Figure 1. In Glasgow 400 planes show the hypocrisy of the elite
COP26 is expected to attract 20,000 official delegates plus 10,000 journalists and NGO representatives. We’re all expected to reduce our emissions while the conference justifies any amount of idiocy. The ”most important” VIPs took their own jets, except Greta who went by train. (She must be regarded as a VIP, since she receives enormous coverage wherever she goes.) They are ferried about in luxury electric cars, which are charged by diesel generators since there aren’t enough electrical charging points.
Most offensive of all is the total absence of contact with reality. Everything is based on the IPCC’s AR6 report, which myopically scrutinises the wrong issue. See below: My Letter to the Press.
+ – + – + – +
The Climate Panel IPCC addresses the wrong problem
In the lead-up to the climate conference in Glasgow we have been inundated with descriptions of the catastrophic future the IPCC has calculated for us in their computer simulations and “climate models”. But they’ve been addressing the wrong problem!
When I had managed the final exam for my Master of Engineering degree, my professor gave me this admonition:
Sture, now you have learned to calculate the answers to the questions. But in real life you will have to write the questions and choose the right problems on which to calculate.
The IPCC have chosen the wong problem. They have tried to calculate how the atmosphere changes depending on the concentration of carbon dioxide. Since weather and climate are completely chaotic, such calculations are extremely unsure. In the latest report, AR6, they have included some influence from the Sun.
BUT, the oceans represent ca 99 percent of the total capacity to store heat above the Earth’s crust. So the climate is determined more by what happens in the oceans than in the atmosphere. Heatwise, the oceans are so ”dense” that a ”tipping point”, which suddenly throws the climate into a new state, is physically impossible. It takes a thousand years for some ocean currents to make a complete circuit.
Figure 2. A ”tipping point” on the left with its centre of gravity far above the small surface of contact. The great masses of the ocean are more similar to the picture on the right. The state is maintained, even with large disturbances.
What happens in the oceans is even more poorly understood than what happens in the atmosphere!
BUT the energy which reaches the oceans is completely dependent on the varying activity of the Sun; the Earth’s constantly changing position in the Solar System; and the influence of the planets. This, therefore, is the most important problem complex for the climate. We know more about the Sun and the planets than we do about ocean currents. There are observations going back 4,000 years and meticulous book-keeping since 1752.
Figure 3. The Sun’s mass is 99.86% of the entire Solar System
As early as 1801 a connection was noticed between sunspot cycles and the climate.
THUS: Changes in climate are due to three problem complexes, in increasing order of importance:
- What happens in the atmosphere
- What happens in the oceans
- What happens in the solar system
The IPCC have concentrated on the least important problem. Solar research today points to clear signs of an approaching cold period. The large number of cold records, which have been noted in both the northern and southern hemispheres during the last three years, indicates that this cold period has already begun. This is reality.
Based on its calculations during the past 30 years, the IPCC has issued constant alarms about catastrophes: The South Sea Islands were about to be drowned; instead they have grown in area. The deserts were expected to expand, but they have shrunk. Harvests would diminish in yield, but they have increased so dramatically that ONE FOURTH of humanity has been saved from starvation and misery according to the World Bank. The polars bears were to starve to death, but the polar-bear population has increased five-fold to more than 30,000.
Thus the IPCC’s calculations have not only been wrong. Reality has been the direct opposite.
Sture Åström
Secretary of the network KLIMATSANS (Climate Sense)
+ – + – + – +
by 
Jonas, Anyone who does not use MSM as a credible source, can with their own judgment immediately see that the picture was not taken in Scotland and it is only about 50 private jets, so it’s unimportant, a decoy. And do instead a quick assessment if there is substance in the statement, one immediately realizes that the number 400, at COP26, is certainly estimated, but sounds reasonable, the total sum of private jets & private flights needed,
Last but most importantly, WHAT is what does anyone want to prove? What hypocrites they are? is it true? YES TO 110%
What awake person thinks that, for example, “AP Fact Check” is sitting on the truth? when their own statement does NOT hold water.
“COP26 bills itself as being a ‘carbon-neutral conference’ and says that ‘unavoidable carbon emissions from COP26’ will be offset – such as by investing in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” – The AP.
They have not even bothered to check the facts they are quoting. clowns
Rudimentary source criticism should be applied, please. The picture with the “private jets” has been circulated for days, falsely claiming it has something to do with COP26 in Glasgow. Apparently it has not. It depicts an airport in New Orleans in 2013, according to Reuters and AP.
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/events/1456352598718509066/
This is very easy to find by 30 secs on Google. So – how can we trust the rest of the information here in “Klimatsans”, if they can’t even perform a simple fact check?
Min kommentar ovan: tyvärr blev det i hastigheten fel betr. Douglass & Chisty. Deras analys kom ‘senare’ inte tidigare som anges. Den sträckte sig fram till 1998.
Stures beskrivning är såklart helt korrekt ur fysikalisk utgångspunkt. IPCC kommer aldrig att nå klarhet, eftersom de valt växthusgasteorin som basteori i sitt klimatramverk. Detta är dessutom ingen slump, eftesom den passar bäst in i dess bakomliggande politiska agenda, att skrämma med klimatet för kontroll. Detta har en lång historia bakåt ända till 1972 års klimatkonferens i Stockholm, dvs före IPCC. Det spelar ingen roll hur många AR som kommer att presenteras. Dessa kommer endast tuppfjät framåt mot riktigare klimatbeskrivning. Det är inte heller avsikten. Avsikten är att upprätthålla klimatalarmismen för global kontroll. En del klimatforskare spelar med som ‘nyttiga idioter’, eftersom det är lättare att få dels finansiering, dels publicering i media (fåfängans marknad) inom ramen för IPCCs narrativ än utanför detsamma, eftersom både det finansiella och medie-systemet kontrolleras av samma bakomliggande intressen. Politiker är koopterade, eftersom det ger möjlighet att utöva kontroll och ger motiv för skatter och avgifter.
Det hade inte heller varit nödvändigt att välja växthusgasteorin som utgångspunkt; ‘1976 US Standard Atmosphere’ (förkortat USA) ger en korrekt atmosfärisk temperaturprofil. Den baseras på solinstrålningen i samverkan med gravitation, atmosfärisk massa, densitet, tryck och de atmosfäriska gasernas specifika värmekapaciteter. I USAs första version fanns i koldioxid inte med p.g.a. dess minimala påverkan. Växthusgasteorin kan aldrig fås att ge en korrekt atmosfärisk temperaturprofil. Det kan jag bevisa om det är nödvändigt. Den kan aldrig heller ge någon korrekt förklaring till jordklotets temperaturutfall.
Om jag också likt ‘Enough’ bygger vidare på det Sture framför, vill jag påminna om inlägget ‘Växthusgateorins definitiva svanesång’ från 27/9; Hills korrelationer mellan solinstrålning och klimat via havets termostatfunktion, Friis-Christensens & Lassens korrelation mellan solinstrålning och norra hemisfärens temperaturanomalier 1861-1989, från 1991. Ännu tidigare kom Douglass & Chrisy’s temperaturanalys från 1989, där dessa konstataterar att det tropiska områdets temperaturutveckling är bäst korrelerad med ENSO, dvs havets termostatfunktion. Det extratropiska klimatområdets temperaturutveckling kunde inte korreleras till ‘koldioxidens forcing’
Växthusasteorin borde förblivit begravd med Arrhenius.
‘För övrigt anser jag att IPCC bör förstöras’
Jag ger mig in och kommenterar Stures inlägg istället……
Vi borde kunna “spinna” mer på de övergripande fakta som du tar upp, 99% av den lagrade ytvärmen i kombination med långsamma rörelser av havsströmmarna borde ge olika värmning resp. avkylning av ytvattnet i haven över tid, som ett komplement till den direkta solinstrålningen.
Du är normalt inte så inkompetent att du räknar ETT månadsresultat som avgörande för en bedömning av klimatet.
Du får läsa våra poster mera noggrannt.
Petter
Ska vi tro på University of Alabamas senaste månadsredovisning eller verkligheten?
Tron på kyla är obefogad sett till University of Alabamas senaste månadsredovisning (globala temperaturen för oktober).