Global Warming Page 8
Home     Back
-- Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science - 7/12/17
-- Just to refresh your information about the last ice age - 6/16/17
-- Californians Can’t Continue Global Warming Hoax with 8 ft of Snow in June  6/7/17
-- EPA’s CO2 ‘Hot Spot’ ‘Simply Does Not Exist’ - 5/02/17
-- Why do liberals hate science? 5/20/16
-- How Fracking Has Reduced Greenhouse Gases - 4/12/16

 Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science
By Byron Claghorn July 12, 2017

90shares Share Tweet Email 3 Comments

Breaking News: Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science

"Atmospheric Pressure, Not ‘Greenhouse Gases’ Are Responsible for the “Greenhouse Effect”

Scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have a unique and extremely elegant peer-reviewed and published research paper entitled ‘New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model’ that proves that the accused Greenhouse Gases (Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water Vapor (H2O), etc.) are actually innocent of the mistaken claims that they are the cause of Climate Change and the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.

Their work comes out of left field; it provides a shocking new paradigm heretofore unbeknown to science; it is physically plausible, and it proves beyond a doubt that greenhouses gases cannot cause, in principle, the global warming observed since 1850. In other words, we now have written
Scientific proof that humans are not responsible for climate change on Earth.

However, the problem now is that both believers and skeptics of anthropogenic-caused climate change have a difficult time accepting the Nikolov-Zeller discovery, because:

The proposed mechanism (supported by NASA planetary data) was not taught in school.
In addition, NZ’s adopted macro-level (top-down) approach does not explicitly include natural processes such as radiant heat trapping by free atmospheric trace ‘greenhouse’-gases assumed
‘a priori’ to be true for the last 190 years, but never proven.

The Nikolov-Zeller discovery points to the fact that fundamental theoretical misconceptions can still occur in science despite the high-technology information environment of the modern world.

Rather than argue about global temperature trends or what the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to a CO­2 increase might be, Nikolov and Zeller decided to go back to the basics taking inspiration from Copernicus, who propose the revolutionary heliocentric model of the Solar System that was later mathematically proven by Johannes Kepler.

Nikolov and Zeller divined three (3) fundamental questions that most climate scientists do not consider worth asking or thinking about:

What would the mean global temperatures () of the rocky planets Venus, Earth, Mars, and the moons Triton and Titan be if they didn’t have atmospheres?
Might the same physical principles determine the global temperatures () of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton? In other words, is Earth a special case in terms of its climate, or is it part of a cosmic physical continuum?
What are the fundamental controllers of the long-term average equilibrium global surface temperature of a planet or moon?

Analyzing vetted NASA data from various space exploration missions conducted over the past three (3) decades, Nikolov and Zeller found that the Earth’s 30-year equilibrium surface temperature is quite stable and fully explainable in the context of an interplanetary physical continuum.

They discovered that the real factors responsible for the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ are:

The Total Surface Air Pressure of the Earth’s Atmosphere, and
The Earth’s distance to the Sun – Enabling computation of the available solar heat-energy;

By applying their PTE Effect theory to compute and accurately predict the 30-year mean global surface temperature of Earth. Likewise, by knowing extraterrestrial data-parameters for Mars, Venus, Moon, Titan and Triton, they can also make predictions for other celestial bodies.

Amazingly, as it turns out, their model (empirically derived from NASA data) does not need any information about atmospheric composition to reliably calculate Earth’s or other celestial bodies’ mean global surface temperature!

In other words, the amounts of greenhouse gases are not needed nor relevant.

The Figure below encapsulates the new finding explained in the scientific paper by Nikolov & Zeller (2017):

Figure: On this graph, is the actual observed 30-year mean equilibrium global surface temperature of a planetary body, while is the body’s mean global surface temperature in the absence of an atmosphere. The ratio shown on the vertical axis represents the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) of a planet or moon also known as the Natural Greenhouse Effect. The graph implies that the background thermal effect (i.e. the ‘greenhouse effect’) of a planetary atmosphere is only a function of the total air pressure and does not depend on the atmospheric chemical composition.

In other words, the Greenhouse Effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect and not a radiative phenomenon driven by heat-absorbing & re-radiative gases as currently believed. Hence, carbon emissions cannot affect the global climate.

The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is virtually zero!

Some 500 years ago, Copernicus simplified the complicated “Earth-Centered” model describing planetary retrogressions that accounted for the apparent erratic movement of the planets & sun around the Earth by conceptually observing Earth from afar and recognizing that the existing theory was based on a false premise (i.e., the Earth was at the Center). He correctly discovered that the Earth and other planets rotated around the Sun eliminating the apparent erratic movements and complicated prediction equations.

Similarly, the study by Nikolov & Zeller (2017) simplifies the understanding of the physics of climate by taking a similar broad extra-terrestrial perspective which is based on established scientific principles of Physics and Thermodynamics which prove that the powerful Atmospheric Pressure force caused by the huge weight of the Earth’s Atmosphere (i.e., ~5 Billion-Million Metric-Tons) results in a Pressure force at the Earth’s Surface below 18,000 ft. of 10 Metric-Tons/sq. meter which drives the Pressure Induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect amplifying the available Solar Heat-Energy that creates the PTE “Greenhouse”-warming Effect.

The Nikolov-Zeller PTE Effect theory completely accounts for why the Earth and other celestial bodies with an atmosphere are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres – Replacing the current ‘Greenhouse Gas Effect’ hypothesis that has never been empirically proven in the last 190 years since it was first postulated.

Similar to the way a Diesel Engine’s piston compresses gases (only constant, non-cyclical) creating pressure that enhances the existing heat in each cylinder to reach the temperature needed to ignite the fuel – The huge mass of the Earth’s atmosphere’s gas molecules, being compressed by the natural pull of gravity, provides the constant Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) of the available Solar Heat-Energy which results in the PTE ‘Greenhouse Effect’ that keeps our planet habitably warmer than it would be without an atmosphere (i.e., a global mean temperature of approximately 58oF with our atmosphere vs. below 0oF without an atmosphere).

Making this new climate-science paradigm most promising is the fact that the Nikolov-Zeller discovery: Is based on established and straight-forward scientific principles following rules of Physics such as: Charles’ Law, The Ideal Gas Law, Dalton’s Law, etc. which are able to be validated empirically and is applicable to not only our Earth, but has been shown to also apply to other celestial bodies in our solar system (Earth, Mars, Venus, & the Moons: Titan, Triton and Earth’s) using vetted NASA empirical data and also appears to be Universally Applicable to other celestial bodies within our solar system as well as beyond, since their discovery is based on solid scientific laws of physics of the universe.

Their findings also provide new insight as to why the man-made UN IPCC-supported Global Climate Models (GCMs) based on the radiative ‘Greenhouse Gas’ concept and assumptions consistently fail to predict observed global temperature trends, hence they should not be used for policy decision making.

More information on the Science of their discovery is presented in a video by Ned Nikolov, use this link:

The London Climate Change Conference 2016 (


Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model.

Volokin D, ReLlez L (2014) On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect. SpringerPlus 3:723, doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-723.

NB: Volkin and ReLlez are pseudonyms for Nikolov and Zeller.

 Just to refresh your information about the last ice age, we are still in it. Glacial and interglacial periods called the Quaternary glaciation (started cir. 2,588,000 years ago to present), and for two and a half million years ice has been the scourge of all living things on earth.

The last glaciation period ran from cir. 110,000 to 11,700 years ago, we are now living in the latest warming period. When the next glaciation comes along there will be literally billions of people dieing of starvation.

Glaciations often last over a hundred thousand years with perhaps some periods of warming, it is questionable therefore, whether our species will survive at all. In the last glaciation there were pockets of warn areas where life was sustainable, lets hope there will be some next time as well. There was a (so called) little ice age that ran from about 1300 thru 1850, right thru the middle of Our Revolution for freedom against England and may have effected the ability of the British to sustain a war in the Colonies.

Based on earth’s history over the last 2.5 million years when there arose our species the Homo Sapiens, there was no industry and maybe a million people on the entire earth, this makes the agitation from the earth is burning crowd truly unbelievable and even ludicrous. Even more ludicrous are the numbers of rubes that have fallen for this burning earth nonsense. Considering 1000 years ago earth was warmer than today, makes it an even greater nonsense.

When Al Gore was born there were 7,000 Polar Bears, now there are only 30,000 of them left, they had to regress to eating people.

 Californians Can’t Continue Global Warming Hoax with 8 ft of Snow in June By Andrew West June 7, 2017

The past week of Trump-bashing in the mainstream media has been focusing heavily on the President’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. Of course, the hysteria surrounding the decision has been exaggerated by the liberal media in profoundly disturbing ways, relying on the all-too-frequent scare tactics and guilt trips to push their faulty agenda.  The familiar image of the lonely polar bear on a small piece of ice comes to mind, as well as flawed facts and figures about exactly where our coastlines will be once the “polar ice caps melt”.  No mention has been made, of course, of the Maunder Minimum, the decrease in solar activity, the fact that Killington Ski Resort in Vermont was open for skiing on June 1st, or the fact that California has 8 feet of snow on the ground in the Sierras today, June 7th.

“The Mammoth Mountain ski area in Mammoth Lakes, Calif., is seeing its ‘best spring conditions in decades … and will be operating DAILY into August for one of our longest seasons in history,’ the resort said on its website. ‘When will this endless winter end? We don’t have that answer yet, but we do know that the skiing and riding is all-time right now.’

“The snowpack throughout the Sierra rivals, and in places exceeds, records set during the massive winter of 1982-83. As of June 6, the amount of snow on the ground in the central Sierra region was twice as much as usual, marking its biggest June snowpack in decades, the California Department of Water Resources said.

“’We are in rare territory here with the winter we’ve had,’ said Chris Smallcomb, a meteorologist with the weather service in Reno, Nev., the office that also covers the Sierra in California.”

Meanwhile, the leftist nonsense continues to blanket the media’s climate change narrative like a blizzard of powder-like pontification with only speculation to hold it together.

The global warming hoax is an all-too important part of the globalist agenda for democrats and other progressives to abandon it quite yet.  It represents for them an opportunity to consolidate a massive amount of global power into the hands of a very select group of global warming believers, who, in turn, will be much simpler to coerce and persuade than any entire nation’s worth of legislators.  The corruptibility of the cabal is far too simple for the magnates of industry, and could lead the entire planet down a dark path into servitude to these special interests leviathans.

You see, it’s not about the temperature of the planet at all; it’s about the consolidation of power into a governance that oversees the entire globe.

 EPA’s CO2 ‘Hot Spot’ ‘Simply Does Not Exist’

Posted Tuesday, May 2, 2017 | By The Association of Mature American Citizens from –

The theory of human-caused global warming is straightforward. The level of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide, or CO2, is rising in the atmosphere, causing a worldwide increase in temperatures that ultimately will have a catastrophic effect on the planet.

To prevent this catastrophe, a vast regulatory infrastructure needs to be created, even if it means sacrificing jobs, economic efficiency, personal freedoms or national sovereignty itself.

But what if CO2 isn’t a pollutant?

That’s precisely the shocking finding of a new report from statistician Jim Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who contend the Environmental Protection Agency erred when it ruled CO2 is a pollutant in 2009.

The researchers claim they could find no evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations “have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that we analyzed.”

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” the report said.

Brian Sussman, a former meteorologist and the author of “Eco-Tyranny: How The Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” hailed the report as a devastating blow to what he argues is a phony movement.

“The left wants the public to believe that human-caused climate change is scientific law, like the laws of gravity and motion,” he told WND. “Instead, human-caused climate change/global warming is a flawed hypothesis that should be discarded into the dustbin of other failed theories. Referring to carbon dioxide – a natural atmospheric component necessary for life – as a pollutant is insane. It’s no different than labeling H2O a pollutant.”

But the EPA did make the “insane” decision to label CO2 a pollutant in 2009, thus providing a justification for the the Obama administration to issue sweeping regulations cracking down on energy companies, industrial facilities, farms and vehicle manufactures.

Recently, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., author of “The Greatest Hoax,” denounced the kinds of tactics Obama’s EPA employed. He told WND’s Alicia Powe the “greatest problem we’ve had in this country has emanated from the Environmental Protection Agency.”

“[The EPA] was really set up to be concerned about the environment and pass regulations that we needed to do,” Inhofe said. “But then with the Obama administration, he got away from that and started worrying about regulating things the American people don’t want… The thing that President Obama did was try to get things through regulation that he couldn’t get through legislation.”

Marc Fitch, author of “Shmexperts: How Ideology And Power Politics Are Disguised As Science,” contends the global warming industry exemplifies the faux “expertise” he claims is harming so many Americans.

“What’s truly sad and funny about this entire episode is that it took a study to determine that CO2, a gas that supports all life on earth, is not a pollutant,” he said. “Plants need it to live and mammals exhale it and yet it was somehow labeled by the government as a pollutant. This is a point that has been repeatedly made by global warming skeptics over the years. The news is as revelatory as finding that ‘water is wet’ but it seems some people need to be reminded of those simple facts every now and then.”

Fitch accused the liberal media of misleading Americans about CO2 and the larger global warming issue.

“Branding is everything and the mainstream media has done a fine job in branding CO2 as the ‘enemy within’ without ever questioning the basic premise as to whether or not CO2 is really a problem,” he explained. “They have used the ‘consensus’ idea but have never bothered looking into the nuances of that finding, nor the arguments that debated those findings. The term ‘consensus’ is just a cheap and easy way to ignore any differing conclusions or the opinions of scientists who disagree.

“They also never bother to say what the ‘consensus’ is about and what it is not about. There most certainly is not a consensus that supports the hyperbolic alarmist claims made by some of the movement’s most vocal supporters. So to say there is a scientific consensus and then cite Al Gore’s predictions of melted ice caps and New York City underwater, conflates two very different positions. It tries to give scientific credence to ridiculous predictions.”

But both Sussman and Fitch said “science” itself, like the media, has become hopelessly politicized.

“Global warming,” asserts Sussman, simply functions as an excuse for leftists to fulfill their political goals. The supposed scientific rationale behind the agenda is all but irrelevant.

“The left sees global warming/climate change as their magic key to destroy industrial capitalism and implement socialism,” he said. “In the process it’s also a scandalous opportunity for a few wealthy liberals to make loads of money off of green investment scams that are subsidized with taxpayer dollars. The left, aided by their friends in the liberal media, are so stubborn and long-suffering that theylll never cave on this one; they won’t let the facts get in the way of their ideology.”

Sussman similarly dismissed the recent “March for Science,” not as a defense of scientific but as a “fresh public venue for Trump haters to parade their ignorant nonsense.”

And Fitch urged Americans and those who value real knowledge to resist the politicization of science and the dogma surrounding “global warming.”

“The March for Science was a confusing event,” he commented. “It risks associating the term ‘science’ with ‘left-wing politics’ which would ultimately not be good for those who claim a scientific mindset. But what I think is more damaging is the idolization of science. It risks becoming religious with people marching through the streets proclaiming that if we just all looked to science we would find utopia, heaven on Earth.

“Science is a practice, not an entity, but it is being treated like some god that must be appeased with praise and money. It is this same reason that I think many of the people marching for science were probably dyed in the wool global warming alarmists. They have created a religion out of global warming and science is supposedly their god. But, like many religions, dissent is not tolerated well and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.”


 Why do liberals hate science?

Friday, 20 May 2016 by Jonah Goldberg

The left has long claimed that it has something of a monopoly on scientific expertise. For instance, long before Al Gore started making millions by claiming that anyone who disagreed with his apocalyptic prophecies was "anti-science," there were the "scientific socialists." "Social engineer" is now rightly seen as a term of scorn and derision, but it was once a label that progressive eggheads eagerly accepted.

Masking opinions in a white smock is a brilliant, albeit infuriating and shabby, rhetorical tactic. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Science is the language of facts, and when people pretend to be speaking it, they're not only claiming that their preferences are more than mere opinions, they're also insinuating that anyone who disagrees is a fool or a zealot for objecting to "settled science."

Put aside the fact that there is no such thing as settled science. Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does. All the great scientists of history are justly famous for overturning the assumptions of their fields.

The real problem is that in politics, invocations of science are very often marketing techniques masquerading as appeals to irrefutable authority. In an increasingly secular society, having science on your side is better than having God on your side — at least in an argument.

I'm not saying that you can't have science in your corner, or that lawmakers shouldn't look to science when making policy. (Legislation that rejects the existence of gravity makes for very silly laws indeed.) But the real intent behind so many claims to "settled science" is to avoid having to make your case. It's an undemocratic technique for delegitimizing opposing views and saying "shut up" to dissenters.

For example, even if the existence of global warming is "settled," the policies for how to best respond to it are not. But in the political debates about climate change, activists say that their climatological claims are irrefutable and so are their preferred remedies.

If climate change is the threat they claim, I'd rather spend billions on geoengineering to fix it than trillions on impoverishing economic policies that at best slightly delay it. It doesn't matter; I'm the Luddite buffoon for thinking ethanol subsidies and windmills are boondoggles.

Even more outrageous: If you dispute, say, the necessity of spending billions on windmills or on killing the coal industry, you are not merely wrong on climate change, you are "anti-science."

Intellectually, this is a monument of asininity so wide and tall, even the mind's eye cannot glimpse its horizon or peak.

For starters, why are liberalism's pet issues the lodestars of what constitutes scientific fact? Medical science informs us fetuses are human beings. The liberal response? "Who cares?" Genetically modified foods are safe, sayeth the scientists. "Shut up," reply the liberal activists. IQ is partly heritable, the neuroscientists tell us. "Shut up, bigot," the liberals shriek.

Which brings me to the raging hysteria over the plight of transgendered people who need to use the bathroom.

The New York Times recently reported about A.J. Jackson's travails in a Vermont high school. "There were practical issues," Anemona Hartocollis writes. "When he had his period, he wondered if he should revert to the girls' bathroom, because there was no place to throw away his used tampons."

Now, one can have sympathy for the transgendered — I certainly do — while simultaneously holding to the scientific fact that boys do not menstruate. This is a fact far more settled than the very best climate science.

Perhaps it's rude to say so, but facts do not cease to be facts simply because they offend.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio is pushing to fine businesses that do not address customers by their "preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual's sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual's identification." The NYC Commission on Human Rights can penalize offenders up to $250,000.

Many liberals believe that "denying" climate science should be a criminal offense while also believing that denying biological science is a moral obligation. In the law, truth is a defense against the charge of slander, but for liberals, inconvenient truth is no defense against the charge of bigotry.

Jonah Goldberg is a syndicated columnist and author. He explores politics and culture for National Review as a senior editor. He is the author of "Liberal Fascism" and "The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.” For more of his reports, Go Here Now!

Breaking News at
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

 How Fracking Has Reduced Greenhouse Gases

Stephen Moore    April 12, 2016

The U.S. Department of Energy published data last week with some amazing revelations — so amazing that most Americans will find them hard to believe. As a nation, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 2 percent from last year. Over the past 14 years, our carbon emissions are down more than 10 percent. On a per-unit-of-GDP basis, U.S. carbon emissions are down by closer to 20 percent.

Even more stunning: We’ve reduced our carbon emissions more than virtually any other nation in the world, including most of Europe.

How can this be? We never ratified the Kyoto Treaty. We never adopted a national cap-and-trade system, or a carbon tax, as so many of the sanctimonious Europeans have done.

The answer isn’t that the EPA has regulated CO2 out of the economy. With strict emission standards, the EPA surely has started to strangle our domestic industries, such as coal, and our electric utilities. But that’s not the big story here.

The primary reason carbon emissions are falling is because of hydraulic fracturing — or fracking. Some readers now are probably thinking I’ve been drinking or have lost my mind. Fracking technology for shale oil and gas drilling is supposed to be evil. Some states have outlawed it. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have come out against it in recent weeks. Schoolchildren have been bombarded with green propaganda about all the catastrophic consequences of fracking.

They are mostly lies. Fracking is simply a new way to get at America’s vast storehouse of tens of trillions of dollars worth of shale oil and gas that lies beneath us, coast to coast — from California to upstate New York. Fracking produces massive amounts of natural gas, and, as a consequence, natural gas prices have fallen in the past decade from above $8 per million BTUs to closer to $2 this year — a 75 percent reduction — due to the spike in domestic supplies.

This free fall in prices means that America is using far more natural gas for heating and electricity and much less coal. Here is how the International Energy Agency put it: “In the United States, (carbon) emissions declined by 2 percent, as a large switch from coal to natural gas use in electricity generation took place.”

It also observes that the decline “was offset by increasing emissions in most other Asian developing economies and the Middle East, and also a moderate increase in Europe.” We are growing faster than they are and reducing emissions more than they are, yet these are the nations that lecture us on polluting. Go figure.

Here at home, this market-driven transition has caused a pro-natural gas celebration by the green groups, right?

Hardly. Groups like the Sierra Club and their billionaire disciples have bet the farm on wind and solar power. They’ve launched anti-fracking campaigns and “beyond natural gas” advertising campaigns. But wind and solar are hopelessly uncompetitive when natural gas is so plentiful and so cheap. So are electric cars.

The media also have gotten this story completely wrong. Last week The New York Times celebrated the DOE’s emissions findings as evidence that governmental iron-fist policies are working to stop global warming. For the first time “since the start of the Industrial Revolution,” the Times argued, “GDP growth and carbon emissions have been decoupled.”

The Times pretends that this development is because of green energy, but that’s a fantasy. Wind and solar still account for only 3 percent of U.S. energy.

So here is the real story in a flash: Thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling technologies, we are producing more natural gas than ever before. Natural gas is a wonder fuel: It is cheap. It is abundant. America has more of it than anyone else — enough to last several hundred years. And it is clean-burning. Even Nancy Pelosi inadvertently admitted this several years ago before someone had to whisper in her ear that, um, natural gas is a fossil fuel.

Meanwhile, the left has declared war on a technology that has done more to reduce carbon emissions and real pollution emissions than all the green programs ever invented. Maybe the reason is that they aren’t so much against pollution as they are against progress.

Stephen Moore is a distinguished visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, economics contributor to FreedomWorks and author of “Who’s the Fairest of Them All?” To find out more about Stephen Moore and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



Home     Back