The Realists Take on Climate Change

Abstract – In this paper we show that a gray body which separated from vacuum by a material interface and submitted to outside incident radiation can behave like a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier. The Earth (Earth + atmosphere) is not a simple isolated gray body but it is in fact a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier with adequate reflection coefficients. The balance of the energy exchanged between Earth and outer space is reconsidered and the estimated Earth’s ground temperature mean value 15 °C is then derived.

The solar power absorbed by the Earth does not explain the gap noted between the estimated Earth’s ground temperature mean value and the one calculated while considering the earth as an isolated gray body. The Earth (Earth-atmosphere) is in fact a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier with adequate reflection coefficients.

The effectively absorbed power by a Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier is the sum of the power provided by an external source, and the power emitted by the Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier gray body itself and reflected back at the interface separating the Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier gray body from the vacuum. In this scheme, the solar and terrestrial radiation reflection coefficients by the earth and its atmosphere acquire a privileged role. Thus, the balance of the energy exchanged between Earth and outer space is reconsidered and the 15 °C estimated Earth’s ground temperature mean value is then derived.

Our result revives the discussion on the parameters that control the Earth climate. The Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier can be a starting point to improve the energy use. It can find its application for a better use of the energy resources. The materials having the adequate reflection coefficients will be indicated for specific applications.

Click source to download PDF file "The Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier (PREA)" by Prof. Ahmed Boucenna, Physics Department Sciences Faculty Setif University, Algeria

The only question in the climate debate is “does human emission of CO2 causes global warming?” One way to answer this question is to compare IPCC’s model projections for the global mean temperature with actual observations (hadcrut3 data) as shown in the above chart.

The above result shows IPCC projections are wrong. Actually, the observed global mean temperatures are even less than the projections if emission were held constant at year 2000 level, as shown by the orange curve in the above chart.

It is extremely crucial that public policy be based on facts. The above data shows, human emission of CO2 does not cause global warming.

References:
[1] IPCC 2007 WG1-AR4
[2] Global Mean Temperature Observed Data from Hadley Center:http://bit.ly/A8aXBm

What happened to “climate change” and “global warming”?

The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.” By contrast, Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times.

That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.”

Sixteen scientists, including such luminaries as Lindzen, Kininmonth, Happer and Shaviv, write to the Wall Street Journal, expressing the view that the global warming scare is completely overblown, and that AGW alarmism may result in increased research funding. Shock!

What heresy! Wait for the excuses: they’re not the “right” scientists, of course. They’ve all been “bought off” by big oil. They’re all probably suffering from delusions caused by mental illness. The fact that they may have reached these conclusion by means of proper impartial scientific enquiry wouldn’t occur to the alarmist head-bangers (given they haven’t a clue what “impartial scientific enquiry” is – “Surely science is avoiding FOI requests, deleting data and fudging results? That’s what I was taught!”).

Cue collective warmist head-pop in 3, 2, 1…

[i]Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Public concern about climate change is on the wane.

The number of people willing to alter the way they live in the hope of making a difference to global warming fell by around 10 per cent last year.

There was also a sharp drop in those who regarded themselves as ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change.

More recently, doubts about the efficiency of wind turbines and the high costs of the Coalition’s drive for renewable energy have seen enthusiasm for the cause dwindling.

Fewer than two thirds now say they are at least ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change or that they are prepared to do something about it, figures published by the Department for Transport said.

Earth is not warming. According to Big Green enviros, only Luddites and lunatics would believe such a ludicrous statement.

Well, now government scientists must be added to the long list of the so addled. Here it is, straight from the (high tech) horse’s mouth, a new report from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies titled “Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects:”

“Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998.”

But don’t worry. Even as climate scientists—and an ever-gullible media—are forced by new data to admit that the Earth is not warming, they take pains to assure us that the Earth is still warming.

The Associated Press was typical in its contortions, as in this Jan. 20 statement: “The world last year wasn’t quite as warm as it has been for most of the past decade, government scientists said Thursday, but it continues a general trend of rising temperatures.”

Not as warm, but still a “general trend” of rising temperatures. Got that? No? Well, don’t worry. The high priests of warming have apparently assumed a plane far above our mere mortal logic.

DAVID Cameron is under fresh pressure from his own backbenchers to slash subsidies for controversial onshore wind farms.

Dozens of Tory MPs are joining forces in a new group pressing for the Government to review funding for a technology they argue does “more harm than good”.

Selby and Ainsty MP Nigel Adams, one of those who attended the group’s first meeting, urged the Prime Minister to act in the House of Commons yesterday by focusing support on “cost-effective and reliable” technologies like biomass rather than “inefficient, costly, large-scale onshore wind farms”.

He told the Yorkshire Post onshore wind farms were “cash cows” and added: “One person’s subsidy is another person’s tax, but if you do have this pot of money to encourage green energy I’d much rather see if be used on proven, reliable, cost-effective technology like biomass.”

The group, led by Daventry MP Chris Heaton-Harris, marks a significant shift in pressure on the Government from its own MPs over onshore wind farms which have often proved controversial, particularly when located near some of Yorkshire’s beauty spots.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to track lower than year 2000 levels, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on Monday, extending this century’s downward trend in U.S. emissions. The new data rebut assertions that the United States needs to impose new restrictions on coal-fired power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide emissions.

Interestingly, EIA reports U.S. emissions rose more than 15% during the eight years of the Clinton-Gore administration but have declined since.

The primary reason for emissions remaining on a downward trajectory this century is the increasing number of natural gas-fired power plants. Recent discoveries of immense amounts of natural gas trapped in shale rock, coupled with the development of new technologies to capture and produce such shale gas, are driving natural gas prices down. U.S. power plants currently produce 50% more power from natural gas than during the year 2000. Natural gas power emits approximately 40% less carbon dioxide than coal power. (Natural gas power slashes many other pollutants tracked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by more than 80%.)

The EIA data reveal three important lessons for our energy economy and global warming concerns.

Climate change this century poses both risks and opportunities, according to the first comprehensive government assessment of its type.

The report warns that flooding, heatwaves and water shortages could become more likely.

But benefits could include new shipping lanes through the Arctic, fewer cold-related deaths in winter and higher crop yields.

The findings come in the Climate Change Risk Assessment. CLICK for PDF Download

This 2,000-page document has been produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

It forms part of the government's strategy for coping with global warming.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has tried a new tactic to win voters - by promising to establish a permanent US base on the Moon by 2020 if he is elected.

He told a crowd near the Kennedy Space Centre, on Florida's so-called Space Coast, that he wants to build a commercial space industry that can enjoy the kind of boom airlines saw in the 1930s.

Republican Mr Gingrich, who is battling other candidates for the top job at the White House, also wants to expand the exploration of Mars

Click source to read FULL report with Video Link from SkyNews

See below for Newt Gingrich Forida YouTube