series.”
(Cont…) “Yes. So, for example, in California, in the GHCN data set, there are four surviving thermometers: one at San Francisco Airport, and three down near LA. How do you measure the snowy Sierra Nevadas when your thermometer is on the beach in San Diego, or the temperature in Fresno, Bakersfield, or Death Valley, or any of them? Yes, they simply do not exist in the data set.”
And is this true all around the world?
“They exist in the baseline, but they don't exist in the current temperatures, and yes it's true around the world.
“One of the more startling ones I ran into is Bolivia. There's a wonderful baseline for Bolivia - a very high mountainous country - right up until 1990, when the data ends. And, if you look on the November 2009 anomaly map, you'll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia. How do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven't measured the temperature for 20 years?
Well, how do you?
“They take the temperature from places up to 1200 kilometers away, and copy it in. They fill in with what they've got and what they've got is the beach in Peru, and the Amazon jungle.”
Amazing. And yet, not at all surprising.
Actually that is not the reason why they are lying to us... this is https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
Climate change would be with or without humans, Science has known this since 1987. Check out Gregg Braden he has deep knowledge f climate cycles and more.
I do not believe that is in our food, but, the jabs do have nano particles that I have seen under a microscope that look like nano robots. DARPA and other nasties like Universities are using this in Vitro ( Or were) to control certain parts of your brain. Will the jabbed attack us? I do not know, maybe they will just be obedient to the elitist, I really don't know. Our taxes are funding this enslavement. Watch The End of Covid and you too can se those slides of the jabs.
Check out the work of Dr Robin Wakeling... a couple videos and a paper produced in 2022... on Dr Sam Bailey's website https://drsambailey.com/covid-vaccines-a-curious-discovery-on-the-graphene-oxide-question/
This is not just about graphene oxide but the whole nano particle thing!
I like to point out that we're still in an ice age, witness the polar regions, which used to be green.
Indeed, an inter-glacial period. How did we all forget what we learnt at university?
❤️❤️❤️
WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE
Sensible Environmentalism - Patrick Moore, UK Column Interview.
https://rumble.com/v2u453j-sensible-environmentalism-patrick-moore-uk-column-interview..html
WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE
The Top 10 Inconvenient Facts About Climate Change
https://rumble.com/v596x4l-the-top-10-inconvenient-facts-about-climate-change.html
I remember Silent Spring. I remember The Population Explosion. I remember Global Warming. I remember Climate Change. I remember all the name brands of mass hysteria by social scientists who got other disciplines to join their pop culture cat-ass-trophy du jour. Like sex, FUD also sells.
And yet the role of pesticides such as DDT, lead aresnate (Not kidding, they used that), and most important of all, lindane, in the poliomyelitis "epidemic" of the mid 20th century was covered up, and a typically harmless enterovirus scapegoated.
Yeah, sometime in the 1970s I read a book on 1080. The book basically laid out how it worked ( I get why it would be bad to leave it laying around ) but the people who used it were really villainized in that book. Ranchers were trying to protect their animals and yesyesyes, coyotes have a role in the animal kingdom and the food chain blahblahblah (they live in my neighborhood and I kind of like them), but they are dangerous, vicious wild dogs and I don't blame ranchers for trying to do *something*. Did it kill a few eagles? Yeah.....so what. Eagles kill things all the time and have no predators. And they really aren't endangered. Where I live we see them ALL the time and have at least two eyries within a five mile radius of my house.
Telling the truth about stuff is just never going to happen at this point in our epoch. The media and academia are the enemies of the people. Were this not so, we would not have such hideous politicians at large.
The dark message of the WaPo article is still false. CO^2 increases in the paleo record always followed warming in the record. NOAA and now NASA have erased that observation. The authors attempt to insert some new means of measurement. Oceanic sea levels provide the best measurement of global warming. CO^2 levels have minimum affect, it is the bright thing in the sky. Milutin Milankovic!
You still want us to trust any scientist? No thanks. I will judge the climate or global warming right where I have been living for the last 70 plus years. As of today, there are fewer storms, no increase in heat, spring and fall are a bit shorter and from year to year, the temps don't do anything they haven't done before. Global warming inflicted by man upon the planet is a NO GO and always will be. It's the cycles of the sun that matter more than anything.
And away we go!
Science observations as to the real culprit for a blip in overall surface temp increases. This is why you never ever want to give emergency powers to globalists generating fear. The first is Hunga Tonga. The second, on western US droughts imo may very well have been precipitated by China deliberately geoterraforming the western Taklamakhan AND by geoengineers here deliberately spewing sulfur particles impacting K-feldspar over the western USA. On the second I can say China is building some of the largest windbreaks ever. I even asked a great atmospheric chemist about the sulfur impacts not once but twice and received no response.
Geophys Res Lett. 2022 Jul 16; 49(13): e2022GL099381.
Published online 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099381
PMCID: PMC9285945
PMID: 35865735
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
L. Millán, 1 M. L. Santee, 1 A. Lambert, 1 N. J. Livesey, 1 F. Werner, 1 M. J. Schwartz, 1 H. C. Pumphrey, 2 G. L. Manney, 3 , 4 Y. Wang, 1 , 5 H. Su, 1 L. Wu, 1 W. G. Read, 1 and L. Froidevaux 1
Abstract
Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17‐year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.
I would rate the Washington Post on a par with The Guardian on most subjects, especially climate change. It’s strange that their 485-million-year temperature graph bears almost no resemblance to the well-known and much more plausible Greenland ice-core reconstruction going back 400 million years. It shows that we are currently living precariously in a fifth short period of inter-glacial warmth and that most of the entire 400-million-year span has been spend in glacial cold: https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/screen-shot-2014-03-19-at-16-28-43.png.
Oops, my linked reconstruction goes back 400 thousand years, not 400 million! The last 40 million of the WaPo graph shows no indication of the short peaks of interglacial warm periods, including the current one which mankind has enjoyed for the last twenty thousand or so years. I suppose they got lost in their resolution smoothing. I find it strange that WaPo put out such a study when they are usually partisan cheerleaders in the crusade against alleged man-made global warming.
Also note that the phrase ‘global warming’ has been replaced gradually by ‘climate change’. Which is a misleading phrase. We still have a sea climate in western europe. Temps somewhat higher than in the past. But still the same clinate.
Hello Joel,
Your information is fascinating and it pleases me to see it because it supports my personal opinion. However, I’m an electrical and mechanical engineer with a minor in statistics and I was trained in the 1970s and 1980s so I was taught to be skeptical and ask questions. Therefore, I would appreciate knowing the source of this data so I can review it more in depth.
Thank you for sharing this hopeful information!
Gary H
Source in the first sentence (Washington Post). Therein, they provide a link to the original paper.
I don’t subscribe to the Washington on Post, but I thank you for your reply.
Keep up the great work!
Me neither!! But it's interesting to see just how far they will go to distort the main information in such research, isn't it?!
Ask any reputable and knowledgeable meteorologist or research physicist (and hasn't been "bribed" or "threatened") will inform you that the climate hysteria agenda droned by main$tream media (M$M), UN governments, WEF, etc. on "carbon dioxide (CO2) caused climate change/global warming" is misinformation. Propaganda. Fiction. See this essay: https://x.xyz/cl.pdf , which examines the science in detail - as well as the hype/propaganda.
Carbon dioxide is a tiny component of Earth's atmosphere, less than 1 part in 2000 (0.04%) - a minor "greenhouse" gas. On a scale starting at 0 for vacuum, CO2 is 1, compared to 25 for natural gas or ranging between 1 and 10,000 for water/water vapor, depending whether water vapor is transparent, cloudy white, grey or black, or liquid water.
The goal of the 0.000001%, in collusion with central bankers (like the FED), M$M, government and big business, is to use Fear to convince the general population that climate change is real -- so that those in collusion will "borrow" astronomical sums of "money" to "save the planet." It's a sad time when an uneducated teen actress like Greta Thunberg is given a decade of 100% accolades by M$M while Nobel Laureate scientists are tarred and feathered 100% of the time by M$M.
What I see here is SCIENCE™ using dubious techniques that make way to many assumptions based on more assumptions which have been "proven" by use of other assumptions.
On the plus side, things like these help shutdown the globalist scenario that we are "killing the planet", and "we are all going to die if we don't (insert some lunatic plan, or your choice)".
On the realistic side, these assumptions based on assumptions, with foundational assumptions are complete nonsense. No one knows what the climate was like 500, 5,000 let alone 5,000,000 years ago.
PS: I am old enough to know, and I have lived in essentially the same part of the world the whole time, the sea level has not risen, has not warmed, the storms are not stronger, more frequent or more deadly. That, is fact. That is observational science.
No mention in the MSM jackanory the increase in temperatures make sense in that we were on the up from the Little Ice. Muppets.
Not even Little Ice Age in the longer term. We are at the bottom of a very long, very cold period in Earth's history! The only way is up!!
If one reads history ... the periods of warming were prosperous... harvests were bountiful... when the climate cooled... starvation followed...
The Global Warmer Groopies like the cold so much ... maybe they could spend their next holiday on a beach on Baffin Island. I will help them www.stupidtours.com
Great post! Especially the poll you made shows how we transformed in our reactions towards the irrational. And thats starting to show its effects towards all the chaotic events which are in direct contradiction with the bubbles of interpretations the blob is trying to force down our throats... Clearly, with less and less efficiency.
Anybody know how to get the attention of state legislature re: the obvious Chem trails, SAI ( or as I like to call it- “ planes farting all over the sky”. Somebody has to de incentivize the pilots ?
For the last 30 years after reading the following I have been suspicious of Climate Change promoters. We are supposed to be dead by now according to Ehrlich.
In 1968, Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon was highly skeptical of such claims, so proposed a wager, telling Ehrlich to select any raw material he wanted and select "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.
Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price increases: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon.
Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.[2]
As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.
For the purpose of demonstrating why Global Warming Groopies are TFIs, let’s pretend the burning of fossil fuels will eventually destroy the planet driving every species to extinction. It was already supposed to happen, according to Al Gore, but let’s repeatedly move the date forward another decade when it doesn’t happen.
I will go with 2035 as the new date with doom.
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/lets-pretend-to-be-global-warming
Yes, it sort of like the end of days. there has always been some group saying the end of days is coming in a year or two and it never comes.
Oh but the end of days is imminent... for good reason ...
Conventional Oil Sources peaked in 2008 and the Shale binge has now spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
What’s saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight “fracked” oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So it’s a big deal if we’ve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article: Read More
The Precarious State of the Shale Oil Industry:
Try to get your head around the idea that by 2027, US tight oil production might be 12 MM BOPD, not the 9 MM it is now, which is what cheerleaders say it will be, and that means we'll actually have to find and extract 12 MM BOPD... before we can ever grow the new 3 MM. Man, that is a slew of new wells! Thats gonna take like...four times the HZ wells we've already drilled in the US.
Where? Read More
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources. Read More
Shale boss says US has passed peak oil | Financial Times Read More
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-ultimate-extinction-plan-uep
The lesson of the Ehrlich - Simon wager is that man will always overcome. In the case of the metals in the bet, the reason they did not skyrocket in price is because metals companies developed cheaper alternatives such as boron to strengthen steel and replacing the tin in tin cans with plastic (BPA but that is a different story). The world as we know it could continue for many more decades, fuelled by oil. As fuel becomes more expensive new more remote reserves become economical and will become be tapped. As the price of fuel rises then other fuel sources become economical. The current price of oil at $70 per bbl average is not high enough to fuel more exploration and development.
The Western government pushing electric cars doesn't inspire oil exploration either.
They won't become economical.
HIGH PRICED OIL DESTROYS GROWTH
According to the OECD Economics Department and the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf
HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH
For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil production has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world’s economies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth
As we can see... we have run up against limits
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2024/09/11/crude-oil-extraction-may-be-well-past-peak/
[9] We don’t often think about the fact that oil prices need to be both high enough for producers and low enough for consumers.
Economists would like to think that oil prices can rise endlessly, allowing more oil to be extracted, but history shows that this is not what happens. If there are too many people for the available resources, wage and wealth disparity tends to increase, leading to many more very poor people. Lots of adverse things seem to happen: the holder of the reserve currency tends to change, wars tend to start, and governments tend to collapse or be overthrown.
[10] Simply because crude oil is in the ground and the technology seems to be available to extract the crude oil doesn’t mean that we can necessarily ramp up crude oil production.
One of the major issues is getting the price up high enough, and long enough, for producers to believe that there is a reasonable chance of making money through a major new investment. The only time that oil prices were above $100 for a sustained period was in the 2011 to 2013 period. On an inflation-adjusted basis, prices also exceeded $100 per barrel in the 1979 to 1982 period based on Energy Institute data. But we have never had a period in which oil prices exceeded $200 or $300 per barrel, even after accounting for inflation.
The experience of 2014 and 2015 shows that even if oil prices rise to high levels, they do not necessarily remain high for very long. If several parts of the world respond with higher oil production simultaneously, prices could crash, as they did in 2014.
There is also a need for the overall economic system to be available to support both the extraction of and the continuing demand for the oil. For example, much of the steel pipe used by the US for drilling oil comes from China. Computers used by engineers very often come from China. If China and the US are at odds, there is likely to be a problem with broken supply lines. And, as I said in Section 8, disruption of demand affecting even one major importer, such as China, could bring demand (and prices) down significantly.
You are taking the position of Paul Ehrlich of a gloomy future whereas my position is that of Julian Simon, optimistic that when left alone, man will find a way to overcome their problems.
First call – the real cost of energy
“As free as the wind” is a nice cliché for writers and the composers of song lyrics, but the hard reality is that wind-power isn’t remotely “free”. To harness wind energy, we need to construct wind turbines, grid systems and storage capacity, and these are very far from free.
The same principle applies to all forms of energy, including fossil fuels, solar power, and electricity from hydro and nuclear sources. The construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of this infrastructure is the real ‘cost of energy’.
It’s a mistake, though, to try to calibrate this cost in money. Every component of the energy-delivery system – every wind turbine, solar panel, grid, battery, mine, well, refinery or pipeline – is a material product, and no material product can be created without using energy.
In short, putting energy to use is an in-out equation, in which we have to “use” energy to “get” energy. The Energy Cost of Energy (ECoE) expresses this relationship as “that proportion of accessed energy which, being consumed in the energy access process, is not available for any other economic purpose”.
Without energy, there can be no material economy.
Without the infrastructure represented by ECoE, there can be no supply of energy.
ECoE, then, is the first call on the economic output delivered by the use of energy. It can be thought of as the economic rent levied on our activities by the resource characteristics of available energy.
The role of ECoE is illustrated in Fig. 3. First, trend ECoE has long been rising exponentially, primarily reflecting the depletion of the qualities of available oil, natural gas and coal. Trend ECoEs from all sources of energy have increased five-fold, from 2.0% in 1980 to a projected 10.6% this year. They are likely to reach 14% by the end of this decade, and 18% by 2040.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2024/08/
This is why most of the remaining oil will remain in the ground... the return on the energy does not justify extracting it ... i.e. it is too costly to extract...
Civilization runs on the net energy available after extraction inputs are subtracted...
Think of it this way... you are doomsday prepper --- you live in the bush... you cut the trees next to your cabin and use them for heating cooking and building stuff... every year you have to cut trees further from the house and drag them back... eventually the trees are too far from the house to bother cutting and dragging them