Tracking CO2, the current picture. Emissions are one thing, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is another. The latter is what really counts, and we have practically perfect measurements showing the trend month by month since 1958, as displayed on this chart page: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/graph.html Looking at the top chart, which is interactive, I like to delete the CO2 zigzag display, leaving just the trend line, and make good use of the sliders below to zero in on shorter periods. It also helps to have a long envelope handy as a straightedge to hold up. You will see that we are making no progress at all toward the goal of “net-zero emissions growth” from this total atmospheric viewpoint, which adds any natural growth from sources like El Nino effects or permafrost melting to the effects from human activity. The hope for stopping that trend line dead in its tracks by 2050 or sooner, so there is no more growth at all, year after year, will obviously require stupendous efforts going far beyond anything now being imagined.
Some form of sexual spur is needed to get an viagra online erection. Emotional wellness issue is boundless the nation over and has been cheap levitra on line creating massive enduring. Exercise also increases blood circulation, generic viagra canadian carrying more blood and oxygen to the organs and thus makes the muscles relaxed. Cimetidine Cimetidine is a class of medication that gently deals with ED and allows an individual to indulge uk viagra online in pleasurable intercourse activity.
—–
An astute analysis of temperature trends in Australia (Open Mind). The author, “Tamino,” is a trained climate scientist who has expertise in statistics, whom I greatly admire and whose work has often been reposted in these letters. In this post he compares the actual temperature numbers reported from Australia since about 1910 with what various climate models say they should be under standard projections based on recognized global warming effects. You can see how the gap has grown, especially in this current century, between the actual numbers and what the models are capable of explaining. In other words, as far as Australia is concerned, today’s scientists can explain why the high temperatures are causing such extreme fire conditions but they are curiously incapable of explaining what is causing such extreme temperatures to exist in the first place. So where is all the heat coming from, and is there any reason for the rest of the world to be concerned over this lack of knowledge?
.
Extra comment: For the last couple of years I have been wondering more and more about the way mainstream climate scientists handle the role of water vapor as a consideration in their warming computations, thinking they may be underestimating its true importance. On several occasions I have written a few things about those doubts in these letters, while at the same time having a sense that my ideas were still too immature to keep pushing. These revelations from Tamino, along with maybe a little more depth of personal understanding, suggest that now is the time to give the arguments another try. This may take a few days, and I have no way of publishing except through these letters, so that means cutting back on the number of new story reviews for awhile.
.
There is a longstanding principle of physics that is employed in climatology which I think must be challenged, not the principle itself, but this particular application. I am unable to do so scientifically but I think there is too much visible evidence out there to ignore the issue. (The evidence I have seen, for example, is strong enough to explain the high heat in Australia.) In short, by way of introducing the main issue at stake, mainstream climate science clings to the principle that the maximum amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature of the air. I believe the exact reverse is true, that the temperature of the air, in a very large way, is determined by the amount of water vapor it holds, which varies up and down in peculiar ways of its own choosing. Air temperature is also determined in a large way by the amount of radiation leaving the planetary surface at any one time and place, which is just as variable as water vapor, and by a number of other well-recognized greenhouse gases and forcing agents, all of which do indeed vary in their own way but at a much slower pace. To be continued.
Carl