Climate Science the IPCC ignores

The following summarises the key points from this book. We show that almost everything politicians around the world have been telling their people about climate change is a lie.

We, the authors of this book, have decided that it is time for the truth to be told. The populations of the world deserve to know the truth.

Governments around the world have let themselves be controlled by the IPCC. The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body. It is in pursuit of it’s political agenda. To that end the IPCC ignores the vast majority of scientific papers that are published. These are the inconvenient truths. The science papers that disagree with the IPCC’s political agenda are ignored. In this book we present to the readers the science that the IPCC does not want you to know about.

Adiabatic Auto-Compression

When you pump up a bike tyre the air in the tyre heats up. That’s because as you are pumping you are doing work on the gas. When you stop pumping you stop doing work and the air cools back down to ambient again.

When gravity pushes down on the atmosphere it is doing work on the air and it heats up. When a gas is compressed, it does negative work and its temperature rises. James Maxwell detailed the Poisson relation, (derived from the ideal gas law) and can be represented using a formula, showing the increase in pressure as gas descends in a gravitational field. See Section 3.6 for a detailed explanation.

This is the process that sets the initial compressed temperature. But it doesn’t stop there. The Sun heats the Earth and starts a convective process by heating the surface air by conduction and causing the air to rise. As the air rises it decompresses and cools. This cool air then falls. As it falls it recompresses and heats back up again. This process does not create any new heat. This process is the process that maintains the initial compressed temperature. See Section 3.6.

Gravity compresses Earth’s atmosphere doing work on the air which causes it to heat up. The Sun continues to do work on Earth and it’s atmosphere and maintains that initial compressed temperature.

Thousands of mining and aviation engineers world wide rely on the adiabatic auto-compression formulas backed up by thousands of experiments.

Mining engineers need to calculate the temperature at the bottom of mine shafts then calculate the amount of ventilation required to keep the mine shaft at a comfortable temperature for mine workers. After they make their calculations, they go down the shaft and measure the rock temperatures which give them the amount of geothermal heat being applied to the air via conduction. Then they measure the air temperatures. These measurements validate their calculations. For most mine shafts in Australia, the bottom shaft air temperature is 50% geothermal and 50% adiabatic auto-compression. For the deep mines in South Africa the geothermal temperature has a higher percentage.

All of this is based on the Ideal Gas Law which is explained in detail in Section 7.23.

This is science that has been established since it was first proposed by Loschmidt in the 1860s then later supported by Maxwell. As Richard Feynman said if it fails experiment it’s wrong. Mining and aviation engineers have conduct thousands of experiments to validate their work. Adiabatic auto-compression passes experiment. No one has ever falsified Loschmidt

It is said that we have a natural greenhouse effect which is the difference between Earth’s supposed theoretical temperature of -18°C and it’s measured +15°C. This 33°C is said to be caused by the natural greenhouse effect.

Adiabatic auto-compression falsifies this 33°C natural greenhouse effect. Earth’s surface temperature is set by adiabatic auto-compression, not any greenhouse effect.

There is no greenhouse effect

We show that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas warming effect or GHE in Earth’s atmosphere in other words, there is no special class of gases which can cause anomalous heating in our troposphere. There is a terminal conflict between the GHE – and the Ideal Gas Law; and the close relationship between the temperatures of Venus. Earth and Titan, based solely on pressure and solar radiation also rule out any warming effect from GHG. The Earth’s lapse rate and surface temperature is set by insulation, convection, adiabatic auto-compression and auto-decompression, not by a GHE.

After 40 years of GHE scare campaigns by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming CAGW proponents and 30,000 plus published climate papers, there is still NOT ONE published paper in the empirical literature, which quantifies any tropospheric warming and attributes it to increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations; in other words, no one has ever measured this mythical warming of the Earth from IR radiation coming from atmospheric CO2 molecules in any experiment.

GHE is a hypothesis that fails experiment. We have shown numerous falsifications of the GHE hypothesis. See Section  7.19 & Chapter 11.

We show that CO2 concentrations have no effect on the climate system

CO2 changes lag temperature. It is impossible for the cause to be the effect. See Sections 6.15.  IR Radiation from CO2 molecules can’t heat the Earth. See Section 6.19. CO2 forcing of temperature is falsified. See Section 6.1. We falsify the hypothesis of IR Radiative Forcing. It is impossible for the Earth to heat itself with it’s own radiation. It’s impossible for there to be a greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. It is impossible to trap IR radiation in Earth’s atmosphere. See Section  7.19.

Humans cannot control atmospheric CO2 concentrations

We have shown that CO2 concentrations have no effect on the climate system. We have shown that humans cannot control atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are controlled by Henry’s Law, Henry’s Ratio which in turn is controlled by sea surface temperatures. If humans emit more CO2, the oceans will absorb more to balance Henry’s Ratio. Conversely if humans remove CO2 from the atmosphere or reduce emissions, the oceans will emit more CO2 to balance the ratio. See Sections 7.33 & 7.34. This obsession by politicians with net zero demonstrates that politicians trying to do the impossible just make themselves look like idiots.

We are actually in a severe CO2 drought

CO2 is beneficial for food crop production and has no detrimental effect on the climate or humans. 4.5 bil years ago Earth had approximately 95% CO2 in it’s atmosphere. We are down to 0.04% and that can drop to 0.018% during glacial periods which are 80% of the current time on Earth. Plants, which are our food crops, don’t grow with CO2 levels below 150 ppm or 0.015%. CO2 has been permanently sequestered out of the ocean/atmosphere system over time into limestone in the oceans. At the present rate of CO2 decline, there is just 42,000 years supply of CO2 left before all life of all forms on planet Earth goes extinct. Life without CO2 is impossible! We desperately need a lot more of the stuff, not less, and quickly, to starve off plant and human extinction. See Section 10.10.

We dispel the myth that CO2 did not rise above 300 ppm until ≈1920

The CAGW proponents continually state that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution in 1750 were caused by man and that CO2 never rose above 300 ppm until approximately 1920. See Figure 7-8. We show in Sections 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 & 7.35 that CO2 levels rose above 300 ppm on numerous occasions over the past 12,000 years alone, including over 400 ppm twice in the past 200 years before the current rise. And we show in Sections 7.33 & 7.34 that all those CO2 increases over 300 ppm were caused by ocean sea surface temperatures in accordance with Henry’s Law.

We show that politics is behind the climate alarm, not science

See Chapter 10 for an expose on the politicisation of climate science.

We show that natural climate cycles control Earth’s climate system

See more here Climate Truths

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Murthy Patel

    |

    Maybe I just don’t see the big picture, or maybe I’m just naïve, but I’m thinking a body ought to be able to figure how much energy it would take to heat the whole atmosphere by a single degree. And from that we could know just how hard it would be, or if it was even possible.

    I mean we know a ‘ballpark’ figure for the specific heat capacity of air, right? 1.0 kJ/kg K (1)
    Yes, I know that value isn’t constant, but it should be a reasonable approximation for grasping the sheer scale of the thing, yes?
    And we know how much the atmosphere weighs, right? 5.1 x 10^18 kg (2)
    And what with one kiloJoule per kilogram, the product sort of makes itself. Just change the terms from mass to energy, right? 5.1 x 10^18th kiloJoules will change the temperature of the atmosphere by 1° Kelvin.

    5.1 x 10^18 kJ is an incomprehensibly YUGE number, so what could we compare it to to help visualize its enormity? How about that old stand-by, the Hiroshima atom bomb?

    The US Department of Energy reckons that Little Boy exploded with a force equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT. (3)
    And Stanford University figures that “1 ton of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 × 10^9 Joules.” (4)
    Which is 4.184 x 10^6 kiloJoules. And fifteen thousand of those comes to 6.276×10^10 kJ.

    Maybe it’s just me but when I divide energy required (5.1 x 10^18 kJ) by energy provided by one Hiroshima bomb (6.276×10^10 kJ), I get 81261950.

    So my question is, would it really take the energy from 81 MILLION Hiroshima bombs to heat the atmosphere by 1°K?

    And even if I’m off by a scale of 1000, that’s still HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of atom bombs to do what the climate alarmists are attributing to summer cook-outs and cow farts. And doesn’t that show how farcical the fairy tale of apothogenic global warming truly is?

    And if you find a problem with my reasoning or my math, please point out where I’m wrong.

    (1) https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-specific-heat-capacity-d_705.html
    (2) https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
    (3) https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/hiroshima.htm
    (4) http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/park-w1/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Murthy,

    You are correct; unless one is a CHEMIST one is not familiar with ordinary BIG, BIG NUMBERS.

    Have a good day

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via