Comments on: #153. One for the sceptics, Nothing to fear but fear itself the economy as an energy transformation machine. #Nafta #RossPerot #WrongkindofGreen #EnergyEconomic #8thwaytothink #ConquestofDough #ObjectiveKhunts #GrubStreetJournal #OIP #Alexanadria

By: rogerglewis

rogerglewis — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:53:28 +0000

@AdjyLeak
@storjproject
@ErikVoorhees
@WeAreChangeNYC
@alexandria
@KimDotcom
@BlocktechCEO
@OpenIndexProto
@FLOblockchain
@Suitpossum
@ActivistPost
@DanDicksPFT
@IluvCO2
@Piers_Corbyn
Ian56789
@juanbenet
@Free_Ross
@realbitcoinwiki
@aantonop
@Brett_Shavers
@OpenIndexProto
@Suitpossum
@MrTardigradeUK
@2013Boodicca
@financialeyes
@JoeBlob20

@RealM_Shrimpton
@Albion_Rover
@RichieAllenShow
@briangukc
@markwindows
@JoeBlob20
@TonyGosling
@davidicke
@Ian56789
@MrTardigradeUK
@IanRCrane
@_Spinflight_
@deYook
@ShoebridgeC

#ConquestofDough #NaziPug #AlisonChabloz #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy #FreeAssange #OnLineHarmsAct #Section13 #EUssr #StalagLuftBlighty #MAGA #MEGA

@ErikVoorhees @WeAreChangeNYC @alexandria @KimDotcom @BlocktechCEO @OpenIn…

#GrubStreetTags
#GrubStreetJournal
#GrubStreetPolitics
#GrubStreetGeoPolitics
#GrubStreetPoliticalEconomy
#GrubStreetMoneyandFinance
#GrubStreetFilm
#GrubStreetMainStreamMedia
#GrubStreetSamizdat
#GrubStreetDissidentContent
#GrubStreetWeb3
#GrubStreetonAlexandria
#GrubStreetIPFS
#GrubStreetOIP
#GrubStreetDunciad
#GrubStreetObjectiveKhunts
#GrubStreetHumour
#GrubStreetErotica
#GrubStreetArtandLetters
#GrubStreetExegesis
#GrubStreetFaithandSpitituality
#GrubStreetCensoredindEADtREEANDhttpiNTERWEBS
#AgrubStreetPublishedScribler
#GrubStreetMultiMedia
#GrubStreetVideo
#GrubStreetPolemic
#GrubStreetRhetoric
#GrubStreetSatire
#GrubStreetComediaVulgaris
#GrubStreetCallOutCallsBS
#GrubStreetPamphlets
#GrubStreetEssays
#GrubStreetPhilosophy
#GrubStreetScience
#GrubStreetEnergy
#GrubStreetGreenFascism
#GrubStreetWrongKindOfGreen
#GrubStreetWikiBallot
#GrubStreetPDC
#PersonalDestinyControl
#GrubStreetInfoWars
#GrubStreetRadio
#GrubStreetSteppinOuttaBabylon
#GrubStreetEscapingTheMatrix
#GrubStreetRedPill
#GrubStreetLyrics
#GrubStreetPoetry
#GrubStreetMusic
#GrubStreetSapereAude
#GrubStreetThroughtheGiftShop

By: rogerglewis

rogerglewis — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:51:50 +0000

This is an excellent Paper on the Mathematics of Climate Change and Climate Change Alarmism, Climatology as opposed to Climate Politics, http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf “The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.” 1. This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors. p.16 2. Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the sensors and calculate the average! p.23 3. According to the British Met Office, ‗The global average temperature is the arithmetic mean of the northern hemisphere average and the southern hemisphere average.‘ This type of reasoning is being used by all the international bodies, and one might legitimately question its validity. The thermodynamic mean, for its part, is too complicated to apply and requires the use of models (with all their limitations and uncertainties). We might, however, wonder why the arithmetic mean is also being used in areas that are less well provided with sensors or have very high or very low temperatures. If we content ourselves with an unweighted arithmetic mean, then areas with the highest density of sensors are going to be over-represented! Our conclusion here is very clear: SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 – to calculate the arithmetic mean for the entire planet makes no sense and can only lead to errors; – you can calculate the arithmetic mean for areas well provided with sensors (Europe and the US), and compare the values from one year to another. This might provide information on local climate variation. p.26/27 4. On CO2 Measurement and concentration, Our conclusion is very clear: the entire methodology used to observe CO2 has to be overhauled before we can even think about the results that have been obtained by these observations. The first step is to correctly document the natural variability of CO2 concentrations (what affects them, and how do they manifest?). We must not forget that the aim here is to make a global assessment of CO2 concentrations in the entire atmosphere. Let us use a simple comparison to explain this. Let us imagine that we want to document incidents of sins committed by human beings. Before concluding that ‗we can restrict our investigations to the areas around cathedrals‘, which would at least have the merit of simplicity, we would have to find out about the ‗natural‘ variability of sin. Perhaps, in fact, more sins are committed far away from cathedrals? p.57 5. Cyclones. 3. Critical analysis In this case, we have been able to obtain raw data and conduct our own analysis, which clearly demonstrates, contrary to what we are all reading all the time, that there has been no increase in the number of cyclones over the past 40 years. We have found a slight increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 cyclones (the strongest), but the numbers are very small each year, and the increase might simply be due to changes in ‗accounting methods‘. A common deception is as follows: you begin by looking at cyclones that reach the US mainland (the ones that affect people and insurance companies) and you count them. Then you change the perimeter and include all cyclones in the North Atlantic, including ones that disperse at sea. Of course, the second group is bigger! As we said earlier, the statistics presented here cover all cyclones in the North Atlantic. p.67 6. Sea Level Rises. a. Two kinds of instruments are used: • Marigraphs, which have been around for 200 years; • Altimetry satellites, which measure the height of the satellite above the ocean; they have been around for 20 years, namely Topex/Poseidon (1992), Jason 1 (2001), Jason 2 (2008). The water level varies naturally: • Due to the tides (lunar attraction) • Due to wind and storms • Due to sea currents This being so, the estimates provided by marigraphs and satellites can be no more than averages, if possible over one year or several years, as phenomena such as El Niño affect the sea level for a year or more. p.68 b. E. Be careful! On Models. ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/) As this issue has taken on a major political dimension, all kinds of statements are made by absolutely anyone at all. Great care is therefore called for when accepting information. 1. Models Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as 76 SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTK0LHclNFs Critical analysis The rising sea level is a basic thesis for journalists, to support the doctrine of global warming. They say, ―Look, the sea is rising, and so we are in danger‖. It is perfectly true that the sea level is rising, but essentially this is due to the cooling down of the core of the terrestrial globe which has been taking place gradually for five billion years. As a result of this contraction, the lighter areas (the oceans) tend to rise up in relation to the heavier areas (the mountains). This is simply a consequence of buoyancy, and human beings have nothing to do with it. p.77 That’s Chapter 1 summarised and is sufficient for responding to the Pariah Status proffered upon me by Ron. I would close only by Pointing interested and critical thinkers at the work of Clive Spash and his Paper The Brave New World of Carbon Trading. https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf https://youtu.be/FTEaXBnXLts “A FIRE, A FIRE IS BURNING! I HEAR THE BOOT OF LUCIFER, I SEE HIS FILTHY FACE! AND IT IS MY FACE, AND YOURS, DANFORTH! FOR THEM THAT QUAIL TO BRING MEN OUT OF IGNORANCE, AS I HAVE QUAILED, AND AS YOU QUAIL NOW WHEN YOU KNOW IN ALL YOUR BLACKHEARTS THAT THIS BE FRAUD – GOD DAMNS OUR KIND ESPECIALLY, AND WE WILL BURN, WE WILL BURN TOGETHER!” ― ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE

By: rogerglewis

rogerglewis — Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:49:52 +0000

rogerglewis
on July 22, 2019 at 8:49 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1700906
Here is the link to the full Paper.
“This observation may help explain the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum’s modest biotic impact. The Frasnian-Famennian extinction provides another exception. Supposing that it is indeed a mass extinction, its presence well below the critical line illustrates an important point: Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle (2).

Modern investigations of mass extinctions often emphasize a plurality of causes. Erwin’s “complex web of causality” (8, 37) addresses how a combination of volcanism, climate change, marine anoxia, methane release, and other environmental stressors may have contributed to the end-Permian extinction. Recent studies of the end-Cretaceous extinction consider massive volcanism (38) in addition to a bolide impact (39). Flood basalt eruptions are also clearly associated with the end-Triassic (40) and end-Permian (15) extinctions, but their contribution to CO2 levels is ostensibly modest (41). Evidently, the carbon cycle both indicates and excites Earth system change. These dual roles merge, however, if external perturbations cause the cycle to respond by magnifying the initial disturbance. System-wide instability may then follow. Because the critical rate rc bounds qualitatively different dynamical regimes, perturbations that exceed rc (at time scales much greater than τx) suggest such unstable evolution. The carbon cycle thus becomes one of many environmental stressors, and an array of causes is naturally implicated.”

The Discussion part of the Paper is interesting in that it concedes, “Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle” (2).

I would add to that last quote “If at all”

And point those interested in the Ocean Chemistry of Carbon Sequestration to Prof. Glassmans Acquittal of CO2 particularly Ocean Solubility of CO2 and Henry’s Law.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190402051937/http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

ABSTRACT
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

By: rogerglewis

rogerglewis — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:02:07 +0000

John Ward on July 16, 2019 at 5:33 pm said:
Doctor Morgan,
This is only the third time in the last two years I’ve read something online and thought, “So it’s not just me, then”. Except that you have laid out the bogus nature of “growth” more clearly – and with a more inclusive range of energy stats – than I’ve ever managed. Hitherto, I have largely pointed up fake data (far more obvious than “fake news”) to make my point in relation to real employment, job comparisons, unemployment assumptions and inflation baskets….although I have also tried to calculate on occasions the bare-faced cheek of including QE in gdp calculations.
I’m indebted to Roger Lewis who pointed me at your work.
You must ensure that you are cloned at the earliest opportunity. I salute your endeavour, but continue to wonder just what it will take for Fred and Edna Spong of Chavez Cottages, Loose End to realise how they are being slowly boied alive.
In the meantime, here’s one I made from toilet rolls, used toothbrushes and melted 78 rpm discs earlier:
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/fake-news-is-a-matter-of-opinion-fake-data-is-a-matter-of-fact/

By: rogerglewis

rogerglewis — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:01:30 +0000

drtimmorgan
on July 16, 2019 at 2:53 pm said:
Thanks Roger – I enjoy your comments (though I do sometimes wish they were a bit more brief…..)

– In my article I take what perhaps seems like a swipe at the founding fathers of economics, but is aimed, rather, at those who remain tied to C18th financial notation.

– To the extent that conventional economics is ‘an industry’, it is failing its ‘customers’.

– This means we need a ‘new economics’. Given our current challenges, I think this must embrace (a) energy and (b) the environment.

– I’m quite optimistic that this will happen, for these reasons:

1. Users of economics as ‘a product’ need something better, and are likely to see important advantages in having it before their competitors have it.

2. The financial system is – to understate the case – in very big trouble. When this reaches crisis-point, the table-top is flipped into the air, the cards come down differently, and we might find this a cathartic process, making change easier.

rogerglewis
on July 18, 2019 at 3:55 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hi Tim,
I tried to keep to the main points, it’s such a big subject and everything is broken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIbfl7OQ0y4

Pingback: #153. One for the sceptics, Nothing to fear but fear itself the economy as an energy transformation machine. #Nafta #RossPerot #WrongkindofGreen #EnergyEconomic #8thwaytothink #ConquestofDough #ObjectiveKhunts #GrubStreetJournal #OIP #Alexanadria –

By: “quod erat demonstrandum”, Doubling Back to make sense of the doubling down, Double Speak and Double Plus Good, Beware Thought Crime ahead! – RogersLongHairBlog

Tue, 16 Jul 2019 07:00:05 +0000

[…] and the Discretionary speculative mating game side of the sustainable circular economy. https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/153-one-for-the-sceptics-nothing-to-fear-but-fear… […]