The True and Simple Physics Being Ignored by All in the Climate Propaganda Wars

I have submitted the following short comment to the tallbloke site, in response to yet another internet post of alternative theory that ignores my definitive corrections to the ridiculous consensus theories of "global warming" (there is none, only a noisy and fraudulently adjusted "global temperature" record):

Too involved, and comes at the truth (of the temperature-governing lapse rate structure, due to the weight of the atmosphere itself), that I have already explained, and demonstrated clearly with my Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures comparison, through a maze of bad thinking ("adiabatic" is unnecessary and meaningless, compared to the utterly simple physics of the Standard Atmosphere model; and there simply is no "radiation forcing" affecting atmospheric temperatures).

Nikolov still hangs onto the terms used in the entirely false consensus "climate science"...and you are lemmings to follow. I am the one who insists that the underlying, unchanging structure of tropospheric temperatures (the "lapse rate") are maintained by CONDUCTION, not either radiation or convection, because it is just the innumerable jostlings of air molecules, in the hydrostatic condition of the lower atmosphere, that distributes, unwaveringly and precisely, both the pressure and thence the temperature (due, yes, to the "gas laws", which you managed to get in there, without properly emphasizing how simple is "incident solar radiation + hydrostatic atmosphere + gas laws = atmospheric temperatures", with the surface of the Earth only a base for the weighty atmosphere).

So there is no "adiabatic lapse rate", and only the conduction, throughout the troposphere, of incident solar energy, directly absorbed by the massive, hydrostatic atmosphere. All my discoveries, and all from the definitive Venus/Earth comparison, which is universally ignored, yet which precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere.

On Design

I have posted the following comment to the American Thinker site, in response to an article about the failure of modern science, or scientism:

I am a scientist, now 72 years old. I am an INDEPENDENT scientist -- a physicist -- with no connections (for the past 25 years) to academia or any institution. Twenty-three years ago, I made the greatest discovery in history, of what can only be called "The Great Design of the 'gods' ". Yes, 'gods' means the all-powerful, and fictional, characters in early world's myths. Only they were based upon a past reality, real beings, who in fact remade the world. My discovery constitutes a new world paradigm, for both science and religion. I am the Galileo of this time, with a "New World System" for belief: The world was designed, in every detail. The "god's" design was the last such, done only 20,000 to 10,000 years ago (which is why the world's myths are so vivid, as a remembered past of mankind). My rediscovery of the "god's" design brings into focus the fact that EVERYTHING in our world was designed, as philosophers and religious believers in a divine Creator have always claimed. Science, indeed, is founded upon the faith (religious faith, if you will!) that we CAN learn, and know, EVERYTHING about our world; scientists, at least before Darwin, knew science as the endeavor to learn the workings of the great design we all observe and live in. Design was the fundamental assumption, the basic understanding, that allowed (and allows) science to proceed, and succeed.

But modern science went wrong with Darwin, and has pushed recognition of the design(s) of the world out of "allowed" science. Religionists with an axe to grind, and relatively few honest and truly competent scientists, and many individuals with the insight to see evidence of design for themselves, have spoken, or cried, out against this INCOMPETENCE in modern science, but for the last 160 years in vain. My discovery WILL change that -- science, in my hands, has itself uncovered a world design, at the very root of all of mankind's "ancient mysteries", and all of mankind's earliest and longest-lasting dogmatic beliefs (mostly, of course, false dogmas about "God", with the consequent tyrannies of history those dogmas have birthed, and continue to birth to this day).

Science CAN explain everything -- in the end, but not yet, and not as long as it is way off in its fundamental assumptions, especially about the universal design of EVERYTHING, in the material universe. Science has gone wrong, not in failing to understand "humanity", but because incompetent humans have over-estimated themselves. Science's errors are not due to overreaching, into areas it "cannot ever explain", but in the specific wrong assumption at bottom that Design cannot be broached scientifically.

There is no runaway "global warming", because the world was DESIGNED to be stable, to support life (I have shown the simple physics of the designed atmosphere on my science blog, "The End of the Mystery: Setting the Stage", and proved there is no global-warming "greenhouse effect", at all.). The Covid-19 scare is worthless, for most of us, because the world was not DESIGNED to allow it; the world was specifically designed to provide us the necessary ingredients to protect ourselves (once science, a.k.a. methodical learning, revealed those ingredients to us...I use echinacea to support my immune system, and I believe it helped me ward off this latest viral attack as it has others over the past 25 years).

In short, what is needed in the world now is recognition of the new paradigm, of past, specific design(s) of the world, that my great discovery, of the true origin of the world as we now observe it, provides as never before in history.

Global Climate Hysteria is at Odds with the Stable Global Design I Discovered

I have posted the following comment on the tallbloke site, in response to the news that Great Britain is doubling down on its hysterical belief in "global climate change/global warming":

The whole world and everything in it was designed (in a series of progressively lesser designs, not a single creation). That includes the global mean surface temperature, as the Standard Atmosphere model assumes and I have precisely confirmed over 9 years ago (and explained, by its simple physics, in the years since) on my blog. The world, in all of its complexity and even its most extreme variations (which are local, and transient, not global nor abiding), are utterly stable -- by design.

The foundation of science -- the very idea of unchanging "natural laws" -- rests upon the fact of the world's designed stability.

My discovery and verification of "the Great Design of the "gods" " -- the last in the series of designs -- confirms the world's design, as never before imagined, in all of history, and sets at naught all expostulations of any substantial global climate change (as well as any dogmatic defense of the current, false, central theories of all the earth and life sciences: Darwinian -- undirected -- evolution, and plate tectonics).

The present worldwide insanity comes just as my revolutionary new knowledge would cure it, instantly with that knowledge's acceptance by the wider world. The new knowledge reveals the single, objective origin of all the world's "Ancient Mysteries", and all of its false dogmas, and can cure all those that are now dividing mankind and tearing at the fabric of modern civilization.

Climate Alarmism Is But a Symptom of the Failed Uniformitarian Paradigm

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, in response to another commenter who averred that the climate change debate was politics, not science. My concern is with the science, so I responded:

It has been about politics, or political propaganda -- a Big Lie -- since 1988 or so, when it became a UN movement (to "redistribute wealth", as they have lately admitted) but before that, from about 1960, it was about the failure of climate science, which in turn was just the tip of the tail of the failure of the paradigm behind all of the earth (and life) sciences.

You see, the "greenhouse effect" originally came into science as a way to explain past "ice ages", which were themselves but a uniformitarian "explanation" for the patterns of geologic stratification, physical scratches, and erratic boulders found over the surface of the Earth. Carl Sagan championed the "greenhouse effect" in 1960 and after, and one of his students was James Hansen, who became the premier climate alarmist scientist of our time.

But back to the dog and its tail-tip. What we see now in the "debate" over "climate" (both of these are fake terms, as used in the political propaganda) is a replay of the debate in the latter 19th century, between Darwinian (undirected, uniformitarian) evolution and "Catastrophism", with the ironic twist that the followers of the uniformitarian paradigm -- the consensus, since Darwin -- are now the catastrophists, in positing a "global climate" that is balanced on a razor's edge (of "radiation forcings", one of which is the "greenhouse effect"), that is being knocked asunder by a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide from about .03% of the atmosphere to about .04% -- totally negligible.

The bottom line: First, "climate science" is a failed science; as I keep writing -- because I proved it, with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison and merely solid, COMPETENT physical reasoning -- there IS no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists. Climate science needs to be taken from the climate scientists, because they have all been miseducated and have all failed. And that is irrespective of their subornation to an insane political narrative on the Left. But second, the paradigm of uniformitarian evolution of the physical Earth -- the extended Darwinian paradigm -- has failed, has in fact failed from its inception, despite its supposed support from Mendelian genetics, in the life sciences (there is no such, even seeming, support for it in the earth sciences -- only random cosmic accidents, "early on in the development of Earth" as the believers chant, to themselves as well as to every new student that comes to them). Genetics only lays bare the DESIGN of life, not its development -- the latter, comprising "evolution theory", is all made-up, unsupported, and even multiply disproved, speculation.

There is a crisis of incompetence throughout science today, because of the wrong turn made by Darwin and his followers more than a century and a half ago. And the bad science is just one part of the world-encompassing false dogmas, that have been too long nurtured by various groups, and cultures, that we are faced with today.

We are living in a climactic time, when many false dogmas are "coming home to roost" at the same time. Yes, like Islam, and every religion (and religiously-held ideas of every kind). It is a test, whether we have really grasped the Enlightenment that brought forth America (and the scientific revolution), or we will slip back into the easy dogmas of every past, ignorant people, going back to the very beginning of human intellectual endeavors.

The Bigotry of Radiative Transfer Believers

I received the following comment this morning, submitted to the November 2010 "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post. The commenter was apparently too impatient to notice that comments were closed to that post a long time ago, and readers directed to submit any further comments to the May 2015 "Venus No Greenhouse Effect Comments Overflow" post.

From "Anonymous":

"I suspect you got no response because it's pseudoscience crap.

Try this instead: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf "

This is the work of a bigot, and an immature or easily-unhinged mind; for the Venus/Earth comparison I performed is a presentation of fact, which cannot be equated with pseudoscience. It shows that one can use the Standard Model of the Earth's atmosphere to accurately predict the temperatures in the Venus atmosphere, over the full range of pressures found in the Earth's troposphere.

That is a clear fact, that immediately and clearly indicates that the physics enshrined in the Standard Atmosphere model is the ruling physics for Venus's atmosphere as well. There are two exceedingly good reasons for this: First, Venus's atmosphere differs hugely from Earth's atmosphere, in several ways, that are each presumed by climate scientists to have their own individual effects upon the temperature, but which in reality do not have any effect whatsoever, as only the distance from the Sun is shown to account for the difference in temperature in the two atmospheres, at a given Earth tropospheric pressure.

When an entire set of supposedly potent conditions is shown to have no effect, the overwhelming probability is that none of those conditions has any effect; the alternative is that their various effects cancel one another almost exactly, and that is highly unlikely, increasingly so with the number of conditions considered, and with some supposedly having additive effect (e.g., the "greenhouse effect" of increasing carbon dioxide) while others have a multiplicative effect (e.g., the albedo, or fraction of incident solar radiation reflected rather than absorbed).

The second reason to put one's money on the physics of the Standard Atmosphere is because it is simplicity itself, compared to the "greenhouse effect". I have written about this many times over the last 6 and 1/2 years, and won't do it again for this post.

These two reasons are why, from the day I first performed the Venus/Earth comparison, I have maintained that that comparison definitively separates the competent from the incompetent among scientists studying climate theory. I always will so maintain it.

Now, I see that the anonymous commenter referenced a Physics Today paper, from 2011 apparently. And I happen to remember--without even bothering to use the commenter's link--that the January 2011 issue of Physics Today contains a paper by Raymond Pierrehumbert, steadfastly asserting the radiative "greenhouse" effect to be "unassailable". I have, of course, assailed it many times.

It is therefore obvious, to me (especially in the present intellectual atmosphere, of "true believers" in false dogma doubling down on their longtime attempted suppression of critics), that Mr. Pierrehumbert himself is probably the author of that comment. Or perhaps it is after all only an obsessively loyal follower of his cult (of "atmospheric warming by radiative transfer within it").

You will get nowhere with me, Mr. Pierrehumbert. I consider you a humbug (no, no "Dr." for you), and your radiative theory incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to the warming of the atmosphere.

On "Global Warming: Science or Dogma?"

I have submitted the following comment to an article, "Global Warming: Science or Dogma" on the American Thinker site, in response to other comments there which hew to the dogma that there is a CO2 (carbon dioxide) greenhouse effect in the atmosphere:

Those scientists who think they are experts in talking about CO2 absorption of radiation from the planetary surface are over-educated and mis-educated. The point that any such "experts" need to understand is that such absorption is just one pathway by which heat is transferred from the surface of the planet to outer space. Heat is transferred not just by radiation, but by conduction and convection, and it is a BULK, macroscopic process, not a molecular, much less quantum, process. What governs the global mean surface temperature (and that at any other pressure level in the lower atmosphere, the troposphere) is the weight of the atmosphere above any level, pressing down on that level: Overall, the pressure at any level is due to the weight of the atmosphere above that level; this is called the hydrostatic condition, as it is the same condition in a static column of water. The global mean temperature has nothing at all to do with CO2 or any other constituent of the atmosphere, it is controlled, essentially, solely by the hydrostatic condition, the height (or total mass) of the atmosphere, and the intensity of incident solar radiation. The atmosphere is not even warmed by the heated planetary surface, on the global scale (uneven surface heating only drives the transient WEATHER patterns over the globe, not the global mean temperature) as all of the "experts" have been miseducated to believe, but by direct absorption of incident solar radiation and downward transfer of heat by CONDUCTION (not radiation at all, note), as strictly enforced by the hydrostatic condition (that means it happens very fast, through uncounted molecular collisions), so CO2 absorption of long wavelength radiation from the surface is doubly irrelevant. No "expert", on either side of the climate debate/war, wants to have anything to do with that explanation, it is too alien to the accepted dogma. But the real, true science is simple and easy, not complicated and contrived. This is why I have continually written, "There is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists", ever since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison of November 2010. There is NO global-warming "greenhouse effect".

An Ever-Darker Future Imminent

The Jo Nova site has a post on South Australia's energy infrastructure woes, and the comments put blame on all the usual suspects. The following is my response, as a competent scientist:

Underlying the lazy (still too well fed and entertained), politically polarized public, and their representatives, and the larger tyrannous agenda of the Insane Left, is the fundamental crisis:

A general scientific incompetence–not among the public, but among the “experts” themselves, across all specialties that intersect with the climate or atmosphere, and thus among all those who should have nipped this in the bud–brought about and maintains the insanity surrounding “global warming/climate change/energy infrastructure transformation”.

Back in October 2011, I posted the following comment on Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc” site:

“Judith Curry’s testimony: ‘It is now up to the political process (international, national, and local) to decide how to contend with the climate problem.’

That’s what is wrong with this [Curry's] blog site, in a nutshell.”

In other words, she failed (and continues to fail, despite her stand against the “consensus”) to see how wide and deep is the incompetence in the “climate’ science itself–although all of you here who see the society-wide strict adherence to the alarmist narrative–in all of our most trusted institutions–on a daily basis, and know it is nonsense, know better.

As I have also written for the last 6 years, 1) stop all “climate policies” immediately, and 2) take “climate” science away from the “climate scientists”, indeed, take it away from any scientist who believes any part of it. It is all false; it all has to be redone, from the bottom up (as far back as the Standard Atmosphere, which alone is good science).

It Is a Test, World

The question is, how to make people--especially "experts", and all those who follow them unquestioningly, as though they really were expert--get it into their heads that they are not thinking straight?

I cannot, as a hard scientist, take any part of climate science seriously. The very "global temperature" data on which all of it depends is constantly being revised, and always to make the "global warming" more "certain" and more "unprecedented". The systematic, always biased adjustments, and continued, late reformations of the temperature record, tell me and any competent scientist it is a lie, plain and simple, told to affirm and defend a delusion, nothing more. The atmospheric radiation transfer theory is founded upon the sand of a "blackbody" Earth, which imposes a gross violation of the fundamental law of conservation of energy from the very beginning of any consideration or debate, and the simple Venus/Earth temperatures-vs-pressure comparison proves there is no "global warming CO2 greenhouse effect" at all. The "experts" are reduced to averring, as holy "consensus", that heat energy escaping from the Earth's surface can be "trapped" by CO2 and transferred, against the ever-present and all-governing temperature gradient, as reradiated radiation ("backradiation"). It is a lie.

And after a century of supposed global warming, the "global mean temperature" today, as prescribed by current "expert" machinations, is still below what the Standard Atmosphere indicated it was a century ago. And the Standard Atmosphere is precisely confirmed by that Venus/Earth comparison, and so reveals--almost effortlessly--the blatant lie, or dogmatic delusion, of "global warming".

And the wider, non-scientific world is going insane, with the Left intent upon coercing the world into obedience to its delusional dictates, and the U.S. Presidential candidate on the "Right" being outright rejected, by the Right itself (not to mention, by the Left)--because he insists upon telling the truth, and they all find the truth too harsh for their tender ears.

People need to let go of personal prejudices, and look for the truth. Ask yourselves, who is telling the truth, and who is hiding it? That is the test, for the whole world, now; can people do that? Will they, or will they not, face the truth? Will you, or won't you? That is the simple test.

It Beggars the Imagination

When I first became aware of the "global warming" debate in late 2009 (a debate which was, years later, infamously changed to "climate change" when the "global warming pause" from 1997 to the present made it "politically expedient" to direct attention away from the continuing LACK of scientifically measurable global warming), I knew as a hard scientist that to find the truth I needed to dive to the heart of the matter and first seek definitive evidence CONTRARY to the consensus climate theory (of the "global warming greenhouse effect"), because there is no use holding, much less promulgating to the world, a theory that is definitively contradicted by real-world observations. Any scientist working within a theory always needs to keep a close eye out for such game-ending observations; it's known as looking for weaknesses in the theory being followed.

I have since found out that the weaknesses far outweigh the claims, and overwhelm the theory, at every turn, throughout climate science, and this is true not just of the "greenhouse effect", but even of the more fundamental "radiation transfer theory", which outlandishly treats the Earth's surface as a blackbody surrounded by vacuum (because atmospheric scientists "measure" the "radiation" coming off the Earth as just that coming off such a vacuum-surrounded blackbody). This fact alone should have caused competent scientists to demand a better radiation transfer theory, on the grounds that the "observed" Earth radiation is almost certainly a misnomer, and is really a measure of the TEMPERATURE of the surface, mistakenly interpreted as a blackbody radiation intensity (and a real "thermal radiation" spectrum). When one looks at the fundamental assumptions in the radiation transfer theory, one sees this error at a glance, because the theory divides the atmosphere into many layers, and the layers are all assumed to be "grey body" radiators, that is, blackbody radiators attenuated only by a local "emissivity" factor (a constant, less than 1, multiplying the fundamental Planck distribution spectrum of a blackbody). There are other obvious weaknesses in the radiation transfer theory (I have recognized it as basically a light extinction model, not a radiation transfer model), but the main one is this error of making everything a blackbody or a quasi-blackbody, mitigated only by a fudge factor called the "emissivity factor". A graduate student in physics could see that this theory almost certainly only works because the atmosphere is in fact subject to a strict vertical temperature distribution, a predominant, set (i.e., unchanging) distribution of temperatures, and so long as you have a predominant, unchanging set of temperatures, you can formally replace it with a set of "blackbodies", or "greybodies" with "emissivity" fudge factors. Such a theory won't allow you to predict temperature from radiation "forcings", because the reality works just the opposite way, with temperature controlling the "radiation" being measured, not vice-versa. But climate scientists don't want to question that theory, even though their models, based upon "radiation forcings", are infamously unable to track the observable global mean surface temperature. As I have found, from my 2010 Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures comparison, it is the simple, set temperature distribution of the troposphere (known as the "lapse rate" structure) that controls the global mean temperature, not any constituent of the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or other so-called "greenhouse gases". That set, vertical temperature distribution can be overwhelmed, but only near the surface, by local and transient causes including night versus day, the seasons, localized temperature inversions and weather changes (of course it varies with latitude, but you can use an average, or mid-latitudinal, lapse rate structure, as the century-old Standard Atmosphere does); but it rules the global mean temperature, at any level in the troposphere, utterly, and the Venus/Earth comparison proves that definitively.

In the context of that Venus/Earth comparison, this post is about emphasizing how only the difference in the distance of the two planets from the Sun accounts for the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, which is essentially a constant (1.176) over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures (above and below the thick Venus cloud layer). This fact should be emphasized because of the huge differences in the conditions in the two planetary atmospheres, all of which are presumed by climate scientists to affect the temperature, but which have precisely zero effect in actuality. These differences include the amount of CO2 in the air (0.04% in Earth's versus 96.5% in Venus's); the amount of sunlight reflected, not absorbed, by the planet (either at the surface or off the planetwide cloud layer of Venus), 30% by Earth and 70% or more from Venus; and the difference in planetary surface (Earth being 70% ocean, Venus all solid crust).

But there is a further huge difference in the two planets, in the theory learned and defended by climate scientists, and this post was written primarily to remind everyone of it. It is a truism among today's climate and atmospheric scientists that "the Sun warms the Earth, and the Earth warms the atmosphere". But that physical "explanation" certainly doesn't extend to the other, cloud-enshrouded planets, which all show the same "negative lapse rate" structure that Earth's atmosphere does, even though their clouds absorb all of the sunlight before it can reach the surface. So the lapse rate structure does not depend upon warming the planetary surface first. As mentioned in my Venus/Earth comparison post, other physicists have pointed out that conditions for the "greenhouse effect" are not met on Venus, precisely because the effect requires that the atmosphere be heated from the surface, and not enough sunlight gets through to the surface there to heat it first.

So the biggest "difference" (though it's not real) is the different physics one has to imagine for atmospheric warming on Earth versus Venus. Venus, and all the other planets with massive atmospheres are obviously warmed from the top down, while Earth is believed by today's scientists to be warmed from the surface. Add that "difference", in the supposed fundamental physics of atmospheric warming, to all those other differences between Venus and Earth. And yet, the two atmospheres don't respond differently at all, to all those differences; only the distance from the Sun matters, very precisely.

Despite all the work that has gone into the theories championed and defended by atmospheric and climate scientists, despite the lifetimes of work that have been invested in them, the simple Venus/Earth comparison I did, fully 19 years after the Venus data I used became available, tells me--and any competent physical scientist--they are wrong, and wrong-headed, and indeed incompetent (because I am not a "climate expert", and what I have done is what any competent scientist, even any student of science, should have done more than a generation ago). This state of affairs beggars the imagination--and yet it goes on, as a runaway political agenda, and a cult idea ("global warming", or "climate change"), that is sowing the seeds of destruction in every direction, throughout the world.

No Getting Around It

The notrickszone site has a post debunking an AGW alarmist's theory about a slowdown in the Atlantic ocean circulation, to which I responded:

Yet this article (quoting from climatecentral.org) still says: "...greenhouse gas pollution causes ice sheets to melt, which prior research has shown is causing the circulation to slow overall."

So it doesn't even touch the core delusion, that there is a global-warming "greenhouse effect" and consequent global "climate change".

I also read a comment on the climate etc site of Judith Curry, by one of the many notorious defenders of the utterly false climate science (David Appell), reiterating that scientists have "shown" that the Sun can't be to blame for the "global warming", and that it must be CO2.

My short answer to everyone who believes in any part of the consensus climate science is

The Bottom Line About "Climate Science" and "Global Warming".

That evidence is patently clear, that there is no CO2 "greenhouse effect" at all, and further that it should not be surprising that climate scientists cannot explain their "global warming" as due to variability in the Sun's output, because THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS themselves are not to be trusted. Everybody, climate scientists included, uses 288K for the global mean surface temperature in their theories, in agreement with what the Standard Atmosphere says. Yet the Standard Atmosphere has "said" that for over a hundred years, and the global mean surface temperature "measured" today is LESS than 288K, by a few tenths of a degree, despite all the hysteria over a century of "global warming". My 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison--which I have claimed ever since to be the definitive correction to the utterly false climate science--precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model, so there can be no doubt that the Standard Atmosphere describes the real atmosphere, on the global scale, and it demands no "global warming" has occurred from the time the Standard Atmosphere was developed all the way up to 1991, the time the Magellan spacecraft took the Venus data I used in my comparison.

Even some consensus scientists confirm, albeit unintentionally, my position on the lack of any proved global warming at all. I recently came across, and communicated in a comment on the jonova site, this 2014 admission from a European Space Agency scientist: "A widely reported 'pause' in global warming may be an artefact of scientists looking at the wrong data, says a climate scientist at the European Space Agency. Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as 'lousy'."

Yet that data is what is presented to the world, defended in every debate, and obsessed over, month after month, by both sides in the climate debate. Climate science is "lousy", ladies and gentlemen. Period.

When the dust clears, this generation will be swept into the dustbin of history for its vehement and condescending denial of the clear truth, that there is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists today. After all this time, I would go further, and say there is no competent scientist throughout all of the earth and life sciences today--I have neither seen nor heard of any of them, whether alarmist or lukewarmer, accepting my Venus/Earth comparison as definitive, and its clear consequences for current climate science. There simply is no excuse for the rampant incompetence in science now, although there are clear reasons for it. I have explained the biggest reason on my blog, in the context of my own unprecedented scientific discoveries: The current scientific paradigm (which my discoveries replace) is failing, and has been failing from its inception. Science has chosen to nurture false dogma ever since Darwin, and almost completely so in the last half-century.

Responding to a Believer in False Science

I have just responded to a comment on the jonova site, from a skeptic who wanted to know how to respond to an AGW (anthropogenic global warming) believer, who claimed that skeptics "conflated natural with anthropogenic" factors in pointing out the infamous "global warming pause" since 1997, and so lacked mental acuity, or words to that effect. I responded by referring to a recent post of mine here:

To put it bluntly, you are dealing with a believer in current, politically correct dogma, sanctioned by an incompetent generation of scientists, who have worked for two generations to advance an utterly false climate science, and by all of our supposedly authoritative institutions, which have been suborned to that false science simply because they cannot imagine that so many scientists could be so wrong, or so evil in advancing false information to the world to protect their professional positions and income. You are not likely to get him or those who believe like him to change their minds by giving them either simple facts or convincing rhetoric. They muddy every argument that is brought before them.

However, in the context of proper attribution of global mean temperature variations to natural and anthropogenic factors, you could give them this link to a recent post of mine:

The Bottom Line About "Climate Science" and "Global Warming",

and point out that the false climate scientists have put out graphs to the public which basically blame all of the "global warming" on carbon dioxide (CO2), even though the temperature record shows no consistent temperature variation with increasing CO2. Even more astonishing, a century ago the global mean surface temperature, as indicated in the Standard Atmosphere model, was 288K, and after a century of supposed global warming the global temperature "measured" today is LESS than 288K, by a few tenths of a degree (and this, in the larger, and fundamental, context of the Standard Atmosphere having been precisely confirmed by my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, so it's no use arguing that the Standard Atmosphere doesn't apply, because it obviously does, quite accurately, and precisely). So, not only can "climate science" not disentangle natural from anthropogenic (and clearly does not want to even acknowledge the natural), it cannot prove there has even been any "global" warming; it cannot prove, to anyone who has seen the Standard Atmosphere precisely confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison, that it can even MEASURE the global mean surface temperature accurately enough to show any real global warming, from ANY combination of factors, both natural and anthropogenic.

Incompetent Climate Science: Balancing Large, Opposing "Effects", All False

In the current insane atmosphere over supposed "global warming" -- due primarily to a long-nurtured, dogmatic incompetence in all the earth and life sciences, not just climate science (which explains why the wider science community has not, as a whole, been able to recognize and repudiate climate science's utter failure), and the "expert" incompetence elevated now to a political crisis of the first order, by an opportunistic, revolution-minded political party in power (so outrageous that I, a professionally and personally dispassionate physicist, know them as the Insane Left) -- the ordinary man or woman cannot know how really broken is our system, from the top down, and hence who to believe in the public "climate change" debate.

Given that largely unrecognized, yet revolutionary context, the following "boring" (to the non-scientist) calculations will, I am sure, not cause a ripple in the beliefs of most people, or in the actions now being implemented by their "leaders" (a laughable designation, I assure you, given the leaders' determined wrong-headedness regarding the physical truth about the "climate"). I will simply provide these few calculations, dispassionately and "for what its worth" (as one says when one doubts anyone is really listening).

My 2010 Venus/Earth comparison showed that there is no greenhouse effect, because only the difference in solar distances of the two planets is needed to explain the Venus/Earth atmospheric temperature ratio, despite Venus's almost pure--96.5%--carbon dioxide atmosphere compared to Earth's minuscule 0.04%. (Surprising as it may be to believers in the "greenhouse effect", this is quite precisely true, both above and below Venus's thick cloud cover; in fact, inside Venus's clouds, Venus's atmospheric temperature is SMALLER than expected by a constant few degrees, not larger as the "greenhouse effect" would make it). As I originally wrote in that 2010 report, and as I have continually claimed ever since, the precision with which the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is determined ONLY by their respective distances from the Sun, shows not only that there is no "greenhouse effect" observed on these two hugely differing planets, but their atmospheres must be warmed by incoming solar radiation, not by heat from the planets' surfaces as climate scientists assume and teach to each succeeding generation of students.

Let us see what would be the Venus/Earth temperature ratio if other physical conditions affected it. The major differences between Venus and Earth are in 1) the albedo, or fraction of incoming solar energy that is reflected rather than absorbed, and 2) the supposed "greenhouse effect". I have already mentioned how hugely Venus differs from the Earth in its atmospheric carbon dioxide level (96.5% vs. 0.04%). The difference in albedo is also large, some 70% of the incident solar energy in the case of Venus, vs. only 30% reflected by the Earth.

For simplicity, let the intensity of the incoming solar radiation at the Earth's distance from the Sun be one unit of intensity, and let the Earth-Sun distance be one unit of distance. The solar radiation varies with distance R from the Sun as 1 over R-squared. Venus's distance from the Sun is 0.724 of Earth's distance, so the incoming solar radiation at Venus is 1/(.724) squared, or 1.91 times the intensity of incoming solar radiation at Earth.

If only the strength of the incident solar energy mattered in determining the temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann formula tells us the temperature must vary as the fourth-root of that incoming energy, so the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at any given pressure in the atmosphere, should be the fourth-root of 1.91, or 1.176. At 1 bar pressure, T_earth = 288K, so T_venus would be 1.176 x 288K = 339K. In fact, this is what is observed for the actual Venus temperature at 1 bar pressure in its atmosphere.

But how can we explain that observed fact, when we know that different fractions of the incoming solar radiation are actually absorbed in the two planetary systems, and also the "greenhouse effect" in Venus's atmosphere should be much, much larger than in Earth's. Venus has over 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth; 96.5% is some 11.4 "doublings" of Earth's 0.04%. (Climate scientists use the concept of a "doubling" of the carbon dioxide in their pronouncements to the public; they express the atmospheric "climate sensitivity" as the temperature increase expected from a doubling of the carbon dioxide).

Consider first the supposed albedo effect upon the temperature:

At Earth, incident solar = 1 (our "standard unit"), and the albedo (reflected intensity) is 0.3, so

Absorbed solar, at Earth = 0.7

At Venus, incident solar = 1.91, and albedo is 0.7, so its absorbed intensity is 0.3 x 1.91 = 0.573, which = 0.819 of Earth's 0.7.

Thus, if the albedo, or the fraction actually absorbed by a planet-plus-atmosphere system, also mattered, its maximum effect, for the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, would give

T_venus/T_earth = fourth root of 0.819 = .951,

and for T_earth = 288K, T_venus = 274K,

Note this is much smaller than the observed value of 339K. So the "correction for albedo" imagined by consensus climate scientists is very large.

Now let's suppose there is also a "greenhouse effect" to be considered. It would have to offset the large albedo effect just calculated, i.e., provide a warming of at least 339K - 274K = 65K. This would require a CO2 climate sensitivity of almost 6K per doubling of CO2 (i.e., 65K/11.4 doublings = 5.7K per doubling.

No one claims such high values; the most alarmist of climate scientists themselves, and the UN IPCC, promulgate a value of 3K per doubling of CO2, while the "skeptics" generally tout a value around 1K per doubling of CO2.

The above calculations really add little to a competent scientist's understanding of my original Venus/Earth comparison (if any such scientist existed among the "authorities" one hears from these days). These calculations merely show that the only way to "explain" the observed Venus/Earth temperature ratio, within the consensus "albedo plus greenhouse effects" theory, is to massively play with the supposed CO2 "climate senitivity", in order to exactly balance two large and diametrically opposed "effects", so that they precisely add up to zero. In the real world, scientists know that this is very highly unlikely, basically impossible, when the two "effects" are physically independent of each other, as the albedo and carbon dioxide are. (The point is made even stronger when one considers that the "albedo effect" upon the temperature is a multiplicative one, while the "greenhouse effect" is an additive one, so that it requires a different CO2 climate sensitivity at each pressure level to zero the two "effects". Performing the above "albedo" calculation at the 200 mb pressure level, for example, T_earth = 211.6K, giving T_venus = .951 x 211.6K = 201.2K, which is only 45.9K less than the observed value of 247.1K, not 65K as at the 1 bar pressure; this would require a CO2 climate sensitivity of 45.9K/11.4, or 4K/doubling of CO2, in order to precisely balance the "albedo" and "greenhouse" effects at the 200 mb pressure level.) The real situation faced by consensus climate science is even worse than this, because in addition to the differences in albedo and carbon dioxide concentrations, Venus and Earth also differ in their planetary surfaces, with one all solid crust and the other 70% deep ocean. So consensus climate science is faced with the vain task of precisely balancing not just two, but three supposed "effects" upon the temperature (one of them additive while the other two are multiplicative), which "coincidentally" all zero out in order for only the solar distances to precisely and "coincidentally" explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio.

A competent scientist (that's me) knows better. A competent scientist knows, immediately from the precision of the Venus/Earth comparison, without needing to perform the explicit calculations above, that the atmosphere must be warmed only by incoming solar radiation, and so is not dependent, as the "greenhouse effect" is, upon a previously warmed planetary surface, nor upon any fraction of the Sun's radiation that is not directly absorbed by the atmosphere, including that which is reflected (hence, the albedo), by either clouds or the planetary surface.

On top of this simple scientific disproof of consensus climate science, of course, are the revelations of fraudulent adjustments to the world's temperature records, that fake global warming, and the hysterical claims, of imminent catastrophic "climate change", being made in the compliant media by environmental activists and "leaders" like U.S. President Obama, all of them committed not to the truth but to economic and political "transformation" of the world. They would make a new world order founded entirely upon lies.

The Bottom Line About "Climate Science" and "Global Warming"

The war of words over "climate change" and "global warming" continues to be a fragmented one, with a wide diversity of opinions and little focus overall. Most writers on the subject are set in their views now, as the consensus authorities--alarmist propagandists all--have been all along, in the interest of their own favored positions and of the political power these radical activists see now being wielded by an insane Left under President Obama. Another example of set opinion is Dr. Roy Spencer, who puts out a satellite-based global temperature record and is a harsh skeptic of the alarmist "consensus", but he is a "lukewarm" believer in the "consensus" science and therefore just as miseducated as the alarmists. He has, just this past weekend, decided to close all comments on his web page, simply to deny any further attention to those who, like me, deny the very existence of a measurable CO2 "greenhouse effect".

It is a complex situation for any layperson to try to learn the truth from. That is why my approach to the climate debate has been to present only simple, definitive evidence, all of which I have found to be against the consensus climate science. I can present my view in one clear and simple illustration.

The following image is my version of one presented to the public, on USAToday, in October 2010). It embodies, for me, the central truth about "global warming" and the "climate science" behind it, that everyone (particularly any "expert" who defends it, and any politician--like President Obama or his Attorney General--or dogmatic ideologue who demands obedience to it) needs to know and accept:

The original image purported to show that the "global temperature" (more correctly, the global mean surface temperature, or GMST) has increased with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, since 1880.

Note, in the graph, that the temperature is shown as apparently closely tracking (to the eyes of the unwary, non-scientific layperson) the rise in CO2, from about 1975 on (to the end of the graph, about 2008). I say the temperature "apparently" tracks the CO2, because the scales of the two superimposed graphs have been selected to show just that (again, to "make it clear" to the non-scientist reader). The trouble is that the temperature data is very noisy, making that "jittery" appearance in the temperature graph, and it doesn't really follow the smooth CO2 curve all that well, particularly from 2000 on.

Now, honest scientists can legitimately argue over just how well or how bad the temperature tracks the CO2 from 1975 on, based solely upon this illustration as presented to the public by leading climate scientists. What cannot be honestly argued about, however, is that the temperatures BEFORE 1975 do NOT track the rising CO2; they vary, both positively and negatively, independently of the ever-rising CO2. That is the first simple, and devastating, point to be remembered by everyone, even those who are uninterested, or uneducated, in the debate.

This was so apparent to me, when I first came upon this image, that I posted the following comment:

"The graph shown here arbitrarily puts the CO2 curve on top of the temperature record so that the two curves rise together after 1979--but only after 1979, note. As an independent scientist, I do not hesitate to call this what it is: fraudulent science. This is very ugly, raw political propaganda in the name of science. All scientists should be repulsed, and ashamed, by the breadth and depth of the incompetence in their midst, and the foisting of that incompetence upon the public."

Since the public debate was not about the science, but was and is in fact a political war, my small voice for real science was ignored, as it has been by most ever since.

-------------------

In November 2010, just a month after seeing that fraudulent graph, I performed my Venus/Earth temperature-vs-pressure comparison that, in my view, definitively proved to any competent scientist that there WAS NO "global warming greenhouse effect" due to CO2. That Venus/Earth comparison precisely confirmed the Standard Atmosphere model of Earth's troposphere, which has been well-known for over a century. The Standard Atmosphere defines an utterly stable mean surface temperature, and is based upon both many years of temperature measurements throughout the atmospheres as well as on a very simple understanding of the physics behind the vertical temperature gradient in the troposphere. Simply put, that temperature gradient (a simple decrease in temperature of 6.5°C for each kilometer of height above sea level) is widely known as the "lapse rate", and while all of the "experts" have been taught that it is "the adiabatic lapse rate", in fact it is fundamentally and properly called "the hydrostatic lapse rate", physically due only to the very simple hydrostatic condition, that the atmospheric pressure at any height in the troposphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that height.

Again, my Venus/Earth comparison precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere (as of 1991, when the Venus data was taken by the Magellan spacecraft), over the full range of tropospheric pressures. And here is the second utterly simple and fundamental point for everyone to understand: The mean surface temperature, in the Standard Atmosphere, is 288K (15°C, or 59°F), and it has been so FOR A CENTURY OR MORE. Look again at the above illustration, where I have added that fact into the graph. Simply, according to the precisely confirmed Standard Atmosphere and its simple physics of the hydrostatic atmosphere, the surface temperature of the Earth is 288K, and not only has it been so throughout the modern temperature record, despite what the official global temperature calculations claim, but it is HIGHER than the supposed mean surface temperature today, despite a century of "global warming", according to the climate scientists themselves (the above is THEIR graph; I am only contrasting their claims with the precisely verified, and utterly stable, Standard Atmosphere).

The leading climate scientists ignore this utter failure of their science. "Lukewarm" scientists like Roy Spencer vehemently reject it also, refuse to even have it heard on their web sites. And radical activists have used this epidemic of incompetent stupidity (actually dogmatic adherence to failed theory) on the part of the scientists to push for ruinous legislation, to make "war on coal" for example, now a full-fledged war on any and all fossil fuel use, despite the utter dependency of our civilization upon that energy. The free peoples of the world are being warred upon, literally, using clearly false science.

Ben Is Glory, Glory Is Ben

I read a comment on the jonova site that referred to "the gravitational warming theory". My response:

There is no "gravitational warming", per se. There is instead gravitational distribution of atmospheric pressure (the pressure at any level is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level), which imposes a vertical temperature distribution (the "lapse rate" structure). Whatever energy is contained in the atmosphere, it has to be vertically distributed according to that elementary physics. This is entirely independent of HOW the atmosphere is warmed. In particular it is independent of any heating by the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 or any other so-called "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere; the only effect such absorption can have is to increase the radiation pathway for heat transfer in the atmosphere, compared to the pathways for conduction and convection (the other two processes by which heat can be transported). As radiation travels faster than convection or conduction, IR absorption can only increase the SPEED at which heat is transported (over a short distance), but it can do no more than re-attain the governing lapse rate structure more quickly than would be the case without "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere; it cannot change the lapse rate, nor the temperature (at the surface or at any other pressure level in the atmosphere).

My Venus/Earth temperatures comparison precisely confirms this (it confirms the Standard Atmosphere model of the Earth's troposphere, which is based upon the above physics), and shows that the Earth's troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the planetary surface as everyone has been taught. And of course it utterly disproves the "global warming greenhouse effect", since Venus's atmosphere has over 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as Earth's, without any effect upon the temperature.

But not many listen, or seem capable of understanding. I just happen to have the TV on now, and it is showing a rerun of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", where they are fighting the "god" Glory. Glory is limited by the fact that she turns into the harmless Ben at awkward moments, but even when people see this transformation take place right in front of them, they can't seem to remember it after a brief moment. The climate debate is like this, where no one seems able to retain knowledge of the simple physics of the Standard Atmosphere. So just remember, "Ben is Glory; Glory is Ben" and "there IS NO greenhouse effect".

Climate Alarmists and Lukewarmers Are All Incompetent

The Climate Etc site of the tenured (snugly employed) academic Judith Curry has a post on "lukewarmers", those who are proud to call themselves reasonable (as opposed to the alarmists on one side, and the "skeptics" who are "deniers" on the other). Their "reasonableness" has been a drag on any effective criticism of current climate science for years, and it is unfortunately the position of choice for many in the global warming debate. My response:

There is no haven in the lukewarmer position(s); climate science is totally wrong, because it is based upon the science of mere weather--alias local and transient processes--with no regard for the global constraint of the hydrostatic atmosphere, or for the direct heating of the atmosphere by the Sun rather than by the planetary surface. Their (your, Judith Curry) scientific incompetence is just as large as the alarmists'. But here at the nadir of the "debate" (or fruitless war of words) to co-opt the public to a science they are not equipped to judge, no one will question their own tragically flawed estimation of their own "expertness"; no one is learning anything. None of you is worthy of the name "scientist".

Hydrostatic Vs. "Gravito-Thermal": Real Physics Vs. Latter-Day Incompetence in Science

The Hockeyschtick site has another post hyping a "gravito-thermal" greenhouse effect. My response:

This is just a rehashing of Nikolov and Zeller's "Unified Climate Theory" (N&Z), only claiming the use of "dimensional analysis methodology", presumably meaning their mysterious "Eq(10)"--mysterious because it is not deemed important enough to actually reveal it here--has physical units consistent on both sides of the equation, that refer to the physical parameters involved in the problem (and not to an arbitrary amalgamation of variables--an ad hoc fitting function--without physical consistency, as N&Z did). There is still the "atmospheric thermal enhancement" (ATE) factor, the airy reference to the "Poisson formula", and the apparently absolutely precise fitting of the global mean surface temperatures of all the considered planetary bodies to one formula, that featured also in N&Z -- and no physics involved, of course, just carefree mathematical modelling (and the claim that it "deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation"). The Moon, Mars and Triton are practically meaningless in it, however, as the fitting function is vertical (insensitive to the pressure) for such small-to-nonexistent surface pressures as these 3 bodies possess. And they say Titan wasn't even used in the regressions, so only Earth and Venus really matter in them (and see below for my caveat on Titan). I already, nearly 5 years ago, compared Earth's Standard Atmosphere to the temperature vs. pressure profile of Venus, not at one point (the planetary surface) but over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures.

None of this present hype goes beyond, or even rises to the level of, my Venus/Earth comparison as the definitive correction of the false physics embraced by climate and atmospheric science today. None of it rises to the level of the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere, which was known to everyone before scientists turned away from it to pursue the chimaera of "runaway global warming". None of it rises to the level of understanding, gained from simply looking at the temperature and pressure profiles of all the planets, that they all have the same form: Above approximately 200 mb pressure, they all have the negative, constant vertical temperature lapse rate structure that Earth has, and which is due simply to the hydrostatic condition: that the pressure at any level in the atmosphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level. The Standard Atmosphere is of course based upon assuming the hydrostatic condition.

But none of the other planetary bodies compares so precisely with Earth as does Venus, where only the ratio of solar distances is needed to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at any given pressure. So the "gravito-thermal" theory glosses over (simply does not recognize) any other variables that are necessary to explain the temperatures in the other planetary bodies considered. The comparison of Earth's Standard Atmosphere with Titan, for example, as I compared Earth with Venus, shows that the near-surface temperature of Titan's atmosphere is too low, by about 7K (while near the tropopause, around 300 to 200 mb, it comes into close alignment with Earth's atmosphere, corrected only by the effect of its different solar distance); the modelling touted here, and that done by Nikolov and Zeller, can't even recognize that awkward fact, much less explain it physically--whereas the Venus/Earth comparison can, because Venus's temperatures, inside its thick cloud layer, are also too low, by about the same amount (5K), and both are probably due to the same cause: Non-gaseous particles suspended in the atmospheres (water-based clouds on Venus, particulate haze on Titan) that increase the effective specific heat of the atmosphere, in those regions where they occur.

And, of course, my definitive contribution was left out of the list presented above. No one is learning anything. The "gravito-thermal" effect is nothing but the effect of the hydrostatic condition, so far as any real physics is concerned.

"In Search of the Lost Chord" of Reason In Our Time

The Jo Nova site reports on the cancellation of a Bjorn Lomborg "consensus center" which, as I understand it, was to be devoted--at least partially--to reporting the truth about the ridiculously high cost of alarmist climate policies. Readers here should read that Jo Nova post, then my following response:

On April 25, 2011 (six months after my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which disproves the global-warming greenhouse effect and separates the competent from the incompetent in so-called "climate science"), I submitted the following comment to this site (it may seem to start out off-topic on this thread, but read on):

"You cannot shame Barack Obama. I wrote to him, on paper, about the unrecognized crisis of incompetence in science the day after he was elected, and received only a 3X5 card with 'thank you for writing', after 4 months. He was brainwashed from his youth, epitomizes the current widespread inability to focus on the critical evidence in any field, and personally exults in what I, to put all the political hysteria in the proper perspective, call the 'War of the Insane Left'. They are out for revenge (against the Bush presidency, against past slavery and racism, against the excesses of capitalism, and yes, probably against every personal injustice each of them has experienced in life), and for them the ends justify any means that comes to hand. I just saw a portion of a TV program on 'The Third Reich: The Rise', within the last hour. It was familiar to me, and was depressing (knowing how it would play out), so I didn't continue watching it. The Left is trying to emulate the rise of the Third Reich; that is, they want all the power and no opposition. Anyone of any maturity knows that government, academia, and all large institutions utilize the same absolute power, absolutely corrupted and corrupting, to maintain themselves and those at the top. And ALL of our scientific and political institutions, and the media, have already been suborned by the supposedly righteous image they have been projecting for decades. The global warming hysteria is just the current tip of their spear, to be pushed regardless of the truth. And just as most Germans were not Nazis, most of those defending the obscene climate 'consensus' are not evil. They are, however, thoroughly incompetent, and brainwashed to be accepting of evil. All the signs are that it will only get worse, until there are no 'lukewarmers' left, in climate science, all of science, or in politics. Shortly after, it will be World War III in earnest. And it will be our own fault if we refuse to see it coming."

CO2-Correlated Global Warming Only Occurred 1976 - 1989/90

As a non-climate scientist (a general physicist), I try to show only the most obvious examples of incompetence and/or fraud in the consensus climate science underlying the "global warming" scare stories touted by all of our trusted, supposedly authoritative institutions. I disproved the "greenhouse effect" with a simple Venus/Earth temperatures comparison; I showed that US temperatures have been falsely adjusted according to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which fraudulently FORCES the dependence of those temperatures upon carbon dioxide). I also long ago realized that the alarmist "climate science consensus" was based on just a relatively short period when the global mean temperature and the atmospheric carbon dioxide level both increased together, and I have pointed this out repeatedly for more than 4 years. This short-period cherry-picking (and worse) of the temperature data, on the part of politically and ideologically motivated climate scientists, going back to 1989/90, has come up once again on Bob Tisdale's blog, where I submitted the following comment:

I have pointed this out repeatedly (admittedly only on the few blogs I visit at all regularly), since the spring of 2010, just a few months after I first became aware of the global warming debate (around October 2009). I thought, for most of that time, that their cherry-picked period was 1976-2000, until this last September, at Steven Goddard’s blog, when it became clear (to me) that the actual core of the alarmists’ belief is based only upon 1976-1989/90:

My comment at Real Science Sept. 17, 2013

(See the graph at the link I provided within that comment, from USAToday in 2010. I called it fraudulent science as soon as I saw it presented to the public there.)

And I added:

…and the best (and earliest) paper I saw (in the spring of 2010) showing the clear (detailed) cause-effect relationship between ENSO events [i.e., natural variability in the climate system, not the "greenhouse" or any human-caused effect] and the global mean temperature was Prof. Horst Malberg’s March 2009 article, in German, “La Niña – El Niño und der solare Einfluss: Die Klimaentwicklung 1950 – 2008″ (“La Niña – El Niño and the Solar Influence: The Climate Trend 1950 – 2008″).

Are There Any Competent Climate Scientists?

Steven Goddard has a post claiming "Some climate scientists are actually competent". My response:

There have been two basic camps in climate academe, those who spout "greenhouse effect" and "runaway global warming" with alarm, and those who beat the drum for "ENSO" (or "multidecadal ocean oscillations") and a cyclical variation in global temperature, on top of a widely-believed global warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age (c. 1680) of 0.5 °C/century (but, like Phil Jourdan above, I doubt their global temperature records either way, since I found the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere model for Earth's troposphere agrees precisely with the same pressure regime in Venus's atmosphere--when the latter's temperatures are corrected for its closer distance from the Sun--despite Venus having 2400 times the concentration of CO2, more than twice the albedo, a miles-thick planetary cloud cover and an entirely solid planetary surface, all hugely different from Earth but having no effect on the temperatures). To the academic theorists of the latter (ENSO) persuasion, the time period from about 2000 to 2030 is expected to show a slight temperature decline, like the periods 1940 to 1970 (or '75) and 1880 to 1910. I say it should amaze both sides that the Standard Atmosphere model, known for over a century, agrees so precisely with Venus's atmospheric temperature profile for ONE DAY (October 5, 1991), which literally screams out "stable equilibrium" for both planets, to any competent physicist (and a reader of my blog informed me, a few months ago, of Venus data from 1979 that also agrees with the Earth's Standard Atmosphere). But even the most recalcitrant global warming skeptics--aside from me--believe implicitly in today's non-climate earth science theories, and so think that a mere 5 degree decrease in global mean surface temperature must bring on a global ice age (that would take it down from the present 59°F mean temperature, to 50°F, and I say that it is the height of hysteria to think 50°F is consistent with a global ice age). So I say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists. None. Zero. Period. As in, they all need to let go of their current theories, across all the earth sciences, if they want to become competent in my book. Of course, I have an entirely different, dogma-free perspective on the Earth, since I found, in my own research, that its surface was reformed wholesale, less than 20,000 years ago, and to a great design whose features gave rise to all the so-called "ancient mysteries" of man, worldwide (so there was no "continental drift" over millions of years, but deliberate breakup, transport, and reassembly of landmasses to their current shapes and locations). And the present generation would rather war with one another, than realize that scientists, and mankind generally, have painted themselves into a corner with a failed paradigm that specifically denies the possibility of deliberate design of the Earth.

The Growing Religious Self-Righteousness of Science

Steven Goddard has a post, "My 35th Year as a Global Warming True Believer". My response is the following:

"Global warming" hype is just the latest step in a creeping degeneracy of science--particularly in the earth and life sciences--that has been going on since long before I was born. As a physicist, I am astounded by the poor quality of introductory university physics texts being written today, and can only hope undergraduates are encouraged to study earlier, classic texts, from the first half of the 20th century. In fact, I consider it imperative not to embrace any current theory, but to inform myself of the entire field, going as far back as needed to get to the origins of those theories, when everyone still KNEW they were just a certain set of assumptions and makeshift hypotheses.

I know, as no other scientist on Earth does, that the current scientific paradigm, of uniformitarian, undirected "evolution" of all that we observe on Earth, is wrong, and has failed. I watched--and offered my two cents, over and over, in letters to the editor--as the steamroller of Darwinian evolution (theory, NOT fact) has put down all honest criticisms, over my adult lifespan (and of course, long before). More than 30 years ago, I had already concluded that the main failing of today's scientists was their inability to handle basic probabilities, and thus to govern their imaginations, and especially to rigorously match the strength--not to mention the kind--of their proposed causes to the strength--and kind--of the observable effects (0.04% CO2 as the "control knob" of global mean temperature, for example--or, Steven, "salinity differences" driving the Gulf Stream).

"Climate science" today (and every other field of science tied to troubled and failing theory) is just a massive and absurd waste of my time, not to mention the aggregate time being devoted to it by everyone else in the world. That the science community and the world should be so deluded as to take it seriously, much less let it run amuck in the political world, is insane. I dismissed the "greenhouse gas" scientists 20 years ago, when I encountered them in passing at atmospheric science conferences, and I have only had my attention called to the "global warming" world agenda since late 2009, barely two months before the climategate e-mails broke. Within a year, I had identified the most basic errors in the consensus theory, learned of the actual governance of global mean temperature by the hydrostatic vertical temperature lapse rate, and definitively confirmed it and the stable Standard Atmosphere model that assumes and rigorously quantifies it, in my elementary but (amazingly, insanely) seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (which should have been done by competent scientists over 20 years ago, or even as far back as 1979, when the earliest pertinent Venus data was obtained).

I had no reason to be really surprised by the foolishness of the global "global warming" hysteria, however. I've seen the hysteria build, and the dogma ever emotionally and unscientifically defended and reinforced, over my lifetime, in the evolution debates (which from the first to the last, outlawed the very idea of design in or of the natural world), the continuing introduction and too-quick acceptance of poorly-quantified and hypothesis-multiplying theories (like plate tectonics--separate from provable "continental drift" observations--and Milankovitch theory), and the public adulation heaped upon the glory-hounds in science, intent only upon trumpeting the current consensus, men like Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan (and most recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye). The vehement, dogmatic rejection of "Intelligent Design" in recent years was but a telling prelude, the previous step in the growing religious self-righteousness of science.

I know that I, and I alone as yet, hold open the door to the next scientific paradigm, and to a once-again truly competent modern theoretical science, with my discovery of the world-encompassing design of those who were remembered among ancient man as the "gods", that, ironically and not at all coincidentally, started all of the misbegotten, religiously-held dogma that besets mankind on Earth. The present difficulties are but the tip-most hair on the tail of the runaway dog of basic scientific misconceptions, diligently nurtured through most of the last two centuries.