There Are More Things In Heaven And Earth, Than Are Dreamt Of In Your Philosophy

I have submitted the following comment to the warning signs site of Alan Caruba, who asks if Edward Snowden is a spy or a hero:

The bottom line is that Snowden acted to protect the basic freedom of Americans to not be continually lied to by their leaders, and to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure of even our personal communications. He should be a hero to real Americans, those who seriously value their individual freedoms, so carefully laid down at the very beginning of the United States of America. Insofar as you think the jury is still out on him, you have already given up on your rights. You know Obama, and the Insane Left he represents, lies to the American people every day, in every way. Obama is the traitor, the Insane Left is traitorous of all our individual freedoms, and the Right is clueless and abetting of the treason. Enough of the KGB/FSB crap--you should be worried, and outraged, first last and always by the misinformation fed to us by the Insane Left and its pet media, and by the incompetence of the Right to stand up to it.

What is going on is not just a conspiracy by the Left, or the Communists, or any group of men. I have tried to tell people, including you and your readers, something of the greater tide running against all men today, but I don't have the kind of details needed to convince most--because what is going on is a general ascendance of dogma in the minds of the people of Earth, and the dogmas are specific to the specific groups and individual members of those groups who harbor those specific dogmas. What is going on is a meta-conspiracy, a general testing of mankind. And mankind is too grasping of what it has, or in many cases only thinks it has, to recognize, much less focus upon for long, the overriding threat, among all the lesser ones--revolution must come, even many revolutions all on top of one another, and considering the avoidance behavior of practically everyone, that means wars must come to enable the revolutions. I personally only know much about the scientific revolution, because I have started it with my own unprecedented discoveries, which will demand the fundamental rethinking of many fields of science, especially the earth and life sciences. I know there are other revolutions coming too, because it is obvious in everyday affairs, increasingly over the last ten years, in the same time frame that I have been trying to inform others of my scientific discoveries. It is all tied together, and at the bottom it is incompetence on the part of modern man, due to his clinging to his many different false and divisive dogmas, both ancient and modern. For you see, my scientific discovery, put succinctly, has been to uncover the single, objective origin for all the earliest, religiously-held dogmas of mankind, responsible for all the so-called "ancient mysteries". And the world IS NOT ready to handle that uncovering, and is instead grasping at its dogmas, even the most unforgiving and bloody. Never has the world needed gentleness, dispassionate reason, and a unifying love of God--or love of one's fellow man--like it does now; and, you see, it obviously doesn't have any of those prerequisites. Everyone's thinking is in common and sordid ruts, day in and day out.

Don't Tell the "Experts"

I have posted the following comment on my Venus: No Greenhouse Effect page, in response to someone wanting to argue theory, rather than accept the simple facts:

I received your second comment, but I will not reward you for ignoring the plain facts by allowing you to whine about how reasonable you are in questioning the Venus/Earth comparison presented on this page.

However, since I know that even the "climate science experts" are incompetent, I will make the Venus/Earth comparison very simple for you. But you can't tell any "experts", because I want to leave the analysis just as I originally did it here, back in November 2010, because any real expert would have, like me, focused upon the actual bottom-line of the comparison--the fact of the presented Venus/Earth temperature ratio, and the physical explanation of that ratio I have given, over and over for 2 and 1/2 years--rather than gotten sidetracked by how I came to do the comparison. And I want that to become clear to everyone, eventually--that any competent physicist should have seen that the actual Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is explained (and precisely so, above and below the Venus cloud layer) by the ratio of the two planets' solar distances, and nothing else. That is the fact--I repeat, the FACT--you are ignoring.

Here is the simple way to look at the comparison. Make a table of temperature vs. pressure for the Standard Atmosphere troposphere, and the same for the Venus atmosphere as measured on October 5, 1991(over the same range, of Earth tropospheric pressures). You don't have to justify doing that, it is just something you can easily do (it is the first table in my article above), and it is what any competent student--much less experienced scientist--interested in comparing the two atmospheres would do as a matter of routine.

But, having done that little chore, a good physicist would ask if there is a simple explanation for the fact that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is in fact basically a constant (1.176), and that particular constant. A merely competent student in the physical sciences would pretty quickly discover that the temperature ratio is just that expected from the different solar distances alone, from the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. (How using that formula can be justified is what most critics of my analysis homed in on, but they did so incompetently. And it was not until a year and a half later that I myself added an update that properly explained it, with the physically pertinent simple equations.)

Now here is where the really simple part comes in, that was not in my original presentation, but should have been brought out very quickly by any real "expert". Imagine if Venus were simply moved outwards to the same distance from the Sun as Earth (so it was still heated by the same portion of the incident solar radiation, but that portion would be reduced, as the total incident solar radiation would be, by the greater solar distance), how would the Venus temperatures, at the various pressures in your table, change? The answer is that they would be reduced, by the factor 1/1.176--and that is what is shown in the fourth column of my table above. Graphing the resulting T vs. P curves of Earth and the newly-moved Venus, one gets the graph I presented in the post here.

Now, don't tell anyone what I have just told you, about simply "moving" Venus to the same solar distance as Earth. I want to see how long it will take a competent scientist to come to the realization on their own, instead of incompetently saying, 1.176 is "just a coincidence", or "you failed to account for the difference in albedo". Of course, you are free to inform President Obama of how easy it is to disprove the CO2 "greenhouse effect", which he and the EPA are using for the most venal of political purposes (to wit, the exercise of ruinous and fraudulent power over the lives of millions of innocent and unwary people).

Comments on Dr. Murry Salby's Critique of the Climate Consensus

I have commented upon the Dr. Murry Salby presentation recently touted by the critics of the academic climate science consensus, at the claes johnson site:

I prefer the summary analysis presented at appinsys.com. And if you look at the temperature record (the first graph at the appinsys link), you will see what everyone should know, that the temperature decreased from 1880 to 1910, increased from 1910 to 1940, decreased again from 1940 to 1975, and increased again from 1975 to about 2000. Now the CO2 record from 1957 onward shows dC/dt has increased monotonically over that period, i.e., d/dt(dC/dt)>0 from at least 1957 onward. But your CO2 vs. T relation above requires d/dt(dC/dt)=dT/dt, and dT/dt was negative from 1940 to 1975 (including the period 1957 to 1975). So the posited relation dC/dt=T is empirically wrong. And physically, that relation flies in the face of what I (a general physicist, not a climate scientist) have heard repeatedly as common knowledge: That a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2 dissolved in it, and releases more CO2 into the atmosphere the warmer it gets (in line with the skeptic's claim, "atmospheric CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa as the consensus claims"). So the posited CO2 vs. T relation is also falsified according to (the general understanding of) the basic physics of CO2 sequestration by the ocean as a function of T. So, again, I prefer the appinsys summary of the situation. I commented on Dr. Salby's presentation at hockeyschtick also.

The Hydrostatic Condition of the Real Atmosphere

I have submitted the following comment, affirming the stable Standard Atmosphere model for our troposphere, to the wattsupwiththat site of Anthony Watts, in reply to another comment by one DirkH:

DirkH @9:14a.m.: "The principal and terminal fault with climate science and climate models seems to be that they assume the atmosphere to be hydrostatic. It is known that it isn’t ..."

You should be aware of the definitive evidence by now, my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. That comparison is between the temperature-versus-pressure (T-P) curve of the Standard Atmosphere model, for Earth, and the T-P curve of Venus as measured on October 5, 1991 (over 21 years ago now). The clear result can be stated thus: If you imagine moving Venus to the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, or Earth to the same distance from the Sun as Venus, then their T-P curves are essentially, and precisely, the same (for pressures above and below the cloud layer of Venus, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures) . Not only does this disprove the "greenhouse effect", of increasing temperature with increasing CO2 (as the temperatures in Venus's 96.5% CO2 atmosphere are no different from Earth's, when corrected for solar distance), but it confirms the Standard Atmosphere, with its defining hydrostatic condition, as the real, stable equilibrium state of our troposphere. If current academics believe the hydrostatic condition does not apply to the real atmosphere, that is just one more wrong belief they harbor, while stubbornly ignoring my definitive Venus/Earth evidence against their theories. Alarmists and lukewarmers alike will get nowhere, no matter how protracted or how honest the debate, unless and until they understand and accept the clear corrections to climate science indicated by that definitive evidence.

Climate: Global Me Vs. Local Everyone Else

I have submitted the following comment to the Real Science site, where Steven Goddard uses Charles Darwin to make a point about long-term and extreme "climate change", and someone made the point that Darwin considered climate to be local, not global:

I wish I could get people to realize this; it is the reason why all the supposedly learned discourse, by those with "climate" theories (including the "consensus"), about the effects of details in the atmosphere--such as water vapor, clouds, "greenhouse gases", etc.--is irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature, as definitively demonstrated by my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. The global mean surface temperature is stable, so everyone is fundamentally deluded by thinking it must change because "climate changes". Only local conditions change, in my view, molded as it is by the definitive Venus/Earth evidence. The stable "global climate" (the global mean surface temperature, as given in the Standard Atmosphere) is maintained simply by the tropospheric vertical temperature lapse rate, due to the governing hydrostatic condition of the massive atmosphere itself, and by the fact that the troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar (IR) radiation, not from the surface of the Earth--heat from the surface drives the WEATHER, while heat from the Sun alone drives the global mean temperature.

But Darwin was wrong about undirected evolution, by "natural selection" of random mutations. --see here, here, and here.

The Truth Is Where You Find It

Many critics of the current, false, climate consensus (on "global warming", or "climate change") like to point to plate tectonics (or continental drift) as an example of a once-heretical idea that overcame the former consensus to become the central idea of all the earth sciences today. Steven Goddard has made the latest such posting, and the following is my response, based upon my own, much more "heretical" research findings:

The bottom line is, truth is where you find it, not where everyone else is looking for it. Reality is what it is, not what you would like it to be. And the truth is, the older generations of geologists--geophysicists especially--had good reason to reject continental drift: They could see no physically acceptable cause for it. And it turns out Wegener only started a revolution whose real depth and breadth only my work now encompasses. (That is why I started a blog in 2009, as one more experiment in getting recognition of a new-yet-ancient paradigm, a new frame, particularly for the earth and life sciences.) See

The True Origin of Continental Drift

The Earth's surface was, in fact, deliberately reformed, to a great design:

Challenge to Earth Scientists

The whole solar system was reformed, and reoriented (and witnessed by men on Earth, and incorporated in what are dismissed today as the earliest myths, of men worldwide):

Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the Design, and Man

And there has even been independent confirmation of the Earth design (follow the "Independent Confirmation" link here).

Why is there still continental movement? I don't know (yet--and I see no reason to hurry to explain that). I only know the reason the continents moved in the past, to their present positions and orientations (and shapes): They were deliberately moved, to a great design, the mere shattered remembrance of which has guided, even dictated, the intellectual voyage of mankind on Earth ever since.

The words, "be not quick to judge", come to mind here, and so I pass them along to you as well.

Put Up or Shut Up, Indeed

Dr. Roy Spencer, another in the Church of The Lukewarm Greenhouse Effect, tells deniers of that effect to "put up or shut up", to which I have responded:

After all this time, everyone still clings to their own pet statement of a "greenhouse effect", when the only valid statement--promulgated to the public for over 20 years -- is "an increase in global mean surface temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide".

But a simple comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, shows that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant (there is no ADDED temperature on Venus due to its much higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and in fact a constant that is PRECISELY explained by Venus's smaller distance from the Sun, and nothing else (except within Venus's cloud layer, between about 650 and 200 mb pressure, where the Venus temp. is about 5K LOWER--in other words, a minor ADDITIVE effect within the clouds themselves--than that calculated, simply, from the Standard Atmosphere model here on Earth and the ratio of solar distances of the two planets).

"Lukewarmers" like Spencer and Watts are stymied by their unswerving belief in the radiative transfer theory. My Venus/Earth demonstration of the absolute absence of a greenhouse effect--as I define it, and as it is sold to the public--implies the radiative transfer theory is also wrong, physically; but I am not about arguing theories, and I don't feel any need to put forward a better one to replace theirs. I only insist that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is the definitive evidence that denies their theory. Contrary to Spencer's insistence heretofore, the onus is on defenders of the consensus greenhouse theory to demonstrate quantitatively, that the observed Venus/Earth constant temperature ratio--needing nothing but the ratio of their solar distances to explain--arises naturally from their theories. I have already demanded you put up or shut up, many times over the last two and a half years. Instead, you go on about how you "observe" the greenhouse effect (but not the one that counts), without confronting the definitive evidence that denies that effect's existence (specifically, in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth). How lukewarmers can fight against the alarmists, and often give evidence that the global warming "greenhouse effect" must be very small, nevertheless are dogmatically set against admitting that effect is zero, is all that separates you from the "Slayers", in the end. (And no, I am not one of them; they like to say carbon dioxide is a coolant, but my Venus/Earth comparison says that is no more correct than that it is a heater. It is a "heat lubricant", whose increase only speeds up heat transfer--by radiation--within the atmosphere, without changing either the lapse rate or the surface mean temperature; it neither traps nor slows down heat).