Our Friday News Analysis | In Search of a Nation's Soul (Part 12)

A Bedouin boy guides a donkey from the summit of Mount Sinai after delivering supplies to shops along the stairs to the summit on May 15, 2008. MATT MOYER/GETTY IMAGES

COP27: Will God deliver 10 Commandments for climate change?

^1-3 He (God) founded Zion (God’s home) on the Holy Mountain— and oh, how GOD loves his home!

Psalm 87: 1 (The Message Translation, page 1402)

Cop-27 has called an interfaith community of believers from around the world to gather on Mount Sinai on Sunday, 13 November 2022. And so, the devoted representing many faiths gathered on the mountain to summon God to uplift and bless their proposed 10 Commandments to save humankind from itself. On top of Mount Sinai, they presented God their Ten Commandments as reported by Newsweek in ‘For Our Sin of Emissions: 10+1 Climate Commandments | Opinion.’

          1. Acknowledge a Higher Power

Humbly we acknowledge our partnership with the Creator.

          2. Vote Climate

We must hold governments and corporations accountable since they are desecrating our common home with each new drilling license and pipeline.

          3. Do Not Murder

Millions of people—usually the poorest and indigenous—might die and suffer from the effects of extreme heat and cold, wild-fires, rising sea levels, and super-charged storms.

          4. Do Not Steal

"Climate change is robbing our future," says Gili Berkovitz, "We are also robbing nature of her ability to regenerate."

          5. Do Not Bear False Witness

There are sins of omission—politicians not telling the truth about the natural and immediate dangers of climate change; and there are sins of commission—the same leaders at the annual world climate conference, COP 27, who are approving new drilling and pipeline licenses.

          6. Keep the Sabbath

A global weekly non-carbon day of rest could reduce emissions of the world by a seventh and can be observed by different faith communities on various days.

          7. You Shall Innovate

Technology can accelerate decarbonization; collaboration can accelerate implementation.

          8. Honor Mother Earth

Kristina Greer, from California, says climate change is a form of arson against the home that nurtures our lives and that of all living creatures.

          9. You Need Not Covet

Rabbi Jennie Rosenn teaches ‘Dayenu.’ “We have enough. We just need to achieve the political will."

          10. Do Not Continue to be Hoodwinked

Fossil fuel companies and governmental leaders gamed the system to favor the long-term burning of fossil fuels for energy, industry, and transportation, no matter what individual action you take.

Indeed, humans must take care of our Planet Earth. Should one worry himself to death? To each their own! I’m more agonized about a nuclear confrontation perpetrated by the clowns and dummies who parade themselves as world leaders on the world stage.

Do what is right! Exercise dominion. Dominion does not mean raping our planet. Dominion comes from stewardship,’ to take responsibility in caring for our God-given surroundings.

Above all, DON’T PANIC. No need to fear! God is the God of Abraham, the God of all Jews, Christians, and Muslims. God is also the God of Adam and Eve, the God of all humanity, all believers and unbelievers, and all who lost their ways. God loves Zion, his home (Psalm 87: 1 (The Message Translation, page 1402)). God hears your prayers.

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive?

By Abraham A. van Kempen, featuring: ‘Understanding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) US Temperature Fraud.’

Cape Canaveral, 25 November 2022 | If you know of any story that is decisive, tell the world. We're still searching.

Global Warming – A Mirage Floating on Sisyphean Science

Sisyphean describes a task as seemingly endless and futile—you keep doing it, but it never gets done. The word comes from the name of Sisyphus, a character in Greek mythology who was punished by being forced to roll a boulder up a steep hill continuously. We shouldn’t just be playing with the numbers and get nowhere. We must conscientiously work together to clean up the mess we’ve created.

Who Understands Global Warming, Climatology?

The Science of Climate Change wouldn’t be so complex if it were not shrouded and obscured in a black box. The physics and math with slivers of biochemistry, astronomy, and, some say, a touch of magic are beyond the reach of most of us. Only three percent of the US population have a basic orientation to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Examine the US-based numbers (in round figures):

US Population                                           300 million (approximate)

Number of adults                                       170 million

Number of adults with college degrees       68 million

Number of adults with STEM degrees          9 million

How many of the nine million STEM graduates have delved into the science of climate change and understand the scientific mumbo-jumbo? Presumably, not more than five percent or 450,000 STEM graduates, representing 0.15 percent of all Americans alive today.

BREAKING NEWS! Only 0.15 percent of the US population has some scientific understanding of climate change. 99.85 percent do not. Though well-intentioned, most of us mindlessly follow other mindless sheep with, inevitably, some wool covering our faces.

Yes, most scientists concur that we’re experiencing ups and downs in global temperatures, but not all climatologists think alike. Those who are befriended mainly by the world's politicians produce calculations and graphs that seem to defy the workings of nature. They manipulate the numbers to indicate that their scientific models supersede natural phenomena and that nature is wrong. In short, there is a growing body of thought in the scientific community that many climatologists do not track reality but adjust the data to force nature to conform, on paper, to their presumptive calculations.

Let’s ask the fundamental question.

Why are there so many data sets, numerous commonly used temperature data sets? I don't know the precise number. If I had to guess, I’d say ‘about 50’. Also, the temperatures are measured at three levels: 

• Ground level: where an estimated 1200 weather stations are located under various climate conditions. This data is the easiest and least expensive to obtain. My best wild guess? Thirty-five redundant data sets.
• Troposphere (or mid-level): Around five to seven miles above the earth! This data is moderately tricky and slightly expensive to obtain. My best wild guess? Ten redundant data sets!
• Stratosphere: Around seven to thirty miles above the earth! This data is most difficult and expensive to capture and is done by satellites. My best wild guess? Five redundant data sets!

Troposphere and stratosphere temperature measurements differ radically from ground measurements but are used to track heat flowing through the atmosphere.

               With an estimated 50 data sets and three different types of measurements, there will always be legitimate questions about the lack of generally accepted standards for observing, documenting, and ‘correcting’ data.

If credentialed scientists are confused, what about the rest of us? Most of humankind, 99.85 percent, have no clue what the science of climate change is about.

Newest IPCC Climate Models vs. Climate Reality or Evaluation of Climate Models

Below is a foretaste of why 99.85 percent of all humanity would not even consider sinking their teeth into the scientific discussions of climate change and global warming. For fun, click on the above link. It’s a phenomenal treatise of the why and the why not. But try to understand it. It’s lots of food for thought that would put most of us to sleep or cause a headache.

Let’s call a spade a spade. The average Joe and Joann want their science to be dished out on a silver spoon. It’s too complicated. The 100+ pages in this Journal affirm Climatology's basic assumptions that warrant further research on all levels. In other words, climatologists know a lot but not enough. Should we take them seriously? Yes, as long as you realize and that they acknowledge they’re still searching for answers and solutions.

“Climate and Earth System models are based on physical principles and reproduce many important aspects of observed climate. Both elements contribute to our confidence in the models’ suitability for their application in detection and attribution studies (Chapter 10) and quantitative future predictions and projections (Chapters 11 to 14).

In general, there are no direct means of translating quantitative measures of past performance into confident statements about the fidelity of future climate projections. However, there is increasing evidence that some aspects of observed variability or trends are well correlated with inter-model differences in model projections for quantities such as Arctic summertime sea ice trends, snow albedo feedback, and the carbon loss from tropical land.

These relationships provide a way, in principle, to transform an observable quantity into a constraint on future projections, but the application of such constraints remains an area of emerging research. There has been substantial progress since the AR4 in the methodology to assess the reliability of a multi-model ensemble. Various approaches to improve the precision of multi-model projections are being explored.

However, there is still no universal strategy for weighting the projections from different models based on their historical performance. {9.8.3, Figure 9.45}”

The article below is more palatable for those who care about global warming and climate change.

Understanding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) US Temperature Fraud

I wish the author had used the word ‘aberration’ instead of fraud. It sounds better. The author of this article tries to point out that confirmation bias rules climate research, a human anomaly.

The graph below depicts US maximum temperatures published on the NOAA website. It shows a hockey stick of warming after 1976.

The climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The measured thermometer data depicted on the graph below does not show the post-1976 hockey stick. There has been minimal warming since 1976, perhaps one degree F.

Editor’s Note | Some climatologists force nature to conform to their scientific models.

The following graph compares the measured temperatures (blue) vs. the reported (red.) The measured temperatures show long-term cooling, but the reported temperatures show warming.

This graph shows the difference between reported and measured temperatures. The post-1976 hockey stick becomes very apparent.

So how is NOAA tampering with the data to create this hockey stick?

Alarmists claim that it is due to Time of Observation Bias or changing station composition, but that isn’t what is happening. NOAA is simply making the data up. Every month, a certain percentage of stations do not report and are marked with an E (estimated.) The estimated (i.e., fake) data rate has skyrocketed from around 5% to almost 50% since 1976.

And here is the smoking gun. They are comparing the fake adjusted temperatures to the measured, adjusted temperatures. The adjusted measured temperatures show about one-degree warming since 1976, but the counterfeit temperatures offer about three degrees of warming. And almost half of the data is fake now.

The post-1976 hockey stick is created by manufacturing data, not adjusting data as alarmists claim.

Spreadsheet

Manipulating the US temperature data is very important to global warming scamsters because the US has the vast majority of high-quality long-term data. Much of the rest of the world has been very busy dealing with genocide and world wars for the past century. Maintaining temperature data was a low priority for people trying to keep from being killed by their government.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png

And then there is UHI. Thirty years ago, Tom Karl and Phil Jones said that UHI was responsible for the entire warming trend in the US.

Editor’s Note | The scientific journey often starts with an ‘ah-ha’ experience that triggers us to seek generalizations. Then we pursue the discovery and document our observations. We share the data to secure empirical verification and climb the ladder toward a possible theory with one hypothesis at a time. If scientists don’t make mistakes, it’s not science. Even math isn’t perfect. One plus one is two, right? Most of the time, yes. Some of the time, no, but that’s beyond the scope of this article.

Science is an ongoing work in progress.

Read more: ‘50 years of predictions that the climate apocalypse is nigh,’ New York Post Editorial Board, New York Post, 12 November 2021.

Despite the reported doom and gloom, the New York Post Editorial Board remains optimistic:

               “Climate change is real, but adapting to it and mitigating it with technology is the most realistic solution.

               Will China and India just give up on coal, gas, and oil overnight? No, and neither will the United States.

               But emissions are already falling in Western countries. The world is innovating.

We predict things are going to get better. Ten years. Twenty years tops. Maybe after at thirty."

___________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

Our Friday News Analysis | 'In Search of a Nation's Soul (Part 11),' 18 November 2022.

Our Wednesday News Analysis | 'The American Jewish war over Zionism can begin,' 16 November 2022.

The Evangelical Pope| 'In the Spirit of Strengthening Peace and Civil Harmony,' 20 November 2022.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague.