Thursday, August 28, 2014
As a non-climate scientist (a general physicist), I try to show only the most obvious examples of incompetence and/or fraud in the consensus climate science underlying the "global warming" scare stories touted by all of our trusted, supposedly authoritative institutions. I disproved the "greenhouse effect" with a simple Venus/Earth temperatures comparison; I showed that US temperatures have been falsely adjusted according to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which fraudulently FORCES the dependence of those temperatures upon carbon dioxide). I also long ago realized that the alarmist "climate science consensus" was based on just a relatively short period when the global mean temperature and the atmospheric carbon dioxide level both increased together, and I have pointed this out repeatedly for more than 4 years. This short-period cherry-picking (and worse) of the temperature data, on the part of politically and ideologically motivated climate scientists, going back to 1989/90, has come up once again on Bob Tisdale's blog, where I submitted the following comment:
I have pointed this out repeatedly (admittedly only on the few blogs I visit at all regularly), since the spring of 2010, just a few months after I first became aware of the global warming debate (around October 2009). I thought, for most of that time, that their cherry-picked period was 1976-2000, until this last September, at Steven Goddard’s blog, when it became clear (to me) that the actual core of the alarmists’ belief is based only upon 1976-1989/90:
My comment at Real Science Sept. 17, 2013
(See the graph at the link I provided within that comment, from USAToday in 2010. I called it fraudulent science as soon as I saw it presented to the public there.)
And I added:
…and the best (and earliest) paper I saw (in the spring of 2010) showing the clear (detailed) cause-effect relationship between ENSO events [i.e., natural variability in the climate system, not the "greenhouse" or any human-caused effect] and the global mean temperature was Prof. Horst Malberg’s March 2009 article, in German, “La Niña – El Niño und der solare Einfluss: Die Klimaentwicklung 1950 – 2008″ (“La Niña – El Niño and the Solar Influence: The Climate Trend 1950 – 2008″).
Friday, August 15, 2014
Roy Spencer has a recent post suggesting a way that "deep ocean warming can bypass the surface" (for those trying to explain the "pause" in global mean surface temperature, without admitting their basic theory has been proven wrong by that "pause"). My response:
The comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, shows that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is precisely explained by the different solar distances of the two planets and nothing else. This proves there is no increase of temperature with increasing CO2, since Venus has 96.5% CO2 to Earth's .04%. And the comparison was done using temperature and pressure profiles obtained for Venus on one day (October 5, 1991, a long time ago now), compared with the same profiles as defined in the Earth Standard Atmosphere--so the comparison confirms the validity of the Standard Atmosphere as the real equilibrium state of Earth's troposphere, and as such, independent of any supposed changes in ocean heat content. And finally, since Venus and Earth differ so fundamentally in albedo, cloud cover, and planetary surface, the fact that their atmospheric temperature ratio is just precisely that expected from their different solar distances alone, tells any good physicist immediately (I realized it while writing my original posting, in November 2010, from one sentence to the next) that the troposphere is warmed, on the global scale, entirely by direct absorption of incident solar radiation (or radiation higher in the atmosphere), and not at all from the surface as today's academics universally believe and promulgate--so changes in the ocean heat content are irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature (just as it makes no difference that Venus's surface is all solid crust, while Earth's is 71% ocean). Climate scientists are, in my view, obviously chasing local and transient (and near-surface) effects--also called weather--and not global ones. All of this should have been learned and accepted years ago (as far back as 1979, when the first Venus data was obtained, which agreed with the 1991 data I used in my comparison). Empty speculation (such as that done by believers in the greenhouse effect) in order to "save the appearances" has a long history, and it is never good. The sooner the wider scientific community confronts and accepts the Venus/Earth comparison and the confirmation of an utterly stable, overarching equilibrium as the predominant reality in our atmosphere, the better for all of science (for every other earth and life science is also in need of fundamental rethinking, I assure you).
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post on "1950 scientific consensus", which included the belief that "continents don't move". My response:
The continents were moved by design, at least into their present shapes and distribution. The design is so exact (the probability is one in a million million that they were placed by chance), and the supposed continental movements today so small, that it would take several hundred thousand years for them to move away from the designed placement (and that placement is but one small aspect of the design, which encompasses both the terrestrial and celestial spheres, and the entire solar system). And it has been only about 10 to 20 thousand years since the design was made, upon which all of the ever-popular "ancient mysteries" of man were afterwards based.
But today, almost everyone is bent on expressing their disdain for ideas that don't fit the dogmas they have come to embrace (religiously)--confrontation, or knee-jerk condescension and dismissal, rather than professional consideration--and those who explicitly want to consider other ideas (like "tallbloke's talkshop" or, in the wider arena, self-righteous, dangerous fools like Barack Obama) are indiscriminate in their considerations, and no more open than anyone else to the definitive truth, when it is presented to them (and no, I'm not perfect either, I'm just the discoverer of definitive new knowledge, of that great design of the "gods" who once were known and, unsurprisingly, worshipped, worldwide). There is a crisis of general scientific incompetence because of this long-nurtured embrace of dogma (of current, public, politically correct consensus) over dispassionate, strict reason, with a general inability to identify and focus upon definitive evidence that does not fit entirely, or even well, with anyone's prejudices (among those who broadcast their views, especially--they being particularly certain they know the truth).
There is no solid foundation to any of the earth and life sciences today. The central theories in both--plate tectonics and undirected evolution--are simply, inescapably disproved by the design I have found and verified, many times over. They are poorly engineered--out of ever-hopeful but incompetent speculation--and do not work, as you engineers would say.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post claiming "Some climate scientists are actually competent". My response:
There have been two basic camps in climate academe, those who spout "greenhouse effect" and "runaway global warming" with alarm, and those who beat the drum for "ENSO" (or "multidecadal ocean oscillations") and a cyclical variation in global temperature, on top of a widely-believed global warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age (c. 1680) of 0.5 °C/century (but, like Phil Jourdan above, I doubt their global temperature records either way, since I found the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere model for Earth's troposphere agrees precisely with the same pressure regime in Venus's atmosphere--when the latter's temperatures are corrected for its closer distance from the Sun--despite Venus having 2400 times the concentration of CO2, more than twice the albedo, a miles-thick planetary cloud cover and an entirely solid planetary surface, all hugely different from Earth but having no effect on the temperatures). To the academic theorists of the latter (ENSO) persuasion, the time period from about 2000 to 2030 is expected to show a slight temperature decline, like the periods 1940 to 1970 (or '75) and 1880 to 1910. I say it should amaze both sides that the Standard Atmosphere model, known for over a century, agrees so precisely with Venus's atmospheric temperature profile for ONE DAY (October 5, 1991), which literally screams out "stable equilibrium" for both planets, to any competent physicist (and a reader of my blog informed me, a few months ago, of Venus data from 1979 that also agrees with the Earth's Standard Atmosphere). But even the most recalcitrant global warming skeptics--aside from me--believe implicitly in today's non-climate earth science theories, and so think that a mere 5 degree decrease in global mean surface temperature must bring on a global ice age (that would take it down from the present 59°F mean temperature, to 50°F, and I say that it is the height of hysteria to think 50°F is consistent with a global ice age). So I say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists. None. Zero. Period. As in, they all need to let go of their current theories, across all the earth sciences, if they want to become competent in my book. Of course, I have an entirely different, dogma-free perspective on the Earth, since I found, in my own research, that its surface was reformed wholesale, less than 20,000 years ago, and to a great design whose features gave rise to all the so-called "ancient mysteries" of man, worldwide (so there was no "continental drift" over millions of years, but deliberate breakup, transport, and reassembly of landmasses to their current shapes and locations). And the present generation would rather war with one another, than realize that scientists, and mankind generally, have painted themselves into a corner with a failed paradigm that specifically denies the possibility of deliberate design of the Earth.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post "categorizing idiot clans" and listing them, to which one commenter added, "I see a missing category, the geran category: Populated by mean, vicious little SOBs (a technical term, I assure you) who limit their knowledge of thermal energy transfer to simple concepts of gaseous convection and the ideal gas law and nothing whatsoever involving radiative energy transfer …". My response follows:
That's probably because the only globally effective (i.e., not localized and transient) radiative energy transfer is from direct solar to atmosphere and to ground (yes, the two separately warmed directly by the Sun, basically) and none from ground to atmosphere (although there is radiative energy transfer from the ground THROUGH the atmosphere, to space), as the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth and Venus makes clear (for those with eyes to see--and such are few in this time of general obedience to patently incompetent consensus theories). "Skeptics" who believe in the consensus radiation transfer theory as applied in climate science--which assumes a huge loop of radiative energy between atmosphere and ground, greater than the mean incident solar radiation of 342 W/m^2, and due solely to assuming the ground radiates 390 W/m^2, as much as a blackbody, in a vacuum,at the same temperature as the ground--are unwitting fellow travellers of the "idiots" being considered by Steven Goddard in his post. The lesson of Venus/Earth, in the present context, is that thermal energy transfer--which is the real problem in climate science--encompasses radiative transfer, but radiative transfer--which is the false consensus theory--does not encompass thermal energy transfer (it takes also conductive--don't dismiss that, skeptics--and convective transfer to do that).
Monday, June 16, 2014
Jo Nova has a series of posts on the apparent discovery of a "notch filter" mechanism in the Earth's climate system, that doesn't do anything positive, but only negates, quite improbably, an "expected" dependence of the global mean surface temperature on the total solar irradiation (TSI). I submitted the following:
It is just too pat (i.e., characterized by a highly improbable "coincidence"): You find the temperature doesn't follow the 11-year solar cycle of TSI; now you find that something (apparently, the Sun's magnetic field) is cancelling that "expected" following--with an improbable, 11-year delay, just the same period as the solar cycle--so there is no 11-year cycle in the (global mean surface) temperature (GMST). Considered logically, without regard for any existing theories or common assumptions, by far the simplest, and therefore most probable reason for this "dog that doesn't bark" is that the expectation of a GMST dependence upon TSI is wrong (the dog doesn't bark because there is no dog, or nothing for the dog to bark at, after all).
Everybody wants to ignore the definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison I performed in late 2010, and what it indicates for the correction of climate science. Above all, in the present context, it indicates that the troposphere is fundamentally warmed--globally(!)--to the Standard Atmosphere profile (which represents the real, equilibrium vertical profile of the atmosphere, as the Venus/Earth comparison quantitatively and precisely demonstrates), by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the separately warmed surface. But of course that does not mean the TSI, which includes the major portion that warms the surface; it means just that incident portion (obviously in the infrared) which is directly absorbed by the troposphere! Climate and other atmospheric scientists need to identify that portion; I expect it will be found that it simply does not vary according to the 11-year solar cycle.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post on "A Dark Age of Degeneracy", speaking about the state of the Democratic party in the U.S. now. This is no news to me, as I have been referring to them as "The Insane Left" for most of Obama's presidency, certainly since the passage of "Obamacare" in early 2010. But the degeneracy is not limited to politics, nor to recent years. My response to Goddard's post follows:
If you "believe" in undirected (Darwinian) evolution (evolution by "natural selection" of random mutations--the "greenhouse effect" of biological science--which is the consensus theory and the underlying paradigm for all the physical sciences today, particularly the earth and life sciences), you are upholding the major basis for the degeneracy, and you are part of the problem. Just as Obama is the revenge for Bush Jr. (ever hear of the saying, "out of the frying pan, into the fire"?), evolution was accepted into science, and increasingly defended to this day, as revenge for the coercive dogmas of religion (or the very idea of "God", widely misunderstood throughout history as coercive, when it is merely the design of the world which is coercive, just as the design of a car, or anything made by man, is coercive of the things you can do with it). Science went wrong when it thought it could oust the old religious superstitions and magical beliefs with Darwin's amateurish but detailedly argued theory, which simply ignored the logical implications of the designs (often amazingly obvious) he saw in the natural world--and scientists have been on an ever-increasing romp down the slippery slope of unfettered, incompetent imagination ever since, only claiming whenever the need arises that, "anything can happen, given enough time" (such as a runaway global climate, in the present go-round). The future will look back on this and the last 155 years (since Darwin's "Origin of Species") with shame (and it will be abject shame, indeed, before it is through, if we are led to World War for a third time, or if the U.S.A. becomes just another state overly coercive of its citizens, because as I, and so many others, have warned over and over, we, and especially the "leaders", have not learned from our past mistakes--we, taken altogether, are not "evolving", which in reality only means ever more learning, without forgetting--without degenerating).