COVID-19 : A Shocking New Study Emerges

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
H.L. Mencken

Covid-19, targets a very specific sub-set of the population. In fact, 99.9% of anyone under the age of 90, without severe underlying health conditions, survives. 

An overdue article out of the hard-left, fear-porn-loving Atlantic, bells-the-cat on another high level hoax that came out of the ‘pandemic’, in order for you to submit and comply — “hospitalisations.”

Why is The Atlantic publishing this? Because they need to show history (what will be left of it) that they knew, ‘before anyone’, that Covid-19 was used, maliciously, by the MainstreamMedia, inept politicians and useful idiots, as a tool of fear and panic to wrought (“Build Back Better”) ‘change’.

Change in their own image. Not in yours, or, by yours.

Read on …

via The Atlantic :

(Climatism bolds)

Our Most Reliable Pandemic Number Is Losing Meaning

A new study suggests that almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic cases.By David Zweig

At least 12,000 Americans have already died from COVID-19 this month, as the country inches through its latest surge in cases. But another worrying statistic is often cited to depict the dangers of this moment: The number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States right now is as high as it has been since the beginning of February. It’s even worse in certain places: Some states, including Arkansas and Oregon, recently saw their COVID hospitalizations rise to higher levels than at any prior stage of the pandemic. But how much do those latter figures really tell us?

From the start, COVID hospitalizations have served as a vital metric for tracking the risks posed by the disease. Last winter, this magazine described it as “the most reliable pandemic number,” while Vox quoted the cardiologist Eric Topol as saying that it’s “the best indicator of where we are.” On the one hand, death counts offer finality, but they’re a lagging signal and don’t account for people who suffered from significant illness but survived. Case counts, on the other hand, depend on which and how many people happen to get tested. Presumably, hospitalization numbers provide a more stable and reliable gauge of the pandemic’s true toll, in terms of severe disease. But a new, nationwide study of hospitalization records, released as a preprint today (and not yet formally peer reviewed), suggests that the meaning of this gauge can easily be misinterpreted—and that it has been shifting over time.

If you want to make sense of the number of COVID hospitalizations at any given time, you need to know how sick each patient actually is. Until now, that’s been almost impossible to suss out. The federal government requires hospitals to report every patient who tests positive for COVID, yet the overall tallies of COVID hospitalizations, made available on various state and federal dashboards and widely reported on by the media, do not differentiate based on severity of illness. Some patients need extensive medical intervention, such as getting intubated. Others require supplemental oxygen or administration of the steroid dexamethasone. But there are many COVID patients in the hospital with fairly mild symptoms, too, who have been admitted for further observation on account of their comorbidities, or because they reported feeling short of breath. Another portion of the patients in this tally are in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID, and discovered that they were infected only because they were tested upon admission. How many patients fall into each category has been a topic of much speculation. In August, researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System decided to find out.

Researchers have tried to get at similar questions before. For two separate studies published in May, doctors in California read through several hundred charts of pediatric patients, one by one, to figure out why, exactly, each COVID-positive child had been admitted to the hospital. Did they need treatment for COVID, or was there some other reason for admission, like cancer treatment or a psychiatric episode, and the COVID diagnosis was merely incidental? According to the researchers, 40 to 45 percent of the hospitalizations that they examined were for patients in the latter group.

The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country. Then they checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent. (The latter criterion is based on the National Institutes of Health definition of “severe COVID.”) If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

This increase was even bigger for vaccinated hospital patients, of whom 57 percent had mild or asymptomatic disease. But unvaccinated patients have also been showing up with less severe symptoms, on average, than earlier in the pandemic: The study found that 45 percent of their cases were mild or asymptomatic since January 21. According to Shira Doron, an infectious-disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, and one of the study’s co-authors, the latter finding may be explained by the fact that unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.

Among the limitations of the study is that patients in the VA system are not representative of the U.S. population as a whole, as they include few women and no children. (Still, the new findings echo those from the two pediatric-admissions studies.) Also, like many medical centers, the VA has a policy to test every inpatient for COVID, but this is not a universal practice. Lastly, most of the data—even from the patients admitted in 2021—derive from the phase of the pandemic before Delta became widespread, and it’s possible that the ratios have changed in recent months. The study did run through June 30, however, when the Delta wave was about to break, and it did not find that the proportion of patients with moderate to severe respiratory distress was trending upward at the end of the observation period.

The idea behind the study and what it investigates is important, says Graham Snyder, the medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, though he told me that it would benefit from a little more detail and nuance beyond oxygenation status. But Daniel Griffin, an infectious-disease specialist at Columbia University, told me that using other metrics for severity of illness, such as intensive-care admissions, presents different limitations. For one thing, different hospitals use different criteria for admitting patients to the ICU.

One of the important implications of the study, these experts say, is that the introduction of vaccines strongly correlates with a greater share of COVID hospital patients having mild or asymptomatic disease. “It’s underreported how well the vaccine makes your life better, how much less sick you are likely to be, and less sick even if hospitalized,” Snyder said. “That’s the gem in this study.”

“People ask me, ‘Why am I getting vaccinated if I just end up in the hospital anyway?’” Griffin said. “But I say, ‘You’ll end up leaving the hospital.’” He explained that some COVID patients are in for “soft” hospitalizations, where they need only minimal treatment and leave relatively quickly; others may be on the antiviral drug remdesivir for five days, or with a tube down their throat. One of the values of this study, he said, is that it helps the public understand this distinction—and the fact that not all COVID hospitalizations are the same.

But the study also demonstrates that hospitalization rates for COVID, as cited by journalists and policy makers, can be misleading, if not considered carefully. Clearly many patients right now are seriously ill. We also know that overcrowding of hospitals by COVID patients with even mild illness can have negative implications for patients in need of other care. At the same time, this study suggests that COVID hospitalization tallies can’t be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two. “As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country,” Doron told me, referring to decisions about school closures, business restrictions, mask requirements, and so on, “we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.”

The Atlantic’s COVID-19 coverage is supported by grants from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
David Zweig is a writer based in New York. He is the author of the nonfiction book Invisibles and the novel Swimming Inside the Sun.

Related :


COVID-19 : The Authoritarian Left’s Overt ‘Denial of Science’ In A Single Tweet

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive.”
– C. S. Lewis

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins,all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken

At some point, the majority will conclude that the Left’s pet, and intentionally emotional causes; climate, Covid, race, gender etc., have absolutely nothing to do with the subject and the people involved, rather, about the clever, tactful and intentional use of highly emotive issues designed to divide and polarise the masses (you and I), in order for absolute power and control by them (the elites).

This simple tweet via VP Harris, perhaps an insightful example.

“Protecting the vaccinated…”

Huh?

Think about it. If the vaccine works, as they assure us that it does – with anyone who dares question efficacy; punished, silenced and cancelled accordingly – then how can the unvaccinated possibly pose a threat to the vaccinated? 

Who then are the real “science deniers”?

What exactly is the risk to the vaccinated from the unvaccinated? 

Your ruling class, Jo Biden, Kamala Harris, CDC, AMA, Scott Morrison, mainstream media et al., will not tell you. 

Why? Because they’re lying to you.

No one knows. There is no answer. 

The entire; vaccine, mask, lockdown argument by ‘science’, for your ‘protection’, is transparently absurd. 

And once you realise that, you realise that none of the endless talking about “public health”, at this point, is really about “public health”.

If it was about “public health”, everyone pushing the vaccine so feverishly would simply make the vaccines available to the infirm, the elderly-infirm, to high risk categories, and anyone else who wanted it, then celebrate, and leave it there.  

But that’s not what it’s about.

It’s about power. 

Forcing you to accept something without complaint is the whole point of the exercise. It’s a form of sadomasochism — dominance and submission. 

It’s all about power, obviously. Power, either newly found, or conveniently manipulated and maintained.

If they can make you take experimental medicine that you don’t want, or need, then they’ve won. They then own you. You belong to them. 

Things are certainly moving fast, and they are heading in a specific direction. 

Which direction? 

You be the judge.

(That is, if you’re still even allowed to formulate thought or opinion, less be cancelled or fined, under the statute of ‘forbidden’).

Related :


Global Warming Bombshell : Science Magazine Article Blows The Whistle On Climate Model Failure

“When the heart rules the head,
passion takes over reason.”

– Ortega y Gasset

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know,
it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain

“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”

– Albert Einstein

“It’s like the boy who repeatedly cried wolf.
If I observe many successive forecast failures,
I may be unwilling to take future forecasts seriously.

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

“The ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong,
but also that so many of them never
admitted to any uncertainty about the date.”

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

•••

Take a bow, climate realists!

They – the scientific ‘experts’, power-obsessed politicians, globalist elites, the useful idiots, and the UNreliables grifters were wrong, while you were right, all along.

The world recently witnessed how alarmist, Imperial College COVID-19 model predictions inspired mass-global-hysteria, leading to overreaching and draconian (global) government ‘health’ edicts with the resulting economic, social and mental health fallout arguably far worse than the disease itself.

Now, the world is finally being told the truth about the 32+ “cooked” UN IPCC climate models that have single-handedly driven the most egregious and costly pseudoscientific campaign of fear and alarmism ever perpetrated upon mankind.

Misguided climate hysteria that has failed time-and-time-again to match real-world evidence and observed data.

Relentless mainstream-media-driven hysteria, based on biased UN model predictions, has fuelled a relentless tidal wave of unhinged activism, devouring; every last respectable public institution, otherwise intelligent minds, and worst of all, the taxpayer’s hard-earned-money at a rate of 1.4 trillion dollars per year, or 4.5 billion dollars per day, according to a 2015 article by Climate Change Journal.

However, have cooler heads finally prevailed from, of all places, the head of the most ‘revered’ and influential of all the many taxpayer funded ‘climate’ institutions?

This weeks bombshell climate-model-mea-culpa delivered by none other than the head of NASA (GISS) Climate, Gavin Schmidt, a chief architect of global-climate-alarmism. 

Read it and weep, climate crazies.

(Climatism bolds)

Leading climate scientists conceded that models used to estimate how much the world will warm with rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are running too hot.

“It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Science ­magazine.

The admission is seen as a significant development by scientists who argue that not enough attention has been paid to natural ­cycles in the earth’s climate.

It puts another question mark over the use of the most extreme scenarios generated by models, RCP8.5, to estimate what could be expected in a warming world.

The concession has been made on the eve of this month’s release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on the science of climate change.

That report, delayed a year ­because of Covid-19, is due to be released on Aug­ust 9 and will outline what can be expected with different levels of warming.

It will play a major role in ­preparations for the upcoming ­climate change summit in ­Glasgow, Scotland, in November.

A Science article published this week said climate scientists faced the alarming reality that “climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist”.

“Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, ­including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast”, the article said.

“In advance of the UN report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers.”

In the past, most models projected a “climate sensitivity” – the warming expected when atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled over pre-industrial times – of ­between 2C and 4.5C.

Last year, a landmark paper that used documented factors including ongoing warming trends calculated a likely climate sensitivity of between 2.6C and 3.9C but many of the new models from leading centres showed warming of more than 5C – uncomfortably outside these bounds.

The models were also out of step with records of past climate.

According to Science, the IPCC team will probably use ­reality – the actual warming of the world over the past few decades – to constrain model projections.

The IPCC report is also likely to present the impacts of different amounts of warming – 2C, 3C, 4C – rather than saying how quickly those impacts will be felt.

Steve Sherwood from the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre said “while it is true some new climate models have surprising climate sensitivities and predict very high future warming, what doesn’t always come through is that most new models have sensitivity values within the range estimated from observations”.

“Those models still predict substantial future weather and climate changes due to carbon dioxide, similar to predictions made by the science community for many years,” Professor Sherwood said.

US climate scientist Judith Curry said the IPCC report would certainly discuss the problem with climate models: “The elephant in the room for the IPCC is they are heavily relying on RCP8.5 emissions scenarios, which are now widely regarded as implausible.”

Michael Asten, an expert reviewer of the IPCC’s AR6 report, said the admission that climate models were running hot was a significant concession.

GRAHAM LLOYD

ENVIRONMENT EDITOR

Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter of all sides of the environment debate. A former night editor, chief editorial writer and deputy business editor with The Australian, Graham has held senior positions nationa… Read more

Via : Climate change: Science magazine article blows the whistle on model failure | The Australian

•••

See also :

Related :

CO2 Related :

SUN Related :


Could Pacific Northwest heatwave, European floods have been caused by the Sun?

Jet-stream blocking, as a result of weakening of the sun’s output, appears plausible, and certainly consistent with the current-and-rapid (~2 year) cooling cycle of the global atmosphere, despite record and rising CO₂ ’emissions’.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Just don’t mention “the sun” – one might just as easily be cancelled, or labelled a “climate denier” … all under the guise of ‘science’ and scientific discovery, of course.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

omegablock Credit: The Weather Network

Of course they could have been. The question is, were they? Assigning weather events to ‘global warming’ is ambiguous without a full definition of what the assigner means by that term. Jet stream blocking events discussed below are well-known to meteorologists, and constantly claiming them as evidence of a new human-caused problem with the climate is a stretch, to say the least.
– – –
The recent record-shattering heat wave in the Pacific northwest and devastating floods in western Europe have both been ascribed to global warming by many climate scientists, says Science Under Attack.

But an alternative explanation, voiced by some climatologists yet ignored by the mainstream media, is that the disasters were caused by the phenomenon of jet-stream blocking – which may or may not be a result of global warming, and could instead arise from a weakening of the sun’s output.

View original post 479 more words


Climate Change : An Excuse For Political Incompetence

“Without any evidence, when flooding occurs today, climate alarmists point their collective fingers at the trivial emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

The German spa town of Bad Schandau is sited in a valley on the banks of the river Elbe. Not surprisingly, the town has been flooded many times, as the town’s collection of flood markers show…”

IF the corrupt mainstream media dared educate and expose their audience to historical weather-related ‘disasters’, as scientifically laid out in this elegant post by Dr John Happs, the legitimacy of their “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” proclamations, along with their ongoing politically-motivated ‘climate change’ agenda would be severely compromised, if not terminated in totality.

For this precise reason, the elite-media-cabal wilfully continue their anti-human, anti-science endeavour of bias-by-omission… If it never happened in the past, then current (media-hyped) weather ‘extremes’ must be “unprecedented”, caused, obviously, by the sins and excesses of ‘evil’ mankind.

Good read.

PA Pundits - International

By Dr. John Happs ~

People have always been drawn to the coast and rivers because of their scenic locations. In earlier times there were clear advantages from riverside and coastal living since they provided easier trade and communication with other parts of the country and overseas. Around the world, building on the fertile soils of riverside floodplains has been widespread and still continues even though we know that floodplains are plains that will always flood.

Queensland Floods 1974

Climate change received little or no mention by the media or politicians during the inundation of Queensland floodplains in 1974:

After this event, houses were rebuilt only to suffer later flooding. There were floodplain inundations in Queensland during 2011, 2012, 2013, 2018, 2019 and 2020. The more recent floods were met, not with expressions of regret for allowing building to continue in these areas, but with the anticipated cries of “global…

View original post 2,309 more words


ROWAN DEAN : Prince Philip, Climate Sceptic, Already Spinning In His Grave

“When will common sense and good science prevail,
and what happens if does not do so fairly soon?”

– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

“You see gigantic wind turbines appearing all over the country,
but there is very little about the practical value of these monstrosities.”

– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

THE great Rowan Dean of Sky News “Outsiders” fame, details an extraordinary letter sent from Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, to author and geologist Ian Plimer back in 2018.

Via Spectator Australia :

Prince Philip was a climate change sceptic. In correspondence to Spectator Australia contributor and author Ian Plimer back in 2018, the Duke of Edinburgh not only compliments Professor Plimer on his most recent book, The Climate Change Delusion, but also praises his previous book ‘Heaven and Earth’, which similarly questioned the ‘missing science’ behind the global warming scam.

Furthermore, in the letter which Ian has kindly provided to The Spectator Australia, the late Prince — who was never one to mince his words — described the wind turbines now blotting the landscapes globally as ‘monstrosities’.

Here is the letter from Windsor castle, dated 29 April 2018:

What a great question. As we can see, Prince Philip, a Patron of the Royal Geographical Society admired the work and writing of geologist Ian Plimer. In fact, the Prince attempted to invite Professor Plimer to London to address the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) on the topic of climate change. That invitation was later rescinded by the mandarins at the Palace, as was documented by James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph at the time. As Delingpole wrote: 

Here’s part of the embarrassed kiss-off Prof Plimer received from the RSA’s chief executive:

I am afraid I am writing to you with some disappointing news regarding the Prince Philip Annual Lecture on 5 May.

As you well know, the debate around climate change has recently become highly politically charged, both globally and especially in your home country.  Equally, as I am sure you are aware, members of the Royal Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance of advocating or supporting a particular political stance.  The RSA’s charitable status also requires us to maintain absolute political independence in our programme of events and research events.

After discussion with Buckingham Palace, it is therefore with great regret that we must withdraw your invitation to give this year’s PrincePhilip Lecture.   The Duke of Edinburgh is personally disappointed as he read your book with great interest and was looking forward to hearing you speak, but I know that you will recognise that the now highly controversial debate surrounding this issue would make it inevitable that he was seen to be taking a particular position.

What is extraordinary about that letter is that as well as confirming the Prince’s admiration for the Professor, it points out that the Royal Family should have nothing to do with the politics of climate change. Yet today, a decade on, both future monarchs Prince Charles and Prince William, the former in particular in advocating the Great Reset and embracing Greta Thunberg, and the latter in his fondness for Sir David Attenborough, are in climate politics up to their eyeballs. 

Prince Philip, now that he’s finally in his grave, will surely spend a great deal of the years ahead spinning in it.

Prince Philip, climate sceptic, already spinning in his grave | The Spectator Australia.

(Climatism links and bolds, added)

Must Watch Outsiders :

Related :


PHYS.ORG SCIENTIST ON CLIMATE : “It’s Like The Boy Who Repeatedly Cried Wolf. If I Observe Successive Forecast Failures, I May Be Unwilling To Take Future Forecasts Seriously.”

“It’s like the boy who repeatedly cried wolf. If I observe many successive forecast failures, I may be unwilling to take future forecasts seriously.

“The ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date.”

– David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021)

H/t @CogitoErgoSumAu

Every once in a while, ‘a few brave scientists’, driven by verifiable science, empirical data, and an endless supply of failed predictions, feel obliged to tell you a few home truths about ‘climate change’ and the failure of manufactured hysteria, all designed to scare you into submission.

This bothers them, naturally.

Article, via the ‘International Journal of Global Warming’

Via Phys.org :

For decades, climate change researchers and activists have used dramatic forecasts to attempt to influence public perception of the problem and as a call to action on climate change. These forecasts have frequently been for events that might be called “apocalyptic,” because they predict cataclysmic events resulting from climate change.

In a new paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming, Carnegie Mellon University’s David Rode and Paul Fischbeck argue that making such forecasts can be counterproductive. “Truly apocalyptic forecasts can only ever be observed in their failure—that is the world did not end as predicted,” says Rode, adjunct research faculty with the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, “and observing a string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures can undermine the public’s trust in the underlying science.”

Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.

Fischbeck noted, “from a forecasting perspective, the ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date. About 43% of the forecasts in our dataset made no mention of uncertainty.”

Full article …

More information: David C. Rode et al, Apocalypse now Communicating extreme forecasts, International Journal of Global Warming (2021). DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2021.112896

Related :


NO GLOBAL WARMING : Global Temperature Now 0.01 Degrees Below Average

SOME might argue that the latest global temperature, as measured by x15 NASA/NOAA AMSU (advanced microwave sounding unit) satellites, measuring literally every square inch of the lower troposphere (the exact place where ‘man-made global warming’ is supposed to occur) might be an anomaly caused by the de-industrialisation experiment carried out during draconian COVID-19 lockdowns.

Not so, according to the UN’s own meteorological agency, the WMO.

They concluded that despite the draconian COVID-19 lockdowns that initiated the greatest de-industrialisation science experiment ever carried out in human history, CO₂ levels failed to drop…

Ergo, if CO₂ concentrations didn’t budge, at all, during the most comprehensive global science experiment ever undertaken in mankind’s history, then how do we know that they are even ‘ours’ to ‘bring down’?

NOAA current data reveals that global CO₂ levels are higher now, not lower, than at the same period in 2020.

Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases | NOAA

So, if CO₂ levels are naturally increasing, then why is the global atmospheric temperature, according to NASA’s own MSU satellites, now below the 40 year average?

LATEST NASA/NOAA SATELLITE, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY

Via Dr. Roy Spencer

UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2021: -0.01 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

April 2nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C.

REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.

Right on time, the maximum impact from the current La Nina is finally being felt on global tropospheric temperatures. The global average oceanic tropospheric temperature anomaly is -0.07 deg. C, the lowest since November 2013. The tropical (20N-20S) departure from average (-0.29 deg. C) is the coolest since June of 2012. Australia is the coolest (-0.79 deg. C) since August 2014. The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). UAH Global Temperature Update for March 2021: -0.01 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

COMMENT from Andrew Bolt, on the money, again …

After decades of alarmism about global warming frying the planet, the latest UAH satellite measures show warming of 0.01 [below] the average at the end of last century. No warming at all. And nothing that could cause all the catastrophes that have been claimed. You’ve heard this news on the ABC, right? No?

Background on AMSU (UAH/RSS data) satellites:

NASA/NOAA AMSU ATMOSPHERIC SATELLITES

NASA’s 15 MSU and AMSU satellites generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower troposphere, the exact place where global warming climate change theory is meant to occur.

UAH (University Alabama Huntsville) satellite data set run by Dr. John R. Christy – Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Roy Spencer Ph.D. – Principal Research Scientist at UAH.

Via : THE Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam | Climatism

See also :


CLIMATE : New Discoveries That Change ‘Settled Science’ Based Climate and Energy Perspectives

“The polar bear as an icon for climate change is dead
because the distorted predictions made by
polar bear specialists were wrong.”

“This is a lesson for researchers in other areas
who have failed to stop the invasion of 
politics into their science.”

– Dr Susan Crockford

Mr. Art Krugler, a leading geothermal engineer and author, along with Vijay Jayaraj, a Climate Researcher who graduated from the University of East Anglia, proposes an interesting perspective into the current phase of the climatic system based around uranium ore deposits.

The authors note, “The recent cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration.”

While society is forced to only accept the arbitrary value of trace gas, and plant food carbon dioxide as the “climate control knob”, such new perspectives on the complex machinations of our ‘global’ atmosphere, perhaps, heighten the need to stop and pause, in the better interests of science, nature, and the ‘sustainability’ of the human existence.

For “shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas-fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity. Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe. At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables”.

Read on …

New Discoveries that Change “Settled Science” based Climate and Energy Perspectives 

By Art Krugler with Vijay Jayaraj 

Polar bears had been at the center of the debate surrounding climate change. In my book “POLAR BEARS in the HOT TUB”, I addressed the claims about how the global temperature change was impacting Polar Bears and what caused these changes in temperature. 

I explained that the rate at which CO2 was increasing depended on the hydrogen content of fossil fuels and further that there was no connection between CO2 concentration and temperature rise or energy use. 

In this, the book’s sequel, I use five data sets to identify the energy source behind the increase in global temperatures since 1980 and the reason for subsequent cooling in recent years. 

The sequel is based on five key data sets: 

1. A NOAA global temperature map (2013) showing warm and cool areas on the planet. 

2. A NOAA global temperature map (2017) identifying alarming temperature “Hot Spots” at geographical locations, especially within the Arctic Circle. 

3. A 2020 global temperature map showing the absence of most of those hot spots, especially Arctic areas. 

4. The data, discovered by Krugler in 2020, which shows that all of the global hot spots were located above deposits of uranium ore. 

5. Historical data that shows low sun spot activity is correlated with mini-ice-ages and major sun spot activity correlates with warming global periods, thus connecting the uranium deposit activity to sunspot activity. 

These five new perspectives must alter Global Energy Reports and Policies that have been against the use of fossil fuel.

Here is why.

Disappearance of Existing Hotspots: CO2 Not the Primary Driver of Temperatures 

The first data in the book reaffirms one of the most common faults that many climate scientists have been using: CO2 cannot be the primary driver of global average temperatures. 

Global temperature maps (for 2016 and 2020) are available from NOAA showing hot areas and colder areas.

NOAA Global Temperature Map – for year 2017

Note the absence of large red [hot] areas, and the many blue [colder] areas appearing in the latest [2020] map.

This cooling stands in stark contrast to the alarmist models’ predictions, which predicted progressively warmer temperatures because of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas concentration. 

The irrefragable connection between Uranium Ore and Thermal Hot spots demonstrates that Uranium ore deposits are the Primary Driver of Global Warming. 

The fifth set of data reveals groundbreaking insights into the totally ignored correlation between Uranium ore deposits and thermal hot spots in regions across the globe. A table showing the location and the amount of the top 10 of uranium ore deposits worldwide is given below. 

URANIUM ORE DEPOSITS – TOP 10 as on 12/20/2020
RANKCOUNTRY2015 Reserves  in TonnesPercent of Total Reserves
1 Australia178080024.0
2 Kazakhstan94160012.7
3 Canada7036009.5
4 Namibia4630006.2
5 South Africa4493006.1
6 Niger4113005.5
7 Russia3952005.3
8 Brazil2768003.7
9 China2725003.7
10 Greenland2280003.1

Surprisingly, each of the uranium ore deposits is located beneath a “hot spot”. The data suggests that the warming since 1980 must have been caused by the nuclear reactions in the uranium ore deposits, rather than the current popular theory that blames the Greenhouse Gas blankets. 

It is also very important to note that hotspots have disappeared or cooled down considerably during the last 5 years. If these hot spots continue to cool in the future, then the world temperatures will not increase. Instead we would witness a drop-in temperature. 

However, there is another critical correlation that determines the future of global average temperature: Sunspots. 

Sunspot Activity and Global Temperature 

Scientific data prove that the past two mini ice ages correlated with the absence of sunspots and the warmer periods in recent millennia correlated with an increase in sunspot activity.

Average yearly sunspot numbers –

Graph of average yearly sunspot numbers showing the 11-year solar cycle. Image Credit and Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 

Image Source: https://abruptearthchanges.com/2019/06/14/the-next-grand-solar-minimum-has-very-likely-begun-nasa-predicts-lowest-solar-cycle-in-200-years/ 

The increase in sunspot activity also correlated with the global warming that began in the 1980s. Prior to the 1980s, there was no major increase in temperatures despite 200 years of Industrialization and high atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Sunspots are now at very low levels and cooling is happening, as observed from the global temperature maps above. 

According to commentators, the next Cycle 25 is likely to be slightly smaller than Cycle 24 and much lower than the maximum annual sunspot number of 250). 

Implications for Energy Policy 

Given the non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, economies can now shift towards an energy policy that is more fossil friendly as other sources are developed.

Shutting down Nuclear and Coal plants, and installing more renewables and gas fired turbines will not benefit the world. Renewables, despite the global fanfare, are incapable of providing reliable and affordable electricity.  Not having power for several days would be a devastating catastrophe.  At present, there are no cheap batteries or even a high-volume source of batteries that can store energy generated by renewables. 

This requires operating gas turbines to negate the disruptions in renewable generation. It also requires maintaining the supply chain of natural gas from gas well, through gas purification to remove sulphur, to compressors, to pipelines and to gas storage. 

Moreover, contrary to popular belief, this policy will continue to drive CO2 levels higher and even worse, increase the cost of power and everything else in society. All efforts to reduce CO2 levels to save our planet are ineffective, costly and counterproductive. 

Keeping hydrocarbons in the ground or raising the cost of hydrocarbons will have serious consequences. For example, there is no substitute source (apart form Hydrocarbons) for asphalt for roads, roofs, polyester for clothes, carpets, polyester fiber for tire sidewalls, graphite fiber for lightweight electric cars or for the more than 5000 other products that we depend on an everyday basis. All these are derived from hydrocarbons. 

Coal may not be KING but it can be a SAVIOR with no negative factors. Coal, with acid gases removed from the stack gas, provides reliable power from local fuel and also CO2 at ground level for increased production of food from land and sea.

Developing economies, and even some developed economies, will experience immediate and adverse consequences if they shift away from hydrocarbons. The most logical analysis reveals that CO2 and greenhouse gases are not the primary drivers of global temperatures. 

With the advent of these new findings on Uranium ore’s correlation with temperature hotspots, it is time policy makers and decision-making institutions pay attention to the simplicity of the climate system and stop restricting themselves to the narrow theory of fossil fuel driven global warming. 

About the Author: Mr. Art Krugler is a leading geothermal engineer who has directed design and construction work on binary and flash steam plants in California, Nevada, Utah and Texas, and has contributed to many of the plants in the United States & internationally. He is responsible for 105 MW of co-generation power in Southern California and is a licensed chemical and mechanical engineer in five states.His book Polar Bears in the Hot Tub exposed the lies about the global warming movement and the state of climate reality. This article was co-authored with the help of Vijay Jayaraj, an environmental researcher. 

More from Vijay :

Related :


CLIMATE CHANGE Duplicity : When Too Much Water Is Never Enough

https://www.citivelocity.com/citigps/solutions-global-water-crisis/

IN today’s chaotic world of 24/7 news, views and grievances, the tendency to invoke highly emotive issues, such as “climate change”, or “race”, is all too often used to ensure that a message is heard.

Unfortunately, for such messengers, the internet of today (for now) is all-pervasive, meaning that even those with the most basic internet search capabilities can discover for themselves how duplicitous, unauthentic, insincere and contradictory some of these messages can be.

Take the blue-check organisation Environment Agency, for example.

They warned, on #WorldWaterDay, that England could face water shortages due to “climate change” by 2050 :

No “science”, no reasonable explanation other than appealing to readers’ ingrained climate ‘fears’, and an arbitrary date of 2050 – extended out far enough so that no one has to take responsibility if the prediction fails.

ON the other end of the scale, the ClimateChange™️ grifters are shamelessly blaming Eastern Australia’s current flood crisis on you and your ‘lavish’ existence :

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/floods-worsened-climate-change/

The “Climate Council” is a privately funded, activist organisation founded by Tim Flannery, who famously stated this about Australia’s natural water future, in 2007 :

SEE : TIM FLANNERY : Professor of Dud Predictions and Climate Falsehoods | Climatism

When it isn’t raining, they threaten you with water insecurity.

When it’s raining too much, they blame it on you.

Climate Change — the manufactured doomsday weapon, built for all occasions!

Shut-up, and obey.

H/t @fairfaxache & @OMGTheMess

Related :

NSW Flood Update :