Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Climate Experts Expected To Continue Lying Right Up To January 20, 2017

Dec 27, 2016

 

Now we are down to FOX News and Faux News (all the other television networks and major metro newspapers and most magazines). The lies go on and on not just about politics but everything elitists progressives want you to believe.

By Tony Heller

The fake news Huffington Post says sea level at New York will rise six feet this century and they will have more heat waves.

image
Enlarged

New York City Could See Up To Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise This Century: Report | The Huffington Post

Apparently this panel of scientific experts didn’t look at any actual data. Over the past six years, sea level at both New York and Boston has fallen about two inches.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

Sea level trends

There has been no increase in the number of hot days in New York, which peaked in 1955.

image
Enlarged

Away from the urban heat island effect of Manhattan, New York State has seen a sharp decline in the number of hot days.
image
Enlarged

Nationally, the percent of hot days has also plummeted.

image
Enlarged

Everything they said was fake news, but to be fair to this team of climate experts morons, NASA’s top climate expert believes Lower Manhattan is already underwater.

image
Stormy weather - Salon.com

-------

Note from Willie Soon:

Dear friends in New England…

This is truly a very stupid game they keep playing...they could not make themselves to show the NH resident the proper map of their own state...but blow up the tiny part where you are connected to the sea… See the latest laughable report.

See the local Climate Commission reportplanning to spend (and benefit greatly from billions

Tom Wysmuller is our local expert on sea level here.. I believe that I opted out to be on this NH sea level committee some years ago and told Tom about this and he may have attended some of the “meetings"…

Joe D’Aleo is of course our top meteorologist that can tell you all you need to know about the weather forecasting business using his analogy-based pattern
recognition method…

for a little cure on sea level scare ... here is one of my earlier insights:

How To Tell Who’s Lying To You: Climate Science Edition

Dec 29, 2016

 

By Francis Menton

Scott Adams—known, among other things, as the cartoonist behind the Dilbert series—has an excellent blog on which he posts something thoughtful nearly every day.  His particular interest is in the arts of persuasion.  Recently he has dipped his toe into the subject of “climate science,” with a focus on the apparent inability of partisans on either side of the debate ever to convince a single person to come over from the other side.  Now, suppose you come to this debate with no scientific expertise and no ax to grind for either side.  The debate has very significant public policy implications, and understanding it is important to being an informed voter.  How are you to supposed to evaluate the arguments and come to a view?  Adams comments:

My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

I’m going to respectfully disagree with Adams on this one.  If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you.  This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial.  The method is this:  look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side.  If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem.  And rightfully so.

I’ll give just a few examples of this phenomenon relevant to the climate change issue.

(1) The Hockey Stick graph.  The so-called Hockey Stick graph first appeared in a paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes that was published in Nature magazine in 1998.  It purported to show a reconstruction of worldwide temperatures from the year 1000 to present, in which the temperatures had remained almost completely stable for the first 900 years (the “shaft” of the Hockey Stick), and then suddenly shot up in the twentieth century in the time of human CO2 emissions (the “blade").  This reconstruction effectively repealed the prior accepted version of climate history, in which temperatures had been warmer than the present at least in the so-called Medieval Warm Period of about 1000 - 1300, and probably also in the Roman Warm Period around the year 0.  When the UN’s climate-evaluation body, the IPCC, issued its next Assessment Report in 2001, the Hockey Stick graph had suddenly become the icon of the whole endeavor, appearing multiple times in the Report.  The Hockey Stick seemed like the perfect proof of the proposition that global warming must be caused by humans, because anyone could see from the graph that the warming had all occurred in the era of human use of fossil fuels.  Here is a version of the Hockey Stick graph from the IPCC Third Assessment Report:

image

Unfortunately for Mann et al. and the IPCC, numerous people—those nefarious “skeptics” --promptly began to ask questions about the source of the information behind the “shaft” of the stick.  Thus these skeptics were questioning the ideas that temperatures had remained essentially stable for a millennium and that there had been no Medieval Warm Period.  The most famous of the skeptical researchers was a Canadian named Stephen McIntyre.  McIntyre began a blog called Climate Audit, and started writing many long posts about his efforts, all unsuccessful, to replicate the Mann et al. work.  Requests to Mann et al. for their data and methodologies were met with hostility and evasion.  Over time, McIntyre gradually established that Mann et al. had adopted a complex methodology that selectively emphasized certain temperature proxies over others in order to reverse-engineer the “shaft” of the stick to get a pre-determined desired outcome.

The coup de grace for the Hockey Stick graph came with the so-called Climategate emails, released in 2009.  These were emails between and among many of the main promoters of the climate scare (dubbed by McIntyre the “Hockey Team").  Included in the Climategate releases were emails relating specifically to the methodology of how the graph was created.  From the emails, skeptical researchers were then able to identify some of the precise data series that had been used by Mann et al.  Astoundingly, they discovered that the graph’s creators had truncated inconvenient data in order to get the desired depiction.  A website called Just the Facts has a detailed recounting of how this was uncovered.  As a key example, consider this graph:

image

The bright pink represents data that was deleted from the Mann et al. reconstruction because, obviously, it would have thrown off the nice, flat “shaft” of the stick, while also revealing that this particular “proxy” had totally failed at predicting the twentieth century rise in temperatures.  Most would call this kind of data truncation “scientific fraud.”

Note that the revelations that came out of the Hockey Stick controversy do not prove that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is wrong.  However, those revelations did show beyond doubt that the leading promoters of the hypothesis had resorted to fraud in the effort to get the public to accept their position.  Once that was established, why would you believe anything else they say?

Even today, the Wikipedia write-up of the Hockey Stick controversy takes a position favorable to Mann et al.  If you are willing to devote some time to this issue, read that article next to the write-up at Just the Facts linked above.  I would call the Wikipedia article evasive in the face of highly credible allegations of fraud.  See if you agree.

(2) Adjustments to the instrumental temperature record.  World temperature records based on ground-based thermometers date back to about the late 19th century in most cases.  These records are far more accurate than what we have from earlier times (which are mostly “proxies,” like tree rings and ice cores); but the ground thermometer records still have plenty of problems.  As examples, the location of a ground station could have been moved over time, sometimes multiple times in over 100 years; the physical surroundings of a station could have changed (trees could have grown up, or an adjacent parking lot could have been built); the type of instrument could have changed; and so forth.  Most would agree that some sorts of adjustments to the record, known as “homogenization,” are appropriate to make the earlier data comparable to the more recent data.  However, here the adjustments are in the hands of small numbers of people who are committed to the global warming cause.  Most of the adjusters are government employees working for weather agencies like NASA and NOAA in the U.S., and comparable agencies in other countries. 

As with the Hockey Stick graph, independent researchers interested in the topic have gone to work at their own expense to try to understand the government’s adjustments and evaluate if they are appropriate.  Notable among these researchers are Tony Heller at the website Real Climate Science and Paul Homewood at Not a Lot of People Know That.  What these researchers find is that, in literally every case, earlier temperatures have been adjusted downward, and to a lesser extent, later temperatures adjusted upward.  Obviously, such adjustments can create warming trends where they do not exist in the raw data, and enhance what otherwise might be small warming trends to make them look significant and even scary.  Here at Manhattan Contrarian, I have covered this issue in a now ten part series called The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.  All ten articles are collected, along with others, here.

And literally every time anyone looks at raw temperature data, and compares it to current “final” version temperature data, the same phenomenon is found.  Just this week at Watts Up With That, an Australian meteorologist named Brendan Godwin reports that Australia is subject to the same pervasive corruption as other places:

The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network - Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) Technical Advisory Forum released a report in 2015 confirming that the Surface Air Temperatures were being adjusted, confirming the process is called Homogenization, confirming that other weather monitoring institutions around the world are making these same adjustments and purporting to justify why the adjustments are being made. Observing practices change, thermometers change, stations move from one location to another and new weather stations are installed. They refused to release their complex mathematical formula used to make the adjustments.

Go to the link to see how a slightly declining temperature trend at Rotherglen, Australia, has been turned into a more-than-one-degree-C-per-century increasing trend through supposed “homogenization” adjustments.  Huh?

But the most important part of this story is not the suspicious nature of the adjustments themselves, but rather the flat refusal of the adjusters to reveal the methodology by which the adjustments have been made.  Real, honest scientists would gladly provide the full, unedited computer code that made the adjustments, and would answer any questions that would help an independent researcher to replicate the results.  Yet read through posts of people reporting on the adjustments, and you will universally find that they have been rebuffed in their attempts to find out what is going on.  For example, as I reported in this post in July 2015, a heating consultant in Maine named Michael Brakey, who was just trying to get accurate temperature data to inform his business, stumbled on major recent downward adjustments of earlier temperatures in that state.  Attempting to get the details of the adjustments, the best that NOAA would give him was this vague and preposterous statement:

“...improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”

All you need to do is read my series of posts on this topic, and/or some of the many links found in those posts, and you will know that what is going on is not remotely honest.  You don’t need any specialized scientific training to figure this out.

(3) Hottest [week/month/year] ever.  Readers of my series on The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time are aware that our government bureaucrats at NASA and NOAA regularly put out breathless press releases announcing that some given month, or series of months, or year, was the hottest such period on record.  For example, in this post from August 2015, I reported on government press releases as to March, May and July 2015, declaring them each to be the “hottest ever” on some or another criterion.  That post also reports on how the press releases are then picked up and repeated, more or less word for word, by every news source going under the banner of “mainstream”: CNN, Bloomberg, Washington Post, USA Today, BBC, AP, LA Times, CBS News, and many, many more.

But does any one of these press releases, or any one of these news sources, so much as mention that these so-called “records” are based on temperature records that have been “adjusted” to enhance warming trends?  Given how widespread is the information on unexplained warming-enhancing “adjustments,” it is almost incomprehensible that not one of these news sources would even ask the question, “How much of the warming is in the raw data and how much is in the adjustments?” But if such a thing exists, I can’t find it.

I could give many more examples, but undoubtedly you are getting the picture.  A reasonably intelligent person who investigates the situation will quickly find that the promoters of the global warming scare refuse to reveal their detailed methodology, refuse to allow independent researchers to try to replicate their work, and refuse to answer any and all hard questions.  (By contrast, when, for example, skeptical scientists a few months ago released a major Research Report claiming to invalidate all the bases for the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, all data and methods were released simultaneously.) This is all you need to know to make up your mind. 

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Liberals Awake from 8-Year Moral Coma (American Thinker)

 

By Jeffrey T. Brown

For eight years, the voices of what passes for morality on the left were utterly silent as the values of generations of Americans were flushed down the drain.  Those Americans whose desires, experiences and values differed from the leftist elite were treated as worthless garbage, no longer necessary to the imminent liberal utopia, except as a source of revenue.  Christianity was treated like a virus to be extinguished, or revised and controlled to accommodate leftist ideology.  Speech that offended the shameless was branded as hateful, and those daring to openly object to the onslaught of vice and immorality were falsely smeared with every vile epithet the liberals could conjure.  Rights were relegated to what Democrats were willing to grant their enemies, but we were never going to be entitled to privileges they reserved to themselves.

Our nation has been assaulted for eight long years by those who contributed nothing of substance to its successes, but were eager to pillage its resources to fund and advance their political agenda.  Every means possible to offend and marginalize their political opposition was employed, so that decent people were called racists, “phobes,” haters, deniers, liars, morons, bullies, and many unprintable things, all for wishing to have a say in what was being done to them by the left, and for possibly stopping the moral, philosophical and physical violence that have always been tools of leftist overthrow.

Few, if any, leftists/liberals/socialists/Democrats seemed troubled by what was done by them, or on their behalf by those they put into political office, or by those who appointed themselves cultural spokesmen.  It was perfectly American, as they saw it, to smear, defame, slander, coerce, intimidate, fine and even jail those who refused allegiance to a movement premised upon anarchy and social collapse.  They were winning, after all, so they got to be the team and the referee, and they made up the rules.  In their minds, nothing existed of the United States before eight years ago, and this country consisted only of what they turned it into.  With their president at the helm, they tried to remake America into a giant version of themselves, soulless and amoral.  They tried to make it un-American.   

Suddenly, however, with their political triumph derailed, they have emerged from their self-induced moral coma to pretend they have conscience.  Now, after eight years of neglect, fraud, manipulation, scandal, deception, cheating and tyranny, they have found their voices.  Now we are treated to an endless chorus of newly virtuous voices, uniting in purity to stop the coming disaster of representative government under the sway of someone other than an America-hating, Israel-hating, Constitution-hating, Iran-loving, terrorist-enabling ruler with a pen and a phone, willing to do anything as long as it was destructive to this country and all it has stood for over generations.

We are awash in leftist, progressive, liberal mystics, telling us through tears and in panicked tones exactly what Donald Trump’s presidency will look like and how it will end, before he has held the job for even one second.  In hysterics, they speak of the un-American things Trump will do in the future, and how “afraid” the leftists are of someone whose personal history shows no hint of the things they predict.   Bruce Springsteen expresses his concerns about competence, and the newly dark dynamic that Trump allegedly brings to politics.   Robert Reich produces instructional videos for mindless liberals about how Trump controls the media message, which is a harbinger of tyranny.   Where have these people been for eight years?

As we hear each of these predictions, some of us are struck by a recurring sense of deja vu.  It’s as if we’ve already seen all the chaos and mayhem that they predict will occur, not just once but innumerable times.  Indeed, it almost feels like we can trace the beginning of our deja vu back eight years, before a man with no identifiable accomplishments to his name other than being half-black and hip eluded all scrutiny before his election as president; before race relations were destroyed for political profit; before people lost their livelihoods for not bending to government coercion; before people lost their health insurance on the basis of lies; before anti-white racism became fashionable; before the press was merely an extension of the Democratic Party; before our military and security were sacrificed to social justice; before our college students became simpering toddlers without an original thought; before our country sold out to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood; before science was rendered meaningless in order to advance political goals; before we ignored laundry lists of felonies by Democrats; before it was cool to assassinate police; before our southern border was erased; before those same liberals tacitly invited every terrorist who could walk or say “refugee” to enter our country, plant roots, and plan the inevitable attacks; and before our president and his followers became the laughingstock of the civilized world. 

Suddenly, after eight years in which their secret mantra seems to have been “Make America Hate Again,” they protest that the notion of stopping their immoral destruction of our country is itself immoral and hateful.  Many of us have noticed that the damage they forecast, the shredding of our national fabric, has been well underway for eight years, and that their unhinged reaction to being stopped from finishing the job is far more morally disgusting than anything Donald Trump could do to make us the United States again.

Morality, like truth, isn’t supposed to be a prop, trotted out when necessary to trick the gullible.  Leftists are purveyors of subjective morality, which is a fungible entity, almost always being interchangeable with political expedience.  For them, an act becomes “moral” as soon as it advances whatever goal they seek to accomplish.  When treated to subjective morality from a member of the political party that has entirely eschewed objective morality, we should reject everything that person says the moment it leaves their lips.  Like the limits and prescriptions of the Constitution, they only ever invoke objective morality when they are not in power, and seek to influence those whose emotions have outpaced their intellect. 

There is much work to be done, but we needn’t pause to consider lectures on morality from amoral people.  Those who are still Americans will rebuild what was wrecked by those who have become something else.  While we do so, we would be wise to remember that those who are transitioning from Americans to “something else” are determined to finish the job.  If given another chance, they will happily force us to live in their corrupt, coercive Orwellian zoo.  They won’t rest until they control everything, and we are compelled to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they say.  That is, they won’t rest until we are no longer free people living in the United States, but rather are just a means of funding the overthrow of a country designed to prevent the corruption and tyranny they showed us for eight long, morality-free years.

For eight years, the voices of what passes for morality on the left were utterly silent as the values of generations of Americans were flushed down the drain.  Those Americans whose desires, experiences and values differed from the leftist elite were treated as worthless garbage, no longer necessary to the imminent liberal utopia, except as a source of revenue.  Christianity was treated like a virus to be extinguished, or revised and controlled to accommodate leftist ideology.  Speech that offended the shameless was branded as hateful, and those daring to openly object to the onslaught of vice and immorality were falsely smeared with every vile epithet the liberals could conjure.  Rights were relegated to what Democrats were willing to grant their enemies, but we were never going to be entitled to privileges they reserved to themselves.

Our nation has been assaulted for eight long years by those who contributed nothing of substance to its successes, but were eager to pillage its resources to fund and advance their political agenda.  Every means possible to offend and marginalize their political opposition was employed, so that decent people were called racists, “phobes,” haters, deniers, liars, morons, bullies, and many unprintable things, all for wishing to have a say in what was being done to them by the left, and for possibly stopping the moral, philosophical and physical violence that have always been tools of leftist overthrow.

Few, if any, leftists/liberals/socialists/Democrats seemed troubled by what was done by them, or on their behalf by those they put into political office, or by those who appointed themselves cultural spokesmen.  It was perfectly American, as they saw it, to smear, defame, slander, coerce, intimidate, fine and even jail those who refused allegiance to a movement premised upon anarchy and social collapse.  They were winning, after all, so they got to be the team and the referee, and they made up the rules.  In their minds, nothing existed of the United States before eight years ago, and this country consisted only of what they turned it into.  With their president at the helm, they tried to remake America into a giant version of themselves, soulless and amoral.  They tried to make it un-American.   

Suddenly, however, with their political triumph derailed, they have emerged from their self-induced moral coma to pretend they have conscience.  Now, after eight years of neglect, fraud, manipulation, scandal, deception, cheating and tyranny, they have found their voices.  Now we are treated to an endless chorus of newly virtuous voices, uniting in purity to stop the coming disaster of representative government under the sway of someone other than an America-hating, Israel-hating, Constitution-hating, Iran-loving, terrorist-enabling ruler with a pen and a phone, willing to do anything as long as it was destructive to this country and all it has stood for over generations.

We are awash in leftist, progressive, liberal mystics, telling us through tears and in panicked tones exactly what Donald Trump’s presidency will look like and how it will end, before he has held the job for even one second.  In hysterics, they speak of the un-American things Trump will do in the future, and how “afraid” the leftists are of someone whose personal history shows no hint of the things they predict.   Bruce Springsteen expresses his concerns about competence, and the newly dark dynamic that Trump allegedly brings to politics.   Robert Reich produces instructional videos for mindless liberals about how Trump controls the media message, which is a harbinger of tyranny.   Where have these people been for eight years?

As we hear each of these predictions, some of us are struck by a recurring sense of deja vu.  It’s as if we’ve already seen all the chaos and mayhem that they predict will occur, not just once but innumerable times.  Indeed, it almost feels like we can trace the beginning of our deja vu back eight years, before a man with no identifiable accomplishments to his name other than being half-black and hip eluded all scrutiny before his election as president; before race relations were destroyed for political profit; before people lost their livelihoods for not bending to government coercion; before people lost their health insurance on the basis of lies; before anti-white racism became fashionable; before the press was merely an extension of the Democratic Party; before our military and security were sacrificed to social justice; before our college students became simpering toddlers without an original thought; before our country sold out to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood; before science was rendered meaningless in order to advance political goals; before we ignored laundry lists of felonies by Democrats; before it was cool to assassinate police; before our southern border was erased; before those same liberals tacitly invited every terrorist who could walk or say “refugee” to enter our country, plant roots, and plan the inevitable attacks; and before our president and his followers became the laughingstock of the civilized world. 

Suddenly, after eight years in which their secret mantra seems to have been “Make America Hate Again,” they protest that the notion of stopping their immoral destruction of our country is itself immoral and hateful.  Many of us have noticed that the damage they forecast, the shredding of our national fabric, has been well underway for eight years, and that their unhinged reaction to being stopped from finishing the job is far more morally disgusting than anything Donald Trump could do to make us the United States again.

Morality, like truth, isn’t supposed to be a prop, trotted out when necessary to trick the gullible.  Leftists are purveyors of subjective morality, which is a fungible entity, almost always being interchangeable with political expedience.  For them, an act becomes “moral” as soon as it advances whatever goal they seek to accomplish.  When treated to subjective morality from a member of the political party that has entirely eschewed objective morality, we should reject everything that person says the moment it leaves their lips.  Like the limits and prescriptions of the Constitution, they only ever invoke objective morality when they are not in power, and seek to influence those whose emotions have outpaced their intellect. 

There is much work to be done, but we needn’t pause to consider lectures on morality from amoral people.  Those who are still Americans will rebuild what was wrecked by those who have become something else.  While we do so, we would be wise to remember that those who are transitioning from Americans to “something else” are determined to finish the job.  If given another chance, they will happily force us to live in their corrupt, coercive Orwellian zoo.  They won’t rest until they control everything, and we are compelled to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they say.  That is, they won’t rest until we are no longer free people living in the United States, but rather are just a means of funding the overthrow of a country designed to prevent the corruption and tyranny they showed us for eight long, morality-free years.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/liberals_awake_from_8year_moral_coma.html#ixzz4V5dtqY7L
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Thursday, December 29, 2016

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

 

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Skip to content

    Climate Experts Expected To Continue Lying Right Up To January 20, 2017

Posted on December 26, 2016 by tonyheller

The fake news Huffington Post says sea level at New York will rise six feet this century and they will have more heat waves.

New York City Could See Up To Six Feet Of Sea Level Rise This Century: Report | The Huffington Post

Apparently this panel of scientific experts didn’t look at any actual data. Over the past six years, sea level at both New York and Boston has fallen about two inches.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm

There has been no increase in the number of hot days in New York, which peaked in 1955.

Away from the urban heat island effect of Manhattan, New York State has seen a sharp decline in the number of hot days.

Nationally, the percent of hot days has also plummeted.

Everything they said was fake news, but to be fair to this team of climate experts morons, NASA’s top climate expert believes Lower Manhattan is already underwater.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

No Warming from Carbon Dioxide ‘Greenhouse Gas Effect

PSI Logo

Demo

No Warming from Carbon Dioxide ‘Greenhouse Gas Effect’

Published on December 27, 2016

Written by PSI staff

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner are German Physicists who proved that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can have no measurable impact on global temperatures.

In 2008 Hans Schreuder provided a non-technical layperson’s summary of that important landmark peer-reviewed paper refuting the so-called greenhouse gas theory of climate.  As the world has seen no rise in global temperatures this century this is an importune time to reflect on select excerpts of Schreuder’s helpful summary:

Abstract

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.

In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles clarified. By showing that:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,

(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,

(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,

(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,

(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Introduction

Recently, there have been lots of discussions regarding the economic and political implications of climate variability, in particular global warming as a measurable effect of an anthropogenic, i.e. human-made, climate change.

Many authors assume that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel consumption represent a serious danger to the health of our planet, since they are supposed to influence climate, in particular the average temperatures of the surface and lower atmosphere of the Earth.

However, carbon dioxide is a rare trace gas, a very small part of the atmosphere found in concentrations less than 0.04 volume percent. Among climatologists, in particular those affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), there is a “scientific consensus” that the relevant climate mechanism is an atmospheric greenhouse effect, a mechanism heavily reliant on the presumption that radiative heat transfer dominates over other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, condensation, et cetera.

Supposedly to make things more precise, the IPCC introduced the notion of radiative forcing, tied to an assumption of radiative equilibrium. However, as countless examples in history have shown, “scientific consensus” bears no resemblance whatsoever to scientific validity.

“Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one. From the viewpoint of theoretical physics, a radiative approach to the atmosphere — using physical laws such as Planck’s and Stefan-Boltzmann’s, which only have a limited range of validity — definitely fails to intersect with atmospheric dynamics and must be questioned deeply. In other words, applying cavity radiation formulas to the atmosphere is sheer nonsense.

Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps it 33°C warmer than it would be without trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.0385 volume percent of CO2.

If CO2 exhibited such an extreme effect, however, this would show up as a thermal conductivity anomaly even in an elementary laboratory experiment. Carbon dioxide would manifest itself as a new kind of ‘super-insulation,’ wildly violating the conventional heat-conductivity equation. Such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed in CO2, of course.

The influence of CO2 on climate was discussed thoroughly in a number of publications that appeared between 1909 and 1980, mainly in Germany. The most influential authors were Möller, who also wrote a textbook on meteorology, and Manabe.

It seems that the combined work of Möller and Manabe has had a significant influence on the formulation of modern atmospheric CO2 greenhouse conjectures. In a very comprehensive report from the US Department of Energy (DOE), which appeared in 1985, the atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis was cast into its final form and became the cornerstone in all subsequent IPCC publications.

Of course, although the oversimplified picture drawn by IPCC climatology is physically incorrect, a thorough analysis might reveal some non-negligible influence of certain radiative effects (apart from sunlight) on the weather and hence on its local averages, the climate, which could be dubbed a CO2 greenhouse effect.

But then, even if the effect is claimed to serve only as a genuine trigger of a network of complex reactions, three key questions would remain:

1. Is there a fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics?

2. If so, what is the fundamental physical principle behind this CO2 greenhouse effect?

3. Is it physically correct to regard radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism controlling the weather, setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?

In the language of physics an effect is a not-necessarily evident but reproducible and measurable phenomenon together with its theoretical explanation. Neither the warming mechanism in a glass house nor the supposed anthropogenic warming is an “effect” in this sense of the definition:

• In the first case (a glass house) one encounters a straightforward phenomenon.

• The second case (the Earth’s atmosphere) one cannot measure directly, rather, one can only make heuristic calculations.

Explaining the warming mechanism in a real greenhouse is a standard problem in undergraduate courses, in which optics, nuclear physics and classical radiation theory are dealt with. The atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture that can be proved or disproved by concrete engineering thermodynamics.

Exactly this was done many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical textbook on the subject. In 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer by CO2, though relevant in combustion chamber temperatures, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. CO2’s influence on the Earth’s climate is definitively immeasurable.

The main objective of our paper is not to draw the line between error and fraud, only to find out whether the greenhouse effect appears or disappears within the frame of physics.

Therefore, in Section 3.3 several different variations of the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses are examined and disproved. The authors restrict themselves to statements that appeared after a publication by Lee in the well-known Journal of Applied Meteorology 1973, see Ref. [109] and references therein.

Lee’s 1973 paper is a milestone. In the beginning Lee writes:

The so-called radiation `greenhouse’ effect is a misnomer. Ironically, while the concept is useful in describing what occurs in the earth’s atmosphere, it is invalid for crypto-climates created when space is enclosed with glass, e.g. in greenhouses and solar energy collectors.

Specifically, elevated temperatures observed under glass cannot be traced to the spectral absorptivity of glass. The misconception was demonstrated experimentally by R. W. Wood more than 60 years ago and recently in an analytical manner by Businger. Fleagle and Businger devoted a section of their text to the point, and suggested that radiation trapping by the earth’s atmosphere should be called `atmosphere effect’ to discourage use of the misnomer.

In spite of the evidence, modern textbooks on meteorology and climatology not only repeat the misnomer, but frequently support the false notion that `heat-retaining behavior of the atmosphere is analogous to what happens in a greenhouse’ (Miller, 1966).

The mistake obviously is subjective, based on similarities of the atmosphere and glass, and on the `neatness’ of the example in teaching. The problem can be rectified through straightforward analysis, suitable for classroom instruction.

Lee continues his analysis with a calculation based on radiative balance equations, which are physically questionable.

The same holds for a comment by Berry on Lee’s work. Nevertheless, Lee’s paper is a milestone, marking the day after every serious scientist or science educator is no longer allowed to compare the greenhouse with the atmosphere, even in the classroom, which Lee explicitly refers to.

In section 3.3 of our paper, many different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture are examined and disproved. In conclusion, the authors observe the following:

• that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear – in any fundamental work on thermodynamics – in any fundamental work on physical kinetics – in any fundamental work on radiation theory

• that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and, partly, contradict each other.

Read more at www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Nothing like a graph to put things in perspective.

 

Thought you might like to see what the years of Obama and his gang did to our country.

This is from the Feds themselves....

Obama years in 9 charts - Here is the real story of America 's decline right from their own Fed web sites. Obama’s Recovery In Just 9 Charts

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

What Trump means by Make America Great Again

“It may be worth noting that during the almost exact amount of time it took to win WW II, the current administration could not build an effective web site for its health care initiative.” – Burt Rutan


 

By Burt Rutan

About half  of our country is puzzled about MAGA (Make America Great Again).  The Left says we ARE great, so what is he talking about?  They think and talk without any regard for our past.


Space:

America, from 1961 to 1969 built and flew 7 different rocket systems that launched humans into space, including going to a place we cannot access today – the moon.  America then developed only two for the next 46 years, one of them done by a team of about 40 people in a tiny desert town of Mojave, California.


Defense:

During the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 and ended with the surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945, the U.S. designed and produced 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, 34 million tons of merchant ships, 100,000 fighter aircraft, 98,000 bombers, 24,000 transport aircraft, 58,000 training aircraft, 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks. The preponderance of the raw materials for these items came from within.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed a deliverable atomic bomb, and ultimately achieved an unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany, two of the three of our most effective allies today.  Fortress England filled out that trilogy.  Note:  Our most effective military ally in WW II was the Soviet Union whose ground forces single handedly pushed the Germans back from the Volga, Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg) all the way to Berlin. Note:  They did not disarm following their blood earned victory (Soviet losses, dead or missing ~ 27 million that includes ~ 9 million military).

By way of comparison, we then spent eight years fighting a war in Vietnam, three years in Korea that ended in an armistice, not a victory, and now 15 years in the Sand Box with inconclusive results. You may want to repeat that sentence to yourself two or three times and let it settle in.

It may be worth noting that during the almost exact amount of time it took to win WW II, the current administration could not build an effective web site for its health care initiative.  Balance that with the fact that we were equipped, and prepared to fight and win, a simultaneous two-front war with China and the Soviet Union from 1947 until 1991. One need not lose sleep pondering the intuitive and self evident reasons for choosing this road to perdition:

Either the “Times they are a changing”.

Or we are.

______________________________________

Thanks to Burt Rutan for this article.

Burt Rutan designed Voyager, the first aircraft to fly around the globe without stopping or refueling. He also designed SpaceShipOne financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, which won the $10 million Ansari X-Prize in 2004 for becoming the first privately-funded manned craft to enter the realm of space twice within a two-week period. Both, along with three other of his aircraft, are on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.  Burt’s recent projects include a flying car, and the Virgin GlobalFlyer which broke Voyager’s time for a non-stop solo flight around the world.

During his 46-year career, Rutan has designed 372 new types of aircraft, of which 45 have been built and taken through flight test. Right now he is designing a seaplane, just for himself.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Here are the 12 reasons I voted Democratic:

Roy Exum: James Anderson's Letter
chattanoogan.com ^ | November 17, 2012 | Roy Exum

Posted on ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2016‎ ‎10‎:‎35‎:‎52‎ ‎AM by UMCRevMom@aol.com

Roy Exum Roy Exum

James Anderson, a gentleman of the South from Talladega, Ala., has written a list of “The 12 Reasons I Voted Democratic” and, after it appeared in the Scottsboro (Ala.) Daily Sentinel last Saturday, it was sent to me by a dear friend who has the same leanings. It is with devilish delight I pass it along for your perusal.

Mr. Anderson could not be contacted for additional comments yesterday but I believe his comments alone will sufficiently entertain you as we await the kickoff of today’s college football games:

* * *

Dear Editor:

Here are the 12 reasons I voted Democratic:

1. I voted Democratic because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I now may marry my Labrador.

2. I voted Democratic because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the Government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

3. I voted Democratic because I believe the Government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

4. I voted Democratic because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as I agree with what is said and nobody else is offended by it.

5. I voted Democratic because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I voted Democratic because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democratic because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

8. I voted Democratic because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democratic because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

10. I voted Democratic because I believe liberal Judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democratic because I think that it’s better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, spotted owl, gopher or fish.

12. I voted Democratic because my head is so firmly misplaced toward the south end of my body; it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

No trees, Spotted Owls, or Red Cock-headed Woodpeckers were harmed in the sending of this message.

—James W. Anderson

Talladega, Alabama