A Closer Look At The Fundamental Hypothesis Of Global Warming
In my book, I strongly advocate for the concept of adhering to the scientific method of inquiry and the first principles of science, ab initio, as a discipline in the conduct of scientific research
The scientific method has been the foundation of legitimate scientific research for over 400 years and has served to advance man’s understanding of the natural world.
To conduct scientific research in any other manner is at best erroneous and at worst duplicitous.
The goal of scientific research should be to pursue the truth, not confirm a personal or institutional bias, as much of climate science research does today.
The scientific method requires that its practitioners follow a discipline for conducting research:
- Careful observation of a scientific phenomenon, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation — i.e., the observer presupposes a desired outcome due to bias.
- Construction of a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that clearly and accurately state a supposition or proposed explanation made based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
- Develop a framework for an experiment or other investigation to verify or falsify the hypothesis.
- Measure the results of the experiment or investigation. Implicit in the validity of the scientific method to conduct research is the ability of the researcher (and others) to objectively confirm or refute (falsify) the hypothesis by replicating the results of the experiment.
- Refine or eliminate the hypothesis. The results of the experiment or investigation may cause one to refine the hypothesis to include (or eliminate) factors that do or do not appear to have a causative effect on the phenomena observed.
- The hypothesis should be eliminated (discarded) if the results of the experiment disprove (falsify) the hypothesis.
If the scientific method were to be rigorously employed in an unbiased manner in the conduct of climate research regarding the man-made global warming claim, it would be expected that a climate scientist who believed that man may have caused global warming that would adversely affect life on Earth in the future would construct the following hypothesis.
“Man has caused global warming, which will result in future climate conditions that will adversely affect life on Earth.”
However, the hypothesis above actually contains three conjectures that must be developed into a complex hypothesis:
- “Global warming has occurred — that is, the temperature of the world’s relevant atmosphere, oceans, and land mass has increased during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.”
- “Man’s activities are responsible for the global warming that has occurred.”
- “The extent to which global warming has occurred, or is reasonably projected to occur in the future, will adversely affect life on Earth.“
If any of the conjectures in the complex hypothesis above are found to be invalid, the complex hypothesis is rendered null. If so, the investigator must either modify the hypothesis or discard it.
If an unbiased climate scientist were to take the necessary steps to test the complex hypothesis above, it should be undertaken sequentially.
He would first begin an investigation to determine if the temperature of the world’s relevant atmosphere, oceans, and landmass has increased during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.
In 1979, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began to launch a series of satellites to circumnavigate the globe, using microwave-sounding units (MSU) to measure the temperature of various layers of the lower troposphere.
The MSU readings are analyzed using spectrographic analysis and mathematically converted to a temperature record. The temperature readings are then used to calculate what is known as a temperature anomaly.
The temperature anomaly for a period (day, month, or year) is calculated by averaging the high and low temperatures for the period and then comparing that average to the average of the same period in a prior time frame.
For example, if the average temperature for the troposphere in a given month is measured to be -50°C, and the average temperature for the same month the prior year was measured to be -50.5°C, the temperature anomaly would be +0.5 °C — it warmed by 0.5°C.
In the case of the UAH temperature record, the monthly averages are compared to a base period, which is the average of the prior thirty-year temperature anomalies.
The data are then analyzed by scientists at the University of Alabama-Huntsville to prepare a graph of the results.
It should be noted from the UAH graph that for the period 1979–1998, there was a constant cooling of the lower troposphere of around 0.3°C per year.
From 1999 to 2009, an overall cooling trend can be observed. Finally, from 2020 to the present, there has been an overall cooling trend of around 0.3°C.
All of these cooling periods occurred during a time in which the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s lower troposphere increased from about 335 ppm to 420 ppm (25 percent).
This fact falsifies the man-made global warming hypothesis, rendering it null and void.
In the field of scientific investigation, if the data invalidate a hypothesis, the hypothesis is falsified.
Here, the data prove the global warming hypothesis wrong. These data have been in the public domain since the U.N. formed the IPCC in 1990.
The question is, “Why do IPCC scientists continue to promote a failed hypothesis?”
The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive.
See more here climatechangedispatch
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.
Herb Rose
| #
Before trying to verify evidence one should make sure that evidence complies with established laws of physics. One such law is that energy flows from an object with more energy to an object with less energy, until equilibrium is established. It does not flow to objects with equal or greater energy.
If the surface of the Earth is adding energy (heating) to the atmosphere it must have greater energy (higher temperature) than the molecules in the atmosphere. If the temperature of the air molecules ever exceeds the surface temperature the Earth it means that they are not receiving energy from that source. Snow will maintain a temperature of 0 C until it melts. If during the day the atmosphere’s temperature is greater than 0 C it means the source of energy is not from the Earth but the sun.
Reply
Alan
| #
That is complete rubbish. If I stand next to a massive iceberg, it has more energy than me, but the energy transfers from me to the iceberg because my temperature is higher than the icebergs.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
You are correct. I should have said greater energy (higher temperature) instead of more energy. The point I was trying to make is exactly that. If the Earth is heating the atmosphere then the temperature of the atmosphere cannot become higher than the temperature of the surface of the Earth. When there is snow on the ground the temperature of the atmosphere cannot become greater than 0 C. The fact that it does shows that it is not the surface of the Earth that is heating the air, but the sun.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
energy flows from an object with more energy to an object with less energy,
JMcG:
You are completely confused, just like Joe Postma. Energy flows from all objects at a magnitude in proportion to their temperature.
until equilibrium is established. It does not flow to objects with equal or greater energy.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Energy radiates from all objects it doesn’t flow until there is an energy difference.
It does not change proportional to their temperature since temperature is a function of both energy and mass and mass does not radiate. The amount of energy an objet contains is determined by their mass (volume) while the amount of energy they radiate is determined by their surface area. A large object will radiate more energy than a smaller object, containing the same amount of energy, even though each unit of mass of the smaller object has more energy. Example: A burning log will radiate energy depending the temperature of the oxidation reaction. Adding more logs to the fire will increase the amount of heat being radiated even though they all burn at the same temperature.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
So, it “radiates but doesn’t flow?” Really?
How do you expect anybody to take such plainly silly statements seriously?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Energy goes from higher level to lower, like water. It doesn’t flow to higher without work. Energy coming from an object will be stopped when it meets energy coming from another object with the same level and it can’t expand any further. Flow stops, equilibrium is established. If the energy from one of the objects decreases/increases then the equilibrium point changes and energy flows. Electromagnetic waves are disturbances in the electric and energy (magnetic/gravity) fields emitted by an object and they are changes in the level’s of these fields, that disturbance is transferred into the neighboring objects fields but like waves in water theater/energy remains in place.
Objects only transfer energy to another object through collisions or if the energy field an object is greater than the field radiated from the other object.
Consider two objects in a perfectly insulated container. Since the objects radiate energy in all directions and that energy decreases with distance, the amount energy going from one object to another can never be equal to the energy emitted at the source. Since what energy is absorbed by an object is determined by the bonds it contains, objects can never absorb all the energy being emitted by another object and it is quite possible that they can absorb none of the wavelengths being emitted by the object. Equilibrium can never be achieved and yet the objects equalize. This is because with the radiation of energy the equalization is done with the fields they are in, not the other object. Planck was wrong. The quantum nature of energy has nothing to do with the source but is a result of way that energy is absorbed.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred to other objects (matter). When you see the light coming from a distant star that energy flows to you and becomes part of your energy field. Light that does not strike an object (which is the vast majority of it) will continue to exist traveling in the radiated fields of objects until it is absorbed by matter.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: Energy goes from higher level to lower
JMcG: What is lower, an object in the vicinity or the vacuum of space?
You are confused.
, like water. It doesn’t flow to higher without work. Energy coming from an object will be stopped when it meets energy coming from another object with the same level and it can’t expand any further. Flow stops, equilibrium is established. If the energy from one of the objects decreases/increases then the equilibrium point changes and energy flows. Electromagnetic waves are disturbances in the electric and energy (magnetic/gravity) fields emitted by an object and they are changes in the level’s of these fields, that disturbance is transferred into the neighboring objects fields but like waves in water theater/energy remains in place.
Objects only transfer energy to another object through collisions or if the energy field an object is greater than the field radiated from the other object.
Consider two objects in a perfectly insulated container. Since the objects radiate energy in all directions and that energy decreases with distance, the amount energy going from one object to another can never be equal to the energy emitted at the source. Since what energy is absorbed by an object is determined by the bonds it contains, objects can never absorb all the energy being emitted by another object and it is quite possible that they can absorb none of the wavelengths being emitted by the object. Equilibrium can never be achieved and yet the objects equalize. This is because with the radiation of energy the equalization is done with the fields they are in, not the other object. Planck was wrong. The quantum nature of energy has nothing to do with the source but is a result of way that energy is absorbed.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred to other objects (matter). When you see the light coming from a distant star that energy flows to you and becomes part of your energy field. Light that does not strike an object (which is the vast majority of it) will continue to exist traveling in the radiated fields of objects until it is absorbed by matter.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Lower is lead amplitude. Use the search feature at PSI to find my article How radiated Energy Becomes Kinetic Energy for an explanation. Planck was wrong. Light with a blue shift is not gaining energy with distance. The wavelength determines the temperature the amplitude of the wave determines the amount of energy.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
The correct answer is the vacuum of space. You are just confused.
James McGinn / Genius
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Vacuum has nothing to do with the direction of flow of energy. It is attracted to mass (positive matter) and will flow from the vacuum of space to matter. Why do you think energy concentrates in the Earth before being re-radiated backing space? According to you it should just flow around it?
James McGinn
| #
There is no such thing as energy being attracted to matter. You are just confused.
Herb Rose
| #
So the law of conservation of momentum is wrong. You are being stupid.
james McGinn
| #
You are just confused.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Before you jump on may statement “A gas cannot emit energy (radiation) since it has no surface.” I qualify it with a statement of my favorite meteorologist R. C Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate, 1966, pp 48)
“Why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answers that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acid or other substances which serve just as well liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated.”
What Sutcliffe does not directly state is that these nuclei have surfaces as liquid water (or solid ice) do. So because these nuclei are tiny, I assume (reason) they are in a temperature equilibrium with the oxygen and nitrogen molecules which surrounds them. Hence, these nuclei radiate energy from their surfaces according to the atmosphere’s temperature.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
Gases don’t need a surface to emit.
It is a myth that H2O is ever gaseous at the low temperatures that occur in the atmosphere. Condensation from smaller droplets to larger droplets is a function of temperature, pressure, saturation and possibly static electricity.
Sutcliffe was a text book writer and not a scientist. Textbook writers realize that consensus sells books.
You have the naivete of a child.
James McGinn
Huge Economic Opportunity For Those That Understand The Physics of Water
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-mcginn/episodes/Huge-Economic-Opportunity-For-Those-That-Understand-The-Physics-of-Water-e29vbi2
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I admit I might ‘have the naivety of a child and initially trust that adults know what they state. And often I learn they don’t,
For you just wrote “Sutcliffe was a text book writer and not a scientist.” And I read he began his preface:”This is not a textbook on meteorology, neither a general introduction nor a formal course, but it ha a serious purpose and that is to explain to the general reader what it is that meteorologists are doing and trying o do.” In his bio the publisher (W.W. Norton &Company wrote: “At the end of World War II, he was Chief Meteorological Officer for the British Forces in Europe.” So I naively suspect he might have been part of the allied team witch predicted the weather conditions for the landing at Normandy.
From what you just wrote about Sutcliffe and his book I conclude that you certainly are no genius.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Meteorology is superstition loosely based on science. These pretenders believe things that have never been tested and that can’t even be defined concisely enough to be tested. You are just confused.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
While you and others have stated ‘One such law is that energy flows from an object with more energy to an object with less energy, until equilibrium is established. It does not flow to objects with equal or greater energy.” many times.
I cannot remember pointing out it is “Net” energy that flows from an object with more energy to an object with less energy, until a temperature equilibrium is established.”
For another physical law is that liquid and solid matter emit (radiate) from their surfaces according to the mathematical equation: Energy = a measured constant times the surface temperature raised to the fourth power. Where the temperature is not C nor F but K (absolute temperature) which has been determined by observing how the volume of a gas varies with varying temperatures (C or F). A gas cannot emit energy (radiation) since it has no surface.
Have a good day
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The author is a fool
He data mines a few short trends in the UAH chart, which is obviously a rising trend since 1979, to claim the IPCC is wrong. The UAH chart does NOT refute AGW. It is evidence manmade CO2 is NOT a climate control k n o b that dominates climate change. In fact, changes of CO2 are one of many causes of climate change. More CO2 always causes global warming. But other climate change variables can offset that CO2 caused warming at times, resulting in a flat temperature trend.
Thanks, Mr Krause, for attempting to correct Mr. Rose’s ThermoDUMBnamics theories. He’ll say the same thing in his next comment, but at least you tried.
Reply
crackpot
| #
Of course there shouldn’t be bias in measurement, but experiments are biased by design.
There are two types of experiments, those that seek to add proof, and those that seek to disprove permanently.
If you seek to add proof, you control variables as best you can, apply a small amount of the claimed cause, and look for the effect. You feed the rats a little saccharin. If they don’t get cancer, it doesn’t really mean anything, because they might at higher doses. If they do get cancer, it could add proof to your hypothesis, but it can never finally be proven, because you may not have fully controlled variables, and something else is causing the cancer.
If you seek to disprove, you control variables as best you can, exaggerate the claimed cause, and look for the effect. You feed the rats a ton of saccharin. If they get cancer, it doesn’t really mean anything, because maybe too much of anything causes cancer and no one eats that much saccharin. However, if they don’t get cancer, you have disproven the hypothesis for all time.
Of course what government does is feed the rats a ton of saccharin, they get cancer, and now they claim it’s proven for all time.
Screwing around with climate studies is like an experiment that attempts to add proof, as CO2 is only a trace gas. They are a colossal waste of time and money because it is completely impossible to control variables in the global climate system, and because the hypothesis was disproved permanently in an actual controlled experiment long ago.
R.W. Wood’s two-greenhouse setup was a disproving experiment. He controlled variables well, then greatly exaggerated the claimed cause, “back-radiative forcing,” by using glass instead of CO2. There was no warming, which permantly disproved the hypothesis. Nahle and others (me too) have repeated this experiment, but the “greenhouse gas effect” was laid to rest in 1909.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
👍
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Mr. Crackpot, an appropriate moniker: The greenhouse effect has been measured by satellite and on the ground. It consists of back radiation. Gases and night clouds reflecting back some of the upwelling radiation from Earth trying to cool itself after sunset.
But I suppose your claptrap theory negates measurements by actual scientists?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
Since heat decreases as the square of the distance how does the heat travel up to the -30 F water in the clouds and the -30 F gas molecules reflect (why doesn’t the water droplets absorb that heat?) then travel back, losing heat, then warm the Earth?
Water absorbs heat (600 calories/gram) when it evaporates. This energy is carried up in the atmosphere to be released into space at the top of the troposphere. If the temperature drops this water will release heat creating dew just as it does at the surface. Why do you think that this heat is being reflected? How do your satellites look through the hot thermosphere to distinguish the temperature the surface?
You are like the flat-earthers, no amount of evidence or reasoning will affect your beliefs in any way.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
The “greenhouse effect” is just propaganda. You are just confused.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard
When you wrote: “Gases and night clouds reflecting back some of the upwelling radiation from Earth trying to cool itself after sunset.” you provided the unquestionable evidence that you do not know the difference between the fundamental phenomena of reflection and scattering. But to your credit you know how the earth’s surfaces are cooled day and night.
Have a good day
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
To put this topic in plain language, the ‘CO2 Greenhouse Gas Theory’ pretends certain gases in our atmosphere have a magical ability to warm the surface of the Earth.
How exactly does any gas (argon, ozone, kryptonite, un-obtainium, or iocane powder) at 5,000 meter elevation, where the air is freezing cold, send magical heat to the surface of Earth?
This is like putting two cups of coffee next to each, one hot and one cold. Then you folks, like Richard Greene, tell me the cold coffee is warming the hotter coffee, increasing it to a boiling point?? Really???
In the greater world of Thermodynamics, this is childish nonsense. However, it may sound plausible to Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, and John Kerry…
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Apert from clouds and water vapour the greenhouse gas theory is a derivative of the ‘cargo cult’.
Reply