Thursday, November 12, 2015
The bishop hill site has a post on one of the latest examples of sophistry (reasoning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious) in public statements by climate alarmists. One commenter on the site likened his rejection of that sophistry to his quick rejection of "von Danniken's 'Worlds In Collision'". My response:
Immanuel Velikovsky, not Erich von Dänniken, wrote "Worlds In Collision". Whichever one you mean, Spectator, neither is worthy of your disdain, which says more about you--about your beliefs--than either of them. They were both on the right track, as opposed to the consensus view you were taught. Like it or not, science got off-track with the ascension of Darwin and the uniformitarian, undirected evolution paradigm as the unquestionable "settled science" (unquestionable means it's dogma over reason, which is the real evil). Global-warming alarmism is just the tail of that very "settled science" dog (basically: if chance, via undirected physical processes alone, brought about this complex world, then chance, or man, can easily destroy the natural order, as in "runaway global warming"; the truth is that, if chance did not make the world, then its observed stability, throughout history, should tell us it was DESIGNED to be stable, albeit with a wide variety of regional climates, all the way from tropical to polar). The insanity of "global warming" alarmism is just a symptom of the deeper problem, that science currently recognizes no MEANING to the order or stability of the world, and so that stability is easily dismissed as "coincidence", or "natural selection", and so considered ephemeral and easily broken (by the mere increase of atmospheric CO2 from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere). Both sides of the climate science debate/war fail to see that deeper problem, and the self-correction of science needed across the board, which my research and unprecedented findings reveal. Put bluntly, mine is the next scientific paradigm, replacing the "undirected evolution" paradigm, which this generation is showing itself unprepared to face.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
The Climate Etc site of the tenured (snugly employed) academic Judith Curry has a post on "lukewarmers", those who are proud to call themselves reasonable (as opposed to the alarmists on one side, and the "skeptics" who are "deniers" on the other). Their "reasonableness" has been a drag on any effective criticism of current climate science for years, and it is unfortunately the position of choice for many in the global warming debate. My response:
There is no haven in the lukewarmer position(s); climate science is totally wrong, because it is based upon the science of mere weather--alias local and transient processes--with no regard for the global constraint of the hydrostatic atmosphere, or for the direct heating of the atmosphere by the Sun rather than by the planetary surface. Their (your, Judith Curry) scientific incompetence is just as large as the alarmists'. But here at the nadir of the "debate" (or fruitless war of words) to co-opt the public to a science they are not equipped to judge, no one will question their own tragically flawed estimation of their own "expertness"; no one is learning anything. None of you is worthy of the name "scientist".
Friday, October 2, 2015
The following e-mail I just received, and my response, may be of interest to readers here:
After buying your books over a year and a half ago, it seems the only conclusion I can make is that you are correct. I maintained some doubt (perhaps unreasonably) until I found where you noted the ENP on the ground in the Great Mapping and located a sphere rotation script on the web to check the points, but having done so I can only conclude that the Great Mapping is a projection of the (rotated) celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere.
I had already concluded that I couldn't really justify doubling [I think he means "doubting"-HDH] the probability of chance being the reason for each of the input probabilities in chapter six as long as the mapping was correct. Even doing so as a gedankenexperiment still leaves a number that isn't remotely reasonably the result of chance. Thus, I find the only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth was designed.
To check the star positions I used the rotation script noted below with GNU Octave, and took my star positions from KStars. I ran the equatorial coordinates through the KStars equatorial->ecliptic converter, added 180 to the ecliptic longitude (at least that seemed to work for all my checks) and fed that to the rotation script.
The rotation script is a bit odd in that it asks for /South/ pole coordinates, not North pole, and that it asks for Longitude,Latitude. Thus, the rotated pole coordinates are ENP_lon - 180, -ENP_lat. I left out the actual coordinates because they are possibly the heart of the book, and I haven't seen you post them online.
Regarding the Milky Way core to South America comparison, that one I found a little more difficult to verify because I found four different outlines from four different sources - only one of which (nearly) matches yours. Still, with that much disagreement in conventional sources your outline is as reasonable as any I've seen. Even if one disregards that particular match probability calulation, I can't see that it meaninfully affects the overall calculations.
I did try looking up the etymology of Russia, and found that while the Ursa etymology is unsupported by recent history, I didn't immediately find a trace back to Indo-European. However, the history seems to be only well supported back to about 830AD, which leaves open the possibility of earlier Latin influence. Perhaps inconclusive, but highly interesting.
Regarding footnote 146 on page 121, I was a little surprised that you missed noting the archaic and no longer used Digamma that was the 6th letter in the dialects that had it, pushing Eta to the eighth position.
I probably could go on, but this is getting long enough already.
Thank you for being willing to hold to truth in the face of (nearly) universal opposition.
Good Morning, Tor,
Thank you for your feedback comments; they tell me that it is likely that any substantial conversation regarding the evaluation of my work, in finding and verifying--to the highest scientific standards--what I have called the Great Design of the "gods", must inevitably involve giving a full university-level course (perhaps even a four-year program) to thoroughly explain every aspect of it from the ground up, so to speak. I was slightly surprised, for example, to hear that you did so much work before you realized you were dealing with a projection of the celestial sphere onto the earth globe; I thought I had made that clear in the early chapters of "The End of the Mystery" (the "celestial sphere" itself is a projection of the actual stars onto an imaginary sphere surrounding the Earth, as shown in my Figure 3.2, for example); but I see I was mistaken. In trying to communicate my own sense of discovery at each early step of my research--including the discovery that I WAS dealing with a projection of the celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere--I introduced the idea of a "mapping" of the former onto the latter (on page 28), and then my discovery that one had only to use the mirror image of the constellation Cepheus in order to have it map precisely onto the African Horn (page 29, and Figure 2.15). I called this "mirror image" placing of Cepheus precisely on the shape of the African Horn "the second great discovery" (on page 30), precisely BECAUSE it meant a simple projection of the celestial sphere onto the Earth was involved; but I left that conclusion unsaid on that page, because I wanted to allow the reader to make that connection in their own mind, as I did when I first found the Cepheus/African Horn match (the precision of which, by itself, was enough to prove it was a deliberate design, using probability arguments like those used in Chapter Six and other chapters--which I also left unsaid). I thought, by the time the reader encountered Fig. 3.2, it would be clear to anyone that we were dealing, in the Great Mapping, with a mathematically precise projection of the one sphere onto the other; and the introduction of the "downward looking" view of the celestial sphere immediately after, and the later views of the Great Mapping (and many other projectional mappings, in Chapter 9) would cement that understanding. You have reminded me one book cannot do justice to the depth and breadth of the new/old knowledge--indeed, the new field of scientific study--I have discovered. Too many things along the way are inevitably left unsaid, or remain unaddressed, by any single book.
Of course, since the finding and verification of the Great Design changes the entire modern science paradigm--especially in the earth and life sciences, where uniformitarianism, Darwinian (undirected) evolution and plate tectonics are literally swept away as adequate explanations of the observable truth, about the Earth design--the necessity for a new major course of study, of this new scientific field, should be apparent.
I have not investigated your method for checking on the Great Mapping, and may or may not do so in the near future, so I won't comment on your efforts there, except to say congratulations on your desire to check for yourself, and your apparent confirmation of the Great Mapping as a real, and accurate, projection of the celestial sphere onto the terrestrial sphere. The mappings I discussed in Chapter 9 are likewise real, and precise, projections of the celestial sphere onto the Earth, all enabled by the deliberate design of the landmasses on the Earth, as an objective record of the deeds of the "gods", for a sufficiently advanced earthbound mankind to find and translate, as I have done.
The Milky Way outline I used in my research and in the book was that given by Wil Tirion, in the book "The Cambridge Star Atlas" (1998). He has been the most authoritative source for star charts for decades, and his charts are used in all of the several, and most widely available, sources I cited in "The End of the Mystery".
As to Russia, the main thing is to remember that I tried to use the most familiar material I could, as far as I could, in my research (with an eye to making it easier for the lay reader to either already know, or most easily check, the information I presented). With that in mind, the fact that Russia has traditionally, even commonly, been known as "The Great Bear" is all that needs to be said, when one sees that the constellation of Ursa, "The Great Bear", well stretches out over Russia in the Great Mapping. That alone tells one that that placement was deliberate, not by chance, and that the words "Russia" and "Ursa", so close in sound, must both come from the same original source, and that source is the Great Mapping (as is well confirmed by all the other matchups, of constellation names and names on the corresponding lands or other earth features, in the Great Mapping, I found).
Several years ago, one of the earliest buyers of my book wrote to me, also telling me about the extra letter that once put "eta" in the eighth place in the Greek alphabet. As I told him, I don't mind getting this independent confirmation of my claim about the identification of "eta" with "eight"; I used the current form of the Greek alphabet, again because that is what is out there today, for anyone to see. The way I look at it is, I already knew, from all those observations I listed on page 121 of the book, that there must be a reason why "eta" is only in the seventh place today, and my footnote was in the nature of a dare, or prediction, that that reason must and would come to light (as it did to you--see how easy that confirmation was? And you did it yourself, hence a truly independent confirmation on your part, and on the part of that earlier reader I mentioned).
Friday, September 18, 2015
The Notrickszone site has a post on universities suppressing non-consensus climate views. One commenter derided the post as a "conspiracy" view, while another, on the other side of the climate debate, looked back to the 1950s, when, he wrote, continental drift was suppressed. My response to both sides:
Continental drift was not suppressed, just strongly argued against, because geophysicists (not geologists, but physicists) could find no reasonable physical cause for it. And no one has ever actually found the internal magma currents supposedly driving continental drift, nor have they ever found subduction actually taking place anywhere; the physics of the crustal materials involved still denies it CAN take place (i.e., lighter material diving into and below the denser material beneath it), much less that it HAS happened, or IS happening.
The truth is that it is not just climate science that fails today; all of the earth AND life sciences are in a yet-unrecognized crisis of incompetent theories, going all the way back to the rise (and consensus agreement that it was "settled science") of uniformitarianism and its most famous offspring, Darwinian (i.e., undirected) evolution.
See, for example:
The True Origin of Continental Drift
Challenge to Earth Scientists
So it is not a matter of just a "climate conspiracy" having taken over all of our most trusted and authoritative institutions; it is the culmination of a long-nurtured, dogmatic denial of deliberate design of our world, which has affected all of the earth and life sciences. I am the only scientist who can speak authoritatively about this, because I am the one who has uncovered and verified the re-formation and design that was imposed upon the Earth, and the entire solar system, by those who were called gods by ancient man. It was that deliberate re-formation that moved and shaped the continents, not plate tectonics. That is the FACT that no other scientific "expert" in the world will face today; too many theories, too many lifetimes of diligent but misdirected research, are at stake. The sacrosanct uniformitarian paradigm, the "undirected evolution" paradigm, is at stake. Against that, those who seek refuge in their political ideology--as if the debate were only between the enlightened Left and the reactionary Right--are the most deluded, the most misdirected in their thinking, and the most irrelevant and incompetent. But make no mistake, ALL are incompetent today, in the face of the great design I found to be the single source of all the ancient mysteries.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Jo Nova has a post on an "emergency meeting" this month of world leaders, apparently meant to make "backroom" deals among them in advance of the December "climate change" (a.k.a. global warming) conference. Jo commented that climate "skeptics" need to "stand together", a remark that seemed to me likely to have little effect--which would be unfortunate. My response:
The point is, there are too many "lukewarmers" and too few "deniers" (or, like me, defiers, though that means little since I have no influence on my own). The "greenhouse effect" should never have been taken seriously in climate science; it should have been laughed off the stage while still being bandied about by a few scientists, only at scientific gatherings, and never been allowed to metastasize into the public consciousness as an hysterical "meme", or sacred "scientific" commandment. You are all going to have to "stand together" with my kind, not me with yours, lukewarmers -- and that means showing some competence first of all in the DEFINITIVE evidence against the "consensus". Do not accept the "greenhouse effect", nor the "radiation transfer" theory with its "blackbody Earth", AT ALL. No more "radiative forcings"! Ban the use of "W/m^2" talking points, period, unless and until you can use them to explain, fully and precisely, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is due only to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun (very precisely so, outside of the cloud region on Venus). And you will never be able to do that; the radiative transfer theory is simply wrong, because it takes the temperature in the atmosphere to be due to radiative transfer, and thus reverses the true cause and effect in the real, essentially hydrostatic atmosphere (whose set vertical temperature structure--the constant lapse rate structure--rules over all, especially the LW radiation "measurements").
Sunday, August 23, 2015
The Hockeyschtick site has another post hyping a "gravito-thermal" greenhouse effect. My response:
This is just a rehashing of Nikolov and Zeller's "Unified Climate Theory" (N&Z), only claiming the use of "dimensional analysis methodology", presumably meaning their mysterious "Eq(10)"--mysterious because it is not deemed important enough to actually reveal it here--has physical units consistent on both sides of the equation, that refer to the physical parameters involved in the problem (and not to an arbitrary amalgamation of variables--an ad hoc fitting function--without physical consistency, as N&Z did). There is still the "atmospheric thermal enhancement" (ATE) factor, the airy reference to the "Poisson formula", and the apparently absolutely precise fitting of the global mean surface temperatures of all the considered planetary bodies to one formula, that featured also in N&Z -- and no physics involved, of course, just carefree mathematical modelling (and the claim that it "deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation"). The Moon, Mars and Triton are practically meaningless in it, however, as the fitting function is vertical (insensitive to the pressure) for such small-to-nonexistent surface pressures as these 3 bodies possess. And they say Titan wasn't even used in the regressions, so only Earth and Venus really matter in them (and see below for my caveat on Titan). I already, nearly 5 years ago, compared Earth's Standard Atmosphere to the temperature vs. pressure profile of Venus, not at one point (the planetary surface) but over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures.
None of this present hype goes beyond, or even rises to the level of, my Venus/Earth comparison as the definitive correction of the false physics embraced by climate and atmospheric science today. None of it rises to the level of the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere, which was known to everyone before scientists turned away from it to pursue the chimaera of "runaway global warming". None of it rises to the level of understanding, gained from simply looking at the temperature and pressure profiles of all the planets, that they all have the same form: Above approximately 200 mb pressure, they all have the negative, constant vertical temperature lapse rate structure that Earth has, and which is due simply to the hydrostatic condition: that the pressure at any level in the atmosphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level. The Standard Atmosphere is of course based upon assuming the hydrostatic condition.
But none of the other planetary bodies compares so precisely with Earth as does Venus, where only the ratio of solar distances is needed to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at any given pressure. So the "gravito-thermal" theory glosses over (simply does not recognize) any other variables that are necessary to explain the temperatures in the other planetary bodies considered. The comparison of Earth's Standard Atmosphere with Titan, for example, as I compared Earth with Venus, shows that the near-surface temperature of Titan's atmosphere is too low, by about 7K (while near the tropopause, around 300 to 200 mb, it comes into close alignment with Earth's atmosphere, corrected only by the effect of its different solar distance); the modelling touted here, and that done by Nikolov and Zeller, can't even recognize that awkward fact, much less explain it physically--whereas the Venus/Earth comparison can, because Venus's temperatures, inside its thick cloud layer, are also too low, by about the same amount (5K), and both are probably due to the same cause: Non-gaseous particles suspended in the atmospheres (water-based clouds on Venus, particulate haze on Titan) that increase the effective specific heat of the atmosphere, in those regions where they occur.
And, of course, my definitive contribution was left out of the list presented above. No one is learning anything. The "gravito-thermal" effect is nothing but the effect of the hydrostatic condition, so far as any real physics is concerned.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Bob Tisdale has a post (also posted on the wuwt site) showing "no consensus on Earth's top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance" among the models touted by climate scientists. These kinds of critical analysis are pretty dense (detailed), especially for laypersons, and I have much better, simpler evidence to offer, so I responded:
Consensus climate science is so bad, it should come as no surprise to learn that a much simpler (and definitive) indictment of it can be made, just from the figure 1 above (Trenberth’s “global earth energy budget”). Concerning that figure, I wrote back in October 2010:
“It all looks straightforward enough, but then when you look closely you see something strange, off on the right side: The radiation coming off the surface is huge, and there is an almost equally huge ‘back radiation’ from the atmosphere to the surface. To a physicist–or at least to this physicist–that strange, gigantic loop of energy between the atmosphere and the surface appears unphysical, out of all proportion to the rest of the diagram.
“And we don’t have to get into detailed physical theory or wordy explanations to pin down what’s wrong with it: The power coming off the surface (the number 390) is larger than the incident power from the Sun (342). (The power shown as ‘back radiated’ by the atmosphere is about as large as that from the Sun, too.)
“Just that one fact is enough for me to see that the ‘climate science’ of the U.N. and the consensus of (so we are told) 97% of all climate scientists–is absurd. No part of the ‘global energy budget’ can be greater than the incident energy. Either their numbers are wrong, or the model being illustrated is wrong. Period, full stop. You don’t have to know, or explain to the world, what is really going on, or why there has been recent ‘global warming’. Just know their explanation is nonsense, basic physics absolutely and undeniably forbids it. Everything else you read is either other scientists trying to show they know what is really going on (which obviously no one does at this point, entirely), or scientists or their followers trying to defend the indefensible, with complex, technical and always wrong-headed arguments.
“Of course, that unphysical loop of excess energy is just what they are calling the ‘greenhouse effect’. And it is garbage, and all the scientists who deny that, or refuse to see it for what it is, should be drummed out of science, or at least be required to undergo re-education. Because they are worse than first-year students, who are generally at least open to learning the hard truth.”
A little later, I realized the 390 W/m^2 supposed to be coming off the Earth’s surface was just that expected from a blackbody at the same temperature (288K), and then learned that the proponents of the radiation transfer theory (behind all those numbers in the “energy budget” diagrams and in discussions of “TOA radiation imbalance”) actually believe and teach, in their theory, that the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody poised in a vacuum. At this point, an honest and competent physicist can only recoil in horror, as if at a monstrous snake on one’s doorstep, and demand it be killed forthwith. And that’s where I stand, ever since. Trenberth is a miseducated idiot. All climate scientists are miseducated idiots, for not seeing that lie, of a huge loop of energy between atmosphere and ground, greater than that coming from the Sun, and expecting to get away with presenting it seriously to the world.
…and then I found the “skeptics” didn’t see it either, or pretended not to, because they never speak of it, that obviously ridiculous incompetence at the very heart of the consensus case.
And that (plus my Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison) is why I always say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists.