Wednesday, December 30, 2015
The Notrickszone site has a post suggesting a "sharp global cooling ahead". My response:
The global temperature is stable — no runaway global warming OR cooling [correction: no global warming at all from a century or more ago]. The definitive evidence (as I have been harping on since November 2010) is my Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison, in which the Standard Atmosphere model of the Earth’s troposphere is precisely–I repeat, precisely–confirmed against the temperature vs. pressure profile of Venus, when only Venus’s lesser distance from the Sun is taken into account. Not only does that Venus/Earth analysis prove there is no global-warming CO2 greenhouse effect (since Venus’s atmosphere has over 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as Earth’s does, with no effect upon the temperatures), it shows that the century-old Standard Atmosphere, developed by measurements throughout the atmosphere over many years, precisely agrees with the Venus atmospheric profile on ONE DAY, October 5, 1991. THINK about that, people: The mean surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere, 288K, has been unchanged in that model for a century, and yet it precisely agrees with the measured temperature in the Venus atmosphere at the same pressure, on that one day in 1991 (after most of the supposed “unprecedented global warming” is claimed to have occurred on Earth). The surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere–288K, for a century or more–is greater now than the supposed global mean surface temperature today, despite all of that supposed recent global warming. This is the pitiful truth, behind all of the “authoritative”, condescending “expert” opinions that are fed to the public as the unquestionable, sacred truth.
The Venus/Earth comparison, all by itself, shreds not only all of the alarmist climate science theory, it shows that the “measured global mean surface temperature” record(s) is a farce–there has been NO global warming since the development of the Standard Atmosphere Model a century and more ago.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
The bishop hill site has a post on one of the latest examples of sophistry (reasoning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious) in public statements by climate alarmists. One commenter on the site likened his rejection of that sophistry to his quick rejection of "von Danniken's 'Worlds In Collision'". My response:
Immanuel Velikovsky, not Erich von Dänniken, wrote "Worlds In Collision". Whichever one you mean, Spectator, neither is worthy of your disdain, which says more about you--about your beliefs--than either of them. They were both on the right track, as opposed to the consensus view you were taught. Like it or not, science got off-track with the ascension of Darwin and the uniformitarian, undirected evolution paradigm as the unquestionable "settled science" (unquestionable means it's dogma over reason, which is the real evil). Global-warming alarmism is just the tail of that very "settled science" dog (basically: if chance, via undirected physical processes alone, brought about this complex world, then chance, or man, can easily destroy the natural order, as in "runaway global warming"; the truth is that, if chance did not make the world, then its observed stability, throughout history, should tell us it was DESIGNED to be stable, albeit with a wide variety of regional climates, all the way from tropical to polar). The insanity of "global warming" alarmism is just a symptom of the deeper problem, that science currently recognizes no MEANING to the order or stability of the world, and so that stability is easily dismissed as "coincidence", or "natural selection", and so considered ephemeral and easily broken (by the mere increase of atmospheric CO2 from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere). Both sides of the climate science debate/war fail to see that deeper problem, and the self-correction of science needed across the board, which my research and unprecedented findings reveal. Put bluntly, mine is the next scientific paradigm, replacing the "undirected evolution" paradigm, which this generation is showing itself unprepared to face.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
The Climate Etc site of the tenured (snugly employed) academic Judith Curry has a post on "lukewarmers", those who are proud to call themselves reasonable (as opposed to the alarmists on one side, and the "skeptics" who are "deniers" on the other). Their "reasonableness" has been a drag on any effective criticism of current climate science for years, and it is unfortunately the position of choice for many in the global warming debate. My response:
There is no haven in the lukewarmer position(s); climate science is totally wrong, because it is based upon the science of mere weather--alias local and transient processes--with no regard for the global constraint of the hydrostatic atmosphere, or for the direct heating of the atmosphere by the Sun rather than by the planetary surface. Their (your, Judith Curry) scientific incompetence is just as large as the alarmists'. But here at the nadir of the "debate" (or fruitless war of words) to co-opt the public to a science they are not equipped to judge, no one will question their own tragically flawed estimation of their own "expertness"; no one is learning anything. None of you is worthy of the name "scientist".
Friday, October 2, 2015
The following e-mail I just received, and my response, may be of interest to readers here:
After buying your books over a year and a half ago, it seems the only conclusion I can make is that you are correct. I maintained some doubt (perhaps unreasonably) until I found where you noted the ENP on the ground in the Great Mapping and located a sphere rotation script on the web to check the points, but having done so I can only conclude that the Great Mapping is a projection of the (rotated) celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere.
I had already concluded that I couldn't really justify doubling [I think he means "doubting"-HDH] the probability of chance being the reason for each of the input probabilities in chapter six as long as the mapping was correct. Even doing so as a gedankenexperiment still leaves a number that isn't remotely reasonably the result of chance. Thus, I find the only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth was designed.
To check the star positions I used the rotation script noted below with GNU Octave, and took my star positions from KStars. I ran the equatorial coordinates through the KStars equatorial->ecliptic converter, added 180 to the ecliptic longitude (at least that seemed to work for all my checks) and fed that to the rotation script.
The rotation script is a bit odd in that it asks for /South/ pole coordinates, not North pole, and that it asks for Longitude,Latitude. Thus, the rotated pole coordinates are ENP_lon - 180, -ENP_lat. I left out the actual coordinates because they are possibly the heart of the book, and I haven't seen you post them online.
Regarding the Milky Way core to South America comparison, that one I found a little more difficult to verify because I found four different outlines from four different sources - only one of which (nearly) matches yours. Still, with that much disagreement in conventional sources your outline is as reasonable as any I've seen. Even if one disregards that particular match probability calulation, I can't see that it meaninfully affects the overall calculations.
I did try looking up the etymology of Russia, and found that while the Ursa etymology is unsupported by recent history, I didn't immediately find a trace back to Indo-European. However, the history seems to be only well supported back to about 830AD, which leaves open the possibility of earlier Latin influence. Perhaps inconclusive, but highly interesting.
Regarding footnote 146 on page 121, I was a little surprised that you missed noting the archaic and no longer used Digamma that was the 6th letter in the dialects that had it, pushing Eta to the eighth position.
I probably could go on, but this is getting long enough already.
Thank you for being willing to hold to truth in the face of (nearly) universal opposition.
Good Morning, Tor,
Thank you for your feedback comments; they tell me that it is likely that any substantial conversation regarding the evaluation of my work, in finding and verifying--to the highest scientific standards--what I have called the Great Design of the "gods", must inevitably involve giving a full university-level course (perhaps even a four-year program) to thoroughly explain every aspect of it from the ground up, so to speak. I was slightly surprised, for example, to hear that you did so much work before you realized you were dealing with a projection of the celestial sphere onto the earth globe; I thought I had made that clear in the early chapters of "The End of the Mystery" (the "celestial sphere" itself is a projection of the actual stars onto an imaginary sphere surrounding the Earth, as shown in my Figure 3.2, for example); but I see I was mistaken. In trying to communicate my own sense of discovery at each early step of my research--including the discovery that I WAS dealing with a projection of the celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere--I introduced the idea of a "mapping" of the former onto the latter (on page 28), and then my discovery that one had only to use the mirror image of the constellation Cepheus in order to have it map precisely onto the African Horn (page 29, and Figure 2.15). I called this "mirror image" placing of Cepheus precisely on the shape of the African Horn "the second great discovery" (on page 30), precisely BECAUSE it meant a simple projection of the celestial sphere onto the Earth was involved; but I left that conclusion unsaid on that page, because I wanted to allow the reader to make that connection in their own mind, as I did when I first found the Cepheus/African Horn match (the precision of which, by itself, was enough to prove it was a deliberate design, using probability arguments like those used in Chapter Six and other chapters--which I also left unsaid). I thought, by the time the reader encountered Fig. 3.2, it would be clear to anyone that we were dealing, in the Great Mapping, with a mathematically precise projection of the one sphere onto the other; and the introduction of the "downward looking" view of the celestial sphere immediately after, and the later views of the Great Mapping (and many other projectional mappings, in Chapter 9) would cement that understanding. You have reminded me one book cannot do justice to the depth and breadth of the new/old knowledge--indeed, the new field of scientific study--I have discovered. Too many things along the way are inevitably left unsaid, or remain unaddressed, by any single book.
Of course, since the finding and verification of the Great Design changes the entire modern science paradigm--especially in the earth and life sciences, where uniformitarianism, Darwinian (undirected) evolution and plate tectonics are literally swept away as adequate explanations of the observable truth, about the Earth design--the necessity for a new major course of study, of this new scientific field, should be apparent.
I have not investigated your method for checking on the Great Mapping, and may or may not do so in the near future, so I won't comment on your efforts there, except to say congratulations on your desire to check for yourself, and your apparent confirmation of the Great Mapping as a real, and accurate, projection of the celestial sphere onto the terrestrial sphere. The mappings I discussed in Chapter 9 are likewise real, and precise, projections of the celestial sphere onto the Earth, all enabled by the deliberate design of the landmasses on the Earth, as an objective record of the deeds of the "gods", for a sufficiently advanced earthbound mankind to find and translate, as I have done.
The Milky Way outline I used in my research and in the book was that given by Wil Tirion, in the book "The Cambridge Star Atlas" (1998). He has been the most authoritative source for star charts for decades, and his charts are used in all of the several, and most widely available, sources I cited in "The End of the Mystery".
As to Russia, the main thing is to remember that I tried to use the most familiar material I could, as far as I could, in my research (with an eye to making it easier for the lay reader to either already know, or most easily check, the information I presented). With that in mind, the fact that Russia has traditionally, even commonly, been known as "The Great Bear" is all that needs to be said, when one sees that the constellation of Ursa, "The Great Bear", well stretches out over Russia in the Great Mapping. That alone tells one that that placement was deliberate, not by chance, and that the words "Russia" and "Ursa", so close in sound, must both come from the same original source, and that source is the Great Mapping (as is well confirmed by all the other matchups, of constellation names and names on the corresponding lands or other earth features, in the Great Mapping, I found).
Several years ago, one of the earliest buyers of my book wrote to me, also telling me about the extra letter that once put "eta" in the eighth place in the Greek alphabet. As I told him, I don't mind getting this independent confirmation of my claim about the identification of "eta" with "eight"; I used the current form of the Greek alphabet, again because that is what is out there today, for anyone to see. The way I look at it is, I already knew, from all those observations I listed on page 121 of the book, that there must be a reason why "eta" is only in the seventh place today, and my footnote was in the nature of a dare, or prediction, that that reason must and would come to light (as it did to you--see how easy that confirmation was? And you did it yourself, hence a truly independent confirmation on your part, and on the part of that earlier reader I mentioned).
Friday, September 18, 2015
The Notrickszone site has a post on universities suppressing non-consensus climate views. One commenter derided the post as a "conspiracy" view, while another, on the other side of the climate debate, looked back to the 1950s, when, he wrote, continental drift was suppressed. My response to both sides:
Continental drift was not suppressed, just strongly argued against, because geophysicists (not geologists, but physicists) could find no reasonable physical cause for it. And no one has ever actually found the internal magma currents supposedly driving continental drift, nor have they ever found subduction actually taking place anywhere; the physics of the crustal materials involved still denies it CAN take place (i.e., lighter material diving into and below the denser material beneath it), much less that it HAS happened, or IS happening.
The truth is that it is not just climate science that fails today; all of the earth AND life sciences are in a yet-unrecognized crisis of incompetent theories, going all the way back to the rise (and consensus agreement that it was "settled science") of uniformitarianism and its most famous offspring, Darwinian (i.e., undirected) evolution.
See, for example:
The True Origin of Continental Drift
Challenge to Earth Scientists
So it is not a matter of just a "climate conspiracy" having taken over all of our most trusted and authoritative institutions; it is the culmination of a long-nurtured, dogmatic denial of deliberate design of our world, which has affected all of the earth and life sciences. I am the only scientist who can speak authoritatively about this, because I am the one who has uncovered and verified the re-formation and design that was imposed upon the Earth, and the entire solar system, by those who were called gods by ancient man. It was that deliberate re-formation that moved and shaped the continents, not plate tectonics. That is the FACT that no other scientific "expert" in the world will face today; too many theories, too many lifetimes of diligent but misdirected research, are at stake. The sacrosanct uniformitarian paradigm, the "undirected evolution" paradigm, is at stake. Against that, those who seek refuge in their political ideology--as if the debate were only between the enlightened Left and the reactionary Right--are the most deluded, the most misdirected in their thinking, and the most irrelevant and incompetent. But make no mistake, ALL are incompetent today, in the face of the great design I found to be the single source of all the ancient mysteries.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Jo Nova has a post on an "emergency meeting" this month of world leaders, apparently meant to make "backroom" deals among them in advance of the December "climate change" (a.k.a. global warming) conference. Jo commented that climate "skeptics" need to "stand together", a remark that seemed to me likely to have little effect--which would be unfortunate. My response:
The point is, there are too many "lukewarmers" and too few "deniers" (or, like me, defiers, though that means little since I have no influence on my own). The "greenhouse effect" should never have been taken seriously in climate science; it should have been laughed off the stage while still being bandied about by a few scientists, only at scientific gatherings, and never been allowed to metastasize into the public consciousness as an hysterical "meme", or sacred "scientific" commandment. You are all going to have to "stand together" with my kind, not me with yours, lukewarmers -- and that means showing some competence first of all in the DEFINITIVE evidence against the "consensus". Do not accept the "greenhouse effect", nor the "radiation transfer" theory with its "blackbody Earth", AT ALL. No more "radiative forcings"! Ban the use of "W/m^2" talking points, period, unless and until you can use them to explain, fully and precisely, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is due only to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun (very precisely so, outside of the cloud region on Venus). And you will never be able to do that; the radiative transfer theory is simply wrong, because it takes the temperature in the atmosphere to be due to radiative transfer, and thus reverses the true cause and effect in the real, essentially hydrostatic atmosphere (whose set vertical temperature structure--the constant lapse rate structure--rules over all, especially the LW radiation "measurements").
Sunday, August 23, 2015
The Hockeyschtick site has another post hyping a "gravito-thermal" greenhouse effect. My response:
This is just a rehashing of Nikolov and Zeller's "Unified Climate Theory" (N&Z), only claiming the use of "dimensional analysis methodology", presumably meaning their mysterious "Eq(10)"--mysterious because it is not deemed important enough to actually reveal it here--has physical units consistent on both sides of the equation, that refer to the physical parameters involved in the problem (and not to an arbitrary amalgamation of variables--an ad hoc fitting function--without physical consistency, as N&Z did). There is still the "atmospheric thermal enhancement" (ATE) factor, the airy reference to the "Poisson formula", and the apparently absolutely precise fitting of the global mean surface temperatures of all the considered planetary bodies to one formula, that featured also in N&Z -- and no physics involved, of course, just carefree mathematical modelling (and the claim that it "deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation"). The Moon, Mars and Triton are practically meaningless in it, however, as the fitting function is vertical (insensitive to the pressure) for such small-to-nonexistent surface pressures as these 3 bodies possess. And they say Titan wasn't even used in the regressions, so only Earth and Venus really matter in them (and see below for my caveat on Titan). I already, nearly 5 years ago, compared Earth's Standard Atmosphere to the temperature vs. pressure profile of Venus, not at one point (the planetary surface) but over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures.
None of this present hype goes beyond, or even rises to the level of, my Venus/Earth comparison as the definitive correction of the false physics embraced by climate and atmospheric science today. None of it rises to the level of the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere, which was known to everyone before scientists turned away from it to pursue the chimaera of "runaway global warming". None of it rises to the level of understanding, gained from simply looking at the temperature and pressure profiles of all the planets, that they all have the same form: Above approximately 200 mb pressure, they all have the negative, constant vertical temperature lapse rate structure that Earth has, and which is due simply to the hydrostatic condition: that the pressure at any level in the atmosphere is just the weight of the atmosphere above that level. The Standard Atmosphere is of course based upon assuming the hydrostatic condition.
But none of the other planetary bodies compares so precisely with Earth as does Venus, where only the ratio of solar distances is needed to explain the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at any given pressure. So the "gravito-thermal" theory glosses over (simply does not recognize) any other variables that are necessary to explain the temperatures in the other planetary bodies considered. The comparison of Earth's Standard Atmosphere with Titan, for example, as I compared Earth with Venus, shows that the near-surface temperature of Titan's atmosphere is too low, by about 7K (while near the tropopause, around 300 to 200 mb, it comes into close alignment with Earth's atmosphere, corrected only by the effect of its different solar distance); the modelling touted here, and that done by Nikolov and Zeller, can't even recognize that awkward fact, much less explain it physically--whereas the Venus/Earth comparison can, because Venus's temperatures, inside its thick cloud layer, are also too low, by about the same amount (5K), and both are probably due to the same cause: Non-gaseous particles suspended in the atmospheres (water-based clouds on Venus, particulate haze on Titan) that increase the effective specific heat of the atmosphere, in those regions where they occur.
And, of course, my definitive contribution was left out of the list presented above. No one is learning anything. The "gravito-thermal" effect is nothing but the effect of the hydrostatic condition, so far as any real physics is concerned.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Bob Tisdale has a post (also posted on the wuwt site) showing "no consensus on Earth's top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance" among the models touted by climate scientists. These kinds of critical analysis are pretty dense (detailed), especially for laypersons, and I have much better, simpler evidence to offer, so I responded:
Consensus climate science is so bad, it should come as no surprise to learn that a much simpler (and definitive) indictment of it can be made, just from the figure 1 above (Trenberth’s “global earth energy budget”). Concerning that figure, I wrote back in October 2010:
“It all looks straightforward enough, but then when you look closely you see something strange, off on the right side: The radiation coming off the surface is huge, and there is an almost equally huge ‘back radiation’ from the atmosphere to the surface. To a physicist–or at least to this physicist–that strange, gigantic loop of energy between the atmosphere and the surface appears unphysical, out of all proportion to the rest of the diagram.
“And we don’t have to get into detailed physical theory or wordy explanations to pin down what’s wrong with it: The power coming off the surface (the number 390) is larger than the incident power from the Sun (342). (The power shown as ‘back radiated’ by the atmosphere is about as large as that from the Sun, too.)
“Just that one fact is enough for me to see that the ‘climate science’ of the U.N. and the consensus of (so we are told) 97% of all climate scientists–is absurd. No part of the ‘global energy budget’ can be greater than the incident energy. Either their numbers are wrong, or the model being illustrated is wrong. Period, full stop. You don’t have to know, or explain to the world, what is really going on, or why there has been recent ‘global warming’. Just know their explanation is nonsense, basic physics absolutely and undeniably forbids it. Everything else you read is either other scientists trying to show they know what is really going on (which obviously no one does at this point, entirely), or scientists or their followers trying to defend the indefensible, with complex, technical and always wrong-headed arguments.
“Of course, that unphysical loop of excess energy is just what they are calling the ‘greenhouse effect’. And it is garbage, and all the scientists who deny that, or refuse to see it for what it is, should be drummed out of science, or at least be required to undergo re-education. Because they are worse than first-year students, who are generally at least open to learning the hard truth.”
A little later, I realized the 390 W/m^2 supposed to be coming off the Earth’s surface was just that expected from a blackbody at the same temperature (288K), and then learned that the proponents of the radiation transfer theory (behind all those numbers in the “energy budget” diagrams and in discussions of “TOA radiation imbalance”) actually believe and teach, in their theory, that the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody poised in a vacuum. At this point, an honest and competent physicist can only recoil in horror, as if at a monstrous snake on one’s doorstep, and demand it be killed forthwith. And that’s where I stand, ever since. Trenberth is a miseducated idiot. All climate scientists are miseducated idiots, for not seeing that lie, of a huge loop of energy between atmosphere and ground, greater than that coming from the Sun, and expecting to get away with presenting it seriously to the world.
…and then I found the “skeptics” didn’t see it either, or pretended not to, because they never speak of it, that obviously ridiculous incompetence at the very heart of the consensus case.
And that (plus my Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison) is why I always say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
The tallbloke site has a post highlighting the introduction of quantum mechanics into the physics of atmospheric warming, by none other than Richard Feynman, who everyone rightly respects as a physicist. As it seems a popular idea now (the tallbloke post is a spin-off from the original on Hockeyschtick yesterday), here is my response:
I almost submitted a comment to the Hockeyschtick post yesterday, but decided who was I to keep others from stumbling their own way to the truth, when all I had was definitive evidence against the consensus theories and somewhat better physical insight than just about anybody with a "climate theory" (and much better than anybody, or any government, with a "climate policy"). Perhaps I was wrong to refrain as I did (but the audiences on these blogs are small, and there's the rub).
I read the referenced Feynman lecture, or the parts that were at all interesting or relevant to the climate science debates. To put it bluntly, Feynman was a poor physics instructor, overall; while his lectures were filled with golden nuggets of solid information, he wandered all over the map to get where he was going, or to get not much of anywhere at all. (I see now he was a hippie in his teaching, and his popularity probably was responsible for all those later "Physics For Poets (and other non-scientists)" courses that were offered to non-physics majors (at least in the '70s, when I taught one).
There is not the slightest evidence, in the above graph or in Feynman's lecture, that quantum mechanics is responsible, or in any way needed, for the "anomalous specific heats" (as Roger Clague calls them above -- I don't remember what words Feynman used in the lecture to describe them). Note particularly, the graph does not present the quantum mechanical prediction for the specific heats, it presents "reality" vs. the supposed "classic" ("classical"?) physics predictions. Feynman highlighted TWO "classic physics" predictions, however, for the same diatomic ideal gas -- 1.4 and 1.286. He did this by counting the number of degrees of freedom in two different ways, and applying what is known as the equipartition theorem that says each degree of freedom provides 1/2 kT in energy to the molecule. What he failed to say, or even hint at, is that you don't have to bring in quantum mechanics to do that (nor did he show that evoking the name "quantum mechanics", as he did, provided for any, much less all, of the actual points on the "reality" curves in the graph -- or as I wrote above, the graph does not present any quantum mechanical predictions). His appeal to quantum mechanics was gratuitous and fact-free, purely speculative, and I'm sure he regrets it now, as he can look down and see how you all have glommed onto it as if it were sacred writ.
Strangely, I addressed the subject, of the specific heat of the atmosphere, in my most recent blog post, "Convection Is Instability, and Does Not Rule", and it is almost like hockeyschtick ignored me (that's a joke, alright? everyone ignores me--and everybody else with different ideas--as much as they can) when I hinted at the real problem in the climate science debates: "Why is the effective specific heat of the tropospheric atmosphere so precisely just 1.5 times that of a diatomic ideal gas?" (I disagree that it is due to the accidental concentration of any "greenhouse gas", particularly either carbon dioxide or water vapor, or to convection, or "convective cooling", and I reject, for now, the very idea of a "wet" versus "dry", so-called "adiabatic lapse rate" (because, again, the difference would depend upon the amount of "wet" involved, wouldn't it, and that would vary with altitude, and thus give an unreal, non-constant lapse rate, wouldn't it?); it is the hydrostatic lapse rate, period, and the only question is why, in the formula for it (-g/c), is the specific heat c exactly 50% higher than that for a diatomic ideal gas? (Or equivalently, why is the lapse rate -6.5 K/km instead of -9.8 K/km?)
I, for one, don't believe the answer is to be found in quantum mechanics (any more than I am prepared to accept the "wet adiabatic" theory). I expect it is to be found in the proper enumeration of the degrees of freedom actually involved, in the molecules of the atmosphere, and I do not think I am making only a formal distinction with quantum mechanics--or the "wet adiabatic" crowd, for that matter--when I say that. Only time will tell.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Believers in the global-warming "greenhouse effect" (of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2) keep coming back to the idea that convection rules in the troposphere, and provides for the "adiabatic" lapse rate that really controls the global mean surface temperature. A commenter at wuwt wrote yesterday that "It is a fact that greenhouse gases increase convection cooling which reduces the lapse rate. Hot air rises which causes colder higher air to fall. That is convection cooling." My response:
So-called "convective cooling" does not take place over the full range of the troposphere at once (it comes under the general heading of "localized, transient weather"), so it cannot change the lapse rate over that full range (which means it cannot do it at all)--in fact, it can only act, insofar as it is able, which is not much, to destabilize (destroy) the lapse rate structure; but my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison shows that there is no such destabilization--and no global warming "greenhouse effect" due to increasing atmospheric CO2--all the way from 0.04% CO2 (Earth) to 96.5% (Venus). The empirically determined Standard Atmosphere, which the Venus/Earth comparison precisely confirms, indicates the specific heat (Cp) obtaining in the troposphere (=10.5 R/2, from the defining pressure vs. temperature equation ln (P/P0) = 5.2559 ln (T/T0), with 5.2559 = Cp/R) is just 50% higher than the specific heat at constant pressure of a diatomic ideal gas (7 R/2). This is too precise and simple a relationship to be a coincidence, which is what blaming it upon the accidental concentrations of "greenhouse gases" or even just water/water vapor changes (as consensus "experts", who call it the "adiabatic lapse rate" instead of the correct "hydrostatic lapse rate", do) amounts to. Why is the effective specific heat of the tropospheric atmosphere so precisely just 1.5 times that of a diatomic ideal gas? That is the question that the many upholders of the idea that "convection rules in the troposphere" probably need to confront--so that they can finally drop that idea, because it simply is not true on the global scale (represented by the global mean surface temperature). I know this is beyond the imaginations (not to mention expertise) of anyone but really good physicists (whose thinking takes no heed of a consensus, or ruling academic theory, in the presence of definitive contrary evidence)--and I have been surprised to find none even of such physicists, since becoming aware of the global warming debate 5 and 1/2 years ago--but the Venus/Earth comparison simply demands a general rethinking of the supposedly settled physics everyone keeps spouting, without the slightest thought that they could be wrong (yet they ARE wrong, as the Venus/Earth comparison clearly shows). The sad state of the official global temperature records--which includes outright fraud on the part of the "expert authorities" behind those records--underlines the general incompetence and underlying dogmatic intransigence of all the academic theorists, that makes all the debates insufficient to uncover the true physics involved.
It's interesting, too, that Venus, with 2400 times the concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth's, has a larger lapse rate, not a "reduced" one compared to Earth's, contrary to the above commenter's claim.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Climateconversation has a post on the religiously-deluded (in fact insane) idea that climate skeptics have something wrong with their minds. A commenter mentioned the "latest GISS temperatures", which the alarmist cult claims debunks the "myth" of a "warming pause" over the last 20 years or so (I would claim there is no proof of any global warming over the last century--contrary to all the temperature data sets used in climate science--since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model, known for that century and more, and it allows for no global warming and shows a higher global mean surface temperature, for that century, higher than that admitted today in climate "science", in addition to the fact that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio shows there is NO global-warming "greenhouse effect" at all, even though Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide compared to Earth's 0.04%). My response to the continuing (and now entirely politically-correct) blindness to the hard truth about all of climate science:
The latest revisions to the GISS temperature data are bilge, based as they are on a hurried official acceptance of the incompetent paper by Karl (2015) et al., which deliberately tried to authoritatively (and condescendingly) erase the lack of warming over the last 20 years by subordinating good data with uncertain data (from an uncertain source unintended for such use). The scientific community should be up in arms over the whole sordid mess that is "consensus" climate science, and you shouldn't give an inch to any of those "experts" who have made it or any who now smugly promulgate it. I reject the GISS temperatures, and all others simiilarly suborned; I reject all of the adjustments that have been made solely in order to give the false indication of significant global warming. I reject the pronouncements of any and all climate scientists, who I know to be incompetent based upon the overwhelming evidence I have uncovered and brought forward myself, in my own way (and peer-review can go to the devil; it has been a monstrous lie, unfulfilling of its purpose and highest responsibility, that got climate science into this mess--the system, of self-correction in science, is broken). Shame on today's "leading" scientists, and all the leading voices that follow them. They are all nothing more than bratty children, recapitulating "The Lord of the Flies" (I suggest you all read that story, especially how it ends).
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Here is my response to a comment on the Jo Nova site, about "backradiation" (a comment that called it "as good an explanation as any"):
"Backradiation" is NOT "as good an explanation as any." The radiation transfer theorists use it because it is needed to balance the supposed blackbody radiation (390 W/m^2 at 288K) they claim the Earth's surface emits, and scientists like Roy Spencer believe in it because their radiation meters allow them to think they are actually measuring such radiation, when they are essentially only reading the temperature expressed as the equivalent in blackbody radiation [they throw in an "emissivity" fudge factor]. Raymond Pierrehumbert, a leading voice for the radiation transfer theory, writes (in "Physics Today", Jan. 2011, for example) with perfect assurance, that the Earth's surface radiates like a blackbody at 288K; but in a competent scientific community he couldn't get away with that for a second. A blackbody maintained at 288K and surrounded by vacuum--and thus only able to lose heat by radiation--will radiate 390 W/m^2; the Earth's surface, at a mean temperature of 288K, loses heat not just from radiation but through the atmosphere by conduction and convection, and thus CANNOT radiate 390 W/m^2. To get around this, but incompetently, they invented backradiation to negate most of that imagined 390 W/m^2; in doing so, however, they deliberately choose to ignore the fact that their "explanation" involves a gross violation of the conservation of energy, as 390 W/m^2 (and the "backradiation" as well) is larger than the mean incident solar intensity (of 342 W/m^2) that is the input energy to the system. It is only the deep belief and intellectual investment in the radiation transfer theory that has kept the "lukewarmer" skeptics from becoming total deniers of the false greenhouse effect, as they should. Roy Spencer (or Anthony Watts, or Jo Nova, or etc.) is a good example of the intransigence of opinion, even among skeptics, of "greenhouse effect" believers against those of us who KNOW, based upon observed and verifiable facts, that there IS NO greenhouse effect whatsoever.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Climate Etc has another post featuring sociologists/psychologists, "Against Consensus Messaging", where a commenter made the ridiculou claim that "consensus is an important part of the scientific method." My response to that comment, and to the blog's host, Dr. Judith Curry:
The scientific method only encompasses the discovery and objective verification of truth--a true understanding of a thing, a system or a process. Consensus is just a collective opinion about a thing, and has only a potential, tangential relation to the scientific method, a potential that is not realized unless the consensus opinion reflects the objective truth discovered and verified by the scientific method. Consensus is not "an important part of the scientific method", it does not in fact have any value in and of itself; it is, at best, only worthwhile to the extent it reflects the truth. That is why, as we now see everyday, even a consensus of authoritative experts, even of "97% of everybody", is worthless today--because the experts are all incompetent, before definitive evidence against their supposed understanding.
And blogs like this, addicted to sociological misdirections, away from the objective truth into the mire of mere opinion (collective or otherwise), merely thrash around in the mire, going nowhere and helping not at all (or only to the extent that they show just how incompetent the experts, like Dr. Curry, all are now).
Or to put it bluntly, sociology and psychology cannot enlighten physics, or any physical science. Dr. Curry needs to learn that her pursuit of good climate policy marks her as fundamentally deluded, because there is no such thing. "You can't get there from here", because there is no "here" here, where you continue vainly to focus your attention on opinion-making.
But I have been saying as much for about 5 years now, so I know you who feel yourselves to be part of a working system--a working scientific method, above all--are not heeding the evidence to the contrary (ironically, the sociological and psychological evidence, of the benighted and dysfunctional public and political debate).
Monday, June 15, 2015
Judith Curry has a post on "The State of the Climate Debate in the US". She says climate science is caught in the middle, in the ongoing fight between the Democrats and the Republicans. My response is:
Publically point out that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is essentially a constant that is precisely determined by the two planets' distances from the Sun, and nothing else, despite Venus's atmosphere having 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as Earth's (so there is no greenhouse effect due to "greenhouse gases" at all)...or you are a denier, of the definitive fact that disproves the consensus, and an incompetent climate scientist. The bottom line is that the stable Standard Atmosphere rules in Earth's atmosphere, on the global scale, and that will be the obituary for this generation of failed climate scientists, whose consensus opinion is worthless and is the real culprit--given the gargantuan political misuse of it and the subornation of all of our supposedly authoritative institutions by it. Climate science is NOT caught in the middle of the Left-Right political divide over "climate change"; its absolute, complete incompetence both started and maintains it. You are all a joke, and your climate science has no business on the all-too-serious stage of public discourse. I used to say I am a denier of it, not just a skeptic; now, given the runaway political machinery, I am a defier. So get your burning stakes ready; you will be needing them.
Monday, June 8, 2015
The masterresource site, among many other blogs, has addressed the new claim that there is really no "global warmng pause" (over the last two decades) to counter the mentally unhinged political narrative (of Barack Obama) of imminent runaway "climate change". My response:
The whole "debate" is laughably incompetent (and has been for 25 years--since the inception of the UN's IPCC, it should be emphasized). All of these "experts" fall far short of competence by not demanding the immediate firing of Karl (et al.) for deliberate deception--fraud, that is--and the immediate rescinding of any and all regulations falling under the general heading of "climate policy". Earth's "climate" varies internally (over the globe, you see) from tropical to polar, but the global average (as referenced by the global mean surface temperature) is unchanging, as the century-old Standard Atmosphere model of the atmosphere implies, and that model is precisely--precisely--confirmed by the simple comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth (with .04% CO2) and Venus (with a whopping 96.5%). There is no discernible global warming greenhouse effect, a simple fact that no "expert"--or politician--will truthfully admit.
The proper lesson of the present debate, over Karl et al., is that the data used to calculate the global mean surface temperature (GMST) by today's climate scientists is too noisy (naturally varying and uncertainly measured) to support any claim of global warming at all, and it has to be tortured--fraudulently, to any truly competent physical scientist--to do so. That's what the man on the street should be hearing from any so-called "expert".
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
As the communicator of new scientific knowledge that must change current paradigms, both inside and outside of science, I want to focus solely on that scientific knowledge. However, the problems we face today are urgent and require acknowledgement wherever they arise. Warning Signs has a post on "Leaving the Church of Environmentalism", to which I have responded:
Radical environmentalism--which is now being preached as politically and morally correct by all of our authoritative institutions--is not just a church, or religion, but a religion on a jihad, a holy war as it were. And they are out for revenge (against the Bush years, "Capitalism"--as they see it, "Big Oil", "Big Corporations", etc. ad infinitum); their self-righteousness is what is driving them, what has in fact made them insane in so many of their ridiculous claims and demands, without regard for how many innocents they are harming (including the false education of recent generations and the reputation of modern science itself). And they are but one part of the coalition of radical groups that now feel supremely empowered by the Obama administration--and by a man clearly lacking in character.
Mankind needs to learn from the many varieties of war being waged because of religiously-held, but patently false, beliefs now.
There is a basic--inalienable--right of Man that needs to be brought out and explicitly made a foundational part of all our laws. A new injunction must be strictly enforced upon all merely religiously-held beliefs (those lacking observational support, i.e., for which there is objective evidence AGAINST the belief): "No coercion, in any form, of unbelievers." We should already know this; millennia of hard experience already gave birth to "the separation of church and state" in the U.S.A..
Monday, May 25, 2015
The Australian Climate Skeptics blog has a post by Dr. Vincent Gray, a onetime IPCC insider and critic, and a long-time hero to climate skeptics. Dr. Gray is a "lukewarmer", believing that there is a global-warming greenhouse effect but that it is "very small". My response to his essay:
"The speculation by some that radiation cannot be absorbed by an object whose temperature is less than that of the radiant emitter..."
---That "less than" must be a mistake, as no one speculates that a cooler object cannot absorb heat from a hotter one. It should read "more than", as in, a hotter object cannot be heated by a cooler one. Dr. Gray (along with the "consensus" alarmists and all the "lukewarmist" believers in the greenhouse effect) is denying even the latter when he states that "backradiation" from CO2 (in the cooler atmosphere) further warms the planetary surface; he is wrong, and merely covering his error by admitting that the warming due to such backradiation "must be very small as it has not been detected, despite the enormous effort that has been applied to try and find it." The definitive evidence against the consensus greenhouse effect is my Venus/Earth temperature-vs-pressure comparison, which simply shows it does not exist, and the CO2 climate sensitivity is (-0.026 +/- 0.12) °C per doubling of CO2--the possible size of the effect is one-fifth of the uncertainty in the calculation and is thus essentially zero. While an individual photon from a cooler object may very rarely be absorbed by a warmer object, that is essentially on the microscopic scale; macroscopically, photons from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. Failing to distinguish between rare events that are possible on the quantum scale, but not in the macroscopic, bulk transfer of heat energy, is the common error of all believers in the greenhouse effect. It really does boil down to the simple proscription against a cooler body further warming a warmer body, as the definitive Venus/Earth evidence (which compares an atmosphere with .04% CO2--Earth--to one with 96.5%--Venus; the difference could hardly be greater, and the result--zero sensitivity to CO2--is definitive) simply demonstrates to anyone with eyes to see (and very few do, as I did that comparison 4 and 1/2 years ago and it is still ignored by both sides). 97% of both sides in the debate are incompetent (and that includes, unfortunately, even Dr. Gray).
Friday, May 15, 2015
Further comments to the November 2010 Venus: No Greenhouse Effect post should be submitted here, or to any other post that refers to it.
The last such comment I received, from one Bob Armstrong, argued that the result of my Venus/Earth comparison--that it is a constant that is wholly and precisely explained only by the difference in the two planets' distances from the Sun--was only a "coincidence", and an internal heat for Venus was required to heat its surface to the observed value. My answer is that adding the hypothesis of internal Venus heat merely adds to the list of conditions, differentiating the two planets, that are "supposed" to affect the temperature, but in fact do not--in other words, it merely exacerbates the "coincidence" that only the solar distances are needed to specify the Venus/Earth temperature ratio; it just makes calling it a "coincidence" all the more highly improbable, all the more ridiculous. The loudest voices on both sides of the "climate" debate/political war have steadfastly, and incompetently, simply dismissed that fact, and have thereby all indicted themselves as worthless "experts".
Sunday, May 10, 2015
The Tallbloke site says "ocean makes climate", with 2 graphs. My response:
I don't know whether the last "430 words" [of the original post, linked to by tallbloke] address the direction of energy flow, but these two graphs do not. The ocean covers 70% of the surface, so one would worry if variations in the GMST and the GMSST did not largely agree. What these graphs tell me--and should tell anyone who didn't actively ignore my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison--is that it is the atmosphere, stupid (I add the "stupid" lovingly, not hatefully, sports fans), that controls the global mean SST (and of course the GMST). I would say (and I'm no expert, but at least I have some common sense) the oceans make weather, not global climate as defined by the GMST (and while they can make regional or local climate--and when are you all going to realize that that is the only "climate change" that can occur, so long as the Sun continues to shine on this world--they only do so in tandem with other local factors like latitude, topography--like mountains, affecting the prevailing winds--and the degree of forestation). The public and internet debate on "climate science" remains a case study in incompetence all around. This generation is failing a critical test.
Friday, May 8, 2015
The Jo Nova site reports on the cancellation of a Bjorn Lomborg "consensus center" which, as I understand it, was to be devoted--at least partially--to reporting the truth about the ridiculously high cost of alarmist climate policies. Readers here should read that Jo Nova post, then my following response:
On April 25, 2011 (six months after my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, which disproves the global-warming greenhouse effect and separates the competent from the incompetent in so-called "climate science"), I submitted the following comment to this site (it may seem to start out off-topic on this thread, but read on):
"You cannot shame Barack Obama. I wrote to him, on paper, about the unrecognized crisis of incompetence in science the day after he was elected, and received only a 3X5 card with 'thank you for writing', after 4 months. He was brainwashed from his youth, epitomizes the current widespread inability to focus on the critical evidence in any field, and personally exults in what I, to put all the political hysteria in the proper perspective, call the 'War of the Insane Left'. They are out for revenge (against the Bush presidency, against past slavery and racism, against the excesses of capitalism, and yes, probably against every personal injustice each of them has experienced in life), and for them the ends justify any means that comes to hand. I just saw a portion of a TV program on 'The Third Reich: The Rise', within the last hour. It was familiar to me, and was depressing (knowing how it would play out), so I didn't continue watching it. The Left is trying to emulate the rise of the Third Reich; that is, they want all the power and no opposition. Anyone of any maturity knows that government, academia, and all large institutions utilize the same absolute power, absolutely corrupted and corrupting, to maintain themselves and those at the top. And ALL of our scientific and political institutions, and the media, have already been suborned by the supposedly righteous image they have been projecting for decades. The global warming hysteria is just the current tip of their spear, to be pushed regardless of the truth. And just as most Germans were not Nazis, most of those defending the obscene climate 'consensus' are not evil. They are, however, thoroughly incompetent, and brainwashed to be accepting of evil. All the signs are that it will only get worse, until there are no 'lukewarmers' left, in climate science, all of science, or in politics. Shortly after, it will be World War III in earnest. And it will be our own fault if we refuse to see it coming."
Friday, April 24, 2015
Bishop Hill and ClimateAudit have both given space to the latest round of obsessing about CO2 "climate sensitivity", by scientist Nic Lewis. I respond to the following quote in Lewis's latest posting:
"Since the climate system takes many centuries to equilibrate..."
Translation: None of us know--and really don't believe we CAN know, for "many centuries" yet--what we are talking about with regard to the "climate system", and particularly with regard to man-made climate change due to our fossil fuel use.
What I have discovered, with my 2010 Venus/Earth temperature-versus-pressure comparison, is:
The Standard Atmosphere model--and especially, the physics behind it, which assures a stable vertical temperature gradient--rules (as the real, global average, or mid-latitudinal, state) over all other processes and conditions in the atmosphere (being precisely confirmed by the Venus/Earth comparison).
The troposphere is fundamentally warmed, and the stable Standard Atmosphere structure maintained, only by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not at all (beyond transient and local effects--known as "weather") from the planet's surface.
The CO2 climate sensitivity due to absorption by atmospheric CO2 of long-wavelength radiation from the surface is precisely zero, because that energy is simply "falling down" the globally(!) predominant vertical temperature gradient towards outer space.
Any CO2 climate sensitivity due to absorption by atmospheric CO2 of incident long-wavelength radiation from the Sun is also zero, because that energy merely goes to MAINTAIN the globally predominant vertical temperature gradient.
Today's climate scientists are chasing local (even quantum-mechanical) causes and effects, and know nothing of what I would call the overall design of the atmosphere--which I say again, is stable against all of the supposed causes and effects being considered by today's (clearly mis-educated) academics.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
I have submitted the following comment to the notalotofpeopleknowthat site, where it is stated that the global mean surface temperature has been flat for the last 20 years:
It is 25 years. Remember you heard it from me first. I have tried to inform the climate debaters on the blogosphere a number of times over the last 4 years, that the temperatures between 2010 and 2012 were tracking those between 1990 and 1992, for example at:
"CO2-Correlated Global Warming Only Occurred 1976 - 1989/90"
As for the CO2 "climate sensitivity", my 2010 Venus/Earth Temperature vs. Pressure (T-P) curves comparison revealed the FACT that there is NO global warming greenhouse effect whatsoever, that climate science went wrong when it threw away the knowledge of the Standard Atmosphere (which my Venus/Earth comparison PRECISELY confirmed) to chase "runaway global warming", and that the last two generations of climate scientists have been fundamentally mis-educated (so that all of those who now are touted as the authoritative voices, the "experts", in climate science, are thoroughly incompetent, not to mention religiously deluded in their defense of the "consensus" theories--this includes both the alarmists and the "lukewarmers"). The CO2 climate sensitivity is precisely zero.
The intellectual atmosphere in the climate change debates--and the positions of all of our suborned institutions, being presented to the public as scientific fact--is full of nonsense and lies. It is in fact insane. The whole system is broken, both scientifically and politically.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
The "Tallbloke's Talkshop" site has a post on "Earth's Other Moon", concerning a so-called "quasi-satellite" of Earth (actually, it's just a very small body orbiting the Sun, in an eccentric orbit that goes from Mercury's orbit out to beyond Mars's orbit, but with the same orbital period as Earth). In the context of the "Great Design of the gods" I found, the following is my response:
The facts, that it orbits the Sun in a smooth ellipse (indicating it feels only the Sun's attraction), that it doesn't get close enough to the Earth to be affected by Earth's gravity, yet it has a sidereal period "almost exactly the same as Earth's", all imply that its orbit was designed--just as the whole solar system was deliberately re-formed, to a new ecliptic orientation, in fact, (a mere 17,000 years ago). This is the new paradigm--the study of the design(s) of the "gods" of ancient worldwide testimony (in myths and other religiously passed-down texts)--that my unprecedented research into the "ancient mysteries" has revealed. Cruithne's orbit, it is already clear to me, indicates something of importance for Earth-bound man to know about the former constituion of the solar system, and probably about specific changes that were made to the planetary orbits and how they were made. Cruithne's orbit is similar to what I deduced from the ancient data Immanuel Velikovsky uncovered for a former eccentric orbit of Venus (implied in ancient observations, specifically in the so-called "tablets of Ammizaduga")--although Velikovsky's work was meant to show that the "Worlds In Collision" he studied (specifically, among Venus, Mars and Earth) occurred in the second and first millennia BC, much later than the general reformation of the solar system (circa 15,000 BC) my findings reveal (a reformation, I might add, that was memorialized in Greek myth as "the birth of the new gods", and "when the twelve were produced from the eight" in ancient Egypt's ancient sacred tradition). Venus's present nearly-perfect circular orbit is another clue that design was involved in it (especially if one takes the "tablets of Ammizaduga" seriously, as evidence of its former, quite eccentric orbit--as well as the present resonances between Venus's orbit and those of Mars and Earth, and other clues as well). Cruithne would not be so clearly tied to the Earth by its orbital period if it didn't involve real changes made to the Earth and Earth's orbit (and any such "horseshoe orbits" tied to other planets, like that mentioned above for Saturn, likewise would involve changes involving the specific planet). These "horseshoe" orbits offer yet another independent line of study into the detailed unfolding of the design--what actually happened, as revealed by the objective physical facts of the design.