The Continuing Enchantment of the Big Black Marble

The "lukewarmer" wuwt site has a post by fellow lukewarmer Christopher Monckton, purporting to derive the CO2 "climate sensitivity" by no-doubt-settled science (theory, that is). My response:

Lukewarmers like Monckton and Anthony Watts believe in the radiation transfer theory. I don't. As I wrote just a few weeks ago (June 30th), in the post "It Beggars the Imagination", "There are other obvious weaknesses in the radiation transfer theory ...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'."

I won't quote further, or at length, from what I wrote before. I will merely point out that Monckton's exposition of consensus theory assumes not only that the Earth's surface emits as a blackbody surrounded by vacuum, but that the so-called "emission level" in the atmosphere does also.

He says that 97% of the Earth's albedo, or reflected fraction of solar radiation, is due to clouds, not the Earth's surface. That is the same as saying the surface reflects relatively little, and is of course consistent with calling the Earth's surface a blackbody--as the radiation transfer theory assumes--but it is belied by looking at the Earth from space. The Earth does not look like a dark object (a black body) partially covered by bright clouds; it looks like "a big blue marble"--remember? One can see the landmasses, and their colors, clearly from low-earth orbit. It is simply NOT a blackbody, and cannot emit as one. (One might, and perhaps should, also question what fraction of Earth's clouds do not reach as high as the "emission level"--about 5km altitude--since Monckton subtracts the full value of the albedo from the incident solar intensity, and thus assumes all clouds rise higher than that "emission level"; but I don't know the precise answer, and it is of lesser importance than the "blackbody earth" error I want to emphasize.

When Monckton also says the emissivity of the "emission level" in the atmosphere is 1, that defines it as a blackbody also. This only underlines what I wrote in that "It Beggars the Imagination" post, that the theory assumes(!) every level, including the surface, is a blackbody or a quasi-blackbody. Monckton says there are two blackbody levels (and conveniently, just those he is interested in).

The obvious reason for such a ridiculous assumption, as I have written for years now, is that the scientists "measure" what they think are the radiation levels in the atmosphere, at the various levels, when what they must REALLY be doing is measuring the TEMPERATURE, misinterpreted as the equivalent blackbody radiation intensity.

I knew this must be the case years ago, when I realized the "radiation" "measured" coming off the Earth's surface was just that which would be emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature as that surface; but seeing it claimed by Monckton that the "emission level" is also essentially a blackbody drives home the point that the radiation transfer theory is fundamentally unsound, with local temperature responsible for the "radiation" being measured, not vice-versa. (And again, radiation transfer theorists are comparing the Earth's surface to a blackbody SURROUNDED BY VACUUM, which can only give off heat by radiation; while of course, the Earth's surface is surrounded by atmosphere, and heat is lost there by conduction and convection, as well as by radiation--so the whole idea is stillborn, unworkable according to basic physics, i.e., essentially by definition).

Again, it beggars the imagination, that even the "lukewarmers" (the heroes, to so many lay "climate skeptics") should be so enamored of the false radiation transfer theory (which is also disproved by the "global warming pause" of the last nearly 20 years, but an unwary layperson would hardly know it from the continued devotion to the dogma (or propaganda) of the "settled science", which is not science but only mass delusion).

Climate Science and the Vampire of Societal Influences

The klimazwiebel site has a post, "What Future For Science?", and the answer to that question appears to be "societal influence" and sociology in particular. My response:

"science...has lost its innovative role in solving problems for society"

My response: That statement muddles the fundamental distinction that has to be made between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE--"problems for society" are SUBJECTIVE accounts, while the findings of science are OBJECTIVE.

"...science being left to itself, operating under a mandate that is not responsive to societal demands"

My response: "Societal demands", being subjective (and divided and divisive/or often wrong, like the current climate alarmism) CANNOT (and MUST NOT ATTEMPT TO) rule science (see below, about "finding the truth").

"does science strive to find something we could call truth?"

My response: Yes, by definition. Any "scientist" who does not strive always to find the truth (and the current generation of climate scientists is not--see my climate science posts on my blog) is NOT doing science. There is today no valid "global climate" science (i.e., a true science of the global mean surface temperature and how and why it varies) and NO COMPETENT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (and thus, it should go without saying, NO COMPETENT GOVERNMENTAL OR SOCIETAL CLIMATE POLICY POSSIBLE).

"science will be made more reliable and more valuable for society today not by being protected from societal influences but instead by being brought, carefully and appropriately, into a direct, open, and intimate relationship with those influences."

My answer: The politicization of climate science, and the Leftist agenda of coercing everyone to believe in the false science, obviously shows that "societal influences"--in this case, politics--are not making climate science better, they are only openly promoting tyranny and the suppression of critical scientific thinking and freedom of speech itself (the Democratic party in the U.S. is now obviously a criminal conspiracy, with its calls to treat "climate skeptics" as criminals).

"But many other branches of science study things that cannot be unambiguously characterized and that may not behave predictably even under controlled conditions — things like ... the earth’s climate. Such things may differ from one day to the next, from one place or one person to another. Their behavior cannot be described and predicted by the sorts of general laws that physicists and chemists call upon, since their characteristics are not invariable but rather depend on the context in which they are studied and the way they are defined."

My answer: That statement is so bad, it is "irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial", as Perry Mason would say. It basically says that earth's climate (and all those other examples mentioned in the text) CANNOT BE STUDIED SCIENTIFICALLY, or equivalently, THERE IS NO TRUTH TO BE FOUND IN THEM. And for sociologists, I would further state: TRUTH MEANS OBJECTIVE TRUTH, not subjective (e.g., sociological) categorization and feelings/emotional biases.

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.

Dr. Spencer, It Is Simply the Hydrostatic Condition

The Dr. Roy Spencer site has a post, "The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect or Atmospheric Pressure?". For what it's worth, that is the wrong way to pose the question, between those for and against the greenhouse effect. But too many "skeptics" of consensus climate science make the same mistake, even now, nearly 6 years after my 2010 "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" post. So I want to make the point yet again, as I have over and over, that it is not the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere that warms the atmosphere; it is the vertical pressure DISTRIBUTION, due to the hydrostatic condition of the troposphere, that produces the vertical TEMPERATURE distribution (the negative-lapse-rate structure) which governs the global mean temperature (at any given pressure level in the atmosphere, and for a given level of incident solar radiation).

So Dr. Spencer's question should be, "The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect or the Hydrostatic Condition?" And the answer, as my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison definitively shows, is the latter.

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.

The New Paradigm: Beyond Sunken Cities and Rifted, Drifting Continents

The climate etc site of climate professor Judith Curry has a guest post, "Canopus, Herakleion, New Orleans and Continental Rifts", on an "alternative perception of sea level rise and climate change". By "alternative perception" the author, Anthony Lucas, means an alternative theory to the consensus earth science (i.e., plate tectonics), to wit an "expanding Earth" theory, in which he considers the above-named cities to be located on rifts which, rather than themselves sinking into the sea, are surrounded by a generally rising Earth's crust--globally rising, that is, as the "expanding Earth" phrase makes clear, and apparently bringing the sea level (but not the rift area, as much) up with it. This "alternate perception" seems to me to be a strained interpretation, and highlights the confusion inherent in current claims about "sea level rise", complicated as they are by claims of land subsidence (with the further uncertainty between "regional" and "global" effects).

If scientists want to get past all of this confusion in the earth sciences, they will have to confront and accept my finding and verification of the Great Design of the "gods". (Yes, I know that sounds like a "crank" idea, but it is the literal, physical truth, and seamlessly marries modern science with the ancient mysteries, which originated in the world-changing deeds of those who were, because of such wondrous deeds, known as the "gods"--in other words, no hype here, just the plain truth, about the re-formation of the Earth and solar system, the premiere event in the history of man on Earth, lasting over thousands of years before the beginning of known history).

I wrote about an Independent Confirmation of the Design by consensus scientists, back in 2006. Those scientists (Sears et al.) found a "truncated-icosahedral" pattern in the breakup of the former supercontinents of Laurasia and Gondwana, a pattern with the same symmetry as the dodecahedral pattern I discovered in the Design.

At the end of that article, I wrote, with respect to the "Expanding Earth" theory:

Now my work is independent of any “expanding Earth” theory, nor have I looked into it at all, except for that one important point I mentioned: In his papers, Sears gave the single edge length exhibited in the truncated-icosahedral tessellation as 23.28 degrees. In the regular dodecahedron design of the Earth I found, the edge length is some 41.81 degrees. Now, in the context of a possible expansion of the Earth, the truncated-icosahedral pattern can be formed from the regular dodecahedron by an expansion of the surface, with the individual pentagons of the dodecahedron separating from one another on the expanding surface and coming into the truncated-icosahedral pattern, with the pentagons separated by hexagonal areas. In other words, if the expansion was done to deliberately transform a dodecahedron into a truncated-icosahedron--or to imply such a process--then the radius of the Earth would have been expanded from its initial value to 41.81/23.28 times that value, or 1.8 times its original value. Since the Earth radius is now some 3,963 miles, its original radius would have been some 2,200 miles.

2,200 miles is just the radius of the Earth’s core, as established by modern science.

So a deliberate world design, involving either a real or an implied expansion of the Earth to enable transforming a dodecahedron into a truncated icosahedron, explains the precise relative radii of the Earth and its core.

So, regardless of any supposed present-day continental drift, and regardless of whether the Earth was actually expanded or not, a deliberate, designed re-formation is the essential key to understanding the Earth as we now find it. That is what will remove the confusion in earth science.

Global "Climate Change" Is a Lie, and Must Be Denied

Climatedepot continues to inform about the political war against "climate deniers", with a post, "Newsweek: Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?" My reaction:

Does anyone have a Constitutional right to deny a lie? That is what the political phrase "climate change" is. And never mind "Constitutional", Newsweek, the question should be: Does anyone have the right to deny my (or any individual's, or group's) INALIENABLE (not just "Constitutional") right to deny that lie, no matter how many (including the mainstream media, like Newsweek) have been seduced into believing it?

Does anyone have a right to expose false dogma at the heart of the "science" behind that lie, by showing that science to be contrary to the simple but unyielding facts; that it deludedly ignores or outright denies those facts, in favor of a theory that has been falsified, and should have been falsified, within science itself, long ago, before ever it gave rise to the cancerous political abuse we now see throughout our "authoritative" (only now just corrupt and incompetent) institutions (like the AAAS, and all the others mentioned in the Newsweek article, as well as Newsweek itself and all of the mainstream media, which pretend to be "the people's voice")?

Like it or not, I have that right. So does Exxon. Anyone who disagrees is part of the destructive, fanatical cult that now holds political power in America--and that fanatical cult is the real problem, not the solution. It has proven itself to be NOT the "change we can believe in" after all. It has proven itself a big lie, and a monster. I have given the facts against "climate science", as I know them, in earlier posts, and I won't put them here. Look them up, Newsweek. Do your real job.