Monday, May 13, 2013
Many critics of the current, false, climate consensus (on "global warming", or "climate change") like to point to plate tectonics (or continental drift) as an example of a once-heretical idea that overcame the former consensus to become the central idea of all the earth sciences today. Steven Goddard has made the latest such posting, and the following is my response, based upon my own, much more "heretical" research findings:
The bottom line is, truth is where you find it, not where everyone else is looking for it. Reality is what it is, not what you would like it to be. And the truth is, the older generations of geologists--geophysicists especially--had good reason to reject continental drift: They could see no physically acceptable cause for it. And it turns out Wegener only started a revolution whose real depth and breadth only my work now encompasses. (That is why I started a blog in 2009, as one more experiment in getting recognition of a new-yet-ancient paradigm, a new frame, particularly for the earth and life sciences.) See
The True Origin of Continental Drift
The Earth's surface was, in fact, deliberately reformed, to a great design:
Challenge to Earth Scientists
The whole solar system was reformed, and reoriented (and witnessed by men on Earth, and incorporated in what are dismissed today as the earliest myths, of men worldwide):
Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the Design, and Man
And there has even been independent confirmation of the Earth design (follow the "Independent Confirmation" link here).
Why is there still continental movement? I don't know (yet--and I see no reason to hurry to explain that). I only know the reason the continents moved in the past, to their present positions and orientations (and shapes): They were deliberately moved, to a great design, the mere shattered remembrance of which has guided, even dictated, the intellectual voyage of mankind on Earth ever since.
The words, "be not quick to judge", come to mind here, and so I pass them along to you as well.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Dr. Roy Spencer, another in the Church of The Lukewarm Greenhouse Effect, tells deniers of that effect to "put up or shut up", to which I have responded:
After all this time, everyone still clings to their own pet statement of a "greenhouse effect", when the only valid statement--promulgated to the public for over 20 years -- is "an increase in global mean surface temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide".
But a simple 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 a constant (there is no ADDED temperature on Venus due to its much higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and in fact a constant that is PRECISELY explained by Venus's smaller distance from the Sun, and nothing else (except within Venus's cloud layer, between about 650 and 200 mb pressure, where the Venus temp. is about 5K LOWER--in other words, a minor ADDITIVE effect within the clouds themselves--than that calculated, simply, from the Standard Atmosphere model here on Earth and the ratio of solar distances of the two planets).
"Lukewarmers" like Spencer and Watts are stymied by their unswerving belief in the radiative transfer theory. My Venus/Earth demonstration of the absolute absence of a greenhouse effect--as I define it, and as it is sold to the public--implies the radiative transfer theory is also wrong, physically; but I am not about arguing theories, and I don't feel any need to put forward a better one to replace theirs. I only insist that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is the definitive evidence that denies their theory. Contrary to Spencer's insistence heretofore, the onus is on defenders of the consensus greenhouse theory to demonstrate quantitatively, that the observed Venus/Earth constant temperature ratio--needing nothing but the ratio of their solar distances to explain--arises naturally from their theories. I have already demanded you put up or shut up, many times over the last two and a half years. Instead, you go on about how you "observe" the greenhouse effect (but not the one that counts), without confronting the definitive evidence that denies that effect's existence (specifically, in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth). How lukewarmers can fight against the alarmists, and often give evidence that the global warming "greenhouse effect" must be very small, nevertheless are dogmatically set against admitting that effect is zero, is all that separates you from the "Slayers", in the end. (And no, I am not one of them; they like to say carbon dioxide is a coolant, but my Venus/Earth comparison says that is no more correct than that it is a heater. It is a "heat lubricant", whose increase only speeds up heat transfer--by radiation--within the atmosphere, without changing either the lapse rate or the surface mean temperature; it neither traps nor slows down heat).
Friday, April 26, 2013
I have submitted the following comment, on CO2 climate sensitivity, to the bishop hill site:
The ongoing CO2 climate sensitivity debate is a festering parade of incompetence. Outside of 1975-2000, the up-and-down global temperature record does not correlate with the level of CO2 in the air (but it does correlate, quite well, with the multidecadal ocean oscillations, on top of a presumed half-degree-per-century of warming since the Little Ice Age--so why bother with CO2 at all, why treat the CO2 "greenhouse" theory as sound and settled, is the proper scientific question). When one looks for the simplest, most definitive evidence to force the "consensus" to admit the obvious--that CO2 is not to blame, and their models which assume it is are simply bad science enshrined as "settled"--one need go no further than a proper Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures). Then one finds a definitive rethinking of basic atmospheric warming theory is forced by those two real, detailed atmospheres--a rethinking that denies any global-warming "greenhouse effect" at all, and any non-zero CO2 climate sensitivity whatsoever:
CO2 Climate Sensitivity Vs. Reality
...and one is embarrassed by the continued childish fussing and fighting that masquerades as "expert" estimates, of that which simply does not exist, according to that most simple, competent comparison of the Temperature-vs-Pressure curves of Venus and Earth. One realizes climate science is a farce, and a fraud, and above all a mass delusion, and one wonders how to disabuse the world of that delusion before it is too late--when even the "lukewarmers" insist the "basic science" is settled. (The basic science is a total lie, gentlemen and ladies. You are pursuing a phantom, created by the most incompetent scientists ever, and are rendered incompetent yourselves thereby. You are made idiots by your continued serious consideration of patently false science. You are mumbling incoherently in a madhouse, and you need to slap yourselves out of it, and refuse to dignify idiot "experts"--alarmists and lukewarmers alike--any further....unless you or they can explain, within the "consensus" theory, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio should be precisely (!) due only to the relative distances of the two planets from the Sun, and nothing else. Hint: You cannot, and they cannot. Their science is doomed.)
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Anyone who has followed the climate debates on the internet knows that even most "skeptics" of runaway global warming (and all of those who ever make the news or have a large audience on their blogs) accept the consensus "greenhouse effect" and the idea of a "CO2 climate sensitivity", or theoretically expected global mean surface temperature (GMST) increase with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2--due, everyone is brainwashed to believe, in increasing fossil fuel consumption by man). Anthony Watts has posted yet another article by one of his fellow-believers, arguing for a significant value of the CO2 climate sensitivity (albeit smaller than that claimed by the alarmist climate scientists). The following is my response, to any who are still capable of thinking for themselves on the subject, and who want definitive, quantitative proof of the truth of the matter.
Anyone who wants to keep worrying about the "CO2 climate sensitivity" needs to explain why, in the Venus/Earth temperature comparison I performed well over 2 years ago, there is none at all: Venus has 96.5% CO2 to Earth's less than .04%, yet the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant due entirely and precisely to the ratio of their distances from the Sun and nothing else (no "greenhouse effect" contribution, no "difference in planetary albedo" contribution--no anything but the difference in the solar distance).
The precision with which the solar distance, by itself, explains the Venus/Earth temperature ratio--at points of equal pressure, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures--is nothing short of amazing, in the present tattered intellectual climate, in which the greenhouse effect is adamantly, vehemently claimed to be "settled science", and even most "skeptics" smugly argue for SOME CO2 climate sensitivity. But the Venus/Earth comparison says that smug certainty is a lie, and there simply is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, AT ALL.
If one is dense enough, after studying my Venus/Earth analysis, to demand what that analysis shows the CO2 climate sensitivity to be, here is what it says:
First, for over half of the range of Earth tropospheric pressures (between ~650 - 250 mb), the Venus temperature is COOLER, by about 5°K, than is predicted from the solar distances alone. But as indicated in my original analysis, in this pressure range lies the thick planetary cloud cover of Venus. Below that range--between 1,000 and 700 mb--the temperature ratio is essentially just that predicted from the solar distances alone; above the cloud layer as well (at 200 mb), the ratio again comes back to very near the "solar distances only" prediction, though not quite all the way (the Venus temperature there is only ~1.7K cooler than so predicted)
The best estimate of the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 alone, then, is made with those points below the Venus cloud layer. For the 4 points in that pressure range, in my original analysis, the Venus/Earth temperature ratio varies between 1.172 (at 800 mb) and 1.178 (at 1,000 mb), with the average being 1.175.
(The uncertainty in that measured ratio is just the uncertainty in the Venus temperature (1.4K) divided by the corresponding Earth temperature (average 278.3K, for those 4 points), or +/-.005.)
Now 1.175 is just .001 less than the 1.176 predicted by the solar distances alone, and since that error is much less than the +/- .005 uncertainty, it should be immediately obvious that there is no greenhouse effect, without even bothering to calculate a "CO2 climate sensitivity". But let's do so anyway. That .001 "error" in the temperature ratio gives a possible error of only .001 x T_earth, or about -.3K, from the Venus temperature predicted by solar distances alone (that is, using 1.176 for the ratio). If one assumes that -.3K difference is due entirely to the "CO2 greenhouse effect", then the maximum CO2 climate sensitivity (in degrees K per doubling of CO2) is -.3K divided by the number of doublings, between ~353 ppm on Earth (in October 1991, when the Venus data was obtained) and 965,000 ppm (96.5%) on Venus--which is 11.4 doublings of CO2, so that -.3K/11.4 = -.026K/doubling of CO2, or about -.03K/doubling (a slight negative number, note), for the CO2 sensitivity.
But with an uncertainty of +/- 1.4K in the Venus temperature (see my original analysis), the uncertainty in the CO2 climate sensitivity is +/- 1.4/11.4 = .12K/doubling.
So my Venus/Earth comparison demands that the CO2 climate sensitivity must be less than
( -.026 +/- .12) K/doubling
and since the indicated sensitivity is much smaller than the uncertainty, the CO2 climate sensitivity revealed by my Venus/Earth comparison must be reported as
essentially zero (0),
...which is just a precise quantitative statement of the fact that has been obvious all along, that the Venus/Earth comparison shows there is NO greenhouse effect, period. Only solar distance counts in the detailed comparison of these two vastly different planet-plus-atmosphere systems. And the physical reason is because both atmospheres are fundamentally and globally warmed in precisely the same way: by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar energy (and NOT from the planetary surface, as almost everyone--and certainly every mis-titled "expert"--believes is the case on Earth).
Added Note: In the above, there are in fact three different, but equivalent, quantitative statements to demonstrate that there is no greenhouse effect of increasing temperature with increasing CO2:
1) The error between measured Venus temperature and that predicted from Earth's Standard Atmosphere and the smaller solar distance of Venus = (-0.3 +/- 1.4)K,
2) The error between measured and predicted Venus/Earth temperature ratio = -.001 +/- .005,
3) The possible size of the CO2 climate sensitivity = zero (-.026 +/- .12)(K/doubling of CO2)
In all three quantitative statements, the (+/-) uncertainty is about 5 times the error, indicating the error is entirely negligible
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Global warming "skeptic" Anthony Watts, on his wattsupwiththat site, has once again shown his intense antipathy towards those who disbelieve in the "greenhouse effect" (although, as a "lukewarmer", he limits his own belief in it, and disavows the "catastrophic" global warming of consensus climate scientists). I simply pointed him and his readers to the main points of my definitive posts:
No part of the "global energy budget" can be greater than the incident energy,
There is NO increase in atmospheric temperature with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, at any given pressure in the troposphere,
and, last but not least,
The System is Broken (and Anthony Watts and others of like mind are not helping as much as they think).
Thursday, March 7, 2013
The Steven Goddard site has a post on "It must be the CO2" (he rightly ridicules the idea), and the following is my response:
My Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the key of which is to do the comparison at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures) established that the Standard Atmosphere model for Earth--as developed over many years of temperature measurements around the globe, and well-known for over a century--agrees precisely with the actual vertical temperature distribution on Venus as measured on ONE DAY (October 5, 1991) by the Magellan spacecraft: The temperature vs. pressure (T-P) curves of the two planets are essentially the same, when they are corrected for the difference in incident solar radiation, due only to the two planets' different distances from the Sun AND NOTHING ELSE (which, first of all, immediately and completely disproves the carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect", since Venus has over 2400 times the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as does Earth, yet that difference has no effect on the T vs. P curve).
Most fundamentally, however, my Venus/Earth comparison establishes that the Venus atmosphere must be always in equilibrium (if October 5, 1991 on Venus agrees precisely with the many years of temperature measurements, throughout Earth's atmosphere), and further, that the Earth's atmosphere is also always in near-equilibrium--on the global scale, with minor local and transient variations, due to day and night, wind, and weather--with that equilibrium being well and truly represented by the Standard Atmosphere model.
Beyond that, my Venus/Earth comparison (which, as competent scientists should already know, is the definitive correction to climate science now) establishes that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not from the separately warmed planetary surface. Again, that is on the global scale; obviously, there are local and transient effects, again the main players being day vs. night (with many cities, in particular, being urban heat islands, which often see a local temperature inversion developing overnight, in the lowest 1 km or so of the atmosphere, as the surface cools faster than the near-surface tropospheric temperature lapse rate structure can handle) and local weather (due to uneven heating of the daylit surface, as a function of latitude, or incident solar angle, for example).
So unless there is a change in the strength of the incident solar radiation--in particular, in that portion that is directly absorbed by the atmosphere (which incompetent critics of my Venus/Earth comparison can't seem to get into their heads, preferring instead to claim I "failed to consider the difference in albedo")--the ruling Standard Atmosphere model (as precisely confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison) assures us there can be no change in the global mean surface temperature.
Promulgators of the multidecadal ocean oscillations theory, on top of a presumed warming since the minimum temperature of the Little Ice Age (around 1680, in the expositions I have read) have shown their theory matches the global mean temperature record since that time (while the "greenhouse" theory does not). In the context of what my Venus/Earth comparison has demonstrated about the constancy of the global Earth atmosphere, however, and in view of the uncertainties in the temperature records (especially with the fraudulent adjustments to some of those records that have been uncovered, by Steven Goddard, and even myself), one has to wonder if any scientific confidence at all should be placed in those temperature records; in particular, as I have commented numerous times, if the climate scientists have not really been measuring the true global mean temperature with their sampling algorithms, but have instead merely been unintentionally measuring a proxy for the multidecadal oscillations (the ocean covers 71% of the globe they are trying to sample, after all), that would explain the observed strong correlation of global temperature and ocean oscillations, and even the modest 1° or so of supposed global warming over the last century may be fictitious; until recently, I was amused by the fact that some scientists were saying (as if it were common knowledge) that the global mean surface temperature (GMST) was around 14.7°C, when for a century the Standard Atmosphere has given that temperature as 15°C--higher than the supposed current temperature, despite a century of supposed warming. (However, lately I have seen efforts being made to counter my miniscule but definitive ridicule, with the inner cadre of "consensus" climate scientists claiming the GMST is 15.7°C. So I know they are listening to me, and working hard to stay ahead of the ridicule they so rightly deserve. But the 15.7°C claim is still at odds with the definitive(!) Venus/Earth comparison, because the latter confirms 15°C, not 15.7--that is how precise the comparison is.)
All of this, of course, is happening in the immediate context of a political war, being waged by what I call the Insane Left, upon all those they want to demonize and marginalize in the public mind. The majority of voices you gather information from, particularly the mainstream media (but even the "lukewarm skeptics" in the climate debates), are incompetently and/or fraudulently pretending the system is working as it should--but it is not, and reality and recognition of the objective, scientific truth were the first victims in the war. You cannot stop the insanity if you will not recognize it as insanity, if people will not recognize the system is broken.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The wuwt site has a post on "Categorical Thinking"--unfortunately, done in the service of the categorical thinking of lukewarmists in the climate debate (actually, political War)--and the following is my response:
It is as if, in a large classroom, one student has stood up here and made the above speech. In reality, he is just a student, and not a particularly good one, yet he talks like he is the professor, who has the answers required in the course. If it were not a classroom situation, everyone could spend time on his points, agreeing here and disagreeing there, but in the end his inexpertness--indeed, his incompetence in the handling of categories (so that he succumbs to them: "I am unable to understand why people act this way, but at least now I can categorize it!")--is what should shine through. He himself categorizes falsely. He thinks the proper way to think about climate is "how much warming?", and that of course is in line with Anthony Watts' thinking, known as the "lukewarm" position. Unfortunately, it is incompetent thinking, the result of forty years of miseducation of climate scientists. And it is all of the incompetent scientists who have allowed the fearful and tyrannical dogma--not "category", childish moderns, but good old fashioned dogma (the "greenhouse effect", of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide)--to energize what is now, in fact, political insanity at the highest levels of governmental authority.
The bell rang on the scientific bottom line--that the Standard Atmosphere model describes the real, equilibrium state of the atmosphere, and there is no destabilizing, global warming greenhouse effect--long ago, and without a real professor in sight, who knows that bottom line, this class has been dismissed for some time now. You are merely keeping the insanity going, by deluding yourself, and those who follow you blindly (dogmatically), that you have the answers.