Saturday, May 17, 2014

There Is No Valid Climate Science and No Competent Climate Debate

The WUWT site has a post on alarmist "pseudoscientists' claims debunked", containing a statement that I find absolutely incompetent, and to which I respond here:

"Let us be as precise as They are vague. The existence of the greenhouse effect is definitively established both in theory and in experiment and needs no 'consensus' to prop it up."

You call that precise? The "greenhouse effect" touted to the world's citizens is this, and this alone: The global mean atmospheric temperature at the Earth's surface (or at any given pressure level) supposedly increases with an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. I have presented the definitive evidence against this "greenhouse effect", 3 and 1/2 years ago, now--so stop trying to "prop it up" with the claim that carbon dioxide gas absorbs infrared radiation (at wavelengths in the range emitted by the Earth's surface)--no one denies that--and then calmly but irrationally claiming that there must then be SOME global warming with increasing carbon dioxide, despite the definitive fact (which you all have kept yourselves determinedly blind to) that the Venus/Earth comparison shows there is NO SUCH WARMING WITH INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE, ALL THE WAY FROM 0.04% (Earth) to 96.5% (Venus). Unless and until greenhouse effect believers can show, using the consensus theory, that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio MUST BE--coincidentally--just what I showed it to be, and yet just what it must be if only the distance from the Sun matters in the comparison of these two planetary atmospheres (at points of equal pressure, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures), you are all being, not merely imprecise, but incompetent in ignoring the results of comparing those two real, detailed planetary atmospheres--the largest and most definitive experimental result in all of climate and atmospheric science. You can't just say it's a "coincidence", you have to show how the consensus theory predicts precisely that temperature ratio, while taking account of all the supposed effects that consensus theory says must affect the temperature (including the great differences in albedo and cloud cover, mass of the planetary atmosphere, and state of the planetary surface)--YOU HAVE TO SHOW HOW CONSENSUS THEORY PREDICTS THE OBSERVED FACT, THAT ALL THOSE OTHER SUPPOSED EFFECTS ADD UP TO PRECISELY(!) ZERO, FOR VENUS AND EARTH, AND ONLY THE DIFFERENCE IN DISTANCE FROM THE SUN MATTERS IN THE FINAL, DEFINITIVE RESULT. UNTIL YOU DO, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR CLAIMING "THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT" at all. Until you do, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists, whether alarmist or lukewarm believers in the consensus "greenhouse effect".


  1. Thanks for the link. When I first scratched my head over the nonsense of anthropogenic global warming at the end of 2009, I had a Search result which at least made some sort of sense over the proposition that a projection of temperature using a co2 based model made some sort of sense....just not scientific sense. The Connolly note, for instance, would agree with your analysis.

  2. Good Evening, opit,

    Thanks for your link, to an interesting finding by Connolly. I found myself wondering, just in the last few days, about the possibility for another explanation, besides the present consensus one, for the transition from troposphere to tropopause. As soon as one looks at the temperature profiles of all the planets with substantial atmospheres, it becomes obvious that the transition happens at the same pressure, about 200 mb, in every one, including Earth. Connolly, in pointing to a "molar density phase change" at the tropopause, has provided a possible physical reason for that--worthwhile new physics for honest scientists to look at, and learn, indeed.

  3. The common mistake with believers of the great religion is grounded in their belief you can absorb forever more infra red within it's own absorption band.

  4. Andyj,

    They make more fundamental mistakes, as exposed by my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (linked to, above)--it doesn't matter so much how much infrared CO2 absorbs, rather that the atmosphere is not warmed from the surface as they believe, but by direct absorption of incident solar radiation in the infrared (and that is a particularly odd, upside-down belief on their part, because it would have Earth's atmosphere the only planetary atmosphere so warmed, as they should well know). You may recall from my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison that, even before I did that comparison, physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner wrote "...since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses [sic] is not obeyed." That is, how can the surface warm the atmosphere when sufficient incident solar doesn't even reach the surface to warm it first, on Venus--nor, of course, on the larger planets, with even more massive atmospheres and global, light-absorbing cloud covers? Their global warming is upside-down, and cause and effect is reversed in their theories (as in their assumption that the Earth's surface is a blackbody, that is, that it radiates the same amount of radiation into the atmosphere as would a blackbody in a vacuum and at the same temperature as the Earth's surface--and that amount of power is more even than the mean solar power entering the Earth's atmosphere, as noted in this 2010 post, which is a violation of the conservation of energy, the most fundamental law in physics).

  5. Keep banging your head against a brick wall. Physics says the wall will crack eventually. Allow me to join you in head banging, my many years listening to heavy metal should help provide a bit more force :-)

  6. Well, you will note that I don't bang my head -- that is, post on the internet -- as often or as regularly as most others. And there are two reasons for that: 1) I am not making any money to live on in my old age, and 2) What I have to show the world is far beyond anything in climate science, or any one field of science alone. This climate science debacle is a major distraction from a much-needed re-evaluation of the fundamental philosophy, or underlying assumption, of modern science generally -- the paradigm scientists have been brought up to believe in unquestioningly, and it turns out quite wrongly. No one will listen to that message without overwhelming evidence, but what that means, I have found, is that no one will listen to the overwhelming evidence I have uncovered and verified throughout.

    In other words, it's not just one "brick wall"; it is a whole world of brick walls, and walls within walls. Those "walls" are the unquestioned dogmas we see now ascendant in every debate, every public confrontation, every war in this time.

    I don't want to break down all those walls. I want people to see there is aleady an open door through them all, that can unmake them as barriers to human progress.