Zero Greenhouse Effect: The Only Thing That Can Save Climate Science

Prof. Claes johnson has returned to the greenhouse debate, with another argument for zero greenhouse effect, to which I have responded:

Academics, I have found, are one and all confused about "blackbodies", to such an extent that just a competent, independent physicist (not climate scientist) like myself knows enough more than they (you) do to be competent -- there are no competent climate scientists, in my professional (but heretical, according to consensus scientists) estimation.

One can gain insight by using the Standard Atmosphere model of the Earth's troposphere, whose validity I precisely confirmed when I compared the temperatures in that range of pressures to the temperatures in the Venus atmosphere at the same pressure points (see my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect", which is the definitive disproof of the greenhouse effect, along with several other fundamental mistaken beliefs in the consensus theory, including that the atmosphere is warmed by absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the warmed planetary surface as scientists almost universally believe). Then one can see your hypothesis above is not correct, for several reasons:

1) The 100 mb level in Earth's atmosphere is above the troposphere, thus outside the range of the tropospheric lapse rate structure. The top of Earth's troposphere, in the Standard Atmosphere, is about 226 mb pressure (or roughly 200 mb, not 100 mb).

2) I aver there is no such thing as "radiating like a blackbody", without specifying the other forms of heat transport from the body. A body, black or otherwise, will radiate at whatever rate is necessary so that, in combination with the convection and conduction of heat from the body, total outgoing power equals incident power at constant temperature. A blackbody will only radiate as much power as it absorbs, at constant temperature, if it is surrounded by vacuum and can only lose heat through radiation. That should be obvious to physicists working in the field, since otherwise any additional energy lost through convection and conduction would not be balanced (i.e., only the incident and outgoing radiational powers being considered balanced).

3) If by "blackbody temperature" you mean the solution of the equation

S( 1 - α )/4 = σ T^4, S=incident solar intensity

then even at 226 mb -- the actual top of Earth's tropospheric lapse rate structure -- the temperature is not the blackbody temperature of the Earth (with α = 0.3). Your hypothesis doesn't work, both because you consider the wrong pressure level as "top of the lapse rate", and because, despite what climate scientists believe, NO level within the atmosphere, within or even above the troposphere, emits strict blackbody radiation (nor CAN it so emit, from elementary physical considerations of the existence of convection and conduction within the atmosphere--so the radiative transfer theory as used by climate scientists is wrong).

I outlined what I believe is the proper use of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equation here, where I emphasize that the key is the radiational power ABSORBED (if a blackbody and non-blackbody, in a vacuum, both absorb the same power, they will necessarily attain the same temperature).

I firmly believe--and have determinedly said so for over two years now--that climate science WILL NOT ADVANCE, unless and until my Venus/Earth analysis is properly confronted and accepted, by the scientific community, as the definitve evidence for correcting climate science. No one can identify what errors still need to be corrected, including my own if there are any, until they understand the fundamental correctness of my Venus/Earth analysis, and its critical importance.

Incompetent Climate Science Defenders

The incompetent climate debate shows no sign of improving, with climate scientists and their defenders showing total disdain for "deniers" like me. The following is my response to David Whitehouse, whose latest article, on the climaterealists site, pretends to make short work of those who most disdain the "consensus":

"Let's get one thing over quickly. ..." You have just lost all credibility with that paragraph. It should have been absolutely clear, to any competent physical scientist, for two years now (ever since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which is definitive), that there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide--that is a fact:

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

Anyone who would dispute my Venus/Earth analysis, must show quantitatively, within the "consensus" theory (or their own pet theory, for that matter), why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is precisely--precisely--due to the ratio of the distances of the two planets from the Sun, and nothing else; no one has been able to do that, no one has even come close to doing it, so it remains wholly unexplained within consensus climate theory. Yet it has a simple, physically clear explanation, immediately obvious to a competent physicist: The two atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not from a warmed planetary surface--in fact, they are warmed by direct absorption of the same fraction of that incident solar radiation. No one wants to admit that, because it is clear they have all been incompetent in their thinking about how the atmosphere is warmed. My Venus/Earth analysis is seminal, but too hard a lesson for today's climate scientists and their defenders to face, honestly and humbly before the facts.

Carl Sagan championed the greenhouse effect--directly to James Hansen--and thus played a large part in getting it accepted into mainstream, "consensus" science. He does not deserve the respect of students of science, for misleading two generations and more of them. And you, David Whitehouse, are just one of the legion of braying voices that pretend to judge reasonably and expertly, but are in fact completely incompetent--just another false voice, exercising a false aura of expertise.

No, Virginia, There Is No CO2 Climate Sensitivity

The fools continue to anguish over the "carbon dioxide climate sensitivity", in a Wall Street Journal article, by one Matt Ridley, discussed on the bishop hill site. The following is my (by now harsh) response:

And so the incompetent debate goes on. You people are largely stuck in "la-la land" (as some have characterized it) with the alarmists, your thinking premised and conditioned upon the Insane Left's political abuse of the incompetent climate consensus. I refuse to accept or suborn such idiocy, and speak for those who know the science well enough to deny the consensus utterly. Mr. Montford (Bishop Hill) will probably want to refuse to air this comment, but it needs to be said: I have directed everyone, for 2 years now, to my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which proves that there is NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT, OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE WITH INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE, WHATSOEVER. Any of you who think you are competent to do it, can analyze the Venus/Earth temperature ratios I have presented at the above-linked site, and closely estimate the indicated CO2 climate sensitivity, given that Venus has 96.5% CO2 in its atmosphere, while Earth has only 0.04%. (To do it properly, you should restrict your analysis to the part of Venus's atmosphere, in the range of Earth tropospheric pressures of course, which is either above or below the Venus cloud layer -- 1,000 mb down to 700 mb, below the clouds, and 200 mb, above them; in that range, you will find there is no discernible CO2 effect at all, whether warming or cooling. Within the clouds, there is a non-CO2, constant cooling effect of about 5°C) The answer is -0.03°C +/- 0.1°C -- or essentially, ZERO temperature change -- per doubling of CO2. Are there ANY competent physical scientists out there who can verify that for themselves? Frankly I doubt it, after 2 years. Matt Ridley is a fool, Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) is a fool, anyone (like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton, etc.) who thinks the "greenhouse effect" is a valid global-warming theory, is a fool. You are all playing with the insane, by their insane rules, simply because you refuse to confront and accept the observed Venus/Earth temperature ratio as clearly due only to the solar distances of the two planets. CO2 climate sensitivity is bunk -- period.

IPCC's Self-Indictment

The leaking of the latest IPCC report, not yet officially finished, is the "talk of the climate blogs" now. The following is my response, in a comment on the notrickszone site, where incidentally the following figure was presented with faulty citation:

These self-admissions by the IPCC should be understood, by honest people, as an admission of guilt, and an admission that their science is a failure. They should not be granted any authority or respect from this point; they have indicted themselves at this late date, only in order to escape the noose and retain their authority, and this cannot be allowed, if science itself (not to mention the political process, in every nation) is to be rehabilitated.

Also, the last figure above is not original to Vahrenholt and Lüning, and certainly not with their recent book. Look up Akasofu on the net, he used (and may well have originated) the image several years ago, and it is well known to anyone who has looked into the multidecadal ocean oscillations -- on top of recovery from the Little Ice Age -- theory of global warming.

[The following is the original image as I have it on hand, though without a link for it]

That's one of the really fundamental problems with the AGW fraud: It has made it necessary for scientists like me, unconnected with the academic world, to write internet articles about it "on the fly", and thus short-circuit the normal procedure for publishing in science (the peer review process, which allowed and has sustained the incompetence and fraud); in doing so, however, those of us who have made pertinent or even definitive and seminal discoveries in climate science have no protection of our priority of discovery but the openness of our internet writing and the general honesty of our audience. The enemy -- academics who champion the global warming "consensus" theories -- of course act as if only peer-reviewed articles can be taken into account, but readers here should know that is the way a fraudulent institutional agenda is protected: by claiming theirs is the only way the "debate" can be conducted and judged. The bottom line is, science has been fundamentally perverted, and it cannot be investigated and corrected from within, by those who have continued to abuse and corrupt it. Yet prior discoveries must be respected, because the truth, and thus science, demands it.

The Newtown Massacre, and The Key to Wisdom

The mass killing of a class of kindergarten students and their adult school guardians has touched a strong chord in the country, and no doubt around the world. The following is a response I wrote after reading the post, "Lambs Against Wolves":

Anyone who would attain real wisdom in this life must first come, on their own, to the realization that there is more to one's life than life on Earth, in the physical. That greater life is in a higher realm, known to man throughout history (and long before) as "spirit". The two realms -- with the lesser physical "inside" of the greater spiritual -- are bound by an overarching meaning, or meaningfulness, and can both be experienced in our thought, or mental life. (I sometimes point out that no one knows where their more insightful thoughts come from -- instantly showing us a greater meaning than we were aware of before -- and the reason is because they come, "fullbllown" as the saying goes, from the spiritual level of reality.) It is that higher realm that, in the end, gives meaning to this physical life, which is really just a learning life, in a physical classroom. What happened in Newtown is to us now a sudden, intensely frightening end of life, which happened to the most innocent of us. But that is just the viewpoint of a soul which is focused on the physical only, whose faith is in the physical. In the higher reality, in which we all truly live, nightmares (and one can liken the Newtown massacre to any nightmare, no matter how often repeated, that seems to threaten the meaning of our life) are only meant to enable each of us to finally realize that, while everything in this life has meaning, there is no ultimate meaning here, for physical life itself ends, for everyone--and meaning has no end, it is eternal, so it cannot be limited to physical life. Put another way, you can verify for yourself that every nightmare you have ever had came to an end, immediately upon waking; for every nightmare that occurs in this life, relief inevitably and mercifully comes (mercifully, as in "The quality of mercy is not strained; it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven" upon each and every soul), and the terror, especially the apparent meaninglessness, instantly evaporates.

Climate Science Denies the Standard Atmosphere, In Order to Save Itself Embarrassment

I have just learned, from a comment on Steven Goddard's Real Science site, that climate scientists have announced a new value of the average surface temperature on Earth, of 14°C. This, however, amounts to an unjustified and unauthorized trashing of the Standard Atmosphere model, which has for a century or more given 15°C as that average surface temperature.

Anyone who has read my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which uses the Standard Atmosphere model, knows that model is precisely confirmed by that analysis. There is no room for an arbitrary change in the mean surface temperature by even that 1°C now being arbitrarily claimed by climate scientists.

I have, in the past two years, made the comment on a few sites that the mean surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere model, which my analysis confirmed, is warmer than that propounded by today's climate scientists, even after a century of supposed global warming. It is utterly clear to me that they could not deal with such a trenchant criticism of their fraudulent theory of global warming. So they deny the Standard Atmosphere, hoping that thereby no one can anymore embarrass them with it, and hoping also that my confirmation of the Standard Atmosphere, and definitive disproof of their theory, will go away. It will not -- ever. Climate scientists have all doomed themselves, not the Earth.

Hurricane/Tropical Storm Strengths, 1851 to 2010

Hurricane Sandy has caused much discussion on all the climate blogs I have visited lately, such as climate etc. The continuing question -- already considered answered in the affirmative by climate alarmists -- is whether Sandy was somehow due to global warming. Here is my short response:

What is the effect, upon the available atmospheric energy, of a change of about 1°C of global warming over the last century? The equipartition theorem tells us that the molecular energy is proportional to the absolute (Kelvin) temperature, so the fractional change in energy is equal to the fractional change in temperature, or 1°/T, with T the average temperature of the lower atmosphere. The mass mean temperature of the troposphere in the Standard Atmosphere model (which I confirmed in my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison) is 259.4K. So an increase of 1°C, or 1K, in the mean temperature means a fractional increase in the available energy of 1/259.4, or about 0.004.

If we define a hurricane by a representative wind velocity within it, then the energy in the storm should vary as the square of that velocity. Suppose we have a hurricane defined by a 75 mph windspeed; the square of that is 5625. Now raising the temperature by 1°C should increase the energy to 1.004 its former value -- 1.004 times 5625 = 5647.5, and the square-root of that, 75.15, would be the new wind velocity expected for the storm. But distinguishing a storm with 75 mph winds from one with 75.15 mph winds, in my estimation at least, is not possible (this estimate of the effect is rough, of course, but it is certainly within an order of magnitude, and if the effect were ten times larger, we would still be looking at trying to distinguish 76.5 mph winds from 75 mph ones). So we shouldn't expect to see any increase in hurricane intensities, or destructive power, on average, with only a 1°C rise in global temperature.

And if we look at the tropical storm and hurricane data, from 1851 to the present, at this site, we can find and plot the average intensity of all tropical storms (including those that became hurricane force) over that time period:

The horizontal black line in the above image is the best fit linear trend line. It has a slope of -0.0006/decade, or essentially zero. There has in fact been no observable increase in average atlantic storm strength, over the range of the data. (In the above graph, the decadal average strength of all atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes is calculated according to the hurricane categories, 1 to 5, and each tropical storm taken as a category zero.) This is not the whole story, of course, but in my view it is the bottom line conclusion to be drawn from the data, as well as from the simple theoretical estimate above.

On Climate Science and the Nobel Prize: Indict the Entire Process

Many blogs are castigating climate scientist Michael Mann for claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, when that prize was in fact awarded to the IPCC, although even the IPCC presented certificates to Mann (and many other scientists) whose work led to that award. I don't much care about going after the small fry, however; I prefer to strike at the heart of a problem. Following are two comments on the present episode that I have made on other blog sites.

At notrickszone:

I consider all of the IPCC-associated climate scientists to be incompetent to the point of mental delusion, and every one of them responsible for bringing worldwide shame and loss of trust upon science itself. But the added certificate clearly says, "Presented to Michael E. Mann for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". It doesn't appear to claim the Nobel Prize was awarded to Mann. You must know, as I do, that the shame for this particular fiasco remains firmly with the Nobel Prize committee that picks the winners. It is first and foremost the IPCC and the Nobel committee that stand disgraced and humiliated, in my book -- and you can tack on the names of Mann et al. after that prime indictment (just as Mann's "trick" here does), as a piggyback.

And at tomnelson:

All of this rests firmly upon the foundation of a quite general incompetence among climate scientists. On top of that is the fraudulent promulgation of that false science by the IPCC -- which has suborned all of our institutions -- and on top of the latter is the awarding of an unearned Nobel Prize to the IPCC by the Nobel Committee. If you just castigate Mann for inflating his sense of professional worth, and leave intact and unindicted the reputations of the Nobel Prize itself, of the IPCC, and of the climate scientists who enabled the IPCC in its fraud, then you miss the real lesson to be learned -- that all of those now piling on Mann's reputation have no credibility either, in the larger, true picture, because they fail to provide that picture to their readers, and thus to the world.

Interlude: "The Heart's Desire" Vs. the "Facts On the Ground"

Steven Goddard presents yet another small post on the whoppers that hysterical climate alarmists are routinely throwing on the flames of public opinion (built upon a bed of public ignorance). I have submitted the following response, which I consider a key to understanding the times:

Here is a clue...we are all seeing, or about to see in the coming months and years, why believing that "You create your own reality" is like children running with sharp scissors. Expansive ideas, at odds with the facts on the ground, as they say. People now just want to wipe away any and all opposition to what each one thinks is the attainment of his/her highest aspirations, the fulfilling of ones own creativity, "naturally" blossoming in a brighter, happier world. (Just think, that is all the jihadists are trying to do as well.) Sorry folks, but obviously that is not how the reality of this planet was designed. There are things, like climate (or the fundamental opposition of the nonbeliever in your pet dogma), that were set in clockwork design from the beginning, and which man does not (yet) have the wisdom or power to direct.

An unrecognized, overarching design to the world -- in all things, including the inner urgings of man -- is the key.

US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Steven Goddard in recent months has been presenting evidence on his real-science site of fraudulent manipulation, by NASA and other renowned federal scientific institutions, of the temperature data used by climate scientists to promulgate global warming hysteria. Goddard has presented the following graph, showing that adjustments made to the US temperature records have systematically lowered past temperatures and raised more recent ones, to give a false indication of warming over the past century and more:

The indicated adjustments looked familiar to me, as being like the actual change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as measured at Mauna Loa since 1957:

I submitted a comment, suggesting that a graph comparing the temperature adjustments with the measured change in carbon dioxide "would be nice", but I then decided to do it quickly myself, working from the above graphs:

The correlation between the temperature adjustments (which should, it must be emphasized, have nothing to do with the atmospheric carbon dioxide) and the carbon dioxide level is extremely good; the correlation coefficient (R-square value) for the best-fit line above is 0.974. This means virtually all (97%) of the change in the US temperature adjustments, from 1960 through 2010, is due to the measured change in carbon dioxide. The US temperatures have quite apparently been deliberately changed according to the level of carbon dioxide, and can therefore not be used to even suggest, much less prove, that the US has warmed due to increasing carbon dioxide. I consider this the smoking gun that those adjustments made to the US temperature record are indeed fraudulent. This -- along with Steven Goddard's recent efforts to uncover such fraud -- should be made front-page news, worldwide. (Of course, I have already, 2 years ago, showed that there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- and that too should have already become worldwide news.)

Happening Now: On the Fruits of Unsupported Dogma Over Reason in America

This blog is about my scientific discovery of a great design, that sheds new light on the many dogmas that have plagued mankind throughout history. But we are now in a climactic time, when dogmas both ancient and modern are threatening once again our hard-won civilization. This requires of men and women today a heightened sense of the need for good reason, over the superficial but potent attractions of those selling only empty dogma. The situation is now that the leader of the free world, the current President of the United States, is offering such empty promises, without any sense of what it would take to actually deliver on those promises. He literally does not know what he is doing, as no proper foundation has been laid for it to be done suddenly now, by him. I will let the following article, which I agree with wholeheartedly, speak for me today, and I recommend all the followers of President Obama and the American Left to confront their belief in him with the facts about him:

America's Last Hurrah?

By the way: I am an independent thinker and dispassionate physical scientist, and I voted for Democrats for President from 1976 through 2004. I am a truthseeker, and as it has turned out over the last 20 years, a Discoverer in the epic tradition of the founders of modern science. I will take no political comments here, as I am interested only in human enlightenment, not in control over others' minds and hearts.

How Do We Stop the Fraudulent Science?

The real-science site has a post on climate data manipulation at NOAA, and asks at the end, how do we stop this fraudulent US government activity? I have responded:

At root it's scientific incompetence, only compounded by two generations of miseducation and a generation of political manipulation on top of that. First we have to have a new top-down political leadership that understands "climate policy" is an absurdity at the present state of the science. At nearly the same time, we need a top-down recognition among scientists and scientific institutions that a thorough, fundamental rethinking of climate science is needed. I can tell you how to do it in a decisive way, but how to do it practically eludes even me, and you're not going to like it, because I have said it many times over the last 2 years or so: Force every interested physical scientist to explain, within the consensus theory, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio does not show an additive "greenhouse effect", due to the much larger concentration of CO2 in Venus's atmosphere over Earth's, but that temperature ratio is instead a constant, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures in both atmospheres, and that constant is completely and precisely explained by the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun, and NOTHING ELSE. If they can't do that, they MUST ACCEPT the need for a fundamental rethinking of climate science. Calling it a "coincidence" is not allowed; they must explain, quantitatively, how their theory necessarily produces that amazing result. NONE of those who have dismissed my little analysis, or my simple interpretation of the physical reason for it (both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, and indeed both by absorption of the same fraction of that incident radiation) have even come close to doing that; those that have tried, have promulgated nonsense (or avoided the problem by calling it a "coincidence", as already noted). And, since climate scientists will all have clearly failed in their professional responsibility to promulgate science in agreement with definitive observations (the Venus/Earth comparison), that rethinking should NOT be entrusted to climate scientists, nor equally suborned climate institutions. But from my experience so far, it looks to me like it will take a new generation -- and perhaps 2 or 3 generations down the road -- to do this little, definitive exercise. There is a good chance the world will have to endure a third World War before the insanity of this generation is discharged and left behind by the true progress of science (and the human spirit), through hard self-correction.

Of course, all of science would bo better to confront, verify and accept my discovery of the great design of the "gods", remembered up to now only in ancient myths and religiously-held superstitions.

The Greenhouse Effect: Parsing a Scientific Lie Does Not Help Science or the Public

The climaterealists site has yet another article that seeks to apportion the contributions to the "greenhouse effect" and "anthropogenic greenhouse effect", and I have submitted the following there:

There is a general incompetence in climate science, among all scientists on both sides of the debate over the "consensus". Too many identify the "greenhouse effect" as simply the absorption of IR radiation by those atmospheric gases that can do so (and are then, by circular reasoning, called "greenhouse gases"). There will be no competent climate scientists until they change their fundamental thinking, and hew to the "greenhouse effect" which is being foisted upon the public: That increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) causes increasing global mean surface temperature (or simply "increasing temperature", in the loose public vernacular). This is the very heart of the global warming scare theory.

And once they get that into their heads (which they show no signs -- as in Jonathan Duhamel's article here -- of doing, or even trying to wrap their minds around), then they need to confront, and accept, the definitive evidence, that completely disproves the greenhouse effect at the real heart of the debate:

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

This definitive -- I will say it again: definitive -- disproof of the greenhouse effect also shows that the atmosphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the warmed planetary surface.

It is atrocious that all of climate scientists, and all of those debating climate science, ignore and dismiss the definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, for that is the only competent "climate science" in the world today: The comparison of two detailed, and quite different, planet-plus-atmosphere systems. Despite their many, gross differences, Venus and Earth are both warmed in precisely the same way, by precisely the same fraction of the incident solar radiation (over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, in the two atmospheres).

The public is not being served by climate science, nor is it being served by the debate, such as it is, because the definitive Venus/Earth evidence is being avoided, and that in turn is because that definitive evidence does not allow anyone to pretend to be "expert", so far it merely establishes that a stable atmospheric background exists, well represented by the Standard Atmosphere model (which is confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison), upon which weather and climate (neither of which are global, but regional and temporal -- or "local and transient" -- and above all, periodic, i.e. ever repeating) play their recurring roles.

You are all facing, not a running argument among climate experts, but a revolution in scientific understanding of a fundamentally stable thermodynamic system in the atmosphere (not at all subject to runaway global warming OR cooling), and how that atmosphere is really warmed.

A Moment of Silence, For the Fall of Europe

All climate blogs should post this news, of the rise of unrestrained tyranny due to an incompetent and fraudulent science:

EU Bans the Incandescent Light Bulb

Just Apologize, Climate Scientists

The wattsupwiththat site has yet another go at "constraining" the carbon dioxide "climate sensitivity", from a renowned member of the English peerage, to which I have responded:

The basic fact is, the global temperature record over the last century and more -- and many "skeptics" have pointed this out, with graphs -- shows global cooling from about 1880 to 1910, warming from about 1910 to 1940, cooling again from 1940 to 197(5), and warming again from 1975 to near 2000 (and now cooling again). There is even a well-known theory about this (involving multidecadal ocean oscillations, on top of an apparent recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, since the 17th century). A good number of researchers have pointed out that the CO2 atmospheric concentration has gone up throughout that period, and have reasonably claimed that therefore CO2 cannot be blamed for the up and down temperature record. Believers -- and that is all they are, believers -- only muddy the debate with their attempts to distinguish between "forcings" and "feedbacks", in that up and down temperature situation.

The period 1960 to 2008, considered by Christopher Monckton here, is from the middle of a cooling period to a little past the end of a warming period, so temperatures have gone both up and down in that period, while CO2 has definitely continued to rise. Does he think this is an optimal test of CO2 "forcing"? In this, he is ignoring a basic fact in the longer temperature record that speaks against any CO2-driven "climate sensitivity" at all, and apparently finds what so many others have pointed out, simply from looking at those wider up and down periods: That the temperature is NOT driven by CO2, period. I think they did by simple observation better than Mr. Monckton has done here with the sorts of naive equations (dT = λ dF) favored by the incompetent consensus scientists. "Lukewarm" believers like him curry (whoa -- Judith Curry is another one) to the consensus theory, instead of decisively breaking with it, as they should.

If you ignore the simple evidence of the up and down temperature record vs. the monotonically rising CO2 -- solely in order to maintain there is, there MUST BE, a "greenhouse effect", of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 -- then you are all too likely, in your fevered belief in that dogma, to dismiss any claims of definitive disproof of that effect. How could such disproof have been missed, by all of climate science, all these years? If, on the other hand, you don't ignore the ample, indeed overwhelming and simple, evidence just noted, against the greenhouse effect, put forward time and time again, then you probably already know by now that there is such definitive evidence. The only trouble is, you will have to admit that climate scientists have been, and stubbornly continue to be, fundamentally deluded by their (clearly) false theories, and that there is therefore -- and regretfully, considering the attention of the world is focused upon it -- no competent climate science in the world today.

We all make mistakes, even embarrassing ones like this one of mine. But people need to start learning from their mistakes, rather than stubbornly passing them down to the next generation. There is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing CO2.

Why People Today Won't or Can't Reason

The real-science site takes a dim view of what Steven Goddard calls the Democratic platform ("Lies, Superstition and Denial"), to which I respond here, in accordance with what my unprecedented research has uncovered:

"Lies, superstition and denial" is not seeing the forest for the trees, those three avoidances of truth being the "trees". The "forest", however -- the epidemic urge, in mankind today, to avoid the truth -- is the knee-jerk mental bowing to dogma, or factually unsupported or invalidated, but unquestioned, authority. In the public debates, it is commonly known as "political correctness", going by the apparent, society-wide intellectual fads of the moment (or the decade, or the generation, or even the culture). Dogma is dramatically, climactically ascendant in the world today, over true, dispassionate (i.e., focused only on finding the truth) reason. That is my overriding message now, in these dark times (whose dogmatic heart is generally unrecognized by mere partisan analyses), based upon my own research into the objective origin of the very first (and still surviving) dogmas, underlying the "ancieht mysteries" of man, and my epochal findings (primarily of a world-encompassing design imposed upon the world, by those whom ancient man was informed of, in earliest myths worldwide, as the "gods" who once reigned, thousands of years before earthbound, mortal men first became kings). When that source of the earliest dogmas, which still overshadow all the endeavors of "modern man" with the accumulated fearful superstitions, lies and scientific denial of the past, is finally confronted and accepted, mankind can cast off that nearly instinctual urge to bow to the convenient, and inherently divisive, dogmas each individual is brought up to believe. Then, I like to think, the true abilities of man -- now seemingly limited to just a few, lucky "superstars" in any field -- will flower as never before (because man will outgrow the false philosophy of "survival of the fittest", anciently known as "holier than thou").

Political Meltdown Over the Arctic

UPDATE Aug. 30, 2012: This post is pathetically wrong in its basic physics. Total internal reflection occurs in the medium with the larger index of refraction, not in the lesser. No excuses, since my internet writing is not about me, and I can only admit my mistakes, to lessen the likelihood of others being misled by them; in this, I am happy to say, I differ from virtually all others on the internet. Sorry for this, to those who wish me well.

The climaterealists site has an article, by a global warming alarmist, on a supposed Arctic meltdown, to which I have responded there with the following comment:

Look how easy it is to disprove what Mr. Monbiot is trying to make the public believe, just a small example that any high school physics student can understand:

Monbiot says: "... As the ice melts...exposing the darker sea beneath, heat that would previously have been reflected back into space is absorbed." Because of melting Arctic ice, he thinks "What we are seeing, here and now, is the transformation of the atmospheric physics of this planet."

Very basic physics denies this completely. The arctic circle is an imaginary circle surrounding the North Pole, with a radius of approximately 23.5° (the angle subtended at the Earth's center, from the pole to the arctic circle), so it is at latitude 66.5°. The Arctic, within the arctic circle, is cold because the Sun's rays don't strike the ground "head-on" there, that is, perpendicular to the surface, but at a relatively large angle. This means, not only that the Sun's energy is more spread out due to the angle at which it strikes the surface, but in the autumn and winter months the Sun never even gets above the horizon, so no energy hits the ground at all.

Now here is some high-school physics: Light impinging upon water at a large enough angle (from the perpendicular to the surface) will not be absorbed, but will be reflected totally. For water, with an index of refraction of 1.33, the critical angle, beyond which total reflection occurs, is Arcsin(1/1.33) = 48.75°.

Even at the height of summer, and even as far south as the Arctic circle itself, the angle of incidence (measured from the perpendicular to the surface) of the Sun's rays is at least 43° (this is just 90° - 47°, with 47° being the angular diameter of the Arctic circle). The Sun's light will hit the surface at the critical angle of 48.75° just 5.75° further north, that is, any sunlight hitting a water surface at 66.5° + 5.75° = 72.25° latitude or above, will be totally reflected. And that is just the area where hysterical people like Mr. Monbiot think "transformation of the atmospheric physics of the planet" is occurring, due to melting ice -- an area where the Sun's rays are totally reflected anyway, even if all the ice were to melt.

Mr. Monbiot's fear is unfounded, but much worse, it is clearly obsessive, and is in fact a mass hysteria among those who accept the politically-sponsored (not scientifically competent) "consensus" on global warming. It is a form of insanity, politically promulgated worldwide now, that threatens the peace of the world. I urge believers in runaway global warming to stop spreading incompetent science; stop this hysterical belief in its tracks.

And there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. See

Venus:  No Greenhouse Effect

The climate science communtiy itself is fundamentally deluded about how the atmosphere is warmed, and fundamentally deluded that it is at all unstable, subject to either runaway global warming OR cooling. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as it were, of incompetence in current scientific thinking about the Earth.

Political Delusions About Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

The Warning Signs and Climaterealists sites have a post by Alan Caruba, about a new effort to regulate carbon dioxide gas (CO2) emissions.  The post cites an article by Hans Schreuder, saying in part that CO2 cools the atmosphere.  I submitted the following comment to the Warning Signs site:

Two points:

1) This is part of what I call "The War of the Insane Left" (capitalized so I don't lose focus upon it, because I see it as a fundamental, defining fact of our current, largely political situation, although it involves a suborned, incompetent climate science, and no doubt other sciences as well).

2) CO2 does not cool the atmosphere.  Rather the atmosphere, as a whole, because of its stable (!) temperature distribution -- due to gravity, increasing the pressure and thus the temperature, the farther down one goes in the atmosphere -- can cool the Earth's surface (as the surface rises to higher altitudes, for example, and at night, when the surface cools faster than the atmosphere closest to it); and the Earth's surface does not warm the atmosphere except locally and transiently, which drives the weather but does not affect the stable vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere (the decrease in temperature with altitude, throughout the troposphere).

Why There Is No True Debate, and a False Consensus

The wattsupwiththat site has a post on the need for debate, not consensus, over climate change, to which I have responded:

The problem is, the POLITICAL debate is well advanced, but the SCIENTIFIC debate is non-existent, because: Nobody knows the fundamental science they are pretending to know, or deluding themselves that they know. There are no competent climate scientists. Neither the "alarmist" nor the "lukewarm" believers in the greenhouse effect--of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (not "the temperature with, vs. without, an atmosphere", you proud fools)--know the first thing about what the evidence is telling you: that there is no such greenhouse effect, and your belief in it only marks your own scientific incompetence. There should be no public debate on the science, first and foremost because the public is not educated to competently participate, and now it should be clear (but of course it is not, which is the main point) that even the "experts" are miseducated, and clinging to failed theoretical dogma (so the dismal truth is, "climate science" is not ready for prime time--after the last 40 to 50 years of imbibed false theory). These statements are the real point of departure for any reasonable debate (which should be entirely open to the lay public, but without its participation, AND without the participation of climate scientists, who have universally failed in their professional responsibility--hand it over to non-climate scientists--preferrably physicists over the age of 60, educated before the dogma of the "greenhouse effect" was accepted as "settled science"--and anyone who respects the stable Standard Atmosphere over the hysterical "meme" of runaway climate change. And given the stillborn state of the scientific debate, cancel all governmental "climate" policies, forthwith--cease and desist now, or yesterday if possible.

Schizophrenia, and Cancer, in the System Today

The Warning Signs site of Alan Caruba has a post on the seeming "schizophrenia" involved in America's lagging commitment and investment in nuclear power for our growing energy needs, to which I respond:

It seems the energy industry and government have been increasingly at odds, since Three-Mile Island at least. The war on coal long pre-dates Obama, as I first noted it, as a research associate, back in 1991-4, while analyzing data on aerosols at remote, federally-protected sites; and even then I noted some scientists were pushing "greenhouse gases" over real air pollution, which I realized seemed stupid, though I was but a tangential observer of that group of atmospheric scientists. The turning of the environmentalists away from actual air pollution, like black carbon from diesel fuel burning (incomplete burning), to first the "ozone hole" scare and then the "greenhouse effect", plainly marked their slide into scientific barrenness and closed-minded insanity. As a bit player, I was not then in a position to connect the dots (I had my own job, requiring all my ability to sniff out the truth--for which I was summarily terminated, "due to cuts in funding", by my incompetent boss and his superiors, leading all the way up to the EPA). All roads in the current environmental insanity, by the way, lead to the EPA, and I now regard it as the fox in the hen house, or the thief in the upstairs master bedroom, or simply a cancer within the system. Those working in the system think the system is working as it should, but they are like eunuchs in an ancient temple that has been corrupted by its priests to the most licentious moral crimes. The secular corruption of today, I believe, mirrors the religious corruption of ancient times. It presages worldwide revolution, of both science and religion, and the more that timely corrections are repressed now, by the aggressive promulgators of false dogma in both science and religion, the more violent it will eventually be.

Just on the scientific side, there has been no continuing advancement--though it is sorely needed--in fundamental physical science, across all major fields, for most of my life (64 years). Instead, our civilization (and the world) is coasting on a still-advancing, but aging--and strangely shallow yet popular--technology (with internet applications like google and facebook, i-pads, i-phones, etc.). I don't know what can be done, in the near term, to get the world to address the real crisis--I have made the greatest discovery in history, of the true, objective origin of all the so-called "ancient mysteries" of the earliest known civilizations, which will require a complete re-thinking of the central, most hotly-defended and yet wrong-headed theories of our time; but I have been unable to get any recognition for it, just as my finding of the definitive evidence factually disproving the "greenhouse effect" is ignored and dismissed, not only by consensus climate scientists, but by the climate skeptics community as well. I know, as no other scientist does, that there is, quite simply, a crisis of incompetence across all of modern science (and in government worldwide), and a closed-minded rejection of any criticism of current theories--current dogma--in all fields.

The Problem With Radiative Transport Analyses

The climaterealists and notrickszone sites have posted on a new paper by Martin Hertzberg, on radiative transport between the Earth's surface, the atmosphere, and space, to which I responded at climaterealists, and add here:
 
I respect Martin Hertzberg and the other so-called "dragon slayers", some of whom have manned the trenches for years, against the belief--by warmists and "lukewarm" skeptics alike--in the consensus greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide (I myself have tried to do so, since I disproved that effect with the definitive evidence myself, in late 2010). I agree with his most general conclusion, that the atmosphere cools the Earth (that is, the Sun provides more than enough energy to heat the Earth system to its observed mean global temperature, and the atmosphere provides the means for the system to shrug off the excess). It is an indictment of our science education system, that the climate "consensus" belief in the greenhouse effect was ever allowed to come into existence, much less prosper and thus fundamentally miseducate the last two generations of atmospheric and climate scientists.

But I have to say, that Hertzberg's analysis, based on the ideas of emissivity and absorptivity, in my opinion conceal the real physics as much as they may enlighten our partial understanding. He cautions in his papers that the emissivity and absorptivity are not just simple numbers representing the whole system, but vary from location to location and with the physical elements involved (as for example, the ocean vs. the land, and the surface vs. the atmosphere). I would emphasize his caution, as I consider, at my present stage of understanding, that "emissivity" and "absorptivity" are essentially just fudge factors, not well-defined, understandable physics, as used both in the consensus radiative transfer theory and in Hertzberg's own recent papers (specifically this latest one, and his 2009 paper). That his use of them confirms more basic, definitive demonstrations against the greenhouse effect may be fine for others, but I prefer to "keep it simple"--particularly because we are writing for the public, not each other, and the public needs to begin to see the simplest, most basic understanding, of good physics for a change, that completely destroys the "consensus" they are being bombarded with by all of our suborned institutions. If they get nothing else, the public needs to know that the atmosphere is properly described by the stable Standard Atmosphere model, which is well over a hundred years old and shows the Earth is not subject to "runaway" global warming OR cooling (so no "ice ages" by the chance working of physical processes, either!), and which was abandoned by incompetent climate scientists like James Hansen over 40 years ago. I confirmed the Standard Atmosphere model with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison.

I commented on this latest paper by Hertzberg at climaterealists.com, where I pointed out,

"...the Sun's incident radiation quickly warms the troposphere directly beneath its rays ... to the Standard Atmosphere equilibrium, vertical temperature lapse rate--and the Earth's surface, separately heated by the Sun during the day, and prevented by the atmospheric lapse rate from further heating the atmosphere beyond transient/local effects (i.e., just those effects we call "weather", and "climate"), acts to cool the near-surface atmosphere during the night (so that many locations see a local temperature inversion near dawn)."

I think that is clearer and simpler than talk of "emissivity" and "absorptivity" affecting the temperatures. My Venus/Earth comparison also demonstrates that clouds don't have any effect on atmospheric temperatures, in both the Venus and Earth atmospheres, outside of the cloud regions themselves. To affect the surface temperature, then, clouds would have to be very near the surface (within a few hundred meters probably, or more conservatively, within one kilometer).

The main point I have against analyses focused upon radiative transport, using the ideas of emissivity and absorptivity, is that they fail to take note of the fundamental physical fact, unrecognized by the mass of scientists, that the Earth's atmosphere is heated by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not from the surface. Put most simply, the atmosphere is independently heated by the Sun, just as you and I are when we step out into the sunlight.

Recognizing Psychological War

The Bishop Hill site has a post on a piece of YouTube global warming propaganda, which some admire for its smoothness of presentation, even though its ideas are patently misleading and unsupported by the real evidence.  I submitted the following comment in response:

It is war, people, waged on a psychological level. U.S. Senate leader Harry Reid is doing the same thing even now, by openly spreading the ridiculous rumor that Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years (and is therefore a crook, so must not be elected President, Reid wants the voters to conclude), although we already know, from senator John McCain just a few weeks ago, that Romney's tax records were thoroughly vetted by him in 2008, when McCain was looking for a vice-presidential running mate--but Reid is just trying to keep the lazier voters (and there are so many, who WANT to simply follow the Democrat party's line, without straining themselves to think) from actually using their own eyes and brains, to compare the real accomplishments of Romney, with the empty mask that is Barack Obama (whose watchwords are, "ignore the man behind the curtain, little girl; the Great and Powerful Oz has spoken"). I call it the War of the Insane Left, and I am surprised that few on either side of any of the current debates realize just how demented they are, indeed how insane the world is right now with the Insane Left in power, and so much human energy being used to promulgate rather obviously false dogmas upon the world. The only way to fight the rush to insanity is to remain as dispassionate as you can, in evaluating the objective evidence that is there to be found and properly emphasized--and to let the crazy man know that you know he is crazy, in pushing ideas any sane man must know are lies.

Politics Spreading the Delusion: A Case in Point

P. Gosselin's Notrickszone site has a post on Australian "shrinks" deludedly spouting off against climate skeptics.  I submit the following response:

I have known for some time that the public climate debate needs a thorough review by psychologists, maybe even psychiatrists (NOT sociologists, who self-importantly invented the term "post-normal science" to justify their unjustified intrusion into that debate). But they need specifically to observe and ultimately expound upon those promulgating and/or defending the climate consensus, not those criticizing and/or denying it. (I for example am proud to stand up and deny the "greenhouse effect" completely, as a competent physicist--not a climate scientist, who have all been miseducated--who rather easily and quickly uncovered the definitive evidence against that hypothesis, with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison; and it is telling that none of the usual gang of climate bloggers (much less any other academic "experts"), on either side of the debate, has been able to wrap their minds around that definitive evidence, though it should be the front-page news worldwide. That is no doubt because everyone wants to present a complete climate theory--this psychological need is central to the whole, ongoing farce--and my Venus/Earth analysis, so far, merely destroys the consensus theory, with a simple, obvious, and overwhelming fact.)

So this news of Australian "shrinks" (psychiatrists, rather than psychologists, I suppose) bloviating upon precisely the wrong camp in the debate, rather than upon those incompetently promulgating or deluded by the consensus, is just another strong indication that the world is deeply invested in the wider, and scientifically incompetent, Left vs. Right POLITICAL debate over climate policies, and judging according to their political prejudices, rather than according to verifiable, good science. The "shrinks" will not be addressing reality until they understand the climate consensus is incompetent, and seek to uncover why it has nevertheless prospered, to the point of suborning all of our institutions.

Peer Review: Getting a Token Shakeup

The following is my response to an article on the wattsupwiththat site, about new open-publishing rules being considered for peer-review journals, giving everyone free access to them:

It sounds good, just like Obamacare does to a poor man, BUT...  You are taking your eye off the ball, which is that an incompetent climate consensus is basically the accepted law of the land, worldwide, and that all of our institutions have been suborned by that consensus. Two generations of scientists have been miseducated (and thus made incompetent from the beginning of their higher education) in a non-existent "greenhouse effect", of increasing global mean temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is in turn upheld by an obviously misleading radiative transfer theory that is taken to be fundamental "settled science" by all. The consensus physics is literally upside-down and causally backward, because radiative transfer is taken to be the cause of temperatures, but is obviously the effect of them (where is there a clear-headed lukewarm believer?--for here and elsewhere none of them can even note that the 390 W/m^2 in longwave IR said to be emitted by the Earth's surface, is really just the intensity of radiation calculated for a blackbody at the temperature of that surface, and understand that this is a physics misunderstanding that should fail a freshman, much less an "expert" like Kevin Trenberth, first and foremost because it provides only for a gross violation of the conservation of energy?)

This open-publishing gambit is really just desperate political maneuvering (and is analogous to Obamacare, supposedly giving everyone access to the "best science", but there is no "best" climate science, there is only fundamentally bad climate science), trying to do the least, and to protect everyone involved in the outrageous rape of science, by "97% of climate scientists" and every "authoritative" institution in the world. This generation is diligently and politically avoiding getting to the heart of the matter, and it will only, as the old saying goes, reap the wild wind for the next generation. No one in a position of authority--and public responsibility--is practicing true science (and that includes WUWT). If you did, there would be no political debate, and no tyrannous governmental climate policies, because there would be a healthy and robust lack of consensus, given the bad science.

The "Catastrophic" Origin of Climate Science and Science Fiction

I have submitted the following comment at the Bishop Hill site, where science fiction has been linked to the current climate consensus/hysteria:

Scientific hysteria is always science fiction. In fact, the scientific hysteria of the late 19th and early 20th century--when the Darwinian dogma, particularly, became the unquestionable law in science, despite the gross evidence of non-uniformitarian, large-scale processes at work in the past, that required "ice ages" (or Noah's flood, heaven forbid) or other catastrophes(!) to explain--gave emotional birth to science fiction (the flood of technological and scientific knowledge advances didn't provide the spark--it took the idea of world-shaking, world shattering energies, combined with the new idea of mankind confronting, and even harnessing, such energies). The earth and life sciences have since Darwin been stuck with that catastrophic dichotomy, of uniformitarian evolution of a world in which catastrophic forces are precariously balanced, so that a global temperature change of only 5°C, or 9°F, they say** separates the current "interglacial" period from a full-blown global ice age (which of course means the world would be in the latter, frozen state, with a mean surface temperature of 50°F, since it is 59°F--15°C--today).

**Andy Lacis mentioned this, when his paper on CO2 as the "Control Knob" for atmospheric temperature came out. He said it casually, as an accepted "fact", so it is evidently "settled science" among the academic hoi-polloi. Too bad it is childish nonsense, just like the "greenhouse effect"--too bad, because it means the radiative transfer theory, considered sacrosanct even by skeptics/deniers, is also nonsense (and no one knows how to fix it, so we mustn't talk about it in front of the children/academics). There is no climate science worthy of the name. And you have Darwin, Agassiz and H.G. Wells to blame, not Hansen (poor little, miseducated kid--and obvious science fiction fan--that he is).

The Insane War, a War of Dogmas

Something of what is going on in the world, affecting the fundamental processes by which our civilization works, can be seen at the Pajamas Media and invisibleserfscollar sites, where I have submitted the following comments:

At Pajamas Media, concerning "the 3 great scams of our time":

All three of these "scams" really depend, not upon conspiracy per se, but upon a general incompetence, of the uninformed populace but also of the "experts", who were supposedly well-educated to BE experts--but are in fact not.

It is the incompetence brought about by long-held, religiously held, dogma, culminating in our time on many fronts, in many fields, but most especially in science, the very home of objective thought and understanding.

The human race is at war with unquestioned dogmas, some of them rooted in pre-history, in the earliest myths (which played the part of authoritative science in the truly ancient world, before the rise of the known civilizations). There is new scientific knowledge concerning those earliest and most divisive, most violent, most religious dogmas, that could dissipate much senseless hatred in the world today. But that newly civilizing knowledge is not welcome among the mandarins of academic science, the arbiters of what may be discussed, and who may be considered expert.

What makes this time insane, is that the supposed experts in every field are incompetent. The intellectual and psychological forces at work are beyond their blindered scientific understanding--their obsolete understanding, based upon too small a time frame, too small a sample of, essentially, scientific fads.

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child."
 
And at InvisibleSerfsCollar:

Today's world is a war of dogmas, which have been long held, for varied time periods up to and including all of known history and more, and thus well entrenched. This is true even in the hard sciences, which are all in an unrecognized crisis of incompetence, characteristic of the times (although the false dogmas there are only a century or two old--still enough to be taken as gospel today). A good watchphrase is, "He who knows only his own generation remains always a child." A people taught from youth only according to what are essentially the fads of the decade, or the generation, or even the century, is a civilization started on a downward slope, that accelerates suddenly to the point of dislocation and violent confrontation of opposing ideas. Only new knowledge, new real expertise, about the far past can harmonize the many divisive dogmas currently at war in our society and in the world. And academics have been brought up in recent generations to dismiss and deny the new knowledge that is in fact coming out, through individuals like me (and especially by me, as I am an independent physicist with hard knowledge that corrects both science and religion, about the true origin of the world, and its continuing myths, as we know it).

Climate Science Not the Greatest Hoax, After All

I have submitted the following comment to Alan Caruba's Warning Signs site, where the subject is "The Greatest Hoax", referring to the "global warming" hysteria:

I am an independent (and therefore unwanted) physicist (64 years old, and educated before the great educational train wreck of the last 40 years, which has miseducated the last two generations of physical scientists), and I disproved the "greenhouse effect" supposed to underpin the global warming hysteria, with the definitive evidence I know is needed to correct climate science. It is not just the man/woman on the street who pays no attention, what is frightening to me is that there are no climate or atmospheric scientists competent enough, or honest enough, to listen to that definitive (and quite simple, for a scientist) evidence.

I have been saying for some time that all of our institutions (AAAS, NAS, APS, AGU, etc.) have been suborned by the incompetent climate consensus (and of course, the cheerleading media). What makes this climate hoax greater than even the insiders among the "consensus skeptics" (a.k.a. "deniers") know, is that the greater the authority of the institution, the more its subornation is tied to a religious belief in evolution theory. That is to say, they think that opposition to the global warming idea is tied to a "creationist" denial of evolution (when they don't put such "denial" down to the evil of "Big Oil corporations").

And it is, in a larger context that both they AND the skeptics don't yet even imagine can possibly be true: The bad theory behind global warming is just the tail of the dog of the general evolution paradigm, that science has hewed to since Darwin: That everything we observe in the natural world is the product of undirected physical processes, without any deliberate design as even most scientists believed before Darwin. In such a paradigm, the Earth is all too easily seen as unstable (rather than the harmonious, repeating dynamic stability man has observed throughout history), and therefore can be subject to runaway climate ("ice ages", as well as "global warming"). That paradigm is now failing, increasingly openly, as the incompetence of scientists grows, as they struggle to tack on layer after layer of theoretical "natural" processes--like the non-existent "greenhouse effect"--to their "explanations". I am the only scientist in the world, so far as I know, who really, professionally knows this, because of my discovery and verification of the "great design of the gods", the highly fragmented and misunderstood knowledge of which--passed down by the "gods" to their offspring, historical man--was responsible for all the "ancient mysteries" of mankind's most ancient religiously-held beliefs.

Children In Charge in the Climate Debates

I have submitted the following comment on the Real-Science site, where Steven Goddard concluded:  "Temperatures continue to plummet below Hansen’s Scenario C – which represents humans having disappeared off the planet twelve years ago. The only possible interpretation being that human generated CO2 has little or nothing to do with global temperatures.  Our alarmist friends, being the crooks that they are, will continue to pretend that they don’t notice this disaster.":

And the "lukewarmers" will also continue to pretend, that there is a greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide--just not a "catastrophic" one. Well, as a real scientist, I say anyone who thinks there is ANY such global-temperature-raising greenhouse effect, is incompetent and should be thrown out of science. Once again, my comparison of temperatures in the tropospheres of Venus and Earth, here--which should have been done by any competent, interested scientist 20 years ago--is the definitive evidence, that makes the "no greenhouse effect at all" obvious. If there were a greenhouse effect, it would ADD to the temperature in Venus's atmosphere (which has over 2400 times, or over 11 doublings of, Earth's carbon dioxide concentration), but in fact the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a CONSTANT, and even more amazing, that constant is PRECISELY, physically explained by the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, and nothing else. Until that is faced, there is no viable climate science at all.


I am also still waiting for someone to find independently what I suggested many months ago, that the global temperature record is really not that at all, but only an unrecognized proxy for the multidecadal ocean oscillations, and that is really why the former and the latter are so well correlated since the 17th century. I am sadly amused that the surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere--which I confirmed in my Venus/Earth analysis--is 288.15K, and has been for a century, and that is higher than the supposed mean global surface temperature, even after a century of "global warming".

Unfortunately, the climate "debate" is just so many barking dogs, unwilling to learn anything but only wanting to defend their respective territories. (The consensus is thus a "Lord of the Flies" phenomenon: Out of control children, really, without any responsible parental authority.)

Why The Climate Debate Is Getting Nowhere in the End

I have submitted the following comment to the bishop hill site:

Unless and until they put my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison at the forefront of the debate, and everyone accepts that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due only to the two planets' distances from the Sun, both sides will be missing the point, and embarrassingly, incompetently so.

It is not just that the climate consensus is wrong, or even that all of our institutions have been suborned by it. It is that this definitive evidence is actively denied, as "coincidence", and even the stoutest "skeptics" can't seem to hold onto it, and emphasize it above all other evidence, as they should--because the Venus/Earth comparison immediately shows just what is wrong in climate science, and how to correct it, on a whole handful of fundamental points. Perhaps above all, it shows that all of the attention given to problems with the temperature records, and how they have been manipulated, is a minor debate on a side issue, because my Venus/Earth comparison does not use those records in comparing Earth to Venus, it uses the Standard Atmosphere model, and confirms that model precisely(!) This tells us in no uncertain terms that the atmosphere is stable, and not at all subject to "runaway" warming OR cooling.

My Venus/Earth comparison should have been done by climate scientists, or atmospheric physicists, 20 years ago, and the "greenhouse effect" dropped from science then--if there had been ANY competent scientists around to do it. That today's scientists, alarmist and "lukewarm skeptic" alike, avoid confronting that simple comparison of two quite different, yet warmed precisely alike, planetary systems, is the fundamental problem in accepted climate physics today. It is simply incompetent, on the part of "97%" of consensus believers and skeptics alike, not to recognize this. But the egos of everyone will not let them imagine that they MUST go back and start over with climate science, back to the Standard Atmosphere--and give up those grandiose "worldwide mitigation" schemes to direct the peoples of the world. And, of course, give up their pretense to expertise on the subject, en masse.

It is a simple logical test, but an extremely difficult moral one, for every supposed "expert". (That is why I only call myself a competent physicist, and those who do not accept my Venus/Earth comparison, incompetent. I will brook no debate on this, among scientists; you are either competent or not--and I do NOT hold uneducated laypersons to the same standard.)

Dismissive Academia: A Continuing Scientific Farce

I have submitted the following comment to Steven Goddard's Real-Science site, where the subject happens to be the intransigence and incompetence of climate consensus defender David Appell, a self-styled "science journalist" who also claims a Ph.D. in theoretical physics:

There is not a dime's worth of scientific competence in the wider public climate debate, particularly on the academics' side (which is Appell's side), otherwise the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, which simply disproves the "greenhouse effect" underlying the alarmist "consensus", would be front-page news worldwide by now, and all the defenders of that consensus, including David Appell, would be revealed for the science incompetents and academic cover-ups they are.

Any physical scientist, certainly any supposed "expert", having seen from my comparison that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant that is precisely--precisely--explained by the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun, and nothing else, and knowing the great differences between Venus and Earth (in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, cloud cover/albedo, and planetary surface) should quickly agree that the physical reason for that fact must be that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation.

It has nothing to do with considering any part of a planet-plus-atmosphere system a blackbody (so don't even go there, Appell). It has to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann formula properly applied to ANY body in thermal equilibrium, and subject only to radiational warming (P, in Watts/m^2 ABSORBED RADIATION, properly averaged over the surface of the body--OR over some portion of the body that quickly attains local thermal equilibrium due to that warming, as is known for the airless Moon, for example):

P = σ (T)^4 (T to the fourth power)

I emphasize, P is the absorbed radiational power intensity, not the incident. (It should go without saying that, for a blackbody, the absorbed power is equal to the incident power, whereas for a non-blackbody, it is not.)

Thus, any two planetary atmospheres, which are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation, will have a temperature ratio governed only by the ratio of their distances from the Sun (I show the explicit equations for the two atmospheres, and their temperature ratio, at the above link). I claim this is the only reasonable physical interpretation of the Venus/Earth comparison, and that it should have been made 20 years ago, when the Venus data was taken by the Magellan spacecraft, and the "greenhouse effect" quickly dropped from the canon of "established science" then. It is a continuing embarrassment for all of physical science that it was not, and a scientific fraud that my findings have been, and continue to be, dismissed by the likes of David Appell, all the defenders of the climate "consensus", and even skeptics like Monckton, Lindzen, Spencer, and anyone else who insists there IS a carbon dioxide greenhouse effect contributing to global warming. THERE IS NO SUCH EFFECT.

My Venus/Earth comparison confirms the Standard Atmosphere model as the equilibrium state of Earth's troposphere, and the mean tropospheric temperature in that model is 259.3K. With the mean incident solar power 1367 W/m^2, at Earth's orbital radius, that temperature implies 18.75%, or approximately 19%, of the Sun's incident radiation quickly warms the troposphere directly beneath its rays (I would suggest, for the "expert's" consideration, perhaps over the entire daylit side of the planet) to the Standard Atmosphere equilibrium, vertical temperature lapse rate--and the Earth's surface, separately heated by the Sun during the day, and prevented by the atmospheric lapse rate from further heating the atmosphere beyond transient/local effects (i.e., just those effects we call "weather", and "climate"), acts to cool the near-surface atmosphere during the night (so that many locations see a local temperature inversion near dawn). I note, without further discussion, that the infamous Kiehl-Trenberth earth energy budget, shown here, shows some 19.5% of the incident solar radiation being directly absorbed by the atmosphere (though that would include not just the troposphere, as I am focusing upon here, but the stratosphere as well--so I suspect that energy budget is not necessarily accurate, or the albedo may be 0.23, rather than the widely touted 0.30--and this needs to be looked into by atmospheric physicists).

My Venus/Earth comparison (rather than any proposed "complete" theory of weather/"climate") is the definitive evidence needed for the fundamenatal correction of climate science. Academia needs to embrace it, and because it has already been published, and academia has dismissed it without proper, and public, consideration, they should not wait for it to be published in their favorite peer-reviewed (i.e., academic) journals (which are behind the times in this revolutionary time). Too much wrong has been done in the name of bad climate science, and everyone needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the science shower, to come clean.

Incompetent Public Climate Debate Wrongly Accepted as "Post-Normal Science"

Everyone knows there is dissension among scientists over the supposed climate consensus, which is being politically, massively abused. There are a range of scientific opinions, virtually all of them incompetent in accepting, to some degree, the false "greenhouse effect", of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But the politicization of the consensus, and the subornation of all of our institutions to that consensus, makes the climate debate a public one, with mostly non-scientific voices pretending to follow the science. There are a range of such non-scientific voices, or opinions, too. At one extreme of that range lies the call for an entirely open debate, in which all voices are welcomed indiscriminately. That extreme position is well exemplified in the Judith Curry climate blog, Climate Etc., as well as the Klimazwiebel ("Klima Zwiebel", German for "Climate Onion") site. The entirely open debate has been elevated at such sites to its own category, known as "Post-Normal Science", as if such open debate were the democratic evolution of science into a community sing-along, with every song welcome.

I have submitted the following short response to the latest entry, and reference to "post-normal science", at Klimazwiebel:

Werner Krauss wrote: "...Science indeed is plural, it is many sciences in one. It is plural enough to give a voice to 'skeptics, political interests, climatic determinism, religion'..."

Science is no such thing. What you are talking about is the sociology of public debate over a scientific question (like "global warming", or more correctly, for the layperson beset by climate dogma, "runaway climate"). Science is much larger, deeper, grander than a mere concatenation of voices with different points of view. It is something entirely other than such an inharmonious concatenation, and you have wrongly identified it by accepting that concatenation of voices as science, calling it "post-normal science". It is not science at all; science simply IS NOT a "ritualized societal practice". (I suspect you are a sociologist, or merely strongly attracted to sociology, for the truth is rather that sociology is but an imitation of science--an attempt to apply the scientific method, based firmly upon objective observation, to sociological questions, but ever stymied by those questions' essential subjectivity, as exemplified by the many voices with different points of view that you refer to with such motherly concern, as if they were your children, all needing encouragement.) Sociology is not a meta-science, that can subsume any and all other sciences within itself; you are fundamentally mistaken, and go beyond the bounds of competent logical debate, by assuming it can.

Why the Climate Debate Is Over, and Why Both Sides Continue to Debate Anyway

I have submitted the following short post to Steven Goddard's Real-Science website, where the recent corrupt actions, and underlying belief, of Peter Gleick are the topic of discussion:

I agree with Gleick (but he is wrong): I also think the debate/war is over, just on my terms (there is no greenhouse effect whatsoever, of increasing temperature with increasing carbon dioxide, and there are no competent climate scientists whatsoever, because they refuse to accept the definitive facts of the Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which shows that only the ratio of the two planets’ distances from the Sun is needed to precisely explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres. Fraudulent “experts” are those who say they will only recognize evidence presented through the peer-review process, even though that has been shown to be merely “pal-review”, and those who say the Venus/Earth comparison result (over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, mind you) is just a “coincidence”. In other words, the “debate”, on both sides, is insane, and everyone knows why–1) the emotional (not scientific) intransigence of the individual ego, multiplied over the millions of individuals who are invested in the consensus, 2) the ideological (not scientific) linking of the idea of “runaway global warming” with a reasonable concern for the environment, and 3) the political (not scientific) assumption of tight control over the people of the world, on the basis of fraudulent, wrong-headed “scientific consensus”.

In Science, Competence Can Overcome Bias

I have submitted the following comment to Dr. Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog site, where she has posted on "The Bias of Science":

The issue is competence. With competence, bias can be quickly overcome; without it, bias inevitably becomes hardened, unquestioned dogma. When I compared the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, I very simply--and as it turned out, naively-- used the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as applied beyond the atmosphere, without consideration of the difference in albedo for the two planet-plus-atmosphere systems. I did not consciously assume the planet-plus-atmosphere system was a blackbody, however (I just used the easiest model that occurred to me, to investigate the expected temperature ratio--the simple approach I learned from my earliest physics education, starting in high school and continuing throughout college), and when I discovered, quite directly by my simple approach, that the actual Venus/Earth temperature ratio was a constant that in fact depended only upon the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun--thus definitively disproving the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis, of increasing global mean temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as disproving the need for any correction due to the large difference in albedo--I was able to immediately interpret this, with correct physical intuition, as being necessarily due to both atmospheres directly absorbing, and being fundamentally warmed only by, the same physical fraction of the incident solar power. In a March 2012 update to my original "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post, I provided the proper Stefan-Boltzmann equations for the temperature in each troposphere, assuming both tropospheres are warmed by the same fraction of incident solar power, and showed that their temperature ratio at any given pressure is indeed independent of the fraction of solar power absorbed, and is just dependent upon the ratio of their solar distances. This of course confirms my original, insightful interpretation of my Venus/Earth comparison.

So my basic scientific competence and physical insight overcame the naivety (a form of bias, one might say) of my overly-simple approach; I in fact made the correct physical interpretation, and I have correctly stood by it ever after (see here for example). Not so for all of those (including Judith Curry), who have dismissed my findings when informed of them, generally with the flat--and in fact wrong--statement that my comparison was worthless because I had not "corrected for the difference in albedo" in the two planets, and also no doubt because no one was willing to seriously consider that these two atmospheres were both warmed by direct absorption of incident solar power, rather than from the surface (which was and continues to be the consensus belief--that is, the consensus bias). As a competent physicist, I knew, and know, my original interpretation was correct, and I maintained that any competent physicist must come to the same conclusion as I did, from the observed constant Venus/Earth temperature ratio, but it has done no good, from November 2010 to now. Even after posting those equations that starkly PROVE my original interpretation was good, there has been no sign of any growing acceptance, on either side of the climate debate, of my Venus/Earth comparison as a definitive correction to the patently incorrect consensus beliefs of climate scientists.

So the basic INcompetence of all of the defenders of the climate consensus has so far kept them from overcoming their bias against my definitive disproof of the "greenhouse effect", which continues to be promulgated to the public, falsely and incompetently, as unarguable fact.

Incompetent Comments on UAH GMST Data

I do not take the fevered climate debate seriously anymore, since my definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison has not brought everyone to their senses, that the consensus is entirely incompetent in promulgating the carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect". But I still sometimes comment here and there. I just submitted the following comment to Dr. Roy Spencer's site, where he has posted the April 2012 update of UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) satellite data on global mean surface temperature anomaly:

The remarks here--especially the ones deducing continued global warming from obviously stalled data--indict the commenters as incompetent. Dr. Spencer, you do a disservice to any lay readers who stop by here and take these comments as serious scientific appraisal, by allowing these comments to go unanswered by you.

I wrote over a year ago that the global mean surface temp (GMST) would, according to the multidecadal ocean-oscillations theory, vary by a few tenths of a degree around an average +0.10°C for the next 5 years or more--and the average of your table here, from the beginning of 2011 to now, is +0.125. The only recent difference in the data is the magnitude of the swing, between successive maxima and minima--in years past, it was only .2 to .3°C, while in your table here, encompassing the last 3 such swings, it is more like .4 to .5°C, with an average of .426°C. So it's somewhat looser data recently, but it is not warming at all (and, as I have also written for over a year, the temperature is about where it was in 1991, over 20 years ago now).

There is no competent climate debate, because there are no competent climate scientists. It is all political maneuvering, lay readers, and you shouldn't take anyone's--any "expert"'s--word on anything in the "debate".

Atmospheric Warming and the Tropospheric Temperature Lapse Rate

I have posted the following at the Tallbloke site, where the tropospheric temperature gradient is being discussed: The fact that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures (excepting only at points inside the Venus cloud layer), is a constant that is precisely and entirely due only to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun, IS the definitive empirical evidence--of two detailed atmospheres, and thus the largest, and clearest, experimental test--revealing the fundamental physical mechanism of warming of planetary atmospheres by direct absorption of radiative (infrared) energy from the Sun. My Venus/Earth comparison establishes: 1) The tropospheres of both Venus and Earth must directly absorb, and be fundamentally warmed only by, the same physical fraction of the incident solar energy, whose intensity varies with solar distance r as one over r-squared (in which case, as I have shown at the above link, the temperature ratio is necessarily what it is observed to be); 2) The tropospheres, especially Earth's, are not fundamentally warmed from the surface at all, as most scientists currently believe, as any such warming would cause the Venus/Earth temperature ratio to be other than what it is, due only to the solar distances of the two planets; 3) The Standard Atmosphere properly represents the stable equilibrium state of Earth's troposphere, while Venus's atmosphere is always in its equilibrium state (this means the Earth is not subject to "runaway" global warming OR cooling--meaning no "ice ages" due only to undirected physical processes, and no need for auxiliarly theories, like the physically suspect Milankovitch correlation-model theory, to "explain" them); 4) There is no "greenhouse effect", of increased global mean surface temperature, with an atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide or any other so-called "greenhouse gas"; 5) There is no albedo effect, either from the planetary surface or from cloud tops, upon the equilibrium atmospheric temperature, since the great differences in these variables for Venus and Earth have no effect upon the Venus/Earth temperature ratio (and this is also the obvious physical consequence of atmospheric warming solely by direct absorption of solar IR); and 6) the proper handling of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula in analyzing the problem of atmospheric warming (it applies only in the case of warming only by incident radiation, assumes that all absorbed radiation is transformed into heat energy, and it cannot be applied anywhere within a system in which other forms of heat transfer--conduction and convection--are occurring). My Venus/Earth comparison also shows that the temperature lapse rate structure of the troposphere predominates over all other atmospheric conditions, including night and day, that it fundamentally and strictly governs atmospheric temperatures, and that the lapse rate structure does NOT depend upon gross vertical convection, especially from the surface, since each layer of the atmosphere is directly warmed by the Sun. The term "adiabatic lapse rate" should be replaced by "hydrostatic lapse rate" (as I have consistently emphasized) to be consistent with the fundamental physics--of real gases in a gravitational field--behind it.