Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - PetterT

#16
Viktige klimatema / Re: DET ER SOLEN!
19.05.2021, 22:28:19

FNs klimapanel feiltolker sol- og klimadata
https://www.klimarealistene.com/2021/05/19/fns-klimapanel-feiltolker-sol-og-klimadata/

Forfattet av Ole Humlum, professor emeritus, Univ. i Oslo og Jan-Erik Solheim, professor emeritus, Norges Arktiske Universitet UiT. Begge er medlemmer av Klimarealistenes Vitenskapelige Råd.

En global forskergruppe har publisert en rapport som viser at vi vet for lite om årsakene til klimaendringer til å kunne konkludere med at klimagassene er så viktige som FNs klimapanel forutsetter. Vår forskning gir et resultat som ikke stemmer med konklusjoner fra FNs klimapanel som bygger på ufullstendige og gale temperaturdata og manglende forståelse av solas utstråling. Påstander om menneskers sterke påvirkning av jordas klima er ikke tilstrekkelig begrunnet.

Solforskningen viser solas sterke påvirkning
#17
Viktige klimatema / Re: Abiotic petroleum
11.05.2021, 16:58:08
Ja takk, begge deler, sa Ole Brum, eller det ene utelukker ikke det andre.

Se:
Rewriting the textbook on fossil fuels: New technologies help unravel nature's methane recipes
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-rewriting-textbook-fossil-fuels-technologies.html

"But for some hydrocarbons, especially methane—the colorless, odorless main ingredient in natural gas—nature has many recipes, some of which are "abiotic—derived not from the decay of prehistoric life, but created inorganically by geological and chemical processes deep within the Earth."
#18
Advarte mot gjenåpning – nå forklarer Fauci hvorfor Texas likevel har lav smitte
https://resett.no/2021/05/02/advarte-mot-gjenapning-na-forklarer-fauci-hvorfor-texas-likevel-har-lav-smitte/?swcfpc=1
Tidligere i vinter advarte USAs smittevernsjef, Anthony Fauci, delstater mot å gjenåpne for tidlig. Texas gjorde det likevel. Nå sier Fauci han ikke helt forstår hvordan de lave smittetallene i Texas er mulig, men at det kan ha noe å gjøre med at «ting blir gjort utendørs».
#19
Viktige klimatema / Abiotic petroleum
02.05.2021, 16:22:08
Abiotic petroleum

Dannes petroleum i jordskorpen av calsiumcarbonate og jernoxid under høyt trykk og temperatur, og er det en "uendelig energiressurs" ?
Noe for geologer å finne ut av.

Se:
Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science
https://canadafreepress.com/article/oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-and-agw-is-non-science

by Peter J. Morgan

We all grew up believing that oil is a fossil fuel, and just about every day this 'fact' is mentioned in newspapers and on TV. However, let us not forget what Lenin said – "A lie told often enough becomes truth." It was in 1757 that the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus. The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov's hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth.
#20
Is the Science on Masks Settled? Yes. 'Masks have no impact on the transmission of respiratory viruses'
As Dr. Andrew Bostom points out in an interview with noted liberal feminist Naomi Wolf, multiple randomized controlled tests—the "gold standard" of scientific evidence—performed prior to the pandemic found that masks have no impact on the transmission of respiratory viruses. The only RCT conducted since the pandemic began, the so-called "Danmask study," reached the same conclusion. The World Health Organization grudgingly concedes as much.
https://townhall.com/columnists/robjenkins/2021/04/12/masks-science-n2587760
#21
Ny forskning / Re: Nytt "bevis", eller?
31.03.2021, 10:52:12
"Beviset" er også tilbakevist hos Dr. Judith Curry her:
A pertinent climate question
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/

Dr. Curry stilte følgende spørsmål om Kramer2021:
How much of a change in cloudiness would it take to account for the 0.53 W/m2 increase in TOA radiative forcing since 2003?
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/1375144537522204672

Dr. Rougemont svarte:
To the cloudiness suggestion:
From a simple, two-layer energy balance budget it can be estimated that, all other things remaining constant, a 1% increase in cloudiness (which amounts to approx. 66% overall) may induce a temperature increase of 0.54 °C at the Earth surface and of 0.45 °C at the top of atmosphere (TOA)
Without consideration for any system feedback, a radiative forcing of 0.53 Wm-2 would induce a temperature rise of 0.11 °C at the surface, and 0.18 °C at TOA.
To obtain a same temperature increase, thus to respond to a forcing of 0.53 Wm-‑2, it would take a change in cloudiness by 0.27 % for the surface, or by 0.4 % for the TOA.
Is cloudiness, or change of cloudiness, measurable with such accuracy and precision at the aggregated global scope? What was it in 2003, and in 2018?

From an overall energy balance perspective:
In general, and to simplify, modelers estimate all incoming and outgoing heat fluxes, and let any remaining quantity warm or cool the oceans, thus reporting a so-called accumulated ocean heat or "heat content anomaly".
According to NASA, over the 1993–2019 period, a heat flux anomaly of 0.36 to 0.41 Wm-2 for the first 700 m of depth would have accumulated. Over time, other heat release periods should also occur so that the imbalance does not let us boil or freeze for ever (it never did).
Over this time period of 26 years, this heat flux would have implied a temperature change to a well homogenized 700-meter water column of 0.10 to 0.11 °C, a hard to measure change.
A question, similar to the previous one, arises regarding instrumental observation: is it at all possible to measure such heat accumulation precisely, accurately, and at the aggregated global scope (by localized temperature monitoring or any other valid method)?

Kramer2021 har ikke direkte bevis for menneskeskapt påvirkning på global temperatur fordi de har brukt målinger kombinert med mangelfulle modell-beregninger, beheftet med usikkerhet, for å komme til sitt resultat.  Usikkerheten til mye av input til beregningene er større enn resutatet.
#22
Ny forskning / Re: Nytt "bevis", eller?
29.03.2021, 20:17:41
Takk til Okular for nok en god post om hvordan UAH temp og utgående stråling (ERBS+CERES) samvarierer så godt at det ikke er tegn til at "drivhusgasser" akkumulerer varme på en slik måte at det blir avvik mellom temperatur og utstråling.  Utstråling følger temperatur, noe som burde være selvfølgelig, slik at noe AGW-signal ikke er detekterbart.
Det tyder på at Kramer et al. ikke har modellert bort de naturlige energibidragene på en riktig måte, og fått 0,5 W/m2 som AGW effekt.
Det har også W. Eschenbach tatt opp her:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/27/way-out-of-balance/
#23
Ny forskning / Nytt "bevis", eller?
26.03.2021, 23:35:32
Hittil har ingen kommet med holdbare bevis for at utslipp av CO2 gir målbare endringer i klima:
https://www.klimarealistene.com/2020/01/24/ingen-bevis-for-malbare-co2-bidrag/ 

Nå har en ny rapport dukket opp, omtalt hos Watts her:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/25/claim-direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/
Kramer et al.:
Observational evidence of increasing global radiative forcing
Abstract
Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space‐based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate's radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all‐sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53±0.11 W/m2 from 2003 through 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well‐mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth's changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.

Global temperatur (UAH) var temmelig flat i den perioden helt til en El Nino topp på slutten.
En ubalanse på + 0,5 W/m2 i perioden er vel innenfor usikkerheten til alle målingene?
IPCC kom til 0,6 W/m2 her: https://www.klimarealistene.com/2019/07/27/skinner-solen-pa-hele-eller-halve-jorden/
Hva er "radiative kernels"?  Modeller i beregningene?
Ikke overbevisende

#24
Måtte det en finansanalytiker til for å avsløre NASA?
Zoe Phin rapporterer
Effect of Clouds on Global Upwelling Radiation
https://phzoe.com/2021/02/12/effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog

The standard greenhouse effect narrative is that infrared absorbing gases prevent radiation from reaching space and this causes warming at the surface (thus more radiation). Well we clearly see that's not case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error. Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn't cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface, despite the increase in downwelling radiation.

Når ikke engang skyer, som teoretisk skal ha stor varmepåvirkning, gir noen forskjell på utgående LW stråling fra jordoverflaten, da kan < 0,002 % CO2 fra fossil energi (isotopmålt) ignoreres fullstendig.
Konklusjon:  Ingen AGW effekt av fossil CO2.
#26
The Rational Climate eBook by P. Poyet, 2020
Fantastisk grundig gratis (!) eBook.  Utrolig at en person alene har skrevet dette.
Har bare så vidt begynt å skumme igjennom.  Mye går over min kunnskap om diffligningernetc.
Skikkelig utfordring.
Advarsel:  Langlesing  8)
https://www.academia.edu/44710422/The_Rational_Climate_e_Book

Fra konklusjon (etter grundig dokumentasjon i boken):
Let's summarize a bit where we stand:
As far as Physics is concerned:
• Arrhenius calculations were wrong and his conjecture is flawed: CO2 only plays a marginal role in the climate
system ;
• Anthropic CO2 is a tiny 6% of the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration as most of the total increase has come
from a natural process, i.e. the out-gassing of the oceans due to a natural increase of the global temperature
since the end of LIA ; the residency time in the atmosphere of each CO2 molecule is less than six years414;
• Because of a very obvious reason, i.e. Henry's law, CO2 follows T and not the other way round, effect cannot
precede cause, therefore the AGW theory is based on an erroneous causation ;
• Temperature results essentially from the gravitation lapse rate ;
• 99.9618% of the CO2 ever present in the atmosphere has been removed by various natural processes (mainly
weathering) over geological times and stored in one form or another; longer term the lack of CO2 is the risk;
• Atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is greatly exaggerated and the role of water vapor vastly underestimated ;
• The Greenhouse effect is the only phenomenon in Physics (absorption of IR radiations by some gases) that is so
badly defined and intentionally kept confusing ;
• Water and water vapor, the main player, is dismissed as it resists modeling and entails that climate cannot be
forecast beyond what the state of the art in meteorology is already struggling to achieve, i.e. 15 days.
As far as other sciences are concerned (e.g. Astronomy, Geology, etc.):
• Past climates, at all timescales, show that the climate has always changed for natural causes;
• Solar and orbital variations are among the main causes that drive the climate;
• Sea Level changes measured since 1907 show no acceleration (1mm y-1), half of it being originated by steric
effects415 and are greatly exaggerated by selectively picking starting and ending dates at a hollow and a top of a
temporal local sinusoidal wave and used as a politically sensitive argument to strike minds and threaten people
into submission to the AGW theory ;
• Natural climatic oscillations ENSO (El Niño - La Niña), AMO, NAO, PDO are much more relevant to climate than
CO2 concentration ;
• Glaciers have been receding since the end of the LIA and long before anthropic emission became significant
and no acceleration is noticeable. Arctic and Antarctic, considered jointly, are stable. The North-West Passage,
a good proxy for Arctic sea-ice extent, was open to shipping in 1945, and Amundsen passed through in a sailing
vessel in 1903;
• Extreme events remain within known boundaries;
• The acidification of the oceans is a myth;
• Major volcanic eruptions can be disruptive but are dismissed;
• The biosphere benefits of the little plus that a small increase of CO2 brings and the risk is a lack of CO2 as it is
the gas of life, nothing less!
Climate models are deluding as they give a false impression of established science based on irrefutable computer
calculations, but:
• Climate Models have even failed to account for recent past observations;
• They are tinkered with to try to fit non-scientific objectives ;
• They use data which are adjusted, or tampered with;
• They have little or no validity, beyond the 15 days meteorological forecast horizon, as they are just fit for
political objectives.
Policies that will result from the dogma will be deceitful and will destroy western economies and our ways of living with
no reasons:
• Many people aim benefit surreptitiously from these coercive policies for their personal gains whilst claiming
the "general good of the population" as their motivation;
• Prophets of doom have been making false claims for decades. They bank on the emotional response of the
people to propagate their misguided prophecies that have never come about in reality;
• Deceitful political messages have ignored factual information and deceived people intentionally;
• Thought police have been more active than ever in treating non-conforming scientists as political opponents,
discouraging and/or even silencing them with threats.
You want more political ecology, go on, but do not come back later saying that you have not been warned! Eco-fascism,
as all previous forms of fascisms have demonstrated416 starts with the enactment of a "state of emergency"417, and then
will run its course crushing people for their own sake...
NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

#27
OPPSKRIFTEN:

How the President's Constitutional approach will win back the stolen election:

1. The Trump Campaign, RNC, various state GOP Parties, and third party organizations are filing county, state, and federal lawsuits contesting the documented election fraud.

2. The objective is to strategically get hundreds of thousands of ballots invalidated.

3. A secondary objective is to publicly expose corruption in the election to both State Reps and US House and Senate Leaders. This is crucial for the next strategic step.

4. There was success in having 73 million Trump supporters engaged and working behind the scenes, as two polls show 60% of the US now believe fraud occurred and only 49% believe Biden won (Polls 37-32 D:R bias).

5. MSM calls are merely projections of how a state voted in the popular vote. In the end, that means little. Keep in mind, NOTHING is counted yet! Win or lose in court –
it doesn't matter - the next step is the GOP State Legislatures in the contested states.

6. On December 14, 2020, Certified Electors from each state cast their ballots for the next President and VP. What many do not realize is they vote in their home state and their vote is sealed until January 6th.

7. The State Legislators have the Constitutional authority (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and 3 U.S. Code § 2 and § 5) to appoint their own slate of Electors, loyal to President Trump, if they deem their state's "POPULAR VOTE IS CORRUPTED".

8. If the State GOP Legislature concludes that the popular vote has been corrupted, they appoint a competing slate of electors, loyal to President Trump, and then there are 20 state electors for Biden and 20 for Trump.

9. The precedent for this is the 1876 Election when four states each sent competing Democrat and Republican Electoral votes, sealed, to D.C.

10. On January 6, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

11. That means that in the case of disputes about competing electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. This is supported by 3 U.S. Code § 15. [TRUMP WINS!]

12. This is a de facto check on the Electoral College, which few realize because it only happened in 1876. [A Republic, not a Democracy]

13. If at that point, nobody gets to 270, the 12th Amendment stipulates that the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.

14. Republicans have a state majority with 26 (30 in the new Congress) out of 50.

15. Trump has clearly discussed and been briefed on a strategy to contest the election via Constitutional means, first through the courts and then through the House. Remember Trump saying at a rally Sept. 26 in PA: "And I don't want to end up in the Supreme Court and I don't want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go back to Congress — does everyone understand that? I think it's 26 to 22 or something because it's counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage. Oh, they're going to be thrilled to hear that!"
A CLEAR INDICATION that this was his PLAN all along - knowing they would cheat!

16. This would explain Senate majority leader McConnell's resolute backing of President Trump. It is clear, McConnell, who is shrewd and believes in raw power, knows POTUS is on solid Constitutional ground. McConnell's later giving in to Biden means nothing (smoke and mirrors). He will hold the GOP caucus in line!

17. In a contested 2020 election, like the election of 1876, the Republican Senate and Democratic House would disagree on which electors to accept. This is called a 'disputation' Constitution. [A Republic, not a Democracy]

18. Under the Constitution, there exists no mechanism to resolve a dispute in which the two houses of Congress cannot agree upon a certified set of electors, and there is no Constitutional role for the courts, including the Supreme Court. This is another crucial point: Court cases are filed only to establish election fraud. Hence, Trump's Sept. 26 references to "FIRST the COURTS, then the HOUSE" (see above).

19. The House and Senate GOP (McCarthy & McConnell) shall argue under the language of the 12th Amendment, the President of the Senate—Vice President Mike Pence—has the sole discretion to break a deadlock between the Senate and the House, and to either accept or dismiss disputed electors.

20. Republicans will point to the historical pedigree of the VP's position, observing that the GOP made the same argument during the election of 1876.

21. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate to act as the arbiter of any disputes and break deadlocks.

22. Within Pence's powers, he could either accept the competing slates of electors submitted or dismiss them as disputed and not have them counted. A reduced total still delivers Trump a victory BECAUSE IT DEPRIVES BIDEN OF 270. This is another crucial point.

23. If 270 is not reached, then under the 12th amend, the House of Representatives shall "choose immediately", in this scenario, reelecting President Trump to a second term because, as stated above, the GOP controls the House delegation majority. [A Republic, not a Democracy]

24. What the American people must do is the JAN. 6 MARCH in D.C. that will FORCE the Congress to set this compromised ELECTION aside and vote, not for the fraudulent, but for the real winner of this election:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · 27. des.
WE WILL WIN!!!

Så får vi se da......kjøp mye popcorn  8)
#28
Jo Nova ar mye interessant:
Premature Certification: there were 200,000 more votes than people who voted in Pennsylvania
https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/premature-certification-there-were-200000-more-votes-than-people-who-voted-in-pennsylvania/
og
A smart thermostat spy in voting machines sent data direct to China
https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/a-smart-thermostat-spy-in-voting-machines-sent-data-direct-to-china/
#29
HER ER LISTE OVER UNDERSØKELSER SOM BURDE VÆRT UTFØRT:

Eight 'Screaming Red Flags' From The 2020 Election That Deserved Criminal Inquiry
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, DEC 24, 2020 - 16:30
Authored by Sharyl Attkisson, op-ed via The Epoch Times,
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/eight-screaming-red-flags-2020-election-deserved-criminal-inquiry

The presidential election is no casual, unimportant event. Polling shows that, today, the public's confidence in the 2020 elections, polling, law enforcement, media, and government are largely shaken.

For that reason, the widespread claims of election irregularities and fraud should have been taken more seriously by government officials and law enforcement, and promptly and aggressively investigated. Today, there are hundreds of witnesses, declarations, sworn statements, and videos that continue to raise questions about the integrity of the results.

It's untrue that most of the claims have been dispelled by courts. By and large, there's been no opportunity for witnesses to testify or present evidence to a judge or jury. More importantly, perhaps, there's been no way to collect evidence of alleged fraud without the tools of a criminal inquiry, such as subpoenas, depositions, and the ability to compel forensic exams.

If legitimate and transparent investigations were to find the witnesses who claim fraud or irregularities are mistaken or not telling the truth, the inquiries would serve the crucial purpose of assuring the public that the claims were thoroughly investigated but found to be unsupportable or false.

The following are eight examples of screaming red flags that begged for a prompt, thorough criminal inquiry.

1. Ballots Allegedly Trucked Across State Lines
The FBI has a role in determining whether an interstate crime occurred, and who is responsible, if hundreds of thousands of ballots were trucked from New York to Pennsylvania, as a firsthand witness states.

It should be simple for law enforcement to get to the bottom of it by finding out who hired the truck and moved the cargo, or showing that the story is made up or a misunderstanding.

2. Subtracted Votes
There are several reported accounts of vote switching in real time, as shown on television, supposedly an example of how mischief can occur.

It would not be difficult for an investigative team to track down what happened in the specific instances and, if verified, it implicates more switching could have happened undetected.

3. Vote Count Pauses
Vote counting was oddly paused in several states. If, as some claim, it was done so that Joe Biden's ballot deficit could be figured and erased, it would point to a coordinated effort.

It would not be difficult for criminal investigators to question decision makers at each location and find out who they communicated with. This could prove or dispel the notion of a coordinated scheme.

4. Fulton County, Georgia's Mysterious Water Pipe Break
Fulton County is a special case since the reason given for a major vote pause, and the reason uncritically accepted and reported by many in the press, was that a water pipe burst and interrupted the count. However, the story morphed over weeks, and a state investigator ultimately concluded there was no pipe burst that would have interrupted any counting. No good public explanation for this discrepancy has been provided by a credible authority.

It would not be difficult for criminal investigators to identify and question whoever called the vote count suspension, and then moved forward with counting after some observers were dismissed.

5. Blocked Observation
There are widespread accounts from Republican election observers, and some Democrats, about being allegedly blocked from seeing what was going on. It would make sense for a law enforcement authority to question who was at the top of the organizational chain at each location where this is credibly claimed by a witness in a declaration or sworn statement, and find out how the official decided to determine and deploy the rules for observation.

It would not be difficult to learn whether there was a coordinated effort or, in the alternative, to hold accountable anyone at the local level who improperly shielded ballot counting from observers.

6. Voting Machines
In recent testimony to the Michigan state legislature, Dominion Voting Systems' CEO stated he saw no credible claims of fraud. But when asked how it can be proved that bad actors didn't impact and infiltrate voting systems, he advocated the idea of audits and even machine examinations to answer those outstanding questions. He even said this is the common way such questions are answered.

For the sake of public confidence, it would be prudent to have a credible law enforcement body conduct forensic exams and audits of the machines and software to rule out interference by third parties, or any other illegalities or mischief.

7. Mail-in Ballots
Numerous witnesses from the postal service as well as at polling precincts have provided specific information about allegedly being instructed to falsely date, add birth dates, or otherwise improperly alter mail-in ballots, or have testified about hearing plans to do so. This is an important and easy issue for criminal investigative authorities to nail down one way or the other.

8. Backdoor Ballots
The midnight dumps of tens of thousands of ballots in key swing states overturning the Trump lead could be perfectly legitimate. However, it's unusual to say the least. And so, in this environment, it's important that a criminal investigative body conduct at least a preliminary inquiry in places where witnesses observed what they considered to be suspicious behavior or ballots.

It should not be difficult to track the chain of custody and show they're legitimate or, if not, find out who transported them.

Finding evidence that dispels mischief is as equally important as an investigation that finds wrongdoing. The simple declaration that there's nothing to investigate, or having people who have no way to know the truth call the claims "conspiracy theories," is unlikely to dismiss widespread concerns and may, in fact, heighten mistrust.
#30
Trump forklarer hvorfor han ikke godkjenner valget og summerer opp indikasjonene på fusk.
Verdt å lytte til i 13 min.
https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/trump-the-master-persuader/