Fiction or facts, Climate Threat’s readings

You might be able to sell anything using hugh advertising. Including incorrect temperature data from measurings around the world in older days.
Of course there may be reason to take account of cities growth, such as Stockholm. But it is more important to present facts of exact reading place, biotope situation, temperature observations made over the years than presenting corrected values. Especially without proofs of relevance and evidence that the corrected temperature(-s) have a real scientific value!

Scary 1984-model changes are seen in the Climate Threat debate. As example Stockholm’s weather history. Corrected values presented in the climate threat name as if they readings in question were accurate and the whole truth.
Anything to promote the unproven hypothesis, well hypothesis is too strong word assumption is better, that CO2 has changed as an impact of human activities. This assumption has been used, as it been proved true to prove the extension: that the average temperature on Earth is rising. In Sweden as well as elsewhere.
Please read and notice the low quality in form of the input values underlying used to support the unproven hypothesis:

”Our reconstruction of the winter and spring variations over half a millennium is shown in Figure 1. Measured temperatures from 1860 are corrected due to the artificial heating caused by the city of Stockholm, so that the curve shows the more natural change. ”Forskning och Framsteg, maj 2008 [Forskning och Framsteg is a scientific journal here in Sweden]

Think about the above lines and try to explain the evidence for the correction been made properly in light of biotope situation and the observation spot / spots changing through the years:

”Red bars indicate that the years been warmer than average, blue bars colder. The black curve shows more variation in capped 10-årsskalan. Stockholm temperature series have been corrected taking into account that the city has grown, and thus become hotter. This is reproduced in as fair a manner as possible the actual variations in climate. The mean value of 5.75 ° refers to the original, more rural environment. ” http://www.smhi.se/sgn0102/n0205/faktablad_stockholm.pdf

Nice isn’t it? Alike falsification of measured data occurs around the entire globe: Read first start of the blog post ‘Something hinky this way comes ncdc data start diverging from Wattsupwith that.com go down to the signature evanmjones Posts:

”But what is the difference between G, HadCRUT and NCDC? Do they use data from different monitoring stations? Do they have differnt methods of making up their data …. Oops, I mean different methods for analyzing their data? What `s the difference?

I would have thought there is only the need for one group Thursday monitor the worlds surface stations? I `m sure there’s a good reason?

Well, believe it or not, it’s like this: NCDC takes its data and adjust it (much Controversy there). G takes the fully adjusted NCDC data and ”unadjusts it” through some strange algorithm and then applies its own adjustments to the mangled results. Why they do not simply start off with NCDC raw data is a mystery for the ages. ”

So everything in regards to falsified facts been sold and swallowed by politicians and other when climate enthusiasts use circle proofs to present their case, ie unproven assumptions presented as facts to prove that the climate threat is present and, by extension, use the ‘corrected values’ whose correctness not been shown true and certainly without the known fact that the temperatures can vary even in two very closely related sites on the biotope taken into consideration.
Towns closeby? Well in the Stockholm case all considerations of science been forgotten and Uppsala’s temperatures have been used. Stockholm is located at the entrance to Lake Mälaren ie coastal, and Uppsala is located in the hinterland. Then there are all other geological variables whose impact on temperatures the so-called scholars not taken into account. 😉

Annons

The Natural processes Al Gore forgotten about

PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Simply put, it is the oxygen we need to breathe that the green plants, the earth’s lungs, produce using CO2 and sunshine. Many more persons than Al Gore seems to have forgotten that there comes major problems when building in places where trees have been growing or chopping down trees and vegetation. whether this chopping is done in virgin forests, the northern hemisphere coniferous and deciduous forests or small trees and shrubs in urban city parks this cause problems. For CO2, only 2% of all that we call air, is what the plants ‘eat’and leave us oxygen and themselves sugar carbon …. Coal is also the energy for the plants.

[I am not very fond of Wikipedia, but I can’t find a proper English text for photsynthesis, thus I had to use the Wikipedia text for the English ref here]:

Phosynthesis English text, Wikipedia
Fotosyntes, svensk text från slu.se

WATER CYCLE
Water, just plain water sang many singer in earlier days. But raining, strinling water is just a little bit of a closed chain circulation of the water’s phases. In principle, we have as much total water on earth today as we had 10,000 years ago or earlier in history of the Earth. Water has many different forms, but whether there is water in a person’s body or water/snow that falls for example on the surface of land or sea; or rain and snow that has fallen on the frozen Arctic or Antarctic surface, there is one thing that all forms of water strive for, to get as fast as possible ‘down’as low as possible.

My deceased father told me sometimes of an experiment they put forward for fun while working on VA Office (Water Supplier’s Office) in Gothenburg during the WWII. They was kidding with a girl. She was told that they all had been instructed to drink a glass of water per hour during evening and thus checking the water quality, keep detailed notes, etc. Late at night she phoned one of the others and said, I must now interrupt the water tests. I sit on the toilet and it runs right through me…

Well water you drink, you sweat out, you urinate and same water is also in your breath. What comes out through the toilet goes to a treatment plant where the ground water, surface water, etc. pass before being cleaned. Depending on what treatment, biological or chemical that is needed, it takes time before the water finally reaches of rivers transporting water to the sea same way as the snow that fell in the mountains or in the Arctic finally ends up in sea. All water reaches the sea, sooner or later in the water cycle.

Water that falls over land is infiltrated into the base, soil or stoneground, it’s all the same but it takes different time for the water to end up in a lake, a stream or river.

When the water end up in lakes, streams rivers and so on. The water goes on trying to find the lowest point, which in most cases, excluding the Dead Sea and some smaller lakes, means that the water finaly will end up in the sea, our Oceans. When the sun heats the sea surface than water vapor and cloud formates filled with water steam. Clouds reaching land, coming in over the country, will be trying to rise above the highest point of land, and release their water molecules during that phase. So, we have the chain/water cycle shown in full.

Total amount of water if we assume that even we humans are largely the same millennium after millennium. Circulating around in water cycle’s phases.

SEA LEVEL
But,some one might say: the sea coast has always been almost the same the last 10,000 years?
NO. That’s not true.

First you can start by looking at the sea and the Baltic Sea on our ‘doorstep’ changed from the Ice Age up to now:
Yoldia Sea, Wikipedia

Explaining this, which is what many fail to understand, is essential:
While land uplift due to melting of the ice, the Baltic Ice Lake was filled and overflow due the amount of icewater. Finally the Baltic Ice Lake was overfilled thus the water ran in extremely high amounts over current Sweden and the Oresund Strait was formed. It was so large amounts of water quickly pouring out into what’s now is called the North Sea, that during those days had a seabed far under today’s water, making it possible for people to walk(!) from Scotland to southern Bohuslän [the district south of Norway along the Swedish coast down to Gothenburg] as well as to Norway and over land to Denmark. On this land, today seabed people lived in settlements was on the places under today’s sealevel where today oil is being drilled in the North Sea.

That large OUTPOURING of water caused tsunami waves in the areas around and drowned parts of Norway, but also thanks to the power and speed of water that arose dduring the outflow reached down through the current English Channel, where people previously had been able to live all way down to the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time or close to, the rivers of northern mainland Europes turned south from the southern part of the Baltic Ice Lakes and the water ended up in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea via rivers as well as via the English Channe to Gibraltar.

This process that drowned land in many places in Europe as well as in around the Mediterranean Sea, began in 8300 BC. As I previously written in ”Basic Geology for Climate fans”, It ended when Lake Vättern was formed 500 years later at the same time breaking the ‘water’ connection over what’s now Sweden. From that time onwards, it is through the Oresund Strait a large amounts of water flowed out. Very little water circulation in relation to what would be needed has thus caused the Baltic Sea to be what we call broken, partly salt but mostly ‘fresh water’ supplied.

The same process happened over the North American continent. Where scientists have only recently begun to understand the full scale of the Stone and Bronze Age Lakes formed, which in many cases disappeared long before our days.

Please observe that the Sea level only has risen by 51 meters since the last ice age peak. This is due to the effect of landrise.

ARCTIC
If Al Gore had remembered what he learned in school, NO ONE visited the North Pole in the early 1900s. It would take until 1959 before the first serious weather station was built in the Arctic inland. Only then, and then only in places where station(-s) existed the measurement was possible to be done.
But someone might say: the ice-cores then?

Have you already forgotten that all forms of water, liquid and ice and water molecules in air are always will try to get reach/find the lowest points. This is due to the gravitation and the centrifugal force effecting all and everything on Earth.

If you put a stick with GPS in a place in the Arctic, it is precisely the same as when a plane crashed on a Alp peak glacier during WWII and finally came out in the valley below the still existing glacier a few years ago. Glaciers are frosen water acting and behaving altogether like water. In other words a stick will not be in same spot, give same GPS readings over a particularly long time. Iceshield in water it’s not in same places over time at all. Or you could look Nansen’s ship Fram’s Icedrift up in any Encyclopedia.

Please look at this url’s picture 5th page, where ice drifts explained simply:
www.rymdstyrelsen.se/fa_sem_07_13_tomasjansson.ppt  (a Power point presentation from the Swedish National Space Board’s homepage.)

Thus when this year’s rain and snow falls in the Arctic on ground in one place and you put a stick down, While the stick remain in ice next year it will not be in same longitud, latitude locatin next year far less 1000 years from now or 1000 years before you placed the stick down. When you drill straight down in order to take a icecore, you get data from many places in the Arctic circle in earlier days. That’s due to wind and water erosion, dry freeze, gravitation, centrifugal force etc. The erosion in Arctic tends not to be identical throughout the Arctic. So hardly any correct/fair readings could have given from an Ice Core as a reliable indication of how the weather was for example 1000 years ago. The only thing that can be dated is the stoft from vulcanic eruptions. But that doesn’t say where your ice-core example was located in the Arctic water when the eruption happened. You would have had to take samples each 800-meter from one side of the Arctic to the other…

But there is more to be told to the so-called scholars that the UN and the IPCC refers to and Al Gore gave voice for. For it is much more that they managed to miss the basic courses that they should be gone before they spoke a single millimeters outside their own area and then let politicians TWIST his figures.

Please look at these urls as well:

Archimedes Principle
Basic knowledge for a climate scientist

Basic knowledge for a Climate scientist

to be aware of:
Reality and fantasies about reality is not the same. But worse than not understanding this is when reality collides with the accepted view. Once the 1960’s, there was a municipality in Eastern Sweden, which blew away a large stone/small cliff (15 meters large) number of meters below a precipice because it wasn’t to be found on the guide map to be used for a greater cross-country contest ….
But it is even worse example than this and the fantasies (?) presented in the book ”1984” – is when the truth is changed, falsified, or even rewritten. One of these truths – that of land uplift is that this post will primarily focus on.

The most basic: Fill a bucket with water, place a wood piece in water, insert a weight that stops (not slip off) on this cutting my. The wood piece will sink to the bottom. Let it fall and remember that what you see is a model of how Ferro Scandia and other areas around the earth were pressed by the inland ice in our ice. Then gently low it down with your hand and move the weight to one of the short sides. Than you will notice how the short side (that is farthest away from the bucket) begins to rise despite the fact that much of the other wood piece still has bottom contact. That’s what happened when the glacier began to melt after the last Ice Age.
The land, which first become free of ice started rising. First rapidly and then reach a constant weight mode this happened until a larger area became ice-free.

Anyone who thinks that lesson material from 7-e-class first three lessons in geography, as this is, including the Basic Geogogi climate buffs are too elementary knowledge, I ask to think following quote from my C-essay in History Johansson Inger , the sea towards the Roxen in older times, Linköping University 1993:

”WATER IN ANCIENT TIMES

Basic knowledge:
When we calculate the past sea levels must first clarify the following:

Sea levels gives no exact value. It varies. Sea level is calculated from Annual averages.

During the days (between a high and a low level less seen here in the Baltic Sea. But can sometimes still make a difference when we calculate the waterways navigability)
During the year, the moon and the sun’s position in relation to the earth in itself a difference in the form of spring – and near-tide. A season variation occurs.

Examples from the Eastern Swedish’ Baltic Coast gives a difference of -Year high and Year low which results in a difference in water level by 1 m (at least). During a thousand years there may be dry / rainy periods. This, together with different soil species and stone formations gives different reception capabilities over time winds, currents and other natural phenomena taken into consideration, which can result in a vary significantly distinguished from the theoretical sea level calculations.

By comparison, Kristina Ambrosiani wrote about sea level differences in Birka years 500 AD to land uplift + custom climate variability in the oceans, she suggested that sea level difference was 4 m difference, and to sea level of 1200’s differed ~ <4 m from today’s sea levels.

In archaeological and historical literature, you sometimes may find information that coast looked approximately the same 1000 years as today. In the survey the land uplift various between 4.8 m and 2 m seen over the period from 1000 AD up to the today.
Sources:

Ambrosiani, Kristina Arkeologi; Gamleby 1989

County Administrative Board in Östergötland County, Natural Cultural Environments in Östergötland, Linköping 1986

Modéer Ivar Itineraries and buoys at the north coast, Uppsala 1936

County Administrative Board in Östergötland, Swedish Environmental Protection Plan and cultural programs, Linköping 1986 ”

— End of quote —

My study area was Östergötland[region east of lake Vaettern]and north-eastern Småland[south of ‘Östergötland’ down to Västervik. The land uplift differed and increased northward, between 2 meters to the south and 4.8 in the north. Readings from the north of Mälaren[Lake Maelaren] is more than 7 m for same period in southern Uppland and up to more than 8.5 meters in northern Uppland. Significantly higher along the coast and less than or decrease due. Baltic Sea south Kalmar is tipping off contrary to uplift north.

It is a fantasy world that appears in the hypothesis that the Baltic coast, as well as Lake Vaenern and Lake Vaettern as I showed before always is the same. Or that anyone would be able to use the 7-meter level for all of Sweden’s Baltic coast during the last 1000 years. This is a phenomenon that is similar across the globe. Ice melting and land uplift exist where ever larger amounts of Ice is melting on land.

Ice Ages and changing sea levels in older ages have not been included in the climate debate of the so-called enthusiast’s/researchers’ models for climate changes.
OK, I myself wrote a major computer program, greater emphasis, in 1991 to make the calculations I needed to show how the coast of Sweden in general and Östergötland, Småland, in particular, in reality were during Stone Age, Bronze Age, Mature and Younger Iron Age not to mention something even more important during the Viking and Medieval Ages. I know that this was and is required: that it is the same person who really can write software, who him/herself use the computer for their researches. A little homework is for true scientists needed not copying from others!

That the vast majority of the so called. Researchers probably gone wrong. They can’t see the forest for the trees, thus they choose to include only those variables is in the bush close by without making Source Critical analysis of the premises need for the assumptions they put forward based on these variables. Not even probable and less is analysed.
But back to the land uplift. The first thing anyone who wants to call him/herself a climate scientist have to do is to find out truly historic water levels from all our world continents’ and seas’. Personally I did following for my study, where I was in the paper presented the water from the middle Stone Age to the year 1000 for the area from the south Braviken [close to Norrkoping) down to Västervik and with a triangular tip at Svartån (Black river) ending in Lake Roxen:

”The ground stone and rock structure, combined with land uplift have been analysed. The calculations for the maps presented are based on known land uplift figures during the survey and for Lake Roxen’s water varied levels depending on the quantities of water transferred from the water after the Motala Ström formed. This calculation of the water runoff from Roxen has been made to draw the maps relating to the hinterland. The changes in each point are calculated using integral calculus. This means that the change over time as a mathematical variable function, where the change is calculated based on recognized land uplift rates, and the geological observation levels. ”

Further more, it is important for climate researchers, IF they want to be regarded as serious in the future, to take account of the factors and variables mentioned in the Basic geology courses for climate researchers; and WHERE in the eliptiska path around the sun as Earth at any given moment is; tilt axis, the sun periodicity what cause eruptions of sun’s surface etc. Not to mention that you must have at least 1000 years of actual sea level readings from along the coast on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s not easy to get this data from for example North America where there is naturally going to find settlements from before Viking Age as close together as in the relatively frequent close settlements of Europe, but where these data might not be as easily found. To do the sampling (read deep drilling) one have to do this at least every 800-meter along the coasts from south to north for correct land uplift to be found. Personally, I had the advantage of VIAK Geological studies of Sweden and Swedish grounds from the 60’s.

Firma Bluff and Swizz arise again – English text

The reality is that no environmental action is guaranteed even in percentages of the money collected.

Whether allowances of CO2 compensation are given free as in Sweden, by the Swedish Environmental Protection Board, or sold as in some other countries, where the money goes into an undeclared state treasury without transparency, there is no guarantee that even a fraction of the money people who want to ‘compensate’ for their travel by air or car, will go to environmental purposes! If the money had been collected by non-profit organization, so called 90-account (here in Sweden), the organization had not been included among the 90-accounts which included ensure that at least the majority of the money goes where it is said to be!

”The allocation of allowances for the trading period 2008-2012 were determined in the autumn of 2006. Then the companies present a forecast of how much carbon dioxide they planned to place. The calculations were also with their average carbon dioxide emissions in the years 1998-2001. ”
SvD

”Environmental Protection Agency distributes allowances after forecasts from the companies themselves of how much carbon dioxide they estimates. But for many companies the forecast is higher/greater than the actual needs and the surplus sold.
Svenska Dagbladet has looked closely at seven large companies, all with large emissions of carbon dioxide. Together they earned last year 440 million SEK by selling allowances. SSAB ‘s profit was 240 million in profit on the sale of the rights given to them without paying anything for them. ”DN

But it is worse than that: there is no verification, no evidence what so ever, that the money in countries where emission rights are sold to ‘needy’ are used for the Environmental purpose at all. Firma Bluff and Swizz seems to have resurfaced in some form around the world.

Still No politician or other responsible person answers questions ”where our money paid for ‘compensation ‘for emissions?” Many are those who boast that emission offsets …. but Do they know in which pocket the money goes?

More writing about allowances:
Aftonbladet
Allehanda
Krönika SvD

Archimede’s principle (English text)

Have you forgotten this?

OK, we take a simple approach, for it seems that too many scientists can’t distinguish between mass and weight, and liquid squeezed when the body (mass) is in water.
Not to mention that ice properties seems forgotten, by them. That is IF they ever learned what the teacher taught when teaching these basic knowledge.
That the Wikepedia and other unauthorized encyclopedias online can not distinguish between mass and weight, is in itself deplorable. The researchers who speaks about a possible climate impact of CO2 may be right that the Arctic ice melt (the later is true. not the former.) is outrageous!

Weight is a commonly used name, but really no physical term. Massa, measured in kilograms, is the amount of matter that a property has. If we consider the same mass on Earth and then on the moon, then the wave will show less ‘weight’ (in reality mass) on the moon. Why?

This is where the weight comes in. Gravity is gravity effects on an object / item. Thus, the weight is a measure of a force. Therefore weight is measured in Newton.
So over to the Archimedes principle: the volume of the fluid squeezed / pushed away by an object / objects, wholly or partially submerged in water corresponds to the part of the subject / object’s volume is immersed in the liquid. For more information see the Encyclopedia Brittanica on the Archimedes principle

So for the most basic knowledge needed. Which also the so Climate scientists should know. (Haven’t they ever seen an ICE-cub melting in a drink glass?) First, may I introduce the concept of density. It doesn’t seem that the so-called. researchers have a idea of what it means for ICEBERGS in water …. I am not here to show the chaotic perceptions of water density as one of our Swedish weatherman managed to mix up … … I just laugh J 😉

Density is a physical quantity that tells a lot about a substance / an object’s density. In the case of water it is not at 0 degrees C but at 4 C as the water has its greatest importance. The density of water varies for different water types and the same mass considering that liquid water, ice and steam. At 4 ° C, water’s density is 1.000 g cm-3. The density of ice is roughly 0.917 g cm-3. Which means that the volume of a ice-‘mass’ is greater than the same volume when the water is melting … So the researchers who discussed this at the Ministerial Conference in Tromsø all seem to be trained in Swedish ‘groundschool’ school the last 30 years!