Saturday, June 11, 2016
The notrickszone site has a post debunking an AGW alarmist's theory about a slowdown in the Atlantic ocean circulation, to which I responded:
Yet this article (quoting from climatecentral.org) still says: "...greenhouse gas pollution causes ice sheets to melt, which prior research has shown is causing the circulation to slow overall."
So it doesn't even touch the core delusion, that there is a global-warming "greenhouse effect" and consequent global "climate change".
I also read a comment on the climate etc site of Judith Curry, by one of the many notorious defenders of the utterly false climate science (David Appell), reiterating that scientists have "shown" that the Sun can't be to blame for the "global warming", and that it must be CO2.
My short answer to everyone who believes in any part of the consensus climate science is
The Bottom Line About "Climate Science" and "Global Warming".
That evidence is patently clear, that there is no CO2 "greenhouse effect" at all, and further that it should not be surprising that climate scientists cannot explain their "global warming" as due to variability in the Sun's output, because THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS themselves are not to be trusted. Everybody, climate scientists included, uses 288K for the global mean surface temperature in their theories, in agreement with what the Standard Atmosphere says. Yet the Standard Atmosphere has "said" that for over a hundred years, and the global mean surface temperature "measured" today is LESS than 288K, by a few tenths of a degree, despite all the hysteria over a century of "global warming". My 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison--which I have claimed ever since to be the definitive correction to the utterly false climate science--precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model, so there can be no doubt that the Standard Atmosphere describes the real atmosphere, on the global scale, and it demands no "global warming" has occurred from the time the Standard Atmosphere was developed all the way up to 1991, the time the Magellan spacecraft took the Venus data I used in my comparison.
Even some consensus scientists confirm, albeit unintentionally, my position on the lack of any proved global warming at all. I recently came across, and communicated in a comment on the jonova site, this 2014 admission from a European Space Agency scientist: "A widely reported 'pause' in global warming may be an artefact of scientists looking at the wrong data, says a climate scientist at the European Space Agency. Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as 'lousy'."
Yet that data is what is presented to the world, defended in every debate, and obsessed over, month after month, by both sides in the climate debate. Climate science is "lousy", ladies and gentlemen. Period.
When the dust clears, this generation will be swept into the dustbin of history for its vehement and condescending denial of the clear truth, that there is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists today. After all this time, I would go further, and say there is no competent scientist throughout all of the earth and life sciences today--I have neither seen nor heard of any of them, whether alarmist or lukewarmer, accepting my Venus/Earth comparison as definitive, and its clear consequences for current climate science. There simply is no excuse for the rampant incompetence in science now, although there are clear reasons for it. I have explained the biggest reason on my blog, in the context of my own unprecedented scientific discoveries: The current scientific paradigm (which my discoveries replace) is failing, and has been failing from its inception. Science has chosen to nurture false dogma ever since Darwin, and almost completely so in the last half-century.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
I have just responded to a comment on the jonova site, from a skeptic who wanted to know how to respond to an AGW (anthropogenic global warming) believer, who claimed that skeptics "conflated natural with anthropogenic" factors in pointing out the infamous "global warming pause" since 1997, and so lacked mental acuity, or words to that effect. I responded by referring to a recent post of mine here:
To put it bluntly, you are dealing with a believer in current, politically correct dogma, sanctioned by an incompetent generation of scientists, who have worked for two generations to advance an utterly false climate science, and by all of our supposedly authoritative institutions, which have been suborned to that false science simply because they cannot imagine that so many scientists could be so wrong, or so evil in advancing false information to the world to protect their professional positions and income. You are not likely to get him or those who believe like him to change their minds by giving them either simple facts or convincing rhetoric. They muddy every argument that is brought before them.
However, in the context of proper attribution of global mean temperature variations to natural and anthropogenic factors, you could give them this link to a recent post of mine:
The Bottom Line About "Climate Science" and "Global Warming",
and point out that the false climate scientists have put out graphs to the public which basically blame all of the "global warming" on carbon dioxide (CO2), even though the temperature record shows no consistent temperature variation with increasing CO2. Even more astonishing, a century ago the global mean surface temperature, as indicated in the Standard Atmosphere model, was 288K, and after a century of supposed global warming the global temperature "measured" today is LESS than 288K, by a few tenths of a degree (and this, in the larger, and fundamental, context of the Standard Atmosphere having been precisely confirmed by my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, so it's no use arguing that the Standard Atmosphere doesn't apply, because it obviously does, quite accurately, and precisely). So, not only can "climate science" not disentangle natural from anthropogenic (and clearly does not want to even acknowledge the natural), it cannot prove there has even been any "global" warming; it cannot prove, to anyone who has seen the Standard Atmosphere precisely confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison, that it can even MEASURE the global mean surface temperature accurately enough to show any real global warming, from ANY combination of factors, both natural and anthropogenic.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
The climateaudit site has a post on the "Deflategate controversy is due to scientist error" (about the claim that the Patriots football team was deflating their footballs to give themselves an edge in games). My response to Stephen McIntyre:
"Information for Colt balls reconcile almost exactly, but there is a discrepancy of about 0.38 psi for Patriot balls. This discrepancy is almost exactly equal to the bias of referee Anderson’s Logo Gauge (orange) – a coincidence that should alarm any analyst of this data."
It is the single greatest and most widespread error in all of modern science, across all fields, that "coincidence" is never questioned as an "explanation" when an unlikely finding is encountered that is contrary to expectations, or to the supposedly "settled science". Even your own calling it a "coincidence" buys into that science-wide error, though you are quick to realize a proper analysis would have homed in on it and realized it is too unlikely a finding to have been due to the mere chance the numbers would fall out as they do. Modern scientists have become increasingly insensitive to judging the probability of highly unlikely findings, and questioning them to find the real cause in each case. This has led to a crisis of incompetence across all the physical sciences, especially the earth and life sciences, which my research (finding and conclusively verifying what can only be called "the great design of the 'gods'"--the next paradigm in science) shows all need to be re-thought, wholesale.
The masterresource site has a post on "six categories" of positions in the climate debate, according to Richard Mueller of UC Berkeley, who, the article says, should be an "important voice" in the debate. My response:
Bottom line: Mueller's categories are not valid, and he should not be "an important voice" for anyone looking for the truth. To say as he does that "warmists" stick to the science is a lie by omission, for they stick only to their "consensus" dogma, which has been shown, time and time again, to be utterly worthless. And his take on "deniers"--that as a group they "pay little attention to the details of the science"--is another lie; they are simply "skeptics" who have indeed studied the details presented by the "climate scientists", and over time have assured themselves that the warmists--both "alarmists" and "lukewarmers"--refuse to let go of their dogma long enough to realize that the consensus "climate science" is no such thing, is in fact completely counter to the observable facts. Mueller is worthless to anyone other than lukewarmers, who are trying to stake out their "reasonable middle" position as the only valid alternative to the alarmists. Politically, of course, that may seem reasonable, but it only kicks the chance for the scientific truth to be faced and accepted in this (or even the next) generation further into the future. The truth will out, but only those who know there is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists today, are actually on the side of true science.
The article concludes with "reasonable" advice on governmental climate policy, but it too is worthless, for in the current rampant incompetence in science, there can be no rational "climate action". The "science"--much less the politics--simply cannot be trusted at this time.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
The notrickszone site has a post by a Japanese scientist that says CO2 "climate sensitivity" (defined as the temperature increase to be expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is currently overstated, even "meaningless", because increasing the CO2 would change the temperature "lapse rate" in the atmosphere. My response:
All scientists should know by now that my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison already definitively showed there is no actual "CO2 global warming greenhouse effect".
Never mind doubling the CO2. The Venus atmosphere has over 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as does Earth's (that is 11.4 doublings of CO2, not just one doubling), without ANY effect upon the temperature at any given pressure level.
Further, since that Venus/Earth comparison precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model for Earth's troposphere as the true, stable equilibrium state of the atmosphere, it also confirms the physics behind that model, which is just that of the hydrostatic condition, that the pressure at any level in the troposphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level. And since the hydrostatic condition provides that the lapse rate MUST BE just -g/c, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and c is the effective specific heat of the atmosphere, the lapse rate has ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to do with the CO2 level in the atmosphere (certainly not in the trace amounts found in Earth's atmosphere, and even between Earth's .04% and Venus's 96.5%, as the Venus/Earth comparison I performed showed).
I have yet to come across ANY "expert", like the above author, who knows what they are talking about. The Venus/Earth temperature comparison makes them all appear incompetent.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
The Notrickszone has a post on the trouble with peer review, and the following is my (by now habitual) response:
Ordinary people need to understand that there are basically two kinds of scientist when it comes to the peer-review process: 1) Principal Investigators, and 2) Everyone else, including a) Research Associates, who are simply employees, without tenure, who can be "terminated"--fired--without cause, and b)"expert" (a meaningless word these days) consultants from other fields or other institutions (also known as "pals", as in "pal review", get it?).
When the subject of peer review comes up these days, I trot out my 2003 letter on peer review to the OMB, when it requested feedback on peer review (see also all 2003 Public Comments on Peer Review that they received).
My bottom line, from experience: "peer review ... is a system akin to that of independent feudal lords or warring tribal chiefs", i.e., those "Principal Investigators" whose main concerns are keeping their research grant money coming in year after year, and being taken as the unquestioned authorities in their fields (which mainly requires they never allow even the possibility they could be wrong about the "settled science", as the "Emperor" must be peerless, in their own minds). As you can see, the fundamental mindset is that of "survival of the fittest and I must be the fittest"--and (LEARN THIS, people) that mindset (also known as "the struggle for scarce resources") is NOT the way to the TRUTH in science (despite what you may think you have learned "the hard way" in life). True science--uncovering the truth--is NOT a competition (or a social construct, as in "postnormal science" or even a "consensus"), in any way, shape or form. It is, fundamentally, a single mind, learning something true (cause and effect) about the world--period.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
In the current insane atmosphere over supposed "global warming" -- due primarily to a long-nurtured, dogmatic incompetence in all the earth and life sciences, not just climate science (which explains why the wider science community has not, as a whole, been able to recognize and repudiate climate science's utter failure), and the "expert" incompetence elevated now to a political crisis of the first order, by an opportunistic, revolution-minded political party in power (so outrageous that I, a professionally and personally dispassionate physicist, know them as the Insane Left) -- the ordinary man or woman cannot know how really broken is our system, from the top down, and hence who to believe in the public "climate change" debate.
Given that largely unrecognized, yet revolutionary context, the following "boring" (to the non-scientist) calculations will, I am sure, not cause a ripple in the beliefs of most people, or in the actions now being implemented by their "leaders" (a laughable designation, I assure you, given the leaders' determined wrong-headedness regarding the physical truth about the "climate"). I will simply provide these few calculations, dispassionately and "for what its worth" (as one says when one doubts anyone is really listening).
My 2010 Venus/Earth comparison showed that there is no greenhouse effect, because only the difference in solar distances of the two planets is needed to explain the Venus/Earth atmospheric temperature ratio, despite Venus's almost pure--96.5%--carbon dioxide atmosphere compared to Earth's minuscule 0.04%. (Surprising as it may be to believers in the "greenhouse effect", this is quite precisely true, both above and below Venus's thick cloud cover; in fact, inside Venus's clouds, Venus's atmospheric temperature is SMALLER than expected by a constant few degrees, not larger as the "greenhouse effect" would make it). As I originally wrote in that 2010 report, and as I have continually claimed ever since, the precision with which the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is determined ONLY by their respective distances from the Sun, shows not only that there is no "greenhouse effect" observed on these two hugely differing planets, but their atmospheres must be warmed by incoming solar radiation, not by heat from the planets' surfaces as climate scientists assume and teach to each succeeding generation of students.
Let us see what would be the Venus/Earth temperature ratio if other physical conditions affected it. The major differences between Venus and Earth are in 1) the albedo, or fraction of incoming solar energy that is reflected rather than absorbed, and 2) the supposed "greenhouse effect". I have already mentioned how hugely Venus differs from the Earth in its atmospheric carbon dioxide level (96.5% vs. 0.04%). The difference in albedo is also large, some 70% of the incident solar energy in the case of Venus, vs. only 30% reflected by the Earth.
For simplicity, let the intensity of the incoming solar radiation at the Earth's distance from the Sun be one unit of intensity, and let the Earth-Sun distance be one unit of distance. The solar radiation varies with distance R from the Sun as 1 over R-squared. Venus's distance from the Sun is 0.724 of Earth's distance, so the incoming solar radiation at Venus is 1/(.724) squared, or 1.91 times the intensity of incoming solar radiation at Earth.
If only the strength of the incident solar energy mattered in determining the temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann formula tells us the temperature must vary as the fourth-root of that incoming energy, so the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at any given pressure in the atmosphere, should be the fourth-root of 1.91, or 1.176. At 1 bar pressure, T_earth = 288K, so T_venus would be 1.176 x 288K = 339K. In fact, this is what is observed for the actual Venus temperature at 1 bar pressure in its atmosphere.
But how can we explain that observed fact, when we know that different fractions of the incoming solar radiation are actually absorbed in the two planetary systems, and also the "greenhouse effect" in Venus's atmosphere should be much, much larger than in Earth's. Venus has over 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth; 96.5% is some 11.4 "doublings" of Earth's 0.04%. (Climate scientists use the concept of a "doubling" of the carbon dioxide in their pronouncements to the public; they express the atmospheric "climate sensitivity" as the temperature increase expected from a doubling of the carbon dioxide).
Consider first the supposed albedo effect upon the temperature:
At Earth, incident solar = 1 (our "standard unit"), and the albedo (reflected intensity) is 0.3, so
Absorbed solar, at Earth = 0.7
At Venus, incident solar = 1.91, and albedo is 0.7, so its absorbed intensity is 0.3 x 1.91 = 0.573, which = 0.819 of Earth's 0.7.
Thus, if the albedo, or the fraction actually absorbed by a planet-plus-atmosphere system, also mattered, its maximum effect, for the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, would give
T_venus/T_earth = fourth root of 0.819 = .951,
and for T_earth = 288K, T_venus = 274K,
Note this is much smaller than the observed value of 339K. So the "correction for albedo" imagined by consensus climate scientists is very large.
Now let's suppose there is also a "greenhouse effect" to be considered. It would have to offset the large albedo effect just calculated, i.e., provide a warming of at least 339K - 274K = 65K. This would require a CO2 climate sensitivity of almost 6K per doubling of CO2 (i.e., 65K/11.4 doublings = 5.7K per doubling.
No one claims such high values; the most alarmist of climate scientists themselves, and the UN IPCC, promulgate a value of 3K per doubling of CO2, while the "skeptics" generally tout a value around 1K per doubling of CO2.
The above calculations really add little to a competent scientist's understanding of my original Venus/Earth comparison (if any such scientist existed among the "authorities" one hears from these days). These calculations merely show that the only way to "explain" the observed Venus/Earth temperature ratio, within the consensus "albedo plus greenhouse effects" theory, is to massively play with the supposed CO2 "climate senitivity", in order to exactly balance two large and diametrically opposed "effects", so that they precisely add up to zero. In the real world, scientists know that this is very highly unlikely, basically impossible, when the two "effects" are physically independent of each other, as the albedo and carbon dioxide are. (The point is made even stronger when one considers that the "albedo effect" upon the temperature is a multiplicative one, while the "greenhouse effect" is an additive one, so that it requires a different CO2 climate sensitivity at each pressure level to zero the two "effects". Performing the above "albedo" calculation at the 200 mb pressure level, for example, T_earth = 211.6K, giving T_venus = .951 x 211.6K = 201.2K, which is only 45.9K less than the observed value of 247.1K, not 65K as at the 1 bar pressure; this would require a CO2 climate sensitivity of 45.9K/11.4, or 4K/doubling of CO2, in order to precisely balance the "albedo" and "greenhouse" effects at the 200 mb pressure level.) The real situation faced by consensus climate science is even worse than this, because in addition to the differences in albedo and carbon dioxide concentrations, Venus and Earth also differ in their planetary surfaces, with one all solid crust and the other 70% deep ocean. So consensus climate science is faced with the vain task of precisely balancing not just two, but three supposed "effects" upon the temperature (one of them additive while the other two are multiplicative), which "coincidentally" all zero out in order for only the solar distances to precisely and "coincidentally" explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio.
A competent scientist (that's me) knows better. A competent scientist knows, immediately from the precision of the Venus/Earth comparison, without needing to perform the explicit calculations above, that the atmosphere must be warmed only by incoming solar radiation, and so is not dependent, as the "greenhouse effect" is, upon a previously warmed planetary surface, nor upon any fraction of the Sun's radiation that is not directly absorbed by the atmosphere, including that which is reflected (hence, the albedo), by either clouds or the planetary surface.
On top of this simple scientific disproof of consensus climate science, of course, are the revelations of fraudulent adjustments to the world's temperature records, that fake global warming, and the hysterical claims, of imminent catastrophic "climate change", being made in the compliant media by environmental activists and "leaders" like U.S. President Obama, all of them committed not to the truth but to economic and political "transformation" of the world. They would make a new world order founded entirely upon lies.