All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 1, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
54:24
The Real Deal: Climate Change: Myth vs. Reality, Part 1 (1 Jan 2022) with Joe Olson, P.E.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer with Real Deal Special Report.
Joe Olson, who has a vast background in engineering, who understands climate change backwards and forwards, and I are going to do a series of presentations about climate change, which appears to be the next major scam To be perpetrated on the American people, indeed on the totality of the world's population, which is going to have devastating effects if it moves forward, focusing on destroying the gas and oil industry.
Biden even said at one point that was his objective, converting to electric, which turns out to require more energy to produce than it saves, and a host of other issues.
I'm simply delighted to have Joe here with me today and for repeated presentations in the future.
He was a founder of Principia Scientific International, which is an organization based in the UK that promotes Fringe views, which just because they're fringe does not mean they're wrong.
It means they're not widely held.
And as we know today, a vast majority of views about the pandemic and the vax are false, which displays the elementary fallacy known as popular sentiments.
Just because a view is widely held does not mean that it's true.
And Just as parallel, just because views are only narrowly held does not mean they are false.
To claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas is central, because that's a claim that the climate change proponents are promoting.
Principia Scientific International was founded in 2010, around the time they published their first book, Slaying the Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
Which I believe is going to go down historically as a classic work in debunking the whole theory of global warming.
PSI claims it provides members with a reliable protocol to ascertain the facts behind the news stories to better judge whether information that is being presented by third parties is accurate and reflects a balanced view or not.
Which is dedicated as an organization to everyone who supports a traditional scientific method against the rise of sinister and selective government funded post-normal.
That really is post-truth science.
Joe, I want you to say a few words about Principia Scientific.
I think this is a wonderful development.
Okay, there was a group of scientists and engineers worldwide that had been writing
about the global warming hoax for some of them up to decades. I started with my first article at
InfoWars, Hoax of the Century, in April 2009. Then I branched out from there.
I was published by Breitbart, Drudge Report, Climate Realist, Climate Depot, And then I got picked up by Canada Free Press.
I wrote 60 articles at Canada Free Press.
And then in September of 2010, I was contacted by John O'Sullivan.
He said he had a group of international scientists that disagreed on global warming.
Would I want to contribute a chapter or two to slaying the sky dragon?
And so we wrote that book and it had originally eight authors and we were from five different
countries and at the time of publication on Thanksgiving Day 2010, Dr. Klaus Johnson who
teaches advanced mathematics course required for engineers to take thermodynamics at University of
Stockholm and Dr. Martin Hertzberg who has a PhD in physical chemistry owns three patents on
infrared spectrometry is a U.S. nerd.
certified meteorologist.
We're the only two who had met, and then during the course of editing the book, John O'Sullivan met with Hans Schroeder, who's a chemist, And they did the final editing, and the book came out, and funny enough, the day that our book was published on ebook was Thanksgiving Day 2010.
Klaus Johnson was notified by the University of Stockholm, where he was a professor, that he was not allowed to teach the formulas for thermodynamics that were in our book.
I wrote an article at Canada Free Press on that the carbon warfare rules of endangerment which covers the suppression of actual scientific facts known since the foundation of thermodynamics in 1870 and used by every engineer and in every you know chemical process in the in the history of the planet so it's absolutely absurd.
Now let's get to the Joe, that's just a stunning story.
The university clamped down on him for teaching classic laws of thermodynamics?
The same university that awards the Nobel Prizes in science.
The peace prize they gave to Finland because they didn't want to completely monopolize everything and they could count on the Finns to be goofballs and give it to somebody like Obama who never never had 90 days into his office he gets a peace prize give me a break uh without ever doing anything so uh yeah that's pretty shocking and then the next thing is we have NASA eyeball deep and lying about absolutely everything there's the big lie that carbon dioxide is a uh Pollutant?
And that it is toxic?
Well, there's 400 parts per million in the atmosphere.
You inhale that, and you exhale 40,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide, or you're dead.
You have 500 parts per million of carbon dioxide in your blood system, or if you have less or more, you get hyper or hypocapnia, and then you're dead.
So, you know, CO2... You're getting ahead of the story.
Okay, all right, yeah.
So anyhow, when NASA was tasked with finding a fire suppression system for the Shuttle and Space Station, they chose CO2 because up to 50,000 parts per million, it had no measurable side effects.
U.S.
submarines, because of the expense of scrubbing out that amount of CO2, operate for months at a time at 8,000 parts per million.
And there's a linear coefficient factor between atmospheric CO2 and photosynthesis.
If you double photosynthesis, you double, I mean double CO2, you double photosynthesis all the way up to 1,600 parts per million.
So it is a life-giving gas.
Yes.
Joe, this is fascinating stuff, but we have to lay a foundation.
We want to talk today about the big picture regarding global warming.
We'll get there, we'll get there.
But the point is, we're going to do a series of these presentations.
Because the material is technical, scientific, and difficult to digest, we don't want any to run over an hour.
And we want to focus on the big picture and get more specific, and we'll wind up with points like you're making here, which are sensational points, but premature in terms of giving the big picture.
Well, let's start with the geologic records.
Yeah, here you go, Joe.
Go for it.
Okay, this is a graph that's widely accepted as being accurate, showing the temperature over the last 600 million years and the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Now, this is all based on proxy data, and I have some issues with proxy data.
I've written two articles on that at Canada Free Press, but we'll skip it for right now.
What you can see on this graph is they have the Parts per million of CO2 on the left hand index of the vertical scale and on the right hand they have temperature and the temperature varies from zero degrees centigrade to plus 25 degrees centigrade.
And then you can see the variation in CO2 from 7,000 parts per million down to the current 400 parts per million.
But what you can also see from these two graphs, the black line being CO2 has absolutely no correlation at all with the temperature.
So, you know, you have two variables that are completely independent of each other, so you don't have CO2 driving temperature.
So, the blue line is the average global temperature.
Right, and you can see it's the quantity of CO2, and the point is there's no correlation between them.
Look how they're wildly dysgraphic.
Right, so you need to find some other factors that are forcing.
So, I mean, Joe, already this blows the whole global warming theory to shreds.
This is it.
This is a reputation right here.
Well, it gets better.
I know, but Joe, I just want to emphasize, already here's a 600 million year Retrospective about the relationship between CO2 and global temperature, and there is no discernible correlation.
I can't imagine how you could find a function that would relate the pattern of global warming in relation to the atmospheric CO2, Joe.
I mean, look how wildly divergent they are!
I know.
Well, here's another chart.
This shows the last 4,500 years of temperature cycle, and this is also pretty well accepted.
The orange bumps that stick up at the top of this graph, this is the Mioan Warming Period.
This is the Roman Warming Period, and this is the Medieval Warming Period.
Now, during the Mioan Warming Period, Vikings entered Greenland and built stone dairy barns big enough to hold 50 cows.
Those are currently under six feet of ice and snow.
They left Greenland during the Grecian Cold Era, Then they returned during the Roman Warming Period, and during the Roman Warming Period, the Romans had vineyards growing along Hadrian's Wall in England, where now the only place you can find vineyards growing in England is at Land's End on the far west end of the island.
Then you had the Dark Age Cold, Then you had the medieval warming period, where they built all the giant castles, cathedrals, and chateaus in Europe.
And then you have the Little Ice Age.
In the Little Ice Age, it got so cold that they had ice festivals on the Thames, and you could take elephant rides back and forth across the different sides of London.
So, you know, pretty obvious that you have Archaeological evidence that proves that human beings have lived through a vastly various climate cycle with no ability to make input as far as CO2 driving.
So the Vikings reoccupied Greenland during these periods of times and over the course of time Metallurgy, written language, all sorts of archaeological artifacts are found that are in different layers, and the deeper you go, you can tell they were here, and then they were gone for a period of time where there was change.
They occupied, then they were gone, occupied, then they were gone, and here's where we are right now.
So we're about to the normal temperature, if you want to call it normal, but this is a cycle.
And my question is, who are you going to believe?
Are you going to believe 10,000 dead Vikings in Greenland?
Or are you going to believe a bunch of overpaid climate clowns?
So with that, I had written a bunch of articles about geothermal forcing.
And here's just two of them.
Earth's missing geothermal flux.
And expanding the geothermal debate.
We can't see you.
We're looking right at the chart still.
No, I can bring back.
Oh, no, these charts aren't on there.
So we're just going to move along to some.
That's what I'm saying.
Now, if you want to show these charts you were just holding up, which we weren't seeing, you can do that now.
Oh, OK.
Yeah, this is an article that I wrote, Earth's Missing Geothermal Flux in 2011.
This is another one I wrote, Expanding Earth's Geothermal Debate.
So, bottom line is, I knew there was some other forcing factor.
So, we've got the sun, which provides about 90 98-99% of the energy that enters the Earth, but a portion of that is reflected by the albedo, which is the cloud tops, the top of the ocean, and certainly the polar caps reflect that sunlight, which keeps it from being absorbed on the planet.
So that's item number one.
Which affects solar, but there's no atmospheric effect on the geothermal.
Every bit of the geothermal energy flows through the biosphere into outer space.
So that's a variable that everybody considers to be constant, even though we know earthquakes and volcanoes are not constant.
So I had already written a bunch of articles on that.
In 2014, Heartland Institute had their ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas at the Mandolin Bay Hotel, and they had 600 claimed skeptics that were there.
One of the skeptics happens to be a PhD chemist chemical engineer named Dr. Pierre Latour.
He was a former U.S.
Army captain.
he was in charge of the Apollo Ballistics Program, has a resume that's just absolutely unbelievable,
and he wrote an article that we posted on Principia Scientific right after the conference
out in Las Vegas called Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth's Climate.
And if we just pull that up and just read the opening paragraph about
Uh, Joe, I, I, oh, here we go.
Yeah, the four known scientific ways carbon dioxide cools Earth's climate.
Dr. Pierre Latour, renowned American chemical engineer, shows how four known mechanisms and three laws of nature prove CO2 cools, not warms, our atmosphere.
Moreover, it may be shown that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the supposed world authority deferred to by governments, lacks a rigorous mathematical description for their so-called greenhouse gas theory.
Which of course means it's so vague that it's not easily testable, Joe.
It's by making it rigorous and mathematical that it's easy to ascertain whether it is true or false.
So I would say the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is making a mockery of science as a political entity and has no authority to be addressing these issues.
Meanwhile, CO2 affects several temperatures in different ways.
Here we develop the physics, chemistry, and biology to quantify the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, on Earth's temperature.
There are five mechanisms and three different temperatures involved.
Four show a small cooling effect.
One warms surface and cools upper atmosphere with no net bulk effect.
I'm unaware of a rigorous mathematical description of the greenhouse gas theory that promotes to do this and show a warming effect, because three are cooling and the fourth is neutral.
After decades of research attempt, promoters cannot reduce greenhouse gas theory to mathematics of science and engineering, meaning they have no theory.
They have a conjecture.
They have a speculation.
They have a guess.
Joe, you want to address that, or should we move to the next?
I mean, I want to pause here.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Now, what we're going to cover next is, he covered four of the known ways.
What he didn't cover was five and six of the known ways, okay?
First of all, this is an absorption graph by component of elements going into the atmosphere.
So, we'll put this graph up, and then I'll explain to you what we've got going on.
Uh, first of all, anything with a temperature above zero degrees emits electromagnetic radiation.
You, as a human being at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, emit in the 10 micron range, which is why you're visible with an infrared camera.
You can take a mirror and hold it in front of yourself and you can reflect your 10 micron radiation back towards your face, but you don't raise your temperature because temperature change is a vector only going from higher temperature to lower.
So no matter how many mirrors you surround yourself with, you're not going to use your body heat to raise your body temperature.
You can raise the body temperature of a glass of ice water that's sitting in front of you, but you're not going to raise your own body temperature.
So anything that happens in the atmosphere is not going to be able to reflect heat back from that atmospheric temperature level back to an earth that is always warm because of the lapse rate, and we'll get into that a little bit more further.
Okay, now the principal thing to look at on this graph is you have total absorption, then you have absorption by water vapor, and water vapor absorbs in 37,000 spectral lines.
It absorbs as ice, as liquid water, and it absorbs as gas molecules in the air.
When it absorbs energy and it changes phases, you have the latent heat of vaporization Which is 2,260 kilojoules per kilogram.
That's heat that's being removed off the surface of the water as it's being evaporated and going up into the atmosphere, reaching a point in the atmosphere with a pressure and temperature low enough that it condenses.
Then it starts to fall back down.
As it's falling down, the water vapor absorbs additional sunlight and rises back up.
And so basically, when you get into a cloud, You are in a thermodynamic cycle where I've flown through a cumulus cloud in a Cessna 150 solo where you can feel the vertical wind shear inside the cloud.
You get equal size and equal amount of rain hitting the bottom of the wing and then seconds later it you get that same amount coming down because of the thermal cycling that's inside the cloud.
The average thunderstorm is 20 miles in diameter Has 15,000, I mean, 15 times 10 to the 8 kilograms of weight.
Has 10 to the 15th power joules of energy.
There's 16 million thunderstorms per year.
And at any given moment, there's 1800 thunderstorms which are taking heat from the ocean and the surface of the earth, rising it up, absorbing it, condensing it, forming these clouds, reflecting sunlight, which are all cooling factors.
And then it comes over and it drops Cooling rain or freezing heat of snow, hail, and sleet.
Well, to go from liquification to solidification releases another 334 kilojoules per kilogram of energy.
So, he missed the part about the latent heat conversion, but that's, we'll call that item number five.
And then on this, Well, you have this absorption in separate bands.
For CO2, it absorbs in two thermal bands, or excuse me, three thermal bands.
One is 2.7 microns, which is 800 degrees centigrade, based on Wien's law.
The other one is 4.3 microns, which is 400 degrees centigrade, and the third one is 14.7 microns, which is minus 80 degrees centigrade.
Only one of those temperatures can come off of the Earth.
So, the other two absorptions are only absorbing incoming solar light, and anytime they absorb energy, they prevent that energy from warming the Earth.
Therefore, they cool.
Absorption is actually a misnomer.
It's more like a resonant frequency, and it lasts for a billionth of a second.
You have an incoming photon that's moving towards a molecule.
The molecule has certain resonant frequencies.
At those resonant frequencies, it absorbs the photon.
In description terms, but it's actually incorrect.
What it does is it just resonates as that photon goes by.
In the process of absorbing a little bit of energy from it, it emits a longer wavelength, lower energy photon cooling the Earth, and it creates a vibration because of the laws of conservation of energy.
It will always be equal, so that amount of kinetic energy is introduced to that gas molecule, but that gas molecule is surrounded by a whole bunch of other molecules by gas that are also excited by its movement, and so you end up having a convective wave of heat that goes up through the atmosphere through all these various molecules with very little molecule migration due to the heating.
But bottom line is you cannot warm the earth with co2 and then if the other claimed gas is methane and if you look at methane it has two absorption bands one is the 3.3 micron which is 600 degrees Centigrade and the other one is 7.7 microns which is 104 degrees centigrade.
Well 100 degrees centigrade is boiling water.
There's no place on earth that emits energy in the 104 degree unless you're directly over the top of a volcano.
So that's 219 degrees Fahrenheit just for the conversion factor.
So, bottom line is, you can't absorb any outgoing energy from the Earth with methane, and all methane does in the atmosphere is cool.
Let me sum that up in less technical language.
The whole theory of global warming is scientific nonsense, a.k.a.
bullshit, that this is just a political gimmick.
And I'm really disappointed that Al Gore, for example, would have bought into this and become like its patron saint.
I can certainly understand how nitwits who are scientific illiterates like AOC and members of the Squad could be easily duped.
They may believe it, Joe, but the idea of...
You know, destroying the economy of the United States based on gas, oil, and coal on the ground of global warming is just a fantasy.
It's completely absurd.
It has no scientific validity whatsoever.
It's a political gimmick, and sad to say, no matter how pure the intentions of those promoting may be, it would have devastating negative effects for the United States and the quality of life of every American.
Do I have it right?
Yes, and I've updated some of this stuff in my latest article on global warming at Principia Scientific, which is called Stop Gore Bull Warbling.
So, another thing that happened at the ICC 9 convention in Las Vegas was I met a geography professor from the University of Maryland named Dr. Arthur Vituro.
And he had been studying satellite temperature records because they're the only ones that are evenly distributed around the world and can give you an idea of what the actual thermal cycle is in the atmosphere.
And those are only available for 30 years.
And then also he programmed in seismic activity in the Pacific Ocean, and he was able to verify that there was a direct correlation between seismic activity in the Pacific Ocean and the formation of El Niño and La Niña.
So, he wrote an article called Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming.
So, if you could just read the introductory paragraph to that, we'll get people started on that.
Research article on the correlation of seismic activity and recent global warming.
Abstract.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that's the UN entity, with high confidence that the warming of global temperatures since 1901 has been driven by increased radioactive forcing.
The gases responsible for this enhanced forcing are greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin, meaning man-made, including carbon dioxide, methane, and halocarbons.
The non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change has challenged these findings and concludes that the forcing from greenhouse gases is minimal and diminishing.
They add that modeling attempts of past and future climate states are inaccurate and do not incorporate important solar inputs such as magnetic strength and total irradiance.
One geophysical variable that's been overlooked by both groups is geothermal flux.
This study will show that increasing seismic activity for the globe's high geothermal flux areas, HGFA, an indicator of increased geothermal forcing, is highly correlated with average global temperatures from 1979 to 2015.
With a correlation of 0.785.
By comparison, the correlation between carbon dioxide loading and global temperatures for the same period is lower, 0.739.
Multiple regression indicates that HDFA seismicity is a significant predictor of global temperatures with a probability in excess of 0.05, but carbon dioxide concentrations do not significantly improve the explained variance, which is greater than 0.1.
The earlier should have been less than 0.1.
A compelling case for geothermal forcing lies in the fact that 1.
Geothermal heat can trigger thermobaric convection and strengthen oceanic overturning, an important mechanism for transferring ocean heat to the overlying atmosphere, and 2.
Seismic activity is a leading indicator, while global temperature is the laggard.
Joe, boil that down into easily comprehensible language.
Okay, well, bottom line is we have a planet that has 259 billion cubic miles of mostly molten rock, and the way that rock stays molten is that we also have 700,000 cubic miles of uranium and 1.2 million cubic miles of thorium, which are under somewhat constant but variable decay.
In the process of a fission of an atom, you get A million times the amount of energy that you get with any chemical reaction.
That's why they base nuclear reactants on the amount of reactant involved in megatons, because mega is a million.
So, you know, that's why they do that is in megatons of TNT.
So you're talking an enormous amount of heat energy, number one, and then number two, when you break down a uranium or thorium atom, The protons and neutrons are not destroyed in that process.
What ends up is you end up with a whole bunch of isotopes, which are, or you end up with daughter, what the Russians called elemental atoms, which are derived from the, or daughter atoms is another name for describing it, and those are the neutrons and protons that form other things.
Some of the things that they form are radioactive gases, and they also form the Periodic table of...
elements in the eighth group, which are all of your, what used to be called inert gases,
but they changed that to noble gases because they were able to force fluorine to make one compound
with some other atoms and said this is actually what happens. But what was the significance of
that transition from inert gases to noble gases? I think what they wanted to do is they just wanted
people to not think that there were things that couldn't be formed into molecules because I think
they wanted to discredit the fission, natural earth fission, is what my philosophy on that is.
It happened about the same time that climatology started in the early 70s.
Joe, it just seems so odd that this reclassification of this kind would occur.
It seems to me it has to be politically driven.
Right, okay.
Now, getting back to radon gas, all of the inert gases, and I'll continue to call them inert gases that are on the period 8 in the chart, all of those cannot form any molecules, and so you have like radon, which is a highly reactive and short half-life.
It's like 3.8 Days of half-life for radon gas.
And radon is one of the factors that you use to verify that you have increased volcanic activity in areas.
You measure the parts per million of radon coming out.
So, if you had a pound of radon in 28 days, you'd have a 16th of an ounce of radon.
That's how fast it decays.
Another one that's in the atmosphere is argon.
And argon is completely inert.
It's about 1% of the atmosphere.
So you could actually do a reverse calculation on the amount of argon that's in the atmosphere that every bit of it came from nuclear fission.
Helium is in that table, and helium also can form a diatomic bond with itself, but it doesn't bond with anything else.
So, bottom line is, we have a geothermal forcing that 100% of it flows through the biosphere, and we have a solar forcing where 70% of it comes through the biosphere.
But the other portion does not.
This is a graph we'll cover later at a future date, but the yellow on this graph shows the amount of sunshine at the top of the atmosphere that doesn't make it to the surface of the Earth.
So, we'll cover that in more depth.
Now, when Dr. Perturo and I discussed this at Heartland, he had only done analysis on the Pacific Ocean Specifically, the El Nino and La Nina temperature cycles, which are about a four degree variation in the surface temperature, causes enormous differences in precipitation along the west coast of the American hemisphere.
So, the moisture that comes off of the Pacific Thermal hailing goes into the Pacific and hits the Sierras and the Rockies, and then also hits the Andes, and so it gets condensed out, and it has minimal impact as far as the overall, but the correlation of seismic activity to temperature in the ocean was 100% correlated with that particular article.
Well, since then, Dr. Vertouro expanded his reach on this and if we can put up the thermal haline chart.
You were actually talking about this one already Joe without our having the chart up right.
Yeah, we're just now getting to it.
Okay.
I need the global chart.
This is the wrong?
Let's see.
I can't see it.
I've got something that says this meeting's being recorded.
It covers my slide, but if it's the one that shows the whole globe with the Pacific current.
Yeah, here's the whole globe with the Pacific.
Well, this is actually the Atlantic and the Pacific current.
Thermal circulation.
You can't see the image?
No, but that's okay.
I know what the image is.
So, if you notice on there, they have a current that comes down through the center of the Pacific.
That's a cold current and then you have a warm current that comes out of the Pacific and then runs down across Australia.
Well, there's no activity in that particular thermal cycle of what's happening with the El Nino and La Nina because that portion is isolated from the main driving force when that is the Atlantic Maradona overturning circulation, which will be the next slide that we'll bring up.
Here you go.
Okay, now what's really important about this one is that you have a warm surface flow that comes up, they call the Gulf Stream, comes across the North Atlantic and warms Iceland and Europe, and then it gets really cold and it drops and it sinks along the bottom of the ocean.
The average depth of the ocean is two miles worldwide.
The average temperature at the bottom of the ocean is four degrees centigrade.
What happens is when you heat a solid, you get a linear coefficient of expansion.
As those atoms pick up more energy, they start pushing each other, and so you have a linear coefficient of expansion.
And for instance, steel, which you can see steel expanding.
And then in liquids you have a what's called a thermal climb where the layers will separate out by temperature and you'll have layers which are actually so-called when you're scuba diving in an area where there's a thermal climb Particularly in the winter where you have low inflows of fresh water to do turnover.
I've been diving in Lake Travis on New Year's Eve about 35-40 years ago and the water was so cold that it was like a pool and you could stick your finger in water that was 10 degrees colder than the water that you were actually in in your wetsuit.
Wow!
Thermoclines occur in the ocean at multiple levels.
That's why they like to have nuclear submarines, because they can get down to lower levels of thermocline, and the thermocline layers reflect sonar.
That makes them invisible to sonar, because they're dropping down underneath multiple layers of reflection.
In typical ocean diving, you normally have a thermal climb at about 50-60 feet, where it drops probably 5 or 10 degrees, and then you'll have additional thermal climbs as you get down deeper.
So, what happens is, there again, when water gets heated, it expands, and so that makes it a little bit lighter, and so it rises up to the top, and then the water that's cold will cycle down to the bottom.
Well, just because of the geography, if you're looking right here at Greenland, On the west side of Greenland, you have what's called Baffin Bay.
Directly on the east side, you have the Greenland Sea, and then beside that, you have the Barents Sea.
Now, the average depth in Barents Sea, the shallowest depth in the Barents Sea, is 760 feet.
If you go over to the Alaska coast, where you have the Aleutians, that is called the Bering Strait, and it's only 100 feet deep.
So, what happens is, you get warm water, which would be the thermo, And the haline gradient is fresh water.
So this comes in to the Arctic Ocean from runoff that's rain falling in Siberia and Alaska and Canada and Northern Europe, and that flows into the Arctic Ocean, warming the ocean, melting the ice, and then that cold water drops down, and the Arctic is about 1,300 feet deep, so 13,000 feet deep.
So it's pretty deep on its own.
But bottom line is, it has this overflow where it can take cold water out beside Greenland and enter into the Atlantic Mercotal Oscillation.
And what he found is that there was an enormous correlation between temperature and seismic activity along the mid-Atlantic ridge, which includes the Azores, Iceland, and there's some volcanoes that are in that line and along Greenland too.
So that becomes a major forcing factor, and here's the reason why.
We've already discussed albedo.
Yes?
No, no, no.
Go ahead.
You'll go ahead.
Yeah, we've already discussed albedo.
This is a photo of the Arctic ice in 1979 and in 2007.
And what happens is, as you reduce the amount of ice on the top of the water, You end up with absorption of sunlight into the water, where before it would have been reflected off the ice.
So, this graph shows that ice without snow and water reflects about six percent of the incoming solar radiation.
Ninety-four percent goes into the water and is warming the water.
There again, as it warms, it expands.
And so not only does it melt more ice, but it builds up the pressure to force more cold water
out through the Barents Sea into the Atlantic Mercurial Oscillation.
So that's how all of these things are looped together.
And what bottom line is, you have one forcing agent that's probably responsible for,
I'd say three to 5% of global warming.
And if you actually included the ability of volcanoes to create clouds because they spew sulfurous gases
that give condensation points for molecules of gas to form.
And there's correlations between that seismic activity.
So bottom line is you have one gigantic forcing factor that's probably five to ten percent of the overall forcing factor That it's completely independent, number one, of CO2 and also completely independent of what we're getting directly from the sun in what we measure in the way of electromagnetic radiation, although we are getting gamma rays from sun and from cosmic rays that affect volcanism in ways that we're not exactly sure how they operate.
But bottom line is, All of climatology is a complete fraud to turn around and claim that something this complicated and this well-balanced, where you have two variable energy sources and everything else is a buffering system.
What happens in the atmosphere is the final trailing artifact of two major variable heat inputs and multiple variable buffering systems.
And that's what you have.
And bottom line is, everything they tell you about climate is a complete lie, and it's all based on an agenda where they want to reduce our, quote, carbon footprint, while their carbon footprint can go exponential because they're the rulers and they deserve to tell us what to do.
And what's really shameful is that the educational institutions have sucked up to the money train coming out of these various government science foundations that are funding all this garbage.
And that's why we end up with no debate.
The publications are all owned by the same monopoly that owns all the rest of the major
media.
So you cannot get anything published in an actual paper that's peer reviewed because
all of the peers, just like they disclosed in the Climategate scandal, which happened
in November of 2009, that they're going to control all the peer reviews and only their
pals, which is what it is, is pals review.
And that was the East Anglia University hack where they got 220,000 emails.
They released about 2,000 of them.
The rest of them are still under a cryptic code at a Russian server.
But I wish that Putin would open that up.
I'm sure that Putin also has the Complete files of WikiLeaks involving the DNC and the death of Seth Rich, and I'm sure he could release those files.
I'm sure Putin has extensive files on what happened to us on 9-1-1, and he could release those files.
Bottom line is, all of these things stem from the same evil power sources that are at the top of the human pyramid chain at this point, and this is something that we need to work actively to destroy.
And you can do it, you know, one mind at a time.
If you find this information that we're sharing today to be useful, then yes, let's go ahead and share it with all of your friends and start discussions.
If you've got some college kid that's taking a science class and God forbid they're in a goofy program like climatology.
There was never any need for a climatologist until they created climatology in 1978 on the sole hypothesis that carbon dioxide warms the earth.
So Cervantes Arrhenius came up with this scheme back in 1895.
He published a paper in December.
Within a month he was proven wrong by Newt Angstrom.
son of Anders Ångström, the one that they used the Ångström measurement for, who was the most famous Swedish scientist to that date.
And because Newt was an underling of Savante, he was not allowed to get published, but he said, look, you didn't remove water vapor from your sampling with your CO2 absorption Methods, and as we know, water vapor absorbs in 37,000 spectral lines, so you're wrong.
So then he came back and redid his experiments, but he used them based on measurements of infrared light coming from the moon, which were made by Samuel Langley, who was the head of the Smithsonian Institute, which is a whole other can of worms.
But anyhow, in 1906, Samuel Langley admitted that he'd made an error on his radiation, but knew that he had already measured what the actual was, and in 1902 he had articles published in the Monthly Weather Report stating that
That Cervantes Arrhenius was wrong and that there was no carbon dioxide warming in the atmosphere and it couldn't regardless of the level of CO2.
So that was a pretty much accepted fact at that time.
Then in 1909, a college professor out at Stanford Robert Wood did an experiment with greenhouses and he showed that actually greenhouses can't trap infrared either because infrared goes through the glass whatever it warms inside goes back through the glass and so it doesn't have any effect at all other than it reduces convective current.
You have three major forms of heat transfer.
One is conduction which happens like in a solid where you get one end of it hot and it wants to transfer that heat all the way up and down so that's conduction.
You have convection where it's like giving heat off and warming body through the air and then you have radiation where it's actually giving off electromagnetic radiation which all goes up into outer space and is dissipated.
So, there is a fourth means of transfer, which is called advection, and that's when you have a large air mass that's a different temperature from the land mass that it crosses over, and it can cause a slight temperature change in just the top, you know, millimeter of sand or earth or whatever it's covering.
So, if you have a big cold front coming in, yes, you can reduce the ground temperature with a cold front, But you don't do it over a lengthy period of time unless the cold front is no longer a high a cold mass over a a or warm mass over a very variable temperature land mass so bottom line is
You're not going to do anything in the atmosphere, and I forgot to mention that in the atmosphere, what you have in the way of expansion is called the lapse rate.
And the lapse rate is constant worldwide, and it's three degrees centigrade or four degrees Fahrenheit for every thousand foot of altitude.
So as you go up in altitude, no matter where you are on Earth, The temperature on the surface of the earth is going to vary in the atmosphere because you have the gravity given atmosphere a pretty much uniform density other than slight barometric pressure variations which are due to air flows and pressure waves that happen because of the jet stream and the movement of the atmosphere.
But bottom line is anywhere on the earth as you start going up you get this four degrees and you can see that very readily if you're up in a private airplane.
where you don't have air conditioning and you get up and you can see the temperature outside all the airplanes have a temperature gauge that gives you outside temperature and you can watch the outside temperature drop it'd be 100 degrees well if you fly up to 1000 feet it'll be um four degrees less than that so it'll be 96 degrees you fly up to 2,000 feet it'll be four degrees less so it'll be 92 degrees you fly up to 2,000 so bottom line is you can watch as you're going up by uh altitude every thousand feet you're losing four degrees centigrade of temperature so so bottom line
Yes.
No, keep going.
That's all wonderful.
Yes.
Okay, so bottom line is no molecule in the atmosphere is going to be warmer than the surface of the solar heated Earth.
So, no molecule in the atmosphere is going to be able to do that vector heat transfer.
If it keeps getting colder, the further up you go in the in the atmosphere.
So, bottom line is, you know, when was the last time a cloud got between you and the sun and you got hotter?
Well, that never happens.
When was the last time a cloud dumped hot rain or hot sleet, hail, and snow on you?
That never happens because it's cooling and it's dropping energy from a higher altitude and a lower pressure and a lower temperature down onto the surface of the Earth.
And so, bottom line is, water vapor is a gigantic cooling factor.
They had to include it as a, quote, greenhouse gas because It absorbs in every one of the spectrum bands that CO2 absorbs in.
I just want to review what we've covered today.
We began with Principia Scientific International.
We looked at this absolutely crucial chart of 600 millions of years of non-correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
This is the most important chart today Others about more recent variations where there's no denying that there are cycles of heating and cooling.
The problem is that CO2 has nothing to do with it.
We've looked at four scientific ways carbon dioxide cools Earth's climate.
Well, three of them actually cool, one of which is not Efficacious doesn't seem to make a difference, but what's most important is that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would not provide a rigorous mathematical description for the greenhouse gas theory, which makes it all but impossible to refute, except we're doing so on more general grounds.
Here we have the alternative account being provided by this Viterito Arthur Vetterito research article on the correlation of seismic activity and global warming, namely, finding it does not exist.
We've looked at radiation transmitted by the atmosphere by multiple alleged sources, talked about ocean currents in relation to the change in temperature and so forth.
Here we have more focusing on the Arctic ice and its melting and the fact that the ice is reflective.
So that the more ice you have in covered water, the more it reflects the sun, but the fact that the water without ice actually increases with temperature.
Joe, I want to ask you about this chart then, you know, when Al Gore did his Inconvenient Truths, he focused a lot about glaciers and melting.
And what is it we most need to understand?
Because you're pointing out how if there's less ice to reflect, then there's more heat in the water, and therefore you're going to have more ice melting, it would seem to me.
Would you elaborate on that?
Yes, because ice, with being completely white, has a real high albedo, so it reflects almost as well as a mirror does, so it's reflecting that heat back off of the earth so that it can't warm the earth, and when you had ice-covered tundra and snow-covered tundra, that whole area was reflective, and what happens is when you start mailing it off, and we'll go into a little bit more detail just on the thermohaline circulation, this is a density gradient between surface heat, And fresh water flux, yes.
I'm just worried about the overwhelming details you present that may sail over the heads of so many of our audience.
So let me make this crucial point.
Here you have MMR vaccination and autism from The Lancet.
Notice the correlation.
Notice the two graphs are virtually very highly, you got an increase in one, you got an increase in the other.
That is a correlation.
That is a necessary condition for a causal relationship, but as in the case of smoking and cancer, there was a similar correlation, yet the tobacco industry insisted there was no causal connection.
But if there were not the correlation, you know for a certainty there is no causal connection.
So it's necessary, but not sufficient, to establish a causal connection that there should be a correlation.
Look at this then.
Return to that opening chart.
There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
That means, since it's a necessary condition for a causal relationship to obtain between two factors, since there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and average global temperature, There cannot be a causal connection.
Even if there were a causal connection, as in the case of the tobacco industry, scientists, or let us call them pseudoscientists, or let us call them scientific hacks, could insist that didn't show that there was a causal relationship.
But now they're in the preposterous position of, even in the absence Of any correlation whatsoever, they're seeking to make a causal claim which all the evidence contradicts.
Joe, I think this is the takeaway from today, that the global warming theory is not sustainable scientifically because there isn't even a correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
Yeah, we've squandered over a hundred billion dollars of science research to come up with anecdotal support for a hypothetical equation, and what they're trying to come up with is the coefficient, and you cannot correct an error of a hypothetical equation with anecdotal evidence, and that's exactly what they've done.
Now, getting back to this chart real quickly, and this is what we'll cover in the next one, is you had this giant little ice age, This has been sensational.
get rid of that in order to make the hockey stick work where they have a fake graph of
atmospheric CO2, which we had no ability to know what it was like 200 years ago.
Yes.
This has been sensational.
This is the first of a series on global warming that Joe Olson and I will be doing together
as a real deal report.
I'm very glad you could join us today.
We'll be back.
We'll be doing these on the average of one per week, and I expect we'll have four to six of these reports for your notification.
Pay attention.
Remember the bottom line.
Without a correlation between global warming and atmospheric CO2, there cannot be a causal connection.
What you're hearing about global warming, therefore, is a scientific hoax.
Pseudoscience.
Don't let yourself be played.
Thank you for joining us today.
▲
Export Selection