Category Archives: CSIRO

Radiant heat and gravity control our world, not CO2

The Saltbush Club today announced the formation of the “Saltbush Solar Activity Watch” led by Mr David Archibald.


The Executive Director of Saltbush, Mr Viv Forbes, said it was obvious to everyone except school teachers, the ABC and ALP, the Greens and the leaders of CSIRO that the sun is the main driver of weather and climate on Earth.

“This giant ball of nuclear power in the sky beams solar radiation and exerts gravitational force on everything on earth,” Mr Forbes said.

“These two solar forces, radiant heat and gravity, control our world.

“Radiant heat on an inclined rotating Earth drives the winds and the ocean currents, produces rain and snow, powers cyclones and storms, and affects the cloud-forming cosmic radiation that hits the earth.

“Gravitational forces from the sun, the moon and other planets create atmospheric tides that also affect weather. They also create tides in the oceans and ground waters as well as “Earth Tides” in crustal rocks that affect the timing of Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

“The ancient Greeks and Egyptians, South African water engineers and Australia’s most famous weather forecaster, Inigo Jones, all knew that the sun was a key factor in weather/rainfall cycles. Most of the world’s calendars are based on movements in the solar system, and ancient monuments from Stonehenge, to the Pyramids, to the Americas are testament to the pervasive influence of sun and planets in human history.

“Solar cycles have been observed for over 2,000 years and sunspots have been recorded in detail since the invention of the telescope in 1610. This record shows that cold periods like the Little Ice Age have coincided with periods of low sunspot numbers.

“David Archibald’s analysis of solar activity suggests that the sun has driven a warming phase since about 1900 but probably entered a new cooling phase about 2006.

“A new cooling era would play havoc with world food supply, and those who rely on unreliable wind/solar energy will regret their choices.

“With reckless bravado, foolish Western politicians and their minions have placed all of our bets on an old fading gelding called “Global Warming”. They have not noticed a vigorous white stallion, “Global Cooling” which is racing down the straight.

“Even a small cooling will reduce world food supply in three ways.

“Firstly, any reduction in surface temperature will reduce crop growth and growing season in all sub-polar regions.

“Secondly, reduced solar radiation will reduce evaporation from the oceans and must reduce precipitation on land.

“And, worst of all, cooling surface temperature on the oceans will cause oceans to absorb more carbon dioxide plant food, so plant/crop growth will be lower than in today’s warm well-fertilised atmosphere.

“Carbon dioxide has never driven world climate and will play an even smaller part in future.”

The first Saltbush “Solar Activity Watch” by David Archibald can be found here:
http://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/solar-activity.pdf

Cosmic Cycles, not carbon dioxide control climate:
https://carbon-sense.com/2016/02/14/cycles-control-climate/#more-1559

The Sunspot Cycle:
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Sunspots and Rainfall Cycles:
https://carbon-sense.com/2008/05/26/alexander-2008/

 

Australia in boots and all with climate racketeers at Poland conference

Liberal and Labor supported 46 emissaries now back home to spread climate scare stories while the absent US throws a party to celebrate fossil fuels

December 16, 2018

Negotiators from around the world struck an eleventh-hour deal Saturday, laying out rules to implement the Paris Agreement and keep the landmark 2015 climate accord intact.

But it wasn’t easy.

The two-week, drawn-out fight that included a rehashing of old battles and the introduction of new ones stretched late into the night here at the COP 24 UN climate conference in Katowice, Poland. The pitched battle hints at challenges to come in the global fight against climate change as the new world order continue to face a wave of political pressure that has put a strain on international cooperation.

15 December 2018, Poland, Katowice:  Australia sent 46 bureaucrats agreeing to shut down the remnants of domestic industry.  President Michal Kurtyka (M) of the UN Climate Change Conference COP24, and other participants of the climate summit are pleased about the decision of the compromise at the world climate summit. The aim of the agreement is to limit global warming to well below two degrees. Photo: Monika Skolimowska/dpa-Zentralbild/dpa (Photo by Monika Skolimowska/picture alliance via Getty Images)

“It has been a long road,” said Polish Energy State Secretary Michał Kurtyka, who served as President of the conference. “This deal hangs in fragile balance, we will all have to give in order to gain.

The issues on the table in Katowice were largely technical questions centering on accounting, finance and seemingly arcane word choices that signal how aggressively countries will cut their emissions. But geopolitics never lurked far from the surface, and the urgency of climate change never proved great enough to keep the politics from bubbling up and disrupting proceedings.

“People are pulling away at the edges of the multilateral system and you wonder whether or not it’s going to unravel further,” said Rachel Kyte, who headed the World Bank’s climate-change program and who now leads Sustainable Energy for All, before the final decision. “Is the beginning of something bigger? How do we cope with it?”

The potential for disruption was clear from the beginning. The U.S., the world’s biggest economy and second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, promised to exit the Paris Agreement last year under President Trump’s direction. This left a void in leadership even as the U.S. officially remains in the talks until it’s eligible to withdraw in 2020. That void opened the door for others to rebel, particularly in places where climate change does not jive with the priorities of populist or authoritarian governments.

In a highly-publicized affair, the U.S. held an event promoting fossil fuels, during which a White House official argued that the country was injecting a dose of “reality” in the face of “alarmism” around climate change. The event won the support of Australia, whose ambassador for the environment joined the panel. And a senior administration official said that other countries had conveyed that they appreciate the U.S. perspective even if they don’t feel comfortable stating so publicly. “They don’t talk about it as much,” said a senior administration official. But, “there’s an appreciation for the realism.”

 

In another conflict, Brazil faced off against the rest of the world when it threatened to reject any deal because of language that would fix an accounting loophole that gives the country double credit for preserving forests in the Amazon. The rest of world protested, but Brazil refused to budge and in the final hours negotiators decided to punt the issue to a future conference.

One of the biggest clamors of the conference came as four oil producing countries, including the U.S, Russia and Saudi Arabia, questioned the validity of climate science and refused to recognize the legitimacy of a report from the IPCC, the UN’s climate science body, showing the effects of climate change if temperatures rise more than 1.5°C.

Changing geopolitics even hit in places where governments care deeply about the threat of climate change. The wave of populism in the European Union fractured the block, weakening its negotiating position. Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a longtime climate negotiations expert, cited political change in Italy, the ongoing Brexit fiasco and the weak positions of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emanuel Macron as contributing to the E.U.’s struggle to wrangle other countries. “There’s always some of these clashes, but it’s more acute here,” he says.

And then there’s the U.S. relationship with China, which is in disarray over ongoing trade issues. The two countries, while often at odds in previous negotiations, often served as mediators between developing and developed countries and helped broker key deals. “There was a capacity to be a convener, each of us,” says Todd Stern, who served as the chief U.S. negotiator under Obama, of the U.S. and China. “That’s not available right now.”

All of these disruptions helped push the talks long into overtime, with a mix of yawns and applause when Kurtyka finally called the conference to an end more than a day later than originally scheduled. The deal that resulted came as a relief: the multilateral approach to fighting climate change will live to see another day.

At the same time, the new agreement left much to be desired from nearly all parties. “I trust that whenever you found dissatisfaction in one part of the text, it was balanced with satisfaction in another,” said Kurtyka.

Perhaps more importantly, all but the most out-of-touch acknowledged that the deal leaves much work to be done if the world actually hopes to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, a level that the new IPCC report shows could wipe some countries off the map and cause widespread devastation across the planet.

“Carbon emissions keep rising and rising,” Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives, told reporters before the deal was finalized. “All we seem to be doing is talking and talking and talking.”

As countries continue to wind through the difficult international negotiation process, the obvious answer to make up for the gap caused by political disruption lies outside of the political system. Indeed, some local governments, businesses and apolitical multilateral organizations are already trying to take charge.

For most of the two decades that the U.N. has held these meetings, talk has focused on how to make action on climate change happen at a nebulous point in the future. Now, in large part thanks to the Paris Agreement, that action has already begun. And, while the international system is doomed to be defined by the least common denominator, many cities, states and businesses have stepped up to the challenge. In the months leading up to this conference, the World Bank committed $200 billion in climate investments, a slew of businesses lobbied for market solutions to climate change and alliances of sub-national governments in Japan, Argentina and Mexico joined the U.S. in making commitments to fill the gap in their national governments’ efforts.

“To combat climate change we need much much more than government,” says Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a central framer of the Paris Agreement. “It’s not for state only. It’s for society.”

The only issue is that none of this is moving fast enough. The IPCC report shows that temperatures have already risen 1°C as a result of human activity and that figure will surpass 1.5°C as early as 2030 without a dramatic shift in direction. A lot of work is necessary to facilitate such a shift. And that’s going to be a huge challenge so long as political tensions persist.

Write to Justin Worland at justin.worland@time.com.

 

Read the rest of this entry

Scientist slams CSIRO for fraudulently receiving research funds over CO2

Submission to the Independent Commission Against Corruption  by Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A., Dip. Bus. Admin over Greenhouse (greenhoax) events

From 2011 until the present I have spent thousands of hours in study and communication with other scientists in regard to atmospheric and sub-terrestrial physics, in particular as to how it relates to the issue regarding the alleged warming of Earth (and Venus) by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I have written three papers, the first (“Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics”) having been peer-reviewed in 2012 when it appeared on several websites. This paper and two others are now appearing at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605. From my research and application of the laws of physics I can say with certainty that the so-called “greenhouse gases” (which are mostly water vapour and carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere) can do nothing but cool the surface of Earth, not warm it as is alleged by the CSIRO. By being a part of a world-wide movement promulgating the false claims about carbon dioxide supposedly causing warming, the CSIRO is fraudulently receiving funds for useless research which does little more than make the obvious conclusion that more carbon dioxide leads to more radiation from such.

 With several Freedom of Information questions directed to the CSIRO I have come to the conclusion that they have failed to pay due diligence in checking what is false physics supposedly supporting “science” claiming this warming.  If that science were correct then rainforests (with about 4% water vapour above them) should be about 50 to 80 degrees hotter than dry regions like deserts which may have around 1% or less of the greenhouse gas water vapour above them.  The correct physics has been known by some physicists since the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876 how it is gravity acting on air molecules which makes the base of the atmosphere warmer than the top of the troposphere, not radiation from cold greenhouse gases supposedly causing heat transfer into the already-warmer surface.

 I have pointed out to the CSIRO in notes attached to my FOI requests and reference to the above three papers that their “science” is obviously false. There are others like myself with qualifications in physics who also know it is false. In fact there are hundreds of published papers saying similar. Yet the CSIRO refuses to look into such papers and arrogantly claims their “scientists” are correct. Such people appear to be those from the relatively young science of climatology rather than their physicists who ought to understand the physics of heat transfer processes and maximum entropy production as happens in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The correct physics is in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”  

 The CSIRO has been asked in FOI requests to produce their physics and also evidence of warming by water vapour and carbon dioxide.  They have produced no such physics and no papers containing empirical evidence of actual surface warming by these gases. Their cited papers merely assume that more carbon dioxide causes more warming. Their science claims that water vapour does most of “33 degrees” of warming of the global mean surface temperature, whereas in fact my study of data clearly indicates it cools the surface because it reduces the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced tropospheric temperature gradient.

 Despite all this evidence and correct physics that I have sent them, and the explanations they have been provided with as to why their science is false, they persist in deliberately failing to look into this, and so I can only conclude that they realise that to tell the world the science is wrong would lead to many of their staff losing research jobs that are funded by the government based on their false science. I can only conclude that this amounts to corruption.