Brilliant Analysis of Justin Trudeau

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Brilliant Analysis of Justin Trudeau

  1. CD Marshall says:

    Your president sounds like the Canadian version of Obama. I am sorry.

  2. MP says:

    Trudeau looks exactly the same as Castro at the same age?

  3. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    The elections are coming ! Who am I going to vote for ? I have 2 bad choices and a worst one. The NDP is Benie Sanders incarnate, So that’s out. The conservatives are only make believe conservatives like in the USA. Like Ezra Levant from Rebel Media says, the liberals are the Libranos ! We are stuck just like the Americans. Their problem is that they have too many Irareli-American dual citizenship people in congress and senate. Who do you think their first alegeance goes to.? It’s a never ending fight. Like Ronald Reagan once said…
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

  4. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / would the temperature gradient be the same? /
    I think I have a better answer for you. For dry air Lapse Rate = g / Cp.= 9.8076 / 1.003 = 9.8 K/km.
    For an atmosphere 100% N2, Cp = 1.04. So LR = 9.4 K/km
    For,an atmosphere 100% O2 Cp = 0.919. So LR = .10.65 K/km.
    For an atmosphere 100% CO2, Cp = 0.844. So LR = 11.6 K/km.
    For moist air (the formula is much more complicated) LR = 6.5.
    Conclusion… Do the ratios if you want but I think water drowns everything else. Whatever gas you add to the atmosphere wont change much.

  5. MP says:

    It is like most politicians are having a contest for who is fullest retarded

  6. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / (PV^x=nRT, where x is 1, 1.2, 1.4. /
    The ideal gas law applies only to stable gases in which there is no chemical reaction. Possible cases could be 3O2 = 2O3 or N2 + 2O2 = 2 NO2. You just changed from n=3 to n=2. As long as the product of the reaction remains an ideal gas, just change n from 3 to 2 in the ideal gas law and it’s all the same once the boundary is crossed and no more reaction occurs.. The Connellys have just proven that. The change in slope of D vs P proves just that. That there is a chemical reaction at the boundary and n changes. Once the boundary is crossed and no more chemical reaction occurs, or if n stays reasonably the same then the ideal gas law stands. The problem is that not all of the gases will react, only a fraction. So it is not as simple as changing 3 for 2 but might be 1.4 to 1. It all depends on the amount.

  7. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    On september 16th I posted Holmes stuff on potholer54 next to last video. You wont believe the shit correspondance I recieved. I answered them with science when appropriate, counter arguments when appropriate and answered just about every comment. The comments were coming from all over non stop. A real shit storm. On his last video, sep 18th, I posted 3 days in a row. NO BACK COMMENTS. NONE !!! It’s as if they have recieved marching orders not to correspond and help me spread the news. I’M A MONSTER. NOBODY LOVES ME 🙂

  8. Oh yah he’s Castro’s boy for sure.

  9. Enemies of the US do not want the US to be energy independent.

  10. It’s all very well coordinated. Bot farms or full retard farms or something. Even holeface’s voice is fake…it’s synthesized based on that bloke who speaks out about Islam in Britain, Pat Condell, on utube. Just listen and compare.

  11. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    I’d love to vote Maxime but his party is just starting. Possibly too many new comers. I’m afraid to lose my vote and have TURD’o squeeze in again through the cracks.

  12. Zoe Phin says:

    Fair enough. My main point is that the surface temperature is not raised by gravitational effects upon gases.

  13. Except that gravitational effects on gasses can affect gas temperatures.

  14. Zoe Phin says:

    Absolutely agree.

    Venus’ surface temperature can not be explained by solar thermalized TOA gases migrating their energy to the bottom via some gravitational addition of energy. Venus must have naturally high geothermal temperatures that migrates to the top, meeting with the solarized TOA.

  15. Nope, you’re wrong Zoe. Numerous people have already demonstrated a universal method of calculating such temperatures based on existing and well known gas laws. The planets’ subsurfaces contribute nothing…they’re useless.

  16. Zoe Phin says:

    Yes, you can figure out the geothermal temperature needed to make the gas laws work.
    If one wants to claim Venus is heated top to bottom, one would need to demonstrate conduction from low to high heat capacity raising temperature and/or convection from low to high density/pressure raising temperature.
    Less dense (hotter) molecules have no way to migrate below more dense (colder) molecules.
    Gravity distributes matter such that heat capacity increases top-down. Any heat at the top would create a decreasing temperature profile.
    How could the sun’s 2604 W/m^2 migrate down to create ~17000 W/m^2 defies my imagination.
    Assuming geothermal resolves all issues. I can’t see it any other way, anymore.

  17. CD Marshall says:

    Someone posted this on Poxholer’s site against his trolls. I need an expert opinion on the data:

    Your knowledge of the science is very poor
    (equivalent to 6th grade)
    “CO2 absorbs and then re-emits heat in all directions”
    Simplifies the physics to the point where it becomes meaningless
    (or even misleading)
    In reality a CO2 molecules absorbs a photon (infrared), the energy is then immediately transferred (in less than a billionth of a second)
    as kinetic energy to adjacent N2 or O2 or H2O molecules.
    Those energised molecules are then subject to convection which carries them upwards in the atmosphere (not downwards as alarmists claim) eventually to the upper troposphere where the energy is radiated back into space.
    Physics dictates that the photon absorbed by a CO2 molecule can
    Be spontaneously re-emitted as a photon – but this is a far more rare event estimated at less than 1 in a thousand events.
    (This fact is the foundation of the warmists false hypothesis)
    Therefore the “warming” effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible.
    These are the scientific facts – not alarmist propoganda or misrepresentation.

  18. It’s a good comment!

  19. CD Marshall says:

    This was the troll retort:
    > “Those energized molecules are then subject to convection which carries them upwards in the atmosphere (not downwards as alarmists claim)”
    – Wrong dichotomy. The troposphere is turbulent; energy keeps getting transferred both up- and downwards. The view you propose, “warm rises, cold sinks” is stratification – which indeed happens, but only above the tropopause, hence the name stratosphere. But the stratosphere and above is transparent for all radiation except UV, i.e. it has no influence on any greenhouse effect.

    > “eventually to the upper troposphere where the energy is radiated back into space”
    – right, but this is done by CO₂ molecules and not by N₂ or O₂. (Not H₂O either, because the atmosphere holds virtually none of it at that altitude.) N₂ and O₂ can’t radiate at such low temperatures, for the same reason they can’t absorb infrared light – they don’t have the necessary vibration modes that CO₂ and H₂O have.
    It’s true that the emitting CO₂ molecule will in general not be the same as the one that picked up radiation from the ground, but this doesn’t in any way imply that GHE doesn’t work. On the contrary, most of the energy that’s transported back to the ground does this on N₂ and O₂ molecules.

  20. If CO2 radiates then it cools, and then thise other gasses keep things warmer due to their low emissivity. Just debunked themselves!

  21. CD Marshall says:

    Anyone want to pile on it’s here: ://

    The comments are under West Lands 40+ comments.

  22. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    2 funnies from potholer…
    Potholer… since you are so busy making, in a sense, the same response video over and over, I have only one question. What kind of pillow do you prefer to scream in to? I like the My Pillow, but only because the owner of the company believes that God gave us Donald Trump as President.

    They just quietly took down a sign in montana’s glacier nat park that the obama admin placed there about ten years ago? The sign read: this glacier will be gone by 2020 due to climate change! They quietly removed it because the glacier had grown by 25% in that time! the 3 coldest snowiest winters on record have all occurred in the last 9 years in My home state of montana! Another failed prediction from the climate frauds on the left! 4 decades of failed climate predictions! Explain that potsy?

  23. CD Marshall says:

    They’ll just lob the Hail Mary on that one: “You are confusing weather with climate” that’s their end all rebuttal to common sense arguments.

  24. What a perfect and endlessly-available sophist retort! Disgusting people.

  25. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    From Holmes…
    From the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT you get T = PV/nR = PM/dR where T=temperature, P=pressure, M=molar mass, d=density and R=gas constant(8.3145).

    From NASA itself, Venus near surface data, T=740…
    P=9200, M=43.45, d=65, T=739.7 ~ 740. No runaway GHGE there. All explained.
    From NASA itself, Earth near surface data, T=288…
    P=101.3, M=28.97, d=1.225, T=288.1 ~ 288. No GHGE there. All explained.
    It is not only the Ideal Gas Law, it is the Universal Gas Law !!!

    From Robert Ian Holmes

    Heck. It even works for Antarctica, T=224…
    P=68.13, M=28.97, d=1.06, T=223.9 ~ 224. No GHGE there either. All explained

    It.s all adiabatic compression, even on Venus

  26. CD Marshall says:

    I’m curious. I’ve looked at Sunspot and temperatures and I’ve seen no correlation between them. It would stand to reason that an entire planet does not always experience real time changes from day to day but some are delayed in stored energy. The reason this interests me is becasue it’s another sophist argument they claim higher irradiance should automatically equal hotter days and lower irradiance cooler days to justify the greenhouse gas. I can’t see any instantaneous results of solar irradiance and prolonged warming. Then again I am an amateur and I don’t know exactly what I am looking for.

  27. Pierre D. Bernier says:


    Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf

    Figure 7

    People on potholer ask me if I’ve even red that stuff. I’ve been at it for at least 6 years. So… Yes.

  28. MP says:

    NO ( Nitric Oxide) and Co2 are radiating coolants in the thermosphere.

    A key parameter in the thermosphere is the total amount of nitric oxide (NO). The production of NO is accelerated by the auroral heating, and since NO is an efficient radiator of thermal energy, higher concentrations of this molecule accelerate the rate at which the thermosphere cools.

  29. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Had a brush that lasted 3 days not long ago with Andy P on potholer or Heller. It was quite volatile. Now I,m addressing him for the last 2 days and he does not even recognize me as if he was brain dead (a machine) 🙂

    I think they take rotation.

  30. Zoe Phin says:

    Face Palm!
    The ideal gas law does not prove the surface is hot due to the sun + gravitational pressure working top-down. Do you understand this?
    You’re also using the words adiabatic and ideal gas law as if they were synonymous. Ideal gas law is for an isothermal process, that is NOT adiabatic.
    The ideal gas law would be better stated as:
    nRT -> PV
    So as not to create causality confusion.

  31. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / Ideal gas law is for an isothermal process /
    Take a Mason jar, close it tight and put a lit candle under it. Stay far away ! P is gonna Pop.

  32. CD Marshall says:

    So I’m going to take a crack at this and say our thermosphere is actually preventing our planet from being a deep fried cooker in the bulk of solar flares caused by more intense Sunspots?

    Is that anywhere close?

  33. MP says:

    That is correct CD Marshall

    Without the NO and Co2 in the thermosphere we would be cooked by solar storms. NASA explains it here

  34. Rosco says:

    If the Gas laws cannot explain temperatures why can you use the data from NASA and calculate the temperatures listed to within a Kelvin or two for all of their planetary fact sheets ?

    If compression of gases cannot increase atmospheric temperatures how can anyone explain the huge temperatures deep in the atmospheres of all of the outer planets – only Uranus has a “core” temperature lower than the surface of the sun.

    All must have some dense solid core in my opinion to be capable of sustaining a massive atmosphere so some sort of nuclear fission is possible if not atmospheric compression.

    Of course one is faced with the tyre dilemma – a tyre loses heat whilst all the other parameters don’t change after inflation but compressing an atmosphere is a different thing and on Earth the solar heating causes a continual pumping action.

    Still I see no need to promote any hypothesis at the expense of good manners and comradery.

  35. Zoe Phin says:

    In the US, it’s common to have 13 steps per floor. If a building had 169 steps, it has 13 floors. This proves the building was built from top to bottom. Why not? The math works.
    Again, by what mechanism does Venus’ solar-heated TOA molecules descend?
    Gravity doesn’t cause less dense molecules to move below more dense molecules.
    Show me how the ideal gas law works top-down.
    Don’t start at the bottom and circularly conclude what you want.

  36. CD Marshall says:

    Check out this reply to a Potholer troll:

    You claim – “A positive feedback in this context is when a change in temperature causes changes on Earth which then create further warming (such as more CO2 being outgassed from warmer oceans, or ice melting and making the Earth less reflective). So a positive feedback is a forcing but not all forcings are positive feedbacks…”

    Thank you so very much for that incredibly astute observation you MORON! It seems you have never heard the term negative feedback. Lets try this one, your body for instance. You are in the sun, you are working and you begin to get hot. A positive feedback would be the harder you work, the hotter you get. A negative feedback would be you sweat more and you slow the fuck down! If you are halfway intelligent and reasonably healthy you will survive and your body will achieve homeostasis!. You see? There are positive and the are negative FEEDBACK LOOPS.

    Now, the earth warms. GHG’s increase because warming causes them to increase NOT because they cause warming to increase you class a1 MORON! And so the greatest GHG BY FAR water vapor increases with the warming temperature! YES! Water evaporates at a faster rate in warmer weather than in cooler weather! go figure! Now, what happens? Clouds form! Now what happens? Clouds block out more sunlight and so on and so forth until you have homeostasis! it is called ALBEDO!. What happens when the polar ice melts? The currents from the south pole bring cooler water north and the currents from the north pole bring the cooler water south and VIOLA! it snows more in Europe and in north America and the continents are blanketed with more and more snow and ice and VIOLA! Albedo increases even more and it gets even colder! Welcome to the next glaciation period! How do you do? You see? The precise places on earth that get the most sunlight will increase in ALBEDO and then more and more sunlight is reflected back into outer space and then it gets colder and colder and so on and so forth. You see? The earths orientation to the sun aka the milankovitch cycle “forces” our climate and NOTHING ELSE! as far as GHG’s go, WARMING ALWAYS COMES FIRST! It is called gassing! Gassing is the result of warming and NOT the cause of it

  37. Zoe,

    I don’t get your “top-down” complaint.

    Stuff stacked on top of other stuff causes pressure on the bottom stuff. The mass of Earth’s entire atmosphere comes to bear on Earth’s surface. The weight of the entire atmosphere pushes down from top to bottom. The bottom responds to all that stuff (i.e, mass, weight) above it, and gravity contains and pushes back all around to compress, no?

    The sun shines into all this to have an effect from the bottom up, as the weight from top down does the compressing. Why are you looking only from top to bottom and not also at the equal and opposite direction of the dynamic from bottom to top simultaneously.

    To me, there seems to be a top-to-bottom dynamic occurring along with a bottom-to-top dynamic, and you seem stuck at the top, in one direction, when there are two.

    As for the video in this thread, I hate to say, but it was lost on me — just unpolished ranting about weird dressing habits — I didn’t get it. Three minutes max would have been enough of that for me, but maybe I have low tolerances for that sort of stuff.

  38. Gassing is the result of warming and NOT the cause of it.

    Just as an effect follows a cause, NOT preceding the cause to be its own effect.

    “Greenhouse effect” … think about it — it’s an EFFECT, even if (in its poorly named form) it did exist (as popularly described, which it doesn’t). Something else would be the cause of it. Why is the “greenhouse EFFECT” discussed as though it is a CAUSE? — more language bubbling.

  39. CD Marshall says:

    So Andy P who many of us know and well, we know him, made this statement:
    My top tips for questioning deniers. I have to admit I’d love to do an exhaustive rebuttal on these 3 points for a project. Any takers? If you explodes on you then you know you won.

    1. Ask what evidence they would accept of AGW.
    They can never answer this other than with pseudo-answers: ‘data that is not fake’ etc.
    2. Ask ‘Why are nights warming faster than days’.
    If they are keen on the ‘natural causes’ argument, then the sun is ‘driver’ of cc, but the sun doesn’t shine at night….
    3. Ask ‘Why is the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere is warming?’
    This is more evidence that more heat is being trapped lower in the atmosphere.
    If they say something about ozone – the effect is 1/10th of that of CO2 in cooling the stratosphere

  40. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / Why are nights warming faster than days’ /
    1) Colder places are warming faster than warmer places
    2) Colder seasons are warming faster than warmer seasons
    3) Colder times of day are warming more than warmer times of day
    Source :
    So, there you have it. The cool places and the cool seasons and even the cooler times of day are warming more than the warmer places, seasons and times. It’s a rule of thumb,
    dT/dt = k (Ts – T)
    Rate of change depends on temperature difference.

  41. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    OOOPPS, Forgot this…<

  42. MP says:


    At the thermosphere Nitric Oxide (NO) is formed by solar heating and bombardment of x-rays. And the NO protects against the X-rays. When a solar storm hits the earth, more NO is formed, NO radiates 95% of the solar storm heat and X-ray input back into space. After the solar storm NO reduces again because it is an instable element.

    At the stratosphere ozone is created out of oxygen by bombardment of UV light. And Ozone protects against UV light. Ozone is unstable so it reduces when less needed

    ….a beautiful balancing system

    In stratosphere and thermosphere the air becomes more compressable. What is not logical. if there is assumed ozone heating the air should become less compressable.

    This suggests a change in molecular structure or composition is occurring in the stratosphere and thermosphere, what changes the compressability, and results in a reverse temperature effect

    Counter question.

    How can more evaporated water along with co2 cool the mid troposphere more during the night? This should not be possible if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct.

    Source: Balloon data, researched by Connolly et Al.

    Click to access July-18-2019-Tucson-DDP-Connolly-Connolly-16×9-format.pdf

  43. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    A work of art !

  44. 1. Ask what evidence they would accept of AGW.
    They can never answer this other than with pseudo-answers: ‘data that is not fake’ etc.

    What evidence would I accept? ANSWER: A combination of (a) actual measurements of increasing temperature in the various layers of Earth’s atmosphere, which millions of balloon measurements show is NOT there, (b) models that did NOT run hot, which they now DO, (c) a rational, simple greenhouse-effect model that did NOT show the sun’s power spread over the entire Earth at once, (d) satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation that showed an upward trend, which they do NOT.

    “Fake data” is, therefore, NOT a “pseudo-answer”, but rather a generalized answer that covers all this and more.

    2. Ask ‘Why are nights warming faster than days’.
    If they are keen on the ‘natural causes’ argument, then the sun is ‘driver’ of cc, but the sun doesn’t shine at night….

    The sun surely does not shine at night, and I am glad that he realizes this, which would be a flat-out admission that any simple model spreading sunshine over the entire Earth at once is immediately absurd. The sun shines during the day, and it heats the oceans. If more sunshine gets through Earth’s atmosphere to heat the oceans, say because of cleaner air and/or less cloud cover, then more heat gets into the oceans, meaning even at night, more heat becomes available, because thermal inertia of this much water allows a good bit of the heat to be available, AFTER the sun stops shining.

    The “natural causes” argument does NOT imply that the sun shines at night, but rather perhaps that more sun shines through during the day to heat the oceans to heat the night.

    3. Ask ‘Why is the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere is warming?’
    This is more evidence that more heat is being trapped lower in the atmosphere.
    If they say something about ozone – the effect is 1/10th of that of CO2 in cooling the stratosphere.

    I would have to answer with a question, “How does CO2 cool the stratosphere, while warming the troposphere? Seems magical to rely on CO2 alone for both, and so the question is irrelevant as far as proving any causative effect of warming from CO2.

    It is, therefore, ludicrous to suggest that such a contradictory appeal is any sort of evidence that CO2 warms. Consequently, there is positively zero evidence here that “more heat is being trapped in the atmosphere.”

  45. CD Marshall says:

    The two things I love about you guys is you are a lot fun and secondly, you’ll are smarter than I. The sign of intelligence is to learn from someone smarter than they are the second sign of intelligence is no matter how much you have learned it is nothing compared to the Universe. Those 2 drivers pushes an honest person in the pursuit of science.

    The entire universe is a mathematical equation and the goal of science is to solve it. How can any honest scientist decide “the science is settled” when the Universe is your textbook? Arrogance stifles scientific pursuit, contrite confidence increases it.

  46. You’ll love my new book CD! Soon.

  47. CD Marshall says:

    I seem to recall a counterargument where a troll said CO2/NO do repel the blunt of solar storms in the upper atmosphere, becasue they are an insulator. That same insulator can cool or warm. In the upper atmosphere it cools but CO2 closer to the surface insulates the warming effect.

    He is basically right. CO2 would have to be right on the surface like fog however, to produce an insulation of warmth (if I am right) but that would never increase the surface temperature although it could maintain it a little longer.

    Now that’s me basing on the fact that CO2 can be warmed by something other than IR, in which it would be operating as any other gas in the atmosphere being heated.

    Naturally they exclude that part becasue it is just another gas without banking on the IR absorption.

    Thanks bunches.
    Anyone know where I can find OLR data?

  48. CD Here is my attempt at answering your challenge.
    1. Ask what evidence they would accept of AGW.
    That is not how science works. In science you formulate an idea and then use this idea to make a prediction of something that is not previously known or observed. You do not match existing data to your idea, that is simply confirmation bias. The list of failed AGW predictions is such that the concept of AGW should have been buried long ago. The fact that this has not happened leads me to conclude that AGW is not just fake science it is zombie science.
    2. Ask ‘Why are nights warming faster than days’.
    Climate Science starts with a fake model of weakened solar insolation using the “divide by 4” concept that Joseph has repeatedly shown to be unphysical. Planetary climate is a mass motion process and not a radiative process. On rapidly rotating Earth there are three main mass motion atmospheric cells in each hemisphere. These are the tropical Hadley cell, the temperate Ferrel cell and the frigid Polar cell.
    The radiative model of climate assumes that the latitudinal reach of the Earth’s Hadley cell is determined by top of the atmosphere cooling by radiative loss of energy to space. This model is wrong and the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell is determined by the rate of daily planetary rotation. That is why on slowly rotating Venus the Hadley cell there links directly into the descending polar vortex.
    The answer to the question of why nights are warming in the absence of sunlight is very simple. What goes up in the heat of the day, caused by forced solar radiative convection, then comes down in the cool of the night. This is because, contrary to the back-radiation heating concept, the atmospheric window of direct surface to space radiative cooling controls the night time surface environment.
    Air lifted away from the surface by convection is an inefficient emitter of thermal radiation. Potential energy cannot be lost by radiation, it must first be converted into kinetic energy before it can engage with the radiative process. Therefore, the air aloft must descend converting potential energy back into kinetic energy before this energy can become sensible motion and be lost to space by radiative emission.
    Air descending in a gravity field warms by adiabatic auto compression. If the daytime convection is more vigorous then the night time return will also bring more energy back to the surface. The days do not warm relatively as much as the nights do because the daytime surface heat is continuously being removed aloft by forced atmospheric convection.
    3. Ask ‘Why is the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere is warming?’
    This is a much more interesting question and one to which I have no direct answer. Instead I will counter this with the corollary from the winter polar environment of sudden stratospheric warming which then produces tropospheric cooling. How is that possible? The best analogy I can think of is a see-saw. One side goes up (the stratosphere warms) while the other side goes down (the troposphere cools) and we are again dealing with a mass movement and not a radiative process.

  49. Excellent comment Philip!

  50. CD Marshall says:

    “These are the tropical Hadley cell, the temperate Ferrel cell and the frigid Polar cell.”

    Where can I research these I’ve been dying to. This is the type of climate science I love, the weather makers. In another life I would have loved to have been a meteorologist or at least associated with weather in some way.

    With my luck I would have been a tornado chaser…

  51. CD Marshall says:

    Andy P is trolling someone with those points even as we speak.

  52. I think I meant “downward trend” in my earlier lengthy comment, where I mentioned outward longwave radiation.

    Wouldn’t an upward trend in outgoing radiation indicate more cooling? .. even if there was more warming? … because the more warming would also lead to more cooling? … hence no “heat trapping”?

    The graphs I’ve seen show either a slight increased trend or no real trend in outward longwave radiation (if I remember correctly).

  53. CD Marshall says:

    Since your are from Montana I thought you should read this “rebuttal”.
    “Fact check: No, the glaciers are not growing in Glacier National Park”

  54. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Sorry to deceive… I’m from the Montreal region, Quebec, Canada.
    I reposted this from Potholer earlier..
    They just quietly took down a sign in montana’s glacier nat park that the obama admin placed there about ten years ago? The sign read: this glacier will be gone by 2020 due to climate change! They quietly removed it because the glacier had grown by 25% in that time! the 3 coldest snowiest winters on record have all occurred in the last 9 years in My home state of montana! Another failed prediction from the climate frauds on the left! 4 decades of failed climate predictions! Explain that potsy?
    Don’t know if it’s true but one thing I do remember hearing Is that the Himalayan glaciers were supposed to melt away and South East Asians people were all supposed to all die of thurst. Hum !?
    Another is Mount Kilimanjaro glaciers melting away. Not sure of melting away ! Kilimanjaro is right smack at the equator. How about subliming ? Not melting !
    Anyway, I find it amusing that I find this this morning…
    It explains a lot ! Dual Israeli-american citizenship should be banned in federal government just like Arnold could not run for President. If the Russian-Chinese do what they have to do, dont be surprised.

  55. CD Marshall says:

    Not a problem.

  56. DCM

    Where can I research these?

    Not easy if you wish to be educated about climate in the same way that I was when I took my Environmental Science degree in the early 1970s. I was fortunate to be on a course founded by Gordon Manley the renowned climatologist, and so I was educated about the greenhouse effect before it became the modern defining political hysteria of our age.
    Joseph is totally correct in his criticism of the application of the vacuum planet equation with its divide by 4 dilution divisor. It was carefully explained to us in the lecture theatre that this equation is a mathematical trick derived from astronomy. It is used to establish the exhaust radiative flux from a planet and that is its sole purpose. To use this equation to establish the distribution of the solar input flux intensity is like trying to establish the performance capability of a heat engine by measuring its exhaust temperature.
    I have waited over 40 years for the egregious error of applying an output flux equation to the input flux process of a single lit planetary hemisphere to be corrected, but to no avail. Now that I am retired, I am able to use my time to try and present an alternate view of climate formulated on the meteorological principles of air mass motion that constitute the basis of the environmental science I was originally taught.
    At the start of this year I began a collaboration with Stephen Wilde of New Climate Model who has consistently argued for the role of meteorology in the study of climate. I developed a new mathematical climate model, the Noonworld model, based on meteorological principles, and used this climate model to demonstrate that atmospheric mass motion alone generates the greenhouse effect.
    The following sequence of essays forms the basis of our analysis: –
    1. Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space.
    2. An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget.
    3. Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus.
    4. Return to Earth.
    5. Using an Iterative Adiabatic Model to study the Climate of Titan.

  57. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you very much for your assistance. I wish more meteorologists would support Joseph.

    It must be almost unbelievable that a gifted mind like Joseph, a diamond in the rough, shows up after 40 years of non independent thinkers.

    I am by no means insulting most science but in all science you need the “textbook mind” that has their place. You need the “methodical/mathematical mind ” who has their place. However, the “visionary” propagates science forward.

    The problem is right now it seems the textbook minds have a gambit on science and politics has control of the textbooks.

  58. CD Marshall says:

    I found a fundamental error in Andy P’s “Arctic nights warming faster than days”. No such thing as a day/night 24 hr period in the Arctic. Therefore the conclusions make no logical sense. Are they claiming “3 months” of night is warming faster than a continuous “3 months” of day? ludicrous. Not exactly day to night ratio but you get my point. The entire observation is flawed and purposely misleading.

    As Joseph has said, sophists.

  59. CD Marshall says:

    So now they are claiming the 6 months of night is warming faster than the six months of daylight. That’s just pure bunk. They are clearly leaving something out.

    I would guess what they are leaving out is the temps are still freezing during the night cycle and therefore has no significance. They love to use “warming” to indicate 2 degrees higher even though it’s still below freezing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s