Do We Already Have The Solutions?

Climate Science overtakes Cosmology with the worst predictive success rate in science

Figure 1

Success of Cosmology: 4.6% Climatology: 1.47%

PART 1: CLIMATOLOGY

In the interests of fairness and full disclosure, it is not the entire climatology discipline on trial here, but the core of it which to some extent has been politically captured to form the basis of the hypothesis that CO2 produced by humans will produce a runaway greenhouse effect (But that CO2, the vast majority without humans will not).
There was a successful push to conflate the broad strokes field of the Environmental Sciences, which always covered a number of disciplines (climatology being one, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and ecology) with the term " Climate Science" in an effort to make it less empirical and more political.
In some form or other, they now all hinge on policies shaped by presupposing the assertion that the human produced portion of CO2 is causing any warming measured last century and arguably the first couple of years of this century. It projects climate as being linear, not cyclical. Total CO2 constitutes a practically non existent 0.04% of our atmosphere and supposedly has the ability not just to influence climate in some small way, but along with other supposed greenhouse gasses (ie methane & water vapour which you hear far less about but the models do include them) somehow are what drives climate here on earth.

The climatology behind the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis (formally AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming) also relies on the assertion there is a natural CO2 balance and that extra human produced CO2 does not get absorbed as the natural portion does in part of of this balance and supposedly traps surplus heat. This heat, it claims, does not have a feedback cycle and simply builds up. The problem with this reasoning is that there has NOT been a natural balance! The long term and seemingly unstoppable trend, other than some short term exceptions.

CO2 through the Eons

We are in a severe CO2 draught. The CO2 in our atmosphere is continually sequestered in rock and oceans, and according to the mainstream there isn’t enough to liberate through burning oil, and hydrocarbons even if we burned it ALL tomorrow. Most of it remains trapped in rock and material such as the Chalky White Cliffs of Dover. Humans might delay the process but ultimately all life on earth will probably slowly vanish as levels begin dropping below 180ppm.

Levels were off the charts before life (Nars is 96% CO2). The Cambrian Explosion has the highest reliable levels since life started in earnest. CO2 levels were at a minimum 10 times higher, the Jurassic 6 times higher and Cretaceous 5 times higher. Perhaps you are starting to appreciate why there was never going to be any predictive success when they claim a rise by less than 1x factor, a minority percentage since industrialization, wil produce a cataclysm? We cannot even believe that its produced a 1° rise since then by that reasoning.

Please see my previous comparison of the earth with Venus & Mars which both have around 96% percent carbon dioxide atmosphere by composition, yet very different surface temperatures. The percentage composition of the atmospheres of those two planets is compared with other factors such as atmospheric pressure and proximity to its star.

CMIP5

CMIP5 models had a more or less 5% predictive success rate, meaning climate science was second behind ^CDM cosmology in the race for the bottom, before CMIP6 allowed the discipline to take a decisive lead.

Figure 2
I contest the 1.64% figure, should be 1.47%

Failure in the past to predict atmospheric temperature changes was played down and ocean surface temperature has always been cited as a better indicator of our planets surface temperature. Well now we can say for sure that in this arena they have failed as well. Depending on which models & simulations are run, its a bit of a lucky dip. Typically atmospheric predictions are worse off when compared to observation, eg:

When it comes down to global sea surface temperatures, the observations are making a marked departure from the simulations. See figures 1 and 2 above. Of 68 model simulations done using the 13 major models, only 1 simulation has come in near or under the actual data.

Not so hot on the predictions.

The unavoidable fact is that one out of sixty eight is 1.47%

°°°°°••••∆••••°°°°°°

https://www.netzerowatch.com/pacific-problems-for-climate-models/?mc_cid=d372f6658f&mc_eid=1986a05a04

PART 2:COSMOLOGY

Cosmology has only 1 model that is sanctioned by the establishment, the LAMBDA-CDM (^CDM or "cold dark matter") model more commonly referred to as the standard cosmological model. The establishment which has a monopoly on public funding, grant & research and the education curriculum does not teach or allow competing models (such as Plasma Cosmology which accounts for 100% of the observable universe) into universities or to bid for non private funding of R&D projects. Moreover, this model rejects such things as the electromagnetic influence of pervasive cosmic magnetic fields on the cosmic web, formation of galaxies and orbital mechanics of solar systems.

It also asserts that the universe is expanding from a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. When applied to the supposed rate of expansion used by the model from the big bang the shortcoming variable in theory vs observation is given the name "Dark Energy". When applied to the rotational curve of galaxies under the called for criteria of the ^CDM model, that gravity drives galactic rotation, the variable given for shortcoming in theory vs observation is called "Dark Matter".

The rate of success reconciling The standard model with observable matter and supposed measured dynamics/movement of that matter is low (the concept "space" proposed as being a material fabric or manifold both causing gravity, somehow, using pure geometry and expanding due to unseen factors). It's reconciliation of prediction vs observation is 4.6%...

In other words

It is a true statement to say: Only 4.6% of the universe is accounted for based on predictions of the standard model being reconciled with observation.

Below: Public understanding /Google trajectory.

Below: Explanation of failure of the big bang model in terms of predicting light elements, rate of expansion etc

The big bang can be seen in the broader context of the LAMBDA-CDM CONCORDANCE model, the standard cosmological model, where LAMBDA (^) can be viewed as dark energy basically by the models interpretation, and (CDM) as dark matter.

This model relies heavily on General Relativity which is falsely upheld as being well tested, but its tested mathematically within the failed model so we must conclude that since there is no engineering or industry based on GR and the only instance of it widely regarded, the GPS system, being a widespread myth (categorical fact!). This means GR must in turn be viewed as a failure since its only evidenced theoretically, not experimentally, as a tool of a failed model.

This post wont make much sense without reading part 1 which you can do HERE.

Continued...

Saqqara

The step pyramid at Saqqara is thought of as an old and primitive pyramid, which it may well be but it has been the source of some of ancient Egypt's most puzzling anomalies. For a start is it part of an unimaginably vast network of tunnels linking the Serrapeam but many say they go all the way to Giza.

It is often thought of as an all or nothing deal, that whoever build the pyramid built the tunnels. Its seldom pointed out that this pyramid may have been built over the tunnels. It may explain why only such a limited part of the tunnel system were used by the Egyptians as a necropolis, it appears likely the peasant class. No mummy's were found in the pyramid just as no mummies were found in any other pyramid.

Even More remarkable were the thousands of hard igneous rock jars found beneath the pyramid. These were not the pottery known to have been made by the Egyptians. We are taking feats of engineering requiring diamond cutting, tooling and the use of a lathe. These are marked at the Cairo museum as some of the very oldest relics even though it is self evident cutting this granite and quartzite volcanic rock in such a precision manner, inside and outside the jars, often to a few millimetres thick, was way beyond any civilization until the last 300 years or so.

They were found with pottery so its assumed they were made together, but why would the earliest Egyptians be able to accomplish this and not the later dynasties? They are scratched on with terrible hieroglyphics, clearly not the same level of craft as the jars, in a similar way to the supposed statues of Rameses I covered in part 1. They were catalogued together and are displayed together. Nobody in Egyptology circles apparently has any qualms about this.

Above: The cataloguing and display of jars together with primitive pottery

A sample of the mismatch in the technology is evident despite the thousands of years that has elapsed, and likely thousands more before the Egyptians used the jars in royal circumstances out of clear reverence for the remarkable craftsmanship.

The same sloppy assessment cannot be accused of renowned pioneering Egyptologist, Sir Flinders Petrie, one of the most methodical and professional early trailblazers. He knew how to objectively scrutinise what he found and appeared to some degree capable of not bending to a narrative.

It's clear that modern Egyptology, archaeology and geology alone is simply not in possessions of the skills needed to understand what it is they are in fact looking at half the time. Engineers should be brought in, at least on a consultancy basis (at minimum), and a thorough examination needs to be started on the more anomalous findings, of which there are many. Engineer Christopher Dunn concurs, he wrote a book on what he found and is one of the few with the time or resources to do so, but had to do it on his own initiative. As you might expect, the Egyptology establishment does not want engineers poking their nose around in their sandbox.

And finally to close off on the step pyramid of Saqqara, here is a great exploration of the stone jars, the tunnels and many other unsolved mysteries from the ever brilliant Ben of Uncharted X.

A thorough look at other anomalies of Ancient Egypt can be found below:

South America

Clearly there are 3 levels of technology visible in what's put forward as "Inca megalithic stonemasonry". The most advanced being the Haman Pacha polygonal megaliths of vast size and weight single cut stone blocks, followed by the Cyclopian megalithic repairs on top, followed by the less advanced small block stonework on the top. While mainstream academics attribute all to the Inca, the descendants of the Inca do not.

Almost all engineers, stone masons & even many architects who are able to inspect the sites first-hand categorically rule out any possibility of the logistics and technology being within the capabilities of any civilization existing prior to the last 100 years, yet the MOST advanced appears to be the oldest. What conclusions can be drawn from this?

Also it is clear that (apart from cataclysmic damage) later generations of lower technological capabilities have been reusing and rehabilitating the oldest stone megaliths that were not lost, destroyed or buried. This ranges from the Pre- Incans to the Spanish. The original producers of the finest work appear to have produced it a very long time ago indeed.

A case study in re-use.

Is the temperature of Venus determined more by atmosphere composition or pressure?

Its an important question to ask because Venus is often cited as an example of the hypothetical "runaway greenhouse effect" by the climate change movement.

There are a number of problems with this assumption. Firstly it works by assuming that Venus and Earth are sister planets that have been orbiting the sun for a similar length of time. There are a number of theories which better account for why Venus has anomalies with its magnetic field, orbit and unusual dense atmosphere. The atmosphere density is only unusual if we work on the assumption its been in orbit for billions of years. If, like is credibly put forward, Venus was a recent arrival, possibly in the form of a giant comet, ejection from our star or elsewhere or knocked from a gas giant during a period of Orbital Chaos.

Planets lose their atmosphere over time, Venus has an impossibly thick atmosphere. A widespread cloud layer is put forward as enough to reflect enough sunlight and actually cause a moon year long snowball earth, yet we are told that for Venus it's not reflecting incoming light and heat. That goes without saying because the conventional view is that no heat would be produced sustainably it's assumed it's only retained. Other options cater for those circumstances without needing assumptions or intractible conflicts. My informal speculation was just puff for context. It does help make the conventional take seem a little less certain though.

For those that are interested only in atmosphere composition, solar proximity, greenhouse claims and atmospheric pressure, see the clip below and links. Otherwise my conclusion doesn't factor any of the puff in and can be found just below the clip and links.

https://www.space.com/19537-venus-comet-atmosphere.html

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/When_a_planet_behaves_like_a_comet

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-wind-transforms-venus-into-shape-of-comet/

There has been more credence added to this sort of thinking recently when the Parker Solar Probe picked up that Venus ionosphere changes with the suns 11 year cycle (below embedded clip)

This should not be seen as so unusual. We know emissions from the sun directly impact our ionosphere, Van Allen Belts and even our magnetic field on earth.

If you want a little history, the sordid story of how Venus data has been politicized, since even before the climate change movement got into gear, can be found HERE (courtesy Ted Holden.)

But rather than speculate let's consider the facts. Key indicators.

Venus has nearly 100 times MORE pressure than Earth and its atmosphere is 96% CO2 by composition.
Mars has over 100 times LESS pressure than Earth and its atmosphere is 95% CO2 by composition.
Mars actually has a greater overall density of CO2 molecules than earth does despite its thin atmosphere on account of its 95% composition compared to earths trace levels compared to history, a paltry 0.04% (not a typo, we have 15 times less CO2 now than we did when life first really kicked off on this planet during the Cambrian Explosion.*

*Citation: Stallinga, P. (2020)

http://www.stallinga.org/AcadActiv/Publications.html

Comprehensive Analytical Study of the

Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere.

Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 10, 40-80

https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2020.101003

So is the temperature of Venus determined more by atmosphere composition or pressure?

One of those is affecting temperature a lot more than proximity to the sun.

Earth has only 0.04% CO2 and is midway between the two in solar proximity and temperature extremes.

It is also midway in atmospheric pressure but its CO2 levels are insignificant compared to the other two planets.

It follows logically:

(If a choice were insisted on)

That atmospheric pressure, not composition is the primary determining factor in the extreme surface temperature of Venus. Other factors such as proximity to the sun are important, as are age. Using known empirical data and deductive reasoning by weighing variables against each other for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th planets there appears to be no correlation whatsoever between CO2 and surface temperature, and any other gas under pressure and close enough to the sun should out factor the CO2 composition factor by approx 1000:1 or more, as Venus and Mars seem to indicate.

☑ Blockchain: The good, the bad and the ugly🔗

I get asked a lot to explain what blockchain and cryptocurrency are.
What are its benefits and risks? How will it affect us? Although it would
take a book to really explain in great detail all of this, I've put together
this short post in hopes that this helps somewhat. There is a lot more to
this tech, but it requires a lot of background understanding, but, at the
core is what is listed below.
Simply put, blockchain is basically a distributed database that cannot be
tampered with, and tokens (Bitcoin) are generated by this blockchain. It
is hacking and counterfeiting proof.
That's the super short description. Now, assuming we are talking about
Bitcoin and its blockchain, here are some of its properties.

Pros:
Bitcoin is decentralized, meaning it is not housed in one location.
Bitcoin does not have a central authority. No government or company
owns or runs it.
There is no central server; the bitcoin network is peer-to-peer, meaning
everyone can participate in the network.
There is no central storage; the bitcoin ledger is distributed.
The ledger is public; anybody can store it on their computer.
There is no single administrator, the ledger is maintained by a network
of equally privileged miners, that validate transactions.
Anybody can become a miner.
Any additional transaction blocks to the ledger are maintained through
competition. Until a new block is added to the ledger, it is not known
which miner will create the block.
The issuance of bitcoins is decentralized. They are issued as a reward
for the creation of a new block.
Anybody can create a new bitcoin address (a counterpart of a bank
account) without needing any approval.
Anybody can send a transaction to the network without needing any
approval; the network merely confirms that the transaction is legitimate.
Anonymity (or pseudo-anonymity) of a person is maintained on a
blockchain.

Definitions:
Blockchain
Public record-keeping book, database or ledger that
records transactions.

Block-blockchains
Are broken up into blocks. Each block containing a
list of transaction made duringa time period and each block containg a
cryptographic key or hash of the previous block up to the genesis block
of the chain.

Nodes
Network of communicating nodes, or servers, running bitcoin
software maintains the blockchain.

Network nodes
Can validate transactions and then add them to their
copy of the blockchain, and then broadcast these ledger additions to
other nodes every 10 mins.

Mining
In order to determine randomly who gets to write a block to the
blockchain nodes or miners, do proof-of-work. This PoW requires miners
to find a number (or lottery) called a nonce.

Wallets
Contains both private and public addresses for transactions,
which are like an email address and password.

Tokens
  Entries on blockchain that represent transactions and can be
traded.

Cryptocurrency
Tokens traded as money.

Smart-Contracts
Entries on blockchain that are programmable code
and that represent and behave as contracts.

Cons (Criticism):
Forking debasement, meaning anyone can copy the blockchain code
and create their own blockchain and money.
Fraud at Exchanges, with crypto keys and funds easily stolen or
manipulated.
Mining pools controlled and manipulated by big tech and people with
money.
Energy consumption. The amount of energy needed to mine crypto is staggering!
Open-source developers need approval by programmers in order to
make changes by the people in charge of the project. Those that
approve can be corrupted and can add their own code.
Over 50% node attack can change ledger contents. This can happen if all
miners collude with each other.
Blockchains can be modified via forking with additional layers, much
like what happened to bitcoin in 2017 and when the Lightning Network
2nd layer protocol was added, that allowed the bypass of blockchain
consensus.
There are more... just to name a few.

There are institutional blockchains and variants I call hybrids. Here are
some of the features:
Hybrid systems blockchains are centralized.
Hybrid systems have central authorities.
Hybrid systems are not P2P and have central servers.
Hybrid systems storage is distributed only on centralized servers.
Hybrid systems storage is possible if you are a node, and nodes/servers
are housed in central locations and expensive.
Miners are servers/nodes and they can all be pooled, managed and
centralized.
There is no mining in Hybrid systems and if the node belongs to a bank
or any other central system.
In a hybrid system the centralized system is not obliged to use proof of
work for competition.
In Hybrid systems, they can mint as many coins as they wish anytime
they choose.
In Hybrid systems, you only get public address key (bank account) but
not the private key.
In hybrid systems, there may be a need to be approved or some contract
fulfillment before a transaction can take place and recorded.
In hybrid systems, there is no anonymity.
And then there is the big issue l have, is what happens to your
cryptocurrency if it is delisted from all exchanges, blocked at vending
machines and blocked by online merchants? Especially when the central
banks create their own version of crypto in a cashless society?
Whata happens if the entire supply chain becomes digitally inaccessible to your
crypto?
Applications - such as human capital bonds.
Commoditization and tokenization of nature.
Tokenizing behavior such as workforce and educational space.
Buying and selling crypto as "gas" for smart-contract networks, such as
Al-as-a-Service (AaaS) that requires crypto ETH for fulfillment of Al used
in surveillance state operations and systems.
Again, these are just some of the pros, cons and concerns of
blockchains. There are many more, but it requires more discussion.

....end

Interesting full length space documentaries

Anyone with an interest in anything relating to astronomy (cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics and even some history) that is looking for a novel twist, should get something out of these. It doesn't take long to get into a rut on these topics. Before long all the material begins to seem the same. If there is one thing I can assure you, its that you are unlikely to have that sentiment with any of these.

So, here are some free, high quality documentaries on various themes on Astronomy, Cosmology and Astrophysics that you don't usually see . All of these full length features challenge the prevailing narratives more fundamentally than anything else you will find on the internet, and do so with the highest levels of scientific rigor. Where there is speculation its interesting, creative and refreshing. You will get a behind the scenes look at the the real controversy and real crises in cosmology.

Direct Historical Account Of Extreme Weather Accounts from Mediaeval Period Onward

Please note: I blogged it purely for the information and I will note the contact details provided. It is handled under the care of The University of Bristol, I'm going to enquired with them if the empirical data or even better, the source data is a matter of public record. Because of my ongoing concern sparked by evidence of certain politically motivated third parties tampering with historical data, this could serve to check that tampering at some point in the future. If they respond I will do a follow up post where I include any information they choose to provide as a resource for any interested parties.

Newly transcribed chronicle describes extreme weather events that hit Bristol 400 years ago

by University of Bristol

Historians from the University of Bristol have discovered contemporary accounts of numerous weird weather events that happened in the Bristol area around the turn of the 17th century, including devastating floods, massive snowfalls and frosts that saw rivers frozen for months.

The detail comes from a chronicle that was acquired by Bristol Archives in 1932 but then declared as 'unfit for production' due to its extremely fragile nature. Access to the manuscript was very limited making it difficult to investigate its contents.

Using digital photography, a team led by Dr. Evan Jones from the University of Bristol's Department of History, has now painstakingly transcribed the document which is named 09594/1.

Chronicle writing dates back to the early medieval period and record events of a community that are relevant to it as a reference work for future readers. Early chronicles were mostly produced by religious communities but as time went on town clerks and private families kept them as well. They recorded the most memorable events of that particular year—such as wars, rebellions, plagues and fires.

Dr. Jones and his team concluded that 09594/1 was probably not begun until the late 17th century. It was then updated regularly until 1735 by different people (probably from the same family). It also includes detail dating back as far as the 13th century which would have been taken from older chronicles or manuscripts.

What drew the researchers' particular attention amongst the more expected entries, was a vivid series of descriptions of extreme weather-related events that occurred in the Bristol area from the 1560s to the 1620s.

Together with an environmental scientist from University College London (UCL), the Bristol researchers have written about what they discovered, and the impact of this climatic deterioration on the city of Bristol, in the Royal Meteorological Society's journal Weather.

Four hundred years ago, England experienced some of its worst weather ever. In the depths of the Little Ice Age (1300-1800), huge volcanic eruptions in the Americas pushed dust and gases high into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun. The related cooling phase is known as the "Grindelwald Fluctuation' (1560-1630).

The chronicle entries, seemingly written by a Jacobean weather enthusiast, describe how Bristol and its wider region was affected. Crop failures, famines, great freezes, floods, unseasonal blizzards, tempests and droughts all feature in the accounts of these 'strangely altered' times.

Examples include:196: A great famine in diverse places and in the city of Bristol all kinds of grain were very dear so that the poor was in very great want.1603: This year upon the fourth of October was the greatest snow that ever was known by the memory of man.1607-8: November the 20th 1607 began a frost which lasted till February 8 following at which time the River of Severn and Wye were so hard frozen that people did pass on foot from side unto the other and played gambols and made fires to roast meat upon the ice.1610-11: The winter proved very stormy in so much that it occasioned the greatest shipwrecks that ever was known in England.

These are just a few of the chronicle's entries, the severity of which can be corroborated from other sources. Some of the events were even illustrated in news pamphlets—the popular press of the day.

It was not just in Bristol that the weather was extreme. The Freeze of 1607-8 led to the first Frost Fair upon the Thames in London. The storms and famines discussed in the Bristol chronicle wrecked shipping and caused mass starvation across the world.

In Shakespeare's England, tempests were well known and the 'strange alterations of times and seasons' was recognized by the journalists of the day. As one 1613 news pamphlet reports: "We have within these few years, as well within this our native country of England as in foreign nations, been most grievously stricken... by dry summers, and parching heats, droughts...to cause barrenness with scarcity, then freezing and cold winters."

Professor Anson Mackay, one of the co-authors of the article from UCL, said: "The Little Ice Age was the coldest period since the start of the Holocene (almost 12,000 years ago).

"The cooling period from 1300-1800 was a time of global climatic change, but one that was very different to modern global warming. Back then, volcanic eruptions and changes in the world's ocean circulation all played a role. Today, increases in greenhouse gases are the driving force behind global warming."

Dr. Jones added: "What I love about this chronicle is the vividness of the language. But the author was still trying to be measured and fact-based. Contemporary observers didn't have objective systems of weather measurement, but they made an honest attempt to evaluate these events in relative terms."

One such episode was the Great Flood of 1607, recorded in the chronicle. The flood is currently being studied by Rose Hewlett, the article's third author, who notes that the height of the water can still be seen on flood markers in churches around the estuary.

The chronicle states that in Bristol itself 'all the lower part were drowned about four or five foot' while the flood 'came so fast and high at Henbury that the waters continued a long time a fathom deep that the people were obliged to abide on the trees two or three days."

What these colorful accounts suggest is that the Grindelwald Fluctuation did not just make the world cold. The disturbed global climate led to more catastrophic weather events.

This, suggests Professor Mackay, is where this study holds lessons for today. He added: "Modern climate change isn't just making the world warmer, it is also causing more severe weather, which will only get worse. Current modeling suggests that weather-related fatalities in Europe could increase fifty-fold in the coming decades.

"If this proves correct, the news headlines of the future could be as bleak as those of the seventeenth century."

More information: Evan T. Jones et al. Weird weather in Bristol during the Grindelwald Fluctuation (1560–1630), Weather (2021). DOI: 10.1002/wea.3846

Provided by University of Bristol

Snapshot: Picking a single image to best embody 2021 so far

When the planet is ruled by criminals, what more should we expect?

Click HERE for the homepage of DWAHTS

Do We Already Have The Solutions?

Climate Science overtakes Cosmology with the worst predictive success rate in science

CO2 through the Eons

⏪ A stunning revision of the past which could be as unbelievable as any science fiction blockbuster (Part 2)

Is the temperature of Venus determined more by atmospheric composition or pressure?

☑ Blockchain: The good, the bad and the ugly🔗

Interesting full length space documentaries

The Cosmology Quest: Documentaries A

Free Documentaries B

Direct Historical Account Of Extreme Weather Accounts from Mediaeval Period Onward

Snapshot: Picking a single image to best embody 2021 so far

Labels

Search This Blog

Your Feedback

Top Posts

Feedback