|
Radio Interviews
America's Morning Show with Quinn & Rose: (click, 15 min.)
XM Radio, www.warroom.com,
Pittsburgh, PA
Al Rantel: (click, 18 min.)KABC AM, Los Angeles, CA
Bob Davis: (click, 40 min.)KSTP AM, St. Paul, MN
Jeff Whitaker: (click, 30 min.)
WOND AM, Atlantic City,NJ
Diane Jones: (click, 20
min.)
KLPW AM, St. Louis
More Below:
Doctor Stan: (click, 54 min. Go to 11/25) Radio Liberty, Monterey, CA
Mike McConnell: (click, 12 m.)
WLW AM, Cincinnatti, OH:
Hidden Carbon Tax in Bail Out Leg
Fred Honsberger:(click, 12 min.)
KDKA AM, Pittsburgh
Don Weeks:(click, 12 min.)
WGY AM, Albany
Glen Meakem:(click, 21 min.)
104.7 FM, Pittsburgh
Discusses how book proves NIPCC is correct
John Corby: (click, 19 min.)
WTVN AM, Columbus, OH
Steel on Steel:(click, 30 min.)
IRN USA Haden, ID
Troy Neff: (click, 22 min.)
WCWA AM, Toledo, OH
Jerry Bowyer:(click, 11 min.)
KDKA AM, Pittsburgh
Tom Martino:(click 29 min.)
KNOW AM, Denver
Brad Davis Show
WDRC AM, Bloomfield, CT
John and Ken Show
KFI AM Los Angeles
Don White
KGY AM, Olympia, WA
Lean Techniques, LLC, © 2008
|
|
|
The evidence is in. Before we go bankrupt, read lt’s the Sun, Not Your SUV and make up your own mind.
This book is an excellent presentation of the truth about the changes in temperature over the past 125 years. Increases in solar activity along with reduction of cloud coverage and thus Earth albedo (reflectivity) are the primary reason temperatures have increased. Greenhouse gases are to a lesser extent involved in the temperature changes. This book brings a fresh new set of information that provides the undeniable truth that the IPCC report’s focus upon Greenhouse Gases is fatally flawed. It also puts to rest as to whether there is any need for action on
this overly politicized issue.
- From the Foreword by Peter Dietze, 2001 IPCC Reviewer
Adapted from: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/353.htm
Global temperatures have increased since 1960, up on average by 0.6° C in 1998. Temperatures have declined for the last decade by about 40%. New data show that solar impacts have increased by the same amount and follow the zigzags in temperature from 1935 to1970 and this last decade's decline. The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that, based upon computer models, increased energy absorption by CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” (GHG) are overwhelmingly the basis for temperature increases.
But zigzag increases in global temperatures do not track with minor straight line increased energy absorption by GHG. Rather, such increases follow closely the major zigzag changes in solar impacts emanating from our sun, no different from the past millions of years as has been supported by multiple climatologists and other scientists. In short, if GHG play a role, it is minor in the 0.26% warming since 1880. The sun is responsible for the primary change, and political fixes such as envisaged in the Kyoto Treaty will not change global temperatures measurably but will mean a drastic decrease in worldwide output of goods, with calamitous effects on millions of people who are ill-prepared to suffer immense decreases in their standards of living.
John Zyrkowski begins with the irrefutable, uncontested raw data available from governmental sources on temperature fluctuations, solar impacts of radiation and magnetic flux, and CO2 absorption rates. He then uses Excel functions to demonstrate that the IPCC report used by proponents of the human cause of global warming is fatally flowed. The data doesn’t provide the answer the IPCC said it would. The worst case increase from GHG is 0.45° C.
About the author: John Zyrkowski is president of Lean Techniques, LLC and has served as Vice President of Planning and International Engineering for the Clark Equipment Company, Inc. He has personally managed five turn-arounds using his expertise in the Toyota Production System: process engineering and team techniques. He advises over 150 top manufacturing managers on implementing world- class performance and design standards to become globally competitive from a U.S. cost base. He wrote a column for InMFG magazine and has been featured on the front cover of IMPO magazine.
John has also lived the way that the Global Warming community would envision for humanity as a Peace Corp Volunteer in Guatemala. He experienced the "pristine" environmenment because he had to ride a horse, plowed fields with oxen and a tree branch, and buried young children who died of starvation and disease. More importantly, everyone who lived there is trying to come to the U.S.
The Foreword: Dipl-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeler, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany. (From U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works website:) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
For You: Become A Fully Informed
Participant in the Climate Change
Discussion.
Become an amateur climate scientist able to participate at science conferences with the confidence of having scientific proof and able to use the language of climate change PhDs. This discussion is very critical to the future. Becoming knowledgeable about the science behind climate change will permit you to make fully informed choices about policy decisions that your government officials are preparing to make that might be damaging to you and your community.
This book provides an in-depth but easily understood proof of all the key science of climate change. It explains each element in detail including examples and links to free websites that contain regularly updated data. By reading and following the examples in this book,you will be able to replicate this climate model and understand the complex issues of this important scientific discussion. You will be able to evaluate the differing views presented by scientists in their own terms and weigh the importance of their results.
The examples will also prove to you that the Sun is the primary influence on the changes in temperature over the past 125 years. You will also discover for yourself that the “greenhouse gases” have, at best, a secondary role that will in the worst case have minor impacts upon global temperatures. With recently released data, you will understand that almost one and a half to three times more irradiative energy to change temperature is available from the sun
than from “greenhouse gases”.
By following the examples and using your own calculations on your home computer, the limits of the impacts of these overly vilified gases will become apparent to you. You will be able to understand the scientific misjudgments made by those climate scientists that present dire forecasts regarding carbon dioxide and global warming. As you read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, you will also recognize where the scientists ignored key science facts and overstated negative impacts with assumptions that are difficult to demonstrate from measurements. As we go to press, many of these supporting scientists are reversing their positions on these assumptions.
You will assure yourself that the chart above is a correct representation of the worst case forecast of temperature, not the dire forecasts of the Global Warming community.
Dipl-Ing. Peter Dietze Honors: Right Since 1988
His original 1988 CO2 absorption model has withstood the test of time while the IPCC models have constantly been adjusted down from the inconceivably high levels. He wrote the foreword for this book and is featured in www.john-daly.com.
Dipl-Ing Dietze's model is a simple half life model based upon actual global emissions of CO2. It has been accurate since then as shown below and the formulas were used in the book. The mid-level models for the 2001 IPCC report are substantially higher than the actual changes in CO2 PPM, exceeding the actual levels by 11 years within 3 years of publication, and 17 years within 7 years (Chart 7.12 in the book)!
What a miss! And congratulations Dipl-Ing. Dietze for being right on!
CO2 Updates both charts: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv
Chart 7.12
Dipl-Ing. Peter Dietze also has effectively demonstrated that the IPCC overstates the adsorbtion of energy by CO2 by 30% since water vapor, the primary and natural GHG also absorbs in the same frequencies.
Other proofs:
Dr. Willson's peer reviewed 2009 article's abstract states:
“The ACRIM-gap (1989.5–1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.'s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites' original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033 %/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fröhlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD. ” [Here]. (Comparison Chart on next column.)
Dr. Roy Spencer: New Marshall Space Flight Center data confirms book's disproof of GW threats. [Here]
"previous satellite-based estimates of climate sensitivity have been biased
by natural cloud variations, which produce a distinctly different signature
than the climate sensitivity signature that has been sought."
Data Sources:
Albedo next column.
Climate Sensitivity for Global Warming: (with feedbacks)
GHG: 0.66-0.75 Natural: Climate model resolution value: 0.48
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/28/james-hansen-increasingly-insensitive/
Solar Only: no feedback 0.24 [Here]
Temperatures:
Hadley: 1868 to 2005
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tem2/tavegl2v.dat
2006 to present
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
UAH Satellite:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
For details: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
NOAA GISS and Land-Ocean
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Solar TSI
Total Solar Irradiance from ACRIM (1979 to 2007)
Total Solar Irradiance from SORCE (2003 to Present)
Lean 2000: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
Sun Spots, Solar AA Index, SOI, CO2: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX/Aa_month
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml
Dust:
1880-1996
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm: Robock and Free
1997-2008
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Richard_Keen.ppt
|
|
Nine proofs, for a century, that it is the Sun:
The Sun's data primarily and accurately predicts the change in "fingerprint" of its forces upon the changes in global temperatures:
1. Predicts atmospheric temperature increases and decreases
2. Forces reflectivity (Albedo) changes from direct satellite
measurements in the IPCC's own reports. The IPCC ignores
their data.
3. Converts from light energy to temperature using the
Laws of Physics.
4. Drives ocean heat declines that follow solar declines
5. Influences sea level flattening following ocean heat decllines
6. Causes changes to Atmospheric and Ocean heat budgets.
Global Warming Theory does not match the "fingerprint" of the global temperature record, thus is invalid:
7. Extraordinarially over and under forecasts atmostpheric
temperature changes
8. Is inaccurate because it relies upon proven invalid solar
assumptions and ignores the the IPCC's own reflectivity
(Albedo) change data.
9. Is forced to invent convertion rates of light energy to temper-
ature that the U.S. physicists' society state is "grossly
overstated".
Updating the book's formulas will also permit you to predict the temperature rise to 1998 and the decadal decline to 2010 when calculated and fore-cast from a base of 1880-1910 using Solar Forces only! These same results are also forecast from a base of 1880 through every year through 1999 as shown in the range and explains 95%-99% of the changes in temperatures. The range of all these years is 10% and (5)% to 2010. The models also forecasts in reverse from a base of 2010 to various years through 1940 to 1880, 10% and (1)% the actual global temperatures.
Solar forces have always caused changes in cloud cover and reflectivity of the Earth. The reflectivity was measured from 1984 to 2008 and showed a decline to 1998. Rising Solar forces have caused cloud cover declines that permitted less sun light to be reflected that equaled 11 times more energy entering the atmosphere in 1997 than could have been absorbed by GHG in 2008. This solar caused energy surge, lagged by a year with the peak in 1998, produced the increases in atmospheric temperatures. Since 1998, cloud cover has increased, reflecting more light from the Earth due to solar energy declines which caused the decadal decline in temperatures as shown above. The IPCC ignores their own global data corroborated from satellite, observatory, and ground observations that prove the change in reflectivity shown in the chart below which was reported in peer reviewed Nature and EOS. (Here reproduced and updated)
There are two components to the change in cloud cover. As solar forces increase, more holes are created in the cloud cover allowing more solar energy to enter the atmosphere. However, sun spots also increase during solar peaks, which eject cosmic rays that form nuclei that cause the creation of primarily high clouds, which "clip" the rising solar energy effects. As solar forces decline, the effect is reversed.
Adapted Chart 5.3: reconstructed from "Can the earth's albedo and surface temperatures increase together?", E. Pallé, P.R. Goode, P. Montañes-Rodrigues, S.E. Koonin, EOS, Vol. 87, No. 4, 24 January, 2006. http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf 2001-8 updated from: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/ .
Solar forces alone also predict that today's thermal expansion of the oceans has declined from the peak in 2006. More importantly, the Solar Forces only predict that sea level mass has changed about 1.3 inches since 1992, breaking from trend 7 years ago in Oct, 2003 and flattening since then according to satellite data from the Jet Propulsion Laboratories. (below)
Total Sea Level Change
Glacial melt for Antarctica, Greenland, and Alaska, which represent 99% of all global glaciers, is measured in tenths of mm per year since 1962, or 0.3 inches since 1992 and about 27% of the mass sea level change (above). The current melt trend is about 2" by 2100. It is easy to understand why Global Warming scientists have retracted a Nature Geoscience article that forecast New York flooding because of this actual well known data. [Here]
Non-endangerment models with minor GHG can be valid:
Maginally valid models from base years of 1880 to 1910 and later with primarily natural forcings (89%) and minor percentages of Net GHG (11%) can demonstrate some limited and inconsistent (0.1 Deg. C change in 2100) statistical evidence of additions of energy to change atmospheric temperatures as of 2010. There is no statistical evidence that Solar with minor Net GHG have any net better explanation of the changes in historic temperatures than Solar only models for this base of years. The author's EPA comments documents demonstrates that the changes in 2100 temperatures from valid models with Net GHG create a scientific discomfort, ranging from no impact in 2001 to 0.45 Deg. C in 2004 and now down to 0.1 Deg C depending upon the base years. Current levels of Net GHG effects are not an endangerment at these levels, if they actually prove to demonstrate some consistant influence with more data.
Major GHG models are proved invalid:
The invalid Global Warming mid models increase 165% higher than actual temperture changes when forecast from a base of 1880 to 1950 to today and were based upon the disproved theory that there was no change in solar cycle levels; a key reason their models are proven wrong. The disproved theory would under-forecast today's temperatures by 88% when forecast from an 1880 to 1910 base and never forecast present temperatures with a doubling of GHG. Their models assumed that GHG made up the changes in temperature, when in fact the sun and its influence on reflectivity change (Albedo) was the primary cause. Solar only models, though, can accurately forecast today's temperatures from the same base of 1880 to 1910 or any base year to 1999 including 1950 and on as shown above.
Global Sea Ice Extent basically unchanged:
And, the current Global (North plus South Pole) sea ice have not changed much since 1980 and have varied minimaly from the historic "normal" (Below). It is inconceivable that a true scientist interested in understanding a thermal process such as the planet would only focus on the 2% of the planet that is the Arctic when the same web site contains the information on the Antarctic and Global Sea Ice Extent. The combination of the 5% of the planet that is the Arctic and Antarctic contradicts the primary conclussions of their papers.
Arctic and Antarctic Ice Extent
Antarctic Ice Extent Article
By reading the book and studying the Excel spreadsheets with all the climate models shown here, you will be able to understand why the GW community could not forecast the temperature declines since 1998 and that the theory would predict 165% higher temperatures than those experienced today if forecast from 1950 as shown above, or would under-forecast today's temperatures by 88% if forecast from a base of 1880 to 1910. The major reason they can not forecast the declines in temperature is that they have been faulty in their science by ignoring Albedo (reflectivity) change caused by higher solar cycles as proven by Dr. Willson. As a result, the GW community can only point away from these failures and alert us to just "discovered" ocean currents that will lower temperatures for 10 years before they predict skyrocketing temperatures will destroy the world. Additionally, you will understand why some science magazines only refer to the error prone NOAA GISS temperature record and denie the declining NOAA's Land-Ocean Index, British Hadley, and the NASA MSU satellite. These same sources do not report the flattening of sea levels.
Other relevent sites:
Earth's Heat Aids Greenland Ice Melt: Dr. Ralph von Fresse, Ohio State Univ. reports that "another reason why Greenland's ice is melting: a thin spot in the earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice."
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/hotgreen.htm
Advertised by NIPCC (Natural Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
Other Items: HUNDREDS PROTEST GLOBAL WARMING
|
|
