I have heard better, more eloquent prayers, but never a more sincere!
We MUST pray for our nation. One nation, under GOD.
I have heard better, more eloquent prayers, but never a more sincere!
We MUST pray for our nation. One nation, under GOD.
The Climate Catastrophe Warriors are at it again. It is now the official religion of the left, having reintroduced the concept of sin as in “Climate Change Sins” and they now offer confessionals. It strangely fits with the custom of having Climate Charlatans offering indulgences in the form of carbon offsets and offering to sell electricity produced 99% from wind power. To top it off, Pope Francis is all in with the Climate change.
Many years ago, around 1977 Dr. James Lovelock bought a number of HP Gas Chromatographs to set up in the most remote corners of the earth to study pollution and its effect on the climate. What he found was an unexpectedly large amount of dimethylsulphide (DMS) (ref 3) in the atmosphere, and that acted as a
condensation point for cloud formation. He was then a paid consultant for Hewlett Packard, so he came over from his native England a couple of times a year, always willing to hold a seminar for us engineers working at Hewlett Packard Analytical, and at one of them he sprung “Daisy-world” on us, before it was published, mostly to see if we could poke holes in his hypothesis. It involved a world that consisted of only two flowers, black daisies and white daisies. The computer simulation starts out with a cold world and a weak sun. The sun warms up until suddenly black daisies appear and cover the earth. This warms the earth some more and white daisies appear. As the sun varies in intensity the mix of white and black daisies changes and this keeps the earth at a stable temperature, as they have different reflective properties. He then went on to say that the whole earth is like a living organism.
Some time later he presented the paper and the next year we asked him how it was received. “You won’t believe it”, he answered. ”Now there are people who actually believe the earth is a living organism. They demand follow-up articles that justifies their belief.” He had partly himself to blame, the name he chose was the GAIA hypothesis, Gaia being the Mother earth Goddess. Talking about religion the Mother Earth people now had their goddess, and expressions like. “The earth has a temperature” became commonplace. For me, being a Christian I read with wonderment what God has to say about the Ecosystem.
We find this in Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. But God didn’t say: “It was good”
The creation story is interesting reading. God takes a whole day out His busy schedule of creation just to create the clouds. In days three to five of creation He adds the statement “And God saw that it was good”, on day six it was “very good”. Could it be that God knows the ecosystem is fragile and we are going to mess it up beyond repair? Exactly why was it then very good? Could it be it was very good after the whole creation was complete, all the components that make up a stable ecosystem was put in place? First then could He finally say: Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Let us hurry back to our quest for something other than pollution that acts as a negative feedback to make the temperature system stable. With some anxiety (we are part of the ecosystem, so we better try to understand it), but also assurance, we return back to the GAIA factor.
As is mentioned before, Dr. Lovelock had found unusually high amounts of dimethylsulphide (DMS) in places far from any pollution source. Something must have put it there. It turns out DMS is a waste product from phytoplankton, an abundant life form in the oceans, low on the food chain. As ocean temperature rises, phytoplankton levels increase, suggesting a possible feedback mechanism. The DMS molecules act as a condensation kernel for the formation of Clouds. This is something that it is hard to get a grip on. Clouds have a positive feedback as they hold in heat once captured by the earth, but this is more than offset by the large negative feedback caused by the albedo factor. The white clouds act as a reflector, and with more clouds, more of the solar energy gets reflected back out into space. The total reflection back into space from clouds and aerosols is about 31% or 400W/m2. This negative feedback factor can be as high as – 1.9 W m-2/°C. This means there is a strong negative feedback in the ecosystem keeping the earth from getting overheated, since water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
None of this mattered to the Mother Earth people believing in GAIA. They formed a coalition with the communists and socialists and Global Governance advocates and convinced U.N. that CO2 was bad and needed to be controlled, and so IPCC was formed to give the scientific justification why it was necessary to control CO2 emissions. I do not know how many Global Climate models there are out there, but I have seen (ref.1) a chart with 73 Climate models, all pointing to a rapidly warming earth, plotted versus reality, which shows a more or less stable temperature versus time. But the models are all paid for by Government money, so the more, the merrier. They all do a lousy job modeling clouds, so no wonder they fail. (ref. 2) But they produce the result the funding agencies demanded for continuing funding, so the charade goes on. The models are all based on a positive feedback with increasing temperatures. When it gets warmer, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, and since water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, it gets warmer still. In reality, the opposite is true. With increased water vapor there will form clouds earlier and lasting longer, leading to a negative feedback that tends to keep temperatures more stable. More CO2 will aid in that stability. Granted, there is still increasing temperatures with increasing CO2, but instead of a gain of a factor of 2 to 3, which the models predict, there is an attenuation of about 2 to 3, so the real temperature rise is one ninth to a quarter of what the models predict.
But the models are useful for one thing: To create an urgency in people, so they will go along with Global Governance, making an unelected bureaucracy take control of the energy resources.
But even that is a side issue. The real issue is people control, as expressed in Agenda 21. The world has about 7.7 billion people, and some have calculated that an ideal, sustainable world has room for only 700 million people, if enough areas are set aside for wildlife and nature preserves. After all, the animals and the original plants and trees were here first!
This attitude is expressed in a number of recent government advisers.
The “architect” of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber’s abortion advocacy is of a particularly pungent eugenics variety. He’s on record repeatedly making the case from social science that abortion is a “social good” because it reduces the number of “marginal children,” by which he means urban poor—those he says can be counted on to commit crimes if they were ever born.
The Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren has a plethora of population control suggestions:
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
On Involuntary fertility control :…
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
Toward a Planetary Regime:
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force:
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
This is more than enough to give a hint on what the Obama Administration meant by “Fundamental transformation”
This is what happens when people start to serve “The Creature rather than the Creator” and that is “The Lie”.
The connection between “The sin” and “The lie”, represented by Muslims annihilating Christians, and progressives annihilating people is their hatred for the Cross. The Muslims deny Jesus Christ as redeemer by his substitutionary death on the cross, and the progressives deny the cross as redemption of mankind, substituting God with man as redeemer.
This explains the hatred of the cross. It is an offense and a stumbling block for the unbeliever.
Lennart Bilén, 2019
(1) Real temperature over time versus predicted by models.
(2) Model cloud cover versus reality
Is climate change all in the cloud?
Acknowledge it is not allowed.
Settled science, they say.
Buckle up and portray
disaster! Close rank, join the crowd.
I believe in climate change. It is obvious by observing how the climate has changed over the years. Here is a chart of global temperature and CO2 for the last 600 million years.
The chart is smoothed over millions of years, but it shows that the global average tempera ture stabilizes at 22C regardless of CO2 levels, and there is precious little correlation between temperature and CO2 level. Taking a look at the last 450,000 years it shows an interesting pattern:
It shows that more than 90 percent of the time the earth has been colder than today, most of that time in a series of ice ages, interrupted with inter-glacial periods of between 5,000 and 20,000 years. This inter-glacial period is of interest, since it points to our future – another ice age, the question is: When it will start? According to the Milanković cycles we are still in the moderate temperatures sweetspot, and it will last for another few thousand years, but the trend is down, tne next ice age is inevitable. In fact, except for the little ice age and the time between the Roman warm period and the medieval warm period, the global temperatures have been higher than now for the last ten thousand years. This shows the temperature from the Greenland ice cores for the last 10000 years:
All of these changes in climate occurred with a relative constant CO2 level of about 260 ppm!
This time is different; CO2 levels are now over 400 ppm, rising about 2 ppm per year with no end in sight. The question is: Is this increase good or bad? If it is bad, how bad is it going to be?
To answer this question the world spends over 400 billion dollars a year in climate research and are starting to spend much more in climate remediation. Over 30 nations are making climate models trying to predict future temperature trends. Of the models so far all but one fail miserably when compared to what actually is happening. The sole exception is the Russian model which tries to fit their model to past temperature records rather than postulate that response from CO2 and water vapor are always additive.
There is a better, far simpler way to predict future temperature trends. The reason CO2 and water vapor are not always additive is because water vapor is a condensing gas, sometimes forming clouds, which drastically alter the temperature of the surface. Clouds forming at day reflects a large portion of the sunlight back into space, clouds at night keep the heat in.
Willis Eschenbach has made en excellent analysis of 19 years of data from CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System from NASA). He compensates for the effect of Advection (horizontal heat transfer of energy from one place on earth to another.) The results are startling:
The 3.7 W/m2 is the expected increase of heat retention for a doubling of CO2 as per IPCC (the U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). A similar result is obtained if one is to include data from HadCRUT (Temperature data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office)
This agrees very well with my own, much coarser examination of data, but should include that the expected temperature increase observed for a doubling of CO2 is by no means evenly distributed. In addition, if temperature rises 0,39C there will be about 2.6 % more water vapor in the air which would rise temperature another 0.35 C. This too is not evenly distributed. Here are the expected result:
In the tropical doldrums there will be no change at all, the water vapor is all dominant and thunderstorms keep the average temperature constant.
In the 10-40 latitude there will be an increase, but increased clouds will moderate the increase except in the most arid deserts that will experience around a 0.9 C increase.
The temperate regions will experience about a 0.4 C increase in the wet areas, and about a 0.6 C in the arid parts.
Most of the increase will be experienced around the poles, with minimum temperatures rising five to ten degrees, but maximum temperatures staying about the same. We are seeing this increase in the Arctic, and the rise is nearly all due to rising winter minimum temperatures.
Source: Danish Meteorology Institute
Why is that? With on the average 2.6 % increase in water vapor there will be an increase in the rainfall, about 2.6% on average, but since there is no change in the tropics it will be concentrated at the higher latitudes, especially around the poles where it will manifest itself as more snow, and that is the main reason for the increased minimum temperatures. Notice there has been no increase in summer temperatures!
So, how bad is it going to get if nothing is done to stop the increase in CO2?
The temperature difference between poles and equator will be less, which means:
Fewer and less severe hurricanes, less severe tornadoes, less severe winter storms, less droughts.
But there will be about 2% more average cloud cover, more rain and more flooding.
So, with an 0.4C average temperature we will not even be back to the medieval warm period, much less the Roman warm period, not to speak of the Minoan warm period.
The sinking eastern seaboard is a problem that has very little to do with ocean rising, and all to do with tectonic plates movements, which we will have to accept.
Will anything else good come out of this climate change?
Yes, indeed. With a doubling of CO2 there will be a corresponding response from plant life increasing biological productivity 30 to 60%. It is not linear, and above 800 ppm it tapers of for most plant species. But we will be able to feed at least another 3 billion people and keep them from hunger, but also much cattle and wild animals, (yes that includes flies and gnats, but I digress)
This picture gives us hope for the future. Notice the most significant increase was in Sub-Saharan Africa, western United States, western Australia and western India. These are the areas that need more rain the most!
If increasing CO2 concentration is not the problem, then what is? Let us take a look at the sources from which U.S. generates electrical energy.
We live in challenging times indeed, with enormous environmental challenges. It takes a lot of energy to clean up the mess we have generated over the ages. It would be a shame to use up our remaining coal, oil and gas to produce the electricity needed to clean up. Oil coal and gas will eventually be depleted and we need to save some for our great grandchildren so they can enjoy flying like we have become accustomed to. Like the famous conservationist Sarah Palin once said: “for when it’s gone, it’s gone.”
Solar generation is about 4 times more expensive (without subsidies) to produce energy than coal and gas, but has important niche applications, such as on roofs for backup in case of short grid failures and for peak power assist. The Amish people have given many practical applications on how to live off the grid.
Wind power is cheaper when the wind blows, but the full generation capacity has to be there even when the wind doesn’t blow, so the only gain from wind power is to lessen the mining or extraction of carbon. In addition, wind power kills birds, the free yearly quota of allowable Bald Eagle kills was upped from 1200 to 4200 during the Obama administration. Golden Eagles and a few other rare birds have a quarter of a million dollar fine associated with their kills. If wind power is increased without finding a solution to the bird kills, whole species may become extinct.
Hydroelectric power is for all practical purpose maxed out, except one large untapped resource; the Kongo river in Africa. Some hydro electrical project do more harm than good, such as the Aswan Dam in Egypt, and some are waiting for the next big earthquake, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China.
Geothermal power is good but difficult and risky to utilize in geologically unstable areas.
Biomass should never be burned for electricity production but be used for soil regeneration to combat erosion. Only polluted biomass such as medical waste and plastics should be incinerated at high temperature, complete with scrubbers to eliminate poisonous gases.
All necessary cleanup and recycling consume a lot of energy, and it has to be generated somehow. We would like save some Coal, Natural Gas and Petroleum for our great grandchildren. This leaves us only
Nuclear power. After a nearly thirty year hiatus in building new nuclear power plants they are slowly being built again. The permit process is fraught with citizen opposition (NIMBY), very strict bureaucratic delay, first by the Three Mile Island incident, then by the Chernobyl disaster/unintended sabotage, and finally by the Fukushima catastrophe. In addition conventional nuclear power produces large amounts of transuranium waste products that has to be stored for a million years. The Obama administration ended reprocessing of spent fuel rods, so not only must the transuranium products be stored, but also some unused U235. This makes conventional nuclear power using enriched Uranium too expensive to compete against coal or natural gas. But there are powerful commercial interests to keep it this way. After the Westinghouse bankruptcy GE has a virtual monopoly on nuclear power. They are in no hurry to make any changes.
There is a better way: Thorium Nuclear power. The advantages are:
There is no time to waste. This is my suggestion list:
1. Immediately take Thorium off the list of “source materials”. While Thorium is radioactive slightly above background radiation no amount of Thorium can make it go critical, and it cannot be source material for making bombs.
2. Make separate regulations for Thorium based Nuclear plants apart from Uranium plants. One thing that goes away is the need for evacuation zones due to the inherent safety of Thorium Nuclear plants.
3. Declare Thorium Nuclear Power to be the preferred replacement for Coal or Gas powered electric plants.
4. Streamline the permit process, like Uranium powered plants enjoyed when there was a desire to build Nuclear Bombs.
5. Increase research and development into Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors to speed up their development.
6. Develop hybrid Tokamak powered Thorium reactors like the one Russia is developing to burn off transuraniun nuclear waste products.
With all this done, I envision coal, gas and biofuel Power stations to be eliminated within ten years, and transuranium waste products to be eliminated within twenty years.
When Coal, gas and biofuel are eliminated as source for Electric Power, then it is time to switch most of the transportation to electric cars and trucks, but not before.
in another twenty years, maybe, just maybe it is time for Fusion Power to take over.
Let us get going!
Awards from the Island of Ellis
The Democrat racists are jealous
Donald Trump shared the prize
with Ms. Parks; they tell lies.
He’s racist, that’s now what they tell us.
In 1986 the Ellis Island Medal of Honor was given for the first time. It is an American award founded by the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations (NECO), presented annually to American citizens whose accomplishments in their field and inspired service to our nation. Among the very first recipients were:
Joe DiMaggio: An American baseball center fielder who played his entire 13-year career in Major League Baseball for the New York Yankees. He is perhaps best known for his 56-game hitting streak. He is also widely known for his marriage and lifelong devotion to Marilyn Monroe.
Victor Borge: A Danish and American comedian, conductor, and pianist who achieved great popularity in radio and television in the United States and Europe. His blend of music and comedy earned him the nicknames “The Clown Prince of Denmark,” “The Unmelancholy Dane,” and “The Great Dane.”
Anita Bryant: An American singer and political activist. She scored four Top 40 hits in the United States in the late 1950s and early 1960s, including “Paper Roses“, which reached #5 on the charts. She was also a former Miss Oklahoma beauty pageant winner, and was a brand ambassador for the Florida Citrus Commission (which marketed orange juice) from 1969 to 1979. In the 1970s, Bryant became known as an outspoken opponent of gay rights in the US. In 1977, she ran the “Save Our Children” campaign to repeal a local ordinance in Dade County, Florida that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This involvement significantly damaged her popularity and career in show business. In spite of her downfall defending traditional family values she was recognized at this event.
Muhammad Ali: born Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.; January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016) was an American professional boxer and activist. He is widely regarded as one of the most significant and celebrated sports figures of the 20th century. From early in his career, Ali was known as an inspiring, controversial, and polarizing figure both inside and outside the ring. He converted to Islam and as such refused to be drafted into the military.
Rosa Parks: An activist in the Civil Rights Movement, whom the United States Congress called “the first lady of civil rights” and “the mother of the freedom movement”. On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake‘s order to give up her seat in the “colored section” to a white passenger, after the whites-only section was filled.
Donald Trump: Why was he honored? It started with a challenge. He watched the unfinished Wollman Ice-Rink and made a challenge to then Mayor Koch. Always humble, he said: (Paraphrased) You have spent six years and twelve million dollars on that ice rink and it is not even half finished. I can finish it less than six months for under three million dollars! Koch replied: It is yours, but you have to pay for it yourself!
Donald J. Trump refurbished the Central Park -skating rink two and a half months ahead of his own six-month schedule and $750,000 below his own projected $3 million budget, having taken over the project after the city spent six years and $12 million unsuccessfully trying to get the job done.
”He built the most fabulous rink I have ever seen,” said Vera Banchet, watching her daughter skate. ”I saw Trump on TV again last night. If I may say so, he is not one to hide his light under a bushel.”
Skaters on opening day energetically thanked the New York developer, awarding him with praises and complimenting him on the work he performed for the city.
Pelosi and Omar in Ghana.
She laughs in her Muslim bandana.
Nancy’s stomach does churn
at the “door of return”
End slave trade of sex-slaves? Mañana.
Slavery has officially ended. Saudi Arabia ended slavery in the 1950’s, Mauritania ended theirs officially in 2007, but it still continues unofficially in parts of Africa. And then there is the sex slavery trafficking and child trafficking going on, being encouraged by open border policies. This is no laughing matter.
The truth about rats and lemmings.
The rats in the Baltimore port
are eating the “food” of all sort.
Where corruption abounds
it’s as bad as it sounds
for rats are Corruption’s cohort.
Everybody have heard about lemmingyears, when a large number of lemmings follow each other over a cliff, falls down into the sea below and drown. Political analogies abound, and so this has become common knowledge: That’s what lemmings do. But why? By the way, 2011 was a lemming year in Northern Sweden, it repeats itself every 20 years or so. Here is a video from BBC Nature.
To explain why, there is an even better example with rats. When food is plentiful they multiply fast and after about 4 years there are far too many rats for the food supply. No, they do not die of starvation, virtually all the rats get stressed out and die, all in short order, and the cycle starts anew. It used to be a fairly limited supply of food for the rats, people ate what the land produced, and the number of rats were kept below the stress level. Enter modern day landfills and cities with inadequate sanitation like Baltimore. There is an overabundance of food in a very limited area, so rats congregate there and multiply. Eventually they will hit the stress level die out and the cycle is renewed. Enter the division of rodent control. In their wisdom they put out rat poison to keep the population down. In so doing they manage to keep the rat population just below the stress level, thereby ensuring that every year is a year of plenty of rats rather than every fourth year.
The only solution to get rid of a rat infestation is to eliminate the food source!
To point that out is not racist.
Donald Trump pointed out the rat-infestation and was immediately labeled a racist. It is also not racist to point out that the three last mayors of Baltimore have resigned. None of them addressed the real problems of Baltimore, a once beautiful, vibrant City with a charming inner harbor.
Make Baltimore beautiful again!
We live in a fallen world. There are still those who believe in the inherent good of mankind, but looking at the evidence teaches us otherwise. Here are some statistics:
1. Murder rate per 100000 individuals.
The most dangerous countries in the world are: El Salvador: 61.8, Honduras: 56.5 and Venezuela: 56.3
thing in common:
They all have a Democratic
liberal local government.
Being sanctuary cities they house a fair number of people from Central America.
Compare the murder rate with other world cities and countries.
2. Rape rate per 100000 individuals by country:
South Africa. The backlash after apartheid and the
descent into lawlessness makes these things happen.
But why Sweden?
When I left Sweden 50 years ago the rape rate was about the same as the other Nordic countries.
Could it be that Sweden has had the largest influx of Mideast and African countries of any nation as a proportion of the population?
The statistic speaks for itself.