The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1019111113101905920

Translated from French by Microsoft
The lake of the gate 2580m and not yet thawed at 15/07... #luchon #portillon #pyrenees #hautegaronne thanks to super. Tomate31

https://twitter.com/x/status/1018909012170035200

Translated from Spanish by Microsoft
This morning, from #Vilamòs, in the #Val_dAran, we have seen a new and thin layer of snow in the mountains of more than 3000 MTS of the massif of the.. #Maladetas #Aneto @Tempestades. @Meteo_Pyrenees

Close call as Audi Q5 slides down icy Sani Pass slope | IOL Motoring
16 July 2018, 08:23am / Nosipho Mngoma South Africa
Snip: Vid's
Reporting from the scene of the crash later, Snow Report posted a video on their Facebook page where the Renalds’ vehicle can be seen seemingly hanging at an angle on the incline behind Ensell.
Skipping Down
While there was some sunshine in the afternoon leading to the snow melting fast, temperatures were expected to plummet below zero overnight.

Ensell said while there was still some snow on the mountains, they were not expecting more snow over t he next few days.

Temperatures are expected to remain within the low to mid teens throughout the province, despite a cold front having passed the country.

Forecaster for the SA Weather Services, Stacy Colborne, said the cold front was followed by a ridging high pressure system which pushed moisture from the ocean, leading to the weekend rains and drop in temperature.

The province is only expected to warm up on Wednesday with sunny skies and the mercury rising to 20°C in most areas.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1017997938830774272

Adapt 2030
Published on Jul 16, 2018 / 11:10

 

[Laura]

Well, it IS winter in the Southern hemisphere!

 

[Ca.]

The Edge of Space Just Crept 12 Miles Closer to Earth
By Brandon Specktor, Live Science Senior Writer | July 26, 2018 11:00am ET



Did you feel that? Does it suddenly feel a little bit stuffier in here to you? Does it feel like, I don't know… outer space just got 12 miles (20 kilometers) closer?

Nothing actually moved, of course (unless you count the constant and increasing expansion of the universe). But according to a new study published online this week, it might be high time Earthlings shifted our mental and mathematical ideas about where, exactly, Earth's atmosphere ends and outer space begins. [Earth from Above: 101 Stunning Images from Orbit]

If astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell's calculations are correct, the cosmic boundary where the laws of airspace suddenly give way to the laws of orbital space might be a lot closer than we think — a full 12 miles closer than previous estimates suggest.

"The argument about where the atmosphere ends and space begins predates the launch of the first Sputnik," McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, wrotein his new paper, which will appear in the October issue of the journal Acta Astronautica. "The most widely accepted boundary is the so-called Karman Line, nowadays usually set to be 100 km (62 miles) altitude."

Here's the problem: According to McDowell, that Karman line that many scientists accept today is based on decades of misinterpreted information that doesn't actually take real orbital data into account. Luckily, data is McDowell's business (and his pleasure — in his free time he keeps meticulous records of every rocket launch on Earth) and he knew just where to look to find an evidence-based answer to the question, "Where does space begin?"


Where satellites fall

In his new study, McDowell pored over data describing the orbital paths of some 43,000 satellites, which he collected from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which monitors aerospace in the United States and Canada. Most of these satellites were negligible to McDowell's study — they orbited far higher than the proposed Karman line, and were well within the grasp of orbital space.

About 50 of these satellites, however, stood out. While re-entering the atmosphere at the end of their missions, each of these satellites successfully completed at least two full rotations around the Earth at altitudes below 62 miles (100 km). The Soviet Elektron-4 satellite, for example, circled the planet 10 times at around 52 miles (85 km) before tumbling into the atmosphere and burning up in 1997.

It seemed clear from these cases that the physics of space still held sway well below the Karman line. When McDowell used a mathematical model to find the exact point at which various satellites finally broke loose of their orbits and made a fiery return to the atmosphere, he found that this could occur anywhere between 41 to 55 miles (66 and 88 km). Usually though, when a craft dipped below the 50-mile (80 km) mark, there was no hope of escape.

Astronaut wings

For this reason, McDowell chose 50 miles as the true lower edge of space. The number fit neatly with several other cultural and atmospheric factors, as well. For example, McDowell wrote, in the 1950s, US Air Force pilots were awarded a special set of "astronaut wings" for flying their planes above 50 miles, this being considered the outermost edge of the atmosphere.

Atmospherically, the choice fits, too: The mesopause — the coldest belt of Earth's atmosphere — stretches roughly between 52 and 62 miles above the planet's surface. Here, the atmosphere's chemical composition begins to change drastically and charged particles become more abundant. (In other words, things look a lot spacier.) It's clear that, below the lower edge of the mesopause, Earth's atmophere becomes a stronger force for airborn objects to reckon with, McDowell wrote. [Infographic: Earth's Atmosphere from Top to Bottom]

"It is noteworthy that meteors (traveling much more quickly) usually disintegrate in the 70 -100 km (43 miles to 62 miles) altitude range, adding to the evidence that this is the region where the atmosphere becomes important," McDowell wrote.

So, what does it mean if the boundary between Earth and space is 20 percent lower than is generally accepted? It won't change the way rockets are launched or any other physical interactions with space, McDowell wrote, but it could raise some important political and territorial issues.

The airspace above a given country is generally considered part of that country; outer space, on the other hand, is for everyone. If space is defined as beginning at 62 miles and the U.S. flies an unauthorized satellite at 52 miles over China, for example, that could be (justifiably) construed as an act of military aggression.

For this reason, the U.S. has frequently opposed setting any universal space boundaries. That means that McDowell's proposed 50-mile line probably won't become a legal, universally accepted border anytime soon. Still, if the daily drudge of life on Earth starts to get you down, look up — and take heart that you may be a little bit closer to the heavens than you were last week.
Originally published on Live Science.

 

[Ca.]

Arctic Bakes & Freezes at the Same Time (674)

Adapt 2030 Published on Aug 2, 2018
The Arctic bakes on the European edge and freezes on the Alaskan Russian edge. Massive floods next to droughts, record heat next to record cold and it can all be explained by the Suns activity in its 400 year Grand Solar Minimum Cycle.

Hail on Highway 22 makes it look like December instead of July
August 1, 2018 - 10:25am SOUTHERN ALBERTA

Source:

 

[Ca.]

Euro News Now in panic mode with no data of the facts just

https://twitter.com/x/status/1026778251723763718

Adapt 2030 Published on Aug 6, 2018 / 6:18
Record heat in Portugal and 0.2F above normal water in California, which matches 1931 Dust Bowl era temperatures. But looking at all northern hemisphere temperatures, not just where the media wants you to look, you will find an enormous amount of below normal temperatures that balance total temperatures to 0.0C across the entire N. Hemisphere. Incredible as that sounds, lets take a look.

 

[Voyageur]

From another thread, cross referenced Svensmark theory (interesting graphic here) after reading from Dr. Tim Ball:

Here is a good graphical summary of Henrik Svensmark’s theory: Effects of galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth climate and biological diversity.

Original article here : _A stellar revision of the story of life

Cosmic rays in action. The main findings in the new Svensmark paper concern the uppermost stellar band, the green band of living things and, on the right, atmospheric chemistry. Although solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays is important to us on short timescales, its effects are smaller and briefer than the major long-term changes controlled by the rate of formation of big stars in our vicinity, and their self-destruction as supernovae. Although copyrighted, this figure may be reproduced with due acknowledgement in the context of Henrik Svensmark's work.

In reading the article by Dr. Tim Ball 'No Scientific Basis for Canadian Carbon (CO2) Tax plan' the other day, which deconstructs the general arguments in the main. He brings up Svensmark.

People sometimes send me stuff on 'climate change' - mostly funny graphs or poor arguments on AGW to bolster its case. They never mention the Sun and other cosmic matters, though, as that would get in the way of the narrative. If not mistaken, the AGW crowd likes to keep the whole bag in the lower atmosphere - that's it, that's all. I sometimes ask people about the other influences, usually without response, although they might blink a few times and change the subject.

Tried an experiment related to what kids would find out today, what they study of the climate. I know many people were always taught, that that bright thing in the sky and space itself, well it's a bid deal. So, Googled 'Why is the sun not a factor in climate models?' and the very fist reference, for me anyway, is Ruled Out | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA (aka Environmental Protection Agency).

Being that this is from 2017, I was a bit surprised it was still there (re a new government who had pulled out of the Paris Accord).

The link is a 101 Q&A guild for kids (poor kids). Perhaps it i used extensively in school curriculum today, not sure (maybe some peeps with kids can reaffirm or not)

Here is how the info-test went. As for the sun, their answer is 'Ruled Out’ in the Q&A:

"Many factors, such as the sun, the Earth's orbit, and sometimes even volcanic eruptions, can affect the Earth's climate. Scientists use climate models to look at all these factors and determine what is causing climate change. They find that there's only one clear explanation for what's happening now: Extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are warming the Earth. Learn more about climate models."

You can then take their “Climate Challenge’ by picking either the Sun, the Earth's Orbit or Volcanoes. I’ve picked the everyday visual one, the Sun.

The Sun

The facts: Since the 1970s, the sun has been cooling slightly. Over this same time period, the Earth has gotten warmer. Most of the warming has occurred in the lower atmosphere near the Earth's surface.

• Could the sun be responsible for today's climate change?
  
  No. If the sun were the cause of climate change, the Earth's temperature would be cooling, not warming! Also, if the sun were responsible for the increased warming, it would occur throughout the entire atmosphere.

• 
  
  So, "the sun is NOT the cause of today's climate change" (here the bold is theirs). And there you have it, the Sun is irrelevant (it's no big deal - its “NOT” a thing, it is not even required in the IPCC's model - nothing to see here.

Going back to Dr. Ball, he provides an interesting review of the Sun in this article Svensmark’s Cosmic Theory Confirmed; Explains More Than Solar Role in Climate Change

Here is how Ball explains it:

The IPCC consistently ignore the relationship between sunspot and global temperature though there’s extensive literature beginning with Galileo’s observations of sunspots in 1610. They said there was no explanatory mechanism, but that wasn’t true after 1991 when Friis-Christensen and Larsen published“Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate” in Science. In 1996 Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Institute, DTU, said,

“The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics”

It appeared more fully in 1997 as the CT in embryonic form with Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s “Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage – a Missing Link in Solar-Climate relationships”. The 2001 IPCC Report mentioned it briefly, but it was omitted in the 2007 Report. The IPCC proponents claimed there was no evidence that cosmic radiation was creating as condensation nuclei in the atmosphere.

The problem was given to a supposedly neutral agency.

“The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change.”

Why? Now the results are published and the final piece in the puzzle is confirmed. Besides confirming the CT, they answer a longstanding problem. However, an important part of the discovery is missed, partly because of lack of focus on water vapor and precipitation, but mostly because the IPCC control of climate science blocked knowledge and advances for 30 years. A major problem in early meteorology and weather and climate research was there were more clouds than nuclei.

Evaporation occurs when water molecules use energy from the Sun to escape from a surface. This is a phase change, as water in liquid form becomes a gas, water vapor. The energy is not lost but becomes latent heat in the water vapor. If the air temperature is cooled below the Dew Point Temperature then a reverse phase change occurs called condensation and water vapor becomes liquid. The latent heat is released, which is why temperatures usually rise when precipitation occurs. The problem is this process requires a critical component, a solid surface. In the atmosphere this is provided by the CN. Water vapor condenses on to them to form water droplets, which are microscopic. They’re visible as clouds and remain suspended because they are so small – it’s estimated 1 million must combine to form a moderate sized raindrop.

The majority of CN were salt particles, kaolinite, the smallest clay particles and other particulates. Now the CT provides the missing nuclei. The amount of cosmic radiation is reduced as it passes through the Sun’s magnetic field and then the Earth’s magnetic field and then the upper atmosphere. In the atmosphere the cosmic rays become muons or heavy electrons that penetrate to sea level. They are the missing CN.

Proof that cosmic rays provide CN to form clouds in the lower atmosphere is an ugly fact that even the professional scientific spin-doctors cannot avoid. These clouds vary with the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and act like a shade in the global greenhouse to control temperature. We now have proof of the mechanism or cause and effect for what was previously only a correlation. Sunspots are not the cause but a manifestation of changes in the Sun’s magnetic field that in turn modulates the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth. So another ugly fact creates a large cloud that destroys the politically driven AGW hypothesis.

No 'comet dust' talk, yet he offers his take on it from the CT papers.

In the Canadian article - which is not new here for many, Ball points out (here starting with a political note):

Andrew Scherr was elected Conservative leader opposing the human-caused global warming claim. One of his first actions as leader was to have the Conservatives vote to support the Paris Climate Accord. The Conservatives knew the science was wrong because we told them. We told Nancy Green and anyone who would listen all to no avail.

The farce begins with the fact it is not a carbon tax. What they intend to limit is the amount of CO2 that Canadians produce with the false belief it will stop global warming. There are three areas, any of which invalidates the plan.

1. Science: CO2 is only 4% of the greenhouse gases and the human portion is 3.4% of that making it on average 0.032% of all atmospheric gases. These numbers are so imprecise that even if the complete Paris treaty was applied the atmospheric difference would be undetectable. Estimates say it would reduce the global temperature by 0.048°C by 2100. That assumes that a CO2 increase will cause a temperature increase. Every record shows the opposite, temperature increases first. The only place where a CO2 increases raises temperatures is in the computer models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is partly why the model predictions (projections) are consistently wrong yet that is the basis of the Paris Agreement and the Canadian tax plan.

2. Economic Context: Trump exited the Paris Agreement because it is a bad deal for all developed nations including Canada. While they roll back production the developing nations, including China, Russia, and India can develop unrestricted some until 2030. Worse, the developed nations must put $100 billion a year into the Green Climate Fund (GCF) from which even China, now the world’s biggest producer of CO2 is entitled to draw. The developed nations are in a bar fight with both hands tied behind their back and blindfolded.

3. Comments of Proponents: The entire global warming deception was never about the climate. Don’t believe us, take it from the people at the center of the scheme. Climate was a convenient global threat that allowed the UN planners, primarily Maurice Strong {a Canadian}, to overcome nation-states claiming only a world government could handle the problem. Elaine Dewar said after 5 days with Strong at the UN, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” In 2015, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”This follows former US Senator and now Vice Chair of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund Timothy Wirth’s earlier (1993) comment that, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even with the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing…” look at his self-described manipulation in this PBS interview. A former Canadian Liberal Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

So, it's "justice and equality" and taxes of course.

Probably a good idea to monitor our kids (if you have any) homework. The problem is that if parents try and help with the revisionist Q&A homework, the kids will get an 'F' and the parents will likely be asked to come to a parent teacher interview and explain.

There are a great many programs running, yet I've never seen one so coordinated and entrenched as this AGW one - from kindergarten to university to old age.

 

[Laura]

No record heat here in SW France. Need a sweater right now.

 

[Eulenspiegel]

Things have cooled down here in Southern Germany. I actually wish this so called "heat wave" had lasted a bit longer. It was just what I would call "normal summer"

 

[Laura]

The planet is experiencing an unexplained major cooling and scientists are ignoring it.
Andy May / 1 day ago August 14, 2018
By Javier
A most remarkable climate phenomenon is taking place under our very noses without anybody paying attention to it.
As nearly everybody knows, the planet is warming. Since its short-term rate of temperature change hasn’t changed much, the warming is essentially accomplished because the planet spends less time cooling than warming. Therefore, periods of cooling have become shorter and result in less cooling.
In the figure below, we can see the top 10 biggest periods of cooling in terms of temperature decrease since 1950. The data used is a 13-month centered average of the monthly HadCRUT 4.6 global dataset found here:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ime_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt

The date given is that of the month of maximum temperature when the cooling started, and the length in months is to the month of minimum temperature when the cooling ended.
Notice how the top four took place before 1975, during the ENSO period dominated by La Niña conditions.
The data for the cooling period that started in 02/2016 (red in the figure) is provisional, as the cooling has not ended as of June 2018. If it continues for a few more months, it could easily make it to the top three.

Figure 1​

The most remarkable thing is that every single top cooling period in the list has a reasonable explanation except the current one. Two of them are associated with the major volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo, and seven of them are associated with major La Niña events when the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) reached a standard deviation of -1 (see bottom panel in the figure).
Only the current cooling period remains there unexplained, without a big volcanic eruption and without a major La Niña event.
Climate scientists should be looking for a reason for this most interesting cooling instead of ignoring it.
Why is the planet cooling now?
Everybody can have their own favorite explanation. Personally, I see no other reasonable cause for the cooling but low solar activity.

 

[whitecoast]

It seems like amid all the "unpersoning" of dissidents on social media these days that climate skeptics are also in the crosshairs. I'm actually starting to get furious. They're literally costing lives by trying to squelch this information.

 

[Laura]

Well, as far as I can see, it's all over but the crying. The planet is definitely moving into a cooler atmosphere period though certainly, thanks to rotational slowdown it IS heating up in the interior. These combined elements are making for crazy weather all over, and also may very well be those elements necessary for the onset of an ice age; you need increased precipitation which can only come by increased heat, AND increased ice packing which only comes by cooler atmosphere. Well, we seem to have both at present.

Historically, the end result is inevitably crop failures, food shortages, starvation, epidemics, etc.

 

[angelburst29]

Aug 16, 2018 - Two French rivers disappear underground in large cracks and sinkholes: The Doubs River (Franche-Comté) and the Risle (Normandy)
Two French rivers disappear underground in large cracks and sinkholes: The Doubs River (Franche-Comté) and the Risle (Normandy) - Strange Sounds

The Doubs river flows normally in Franche-Comté, France. But since about a week or so, the river has totally dried up over a length of more than 1 km, between Pontarlier and Morteau, although precipitation has been abundant this winter and spring. The river has disappeared, and with it, the fauna and flora. Everything is dead. Two weeks ago, 13km of the Risle River in Normandy also disappeared underground in a large crater. According to geologists, this unprecedented event is due to large cracks and craters in the riverbed.

The Doubs River has disappeared underground in August 2018. PhotoPQR/L’Est Républicain/MaxPP via Le Parisien

The cave of Remonot is located near the village of Morteau along the Doubs. Dedicated to the Virgin Mary, this Chapel-Cave contains miraculous water and is visited each year on August 15, 2018, day of the Assumption. But during this year’s annual pilgrimage, the cave was dry! The first time ever!

Nearby, the Doubs river is also dry. No water, just pebbles and dead fish.

This situation is anomalous as it has abundantly rained this spring and winter. via Facebook

Residents explain they have never seen this before. The river has disappeared over more than 1 kilometer, and with it, the fauna and flora. Everything is dead. The president of a local fishing association reports having experienced such a situation during the severe drought of 1976. But now, it’s different… there was a lot of snow and water this winter. This situation is totally insane and ANOMALOUS!

Instead of a large flowing river, the Doubs is dry, with just pebbles and dead fish visible. By Fabrice Coffrini

Now, geologists say the river disappearance is due to large cracks in the karstic riverbed, which empty the river underground like a siphon. It is perhaps the important spring floods that washed away the sediment patches that blocked the holes and fissures.

The most logical explanations are cracks or craters in the riverbed. By Fabrice Coffrini

After disappearing, the Doubs than re-enters the Loue, the other large river in the region. So the cracks kind of link the two rivers?!?

No swimming, just walking on the riverbed! By Fabrice Coffrini

Two weeks ago, 13km of the Risle River also disappeared suddenly in Normandy, after a big sinkhole openened up in the riverbed:

(Published on Aug 9, 2012 (1:11 min.)

But now, everybody is just wondering when will the rivers reappear again! Well, it may take longer than you think guys!

 

[Laura]

Those disappearing rivers are very strange.

One thing I have noticed after 5 months of rain almost every day this past year (Nov-March, inclusive) is that our spring has almost doubled it's flow. It used to take about 2.5 days to fill the pond after we emptied it for cleaning; this year it took about 1.5 days.

When rivers start going underground, one wonders what other structures might be undermined by the flow? And how might that affect the surface?

 

[Laura]

Once again the weather site is telling me that the current temp is 35 C/ 95 F. However, the thermometers around the place all say that it is about 28 C/82 F and I'm pretty sure it didn't get any hotter than about 30 C/ 86 F today. They just keep lying.

 

[thorbiorn]

A few days ago, on August 22, I flew over Germany from south to north and noticed that the outside temperature at 40000 feet was - 63 Celsius, which is the lowest temperature I can recall having flown in. Usually it is minus 55-minus 57 At the ground the temperature that day was around 25 C, a difference of around 85 degrees. I do not know how common it is to get such a low temperature at this altitude, I tried to find some radiosonde data as several stations send up helium balloons with a radio sonde attached, but I couldn't find anything. And although it is possible to get some equipment to receive the data, I don't think I have the facilities to set it up. Still I did find some sources where one can read about the equipment and learn where to buy it: RTL-SDR Tutorial: Receiving Weather Balloon (Radiosonde) Data with RTL-SDR and Buy RTL-SDR Dongles (RTL2832U)