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

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

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

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

Hurricane/Tropical Storm Strengths, 1851 to 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At notrickszone:

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

And at tomnelson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America's Last Hurrah?

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

How Do We Stop the Fraudulent Science?

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

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

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