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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America's Last Hurrah?

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

How Do We Stop the Fraudulent Science?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

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

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

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

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

A Moment of Silence, For the Fall of Europe

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

EU Bans the Incandescent Light Bulb

Just Apologize, Climate Scientists

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

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

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

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

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