World-renowned sea level expert, Nils-Axel Mörner has come out to trash latest alarmist media claims that Bangladesh is facing serious flood risks due to man-made global warming. In particular, Dr. Mörner has denounced environmentalist, Bill McKibben who speaks of “30 million refugees” and Canada’s Sunday edition of the star.com for publishing a misleading article, ‘Bangladesh faces mass migration, loss of land from climate change.’

The story claims villages in much of rural southwest Bangladesh are suffering the ravages of climate change. The author of the piece, Raveena Aulakh, relies heavily on the junk science of Atiq Rahman, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Rahman blames Bangladesh’s woes on human emissions of carbon dioxide and insists raising taxes will stem the rising tides. “All this could happen faster because of lack of reduction of greenhouse gases,” says Rahman. “And even if we stopped now, it would take a lot of time for things to get better.”

But Dr. Mörner, famed for his scientific rebuttals of such claims is having none of it. He has issued a press statement (February 10, 2013) to denounce as bogus the article’s shabby “climate change” link to Cyclone Aila that wrought devastation on the subcontinent in 2009.

Mörner retorted that Cyclone Aila “had nothing to do with any sea level rise. It was just the destruction of one of those events hitting this coast so badly. Unfortunately, this is normal for this part of the world, and has always been so.” The real concern, says the sea level expert, should be the incessant chopping down of mangrove trees to clear space for shrimp farms which fuels soil erosion and increases the risk of flooding. As Mörner pointed out during the ‘Sealevelgate‘ scandal in 2001, politicized and cherry picked science “leads to confusion over cases such as Bangladesh, whose plight is the exact opposite of the one claimed by environmental lobbyists and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

Nonetheless, star.com writer,  Raveena Aulakh sticks rigidly to the IPCC’s doomsaying narrative and cynically promotes the usual tired old claims about melting ice sheets, diminishing glaciers and man-made global warming.

If only Aulakh and other sensationalist publications would introduce a little more of the Mörner balance in their articles for he has already exposed the fraud and misunderstand about the subcontinent in a key article from 2011 in the Spectator. ‘Rising credulity,’ describes how Mörner visited and studied the Sundarban delta area in Bangladesh (pictured) and was able to observe clear evidence of coastal erosion, not sea level rises.

The truth about sea levels are that they have always been fluctuating and always will no matter what governments think they might do to control them. Indeed, there are well-documented and huge variations in sea levels, by as much as two meters, because, as is the way with Nature, they stubbornly refuse to maintain a constant level. Dr. Mörner describes the world’s oceans and seas as more akin to an “agitated bath where the water is slopping back and forth. This is a dynamic process.”

By contrast, independent scientists know full well that Bangladesh is cursed because of rain over the Himalayas, which is unconnected with the sea. “It is also cursed because of the cyclones which push water inland. Again, this has nothing to do with the sea, adds Mörner. 

Sensationalist authors such as Atiq Rahman should, says Mörner, first check their facts with the world’s true experts on sea level. They can be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which Mörner is a former president), not with  the discredited IPCC.

by Ben Wouters

Current climate science totally neglects the enormous amounts of heat available inside the Earth. This seems reasonable since the measured heat flux through the oceanic crust is ~0,1 W/m2, and is absolutely dwarfed by the ~240 W/m2 average solar radiation that warms the Earth. Only the sun warms the Earth, no other heat source is considered and a Greenhouse Effect (GHE) is the only way to explain why our temperatures are ~33K above the generally accepted Effective Temperature for Earth of 255K.

In a damning new study Aussie climatologists are shown to have made false and unsupported claims to stoke up alarm over man-made global warming.

Respected unpaid climate analyst, Malcolm Roberts, of Brisbane, Australia compiled the ‘CSIROh! Report‘ on the invitation of ABC Radio’s Steve Austin. Across 29 pages Roberts details a litany of evidence proving that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s national science agency, corruptly and unlawfully misrepresented science, climate and Nature.

Austin asked of Roberts, “Please read through the Australian scientific paper and identify where you believe the CSIRO data has been falsified or is wrong.” To complete his task Roberts engaged in detailed correspondence with CSIRO’s Chief Executive Dr. Megan Clark and CSIRO’s Group Executive-Environment Dr. Andrew Johnson; extensive analysis and research of CSIRO reports and discussions with former CSIRO scientists including former chief research scientist Professor Garth Paltridge.

With evidence presented by the above authorities Roberts put Aussie government’s climate science under the microscope to expose how bias and propaganda misled the public to support the government’s tax on carbon dioxide (CO2). Even-handedly Roberts concedes, “CSIRO has many fine people and a proud heritage. In areas outside climate it appears to have capability and credibility. That is threatened by CSIRO’s politicization.” But, critically, his findings reveal that CSIRO had no empirical scientific evidence whatsoever that human CO2 caused warming (see Appendix 2). Instead, the reports shows a dearth of actual evidence but the policies so far enacted are implicated in causing the needless deaths of more than 40 million people, mainly in Third World regions.

Four Failures to Find Fault

The key litmus test applied by the study was the requirement that CSIRO’s science should provide “yes” answers to these four key questions:

1. Is global ATMOSPHERIC temperature warming unusually in either amount or rate

and is it continuing to rise?

2. Does the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air control or determine Earth’s temperature?

3. Does human CO2 production determine the level of CO2 in air?

4. Is warming catastrophic or even damaging?

Roberts, who also provides research for the Galileo Movement, demonstrates that CSIRO failed to show any actual “causal relationships” to validate even one “yes” answer. On the contrary, Roberts identified evidence that shows CSIRO scientists used taxpayer funds rather to advocate for global governance at United Nations (UN) conferences than evince empirical data to support their position. Roberts says, “This is consistent with CSIRO’s actions supporting implementation of UN Agenda 21, the UN’s campaign pushing global governance. It bypassed Australia’s parliament and people and threatens Australia’s sovereignty and our personal freedoms.”

What the study shows in answer to those four key questions is a very different reality as follows:

1. Global atmospheric temperatures peaked in 1998. Temperatures have since been flat

with every year since colder than in 1998. Since the start of atmospheric temperature

measurement in 1958 temperatures cooled slightly from 1958 to 1976. A sudden small

2. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in air are a consequence of temperature, not a cause.

This is the reverse of UN IPCC, CSIRO and government claims. It applies throughout

Earth’s history and over every duration. It’s true seasonally and long-term;

3. Nature alone determines levels of CO2 in air. This is the reverse of UN IPCC, CSIRO

and government claims. It means that cutting or increasing human CO2 production

cannot affect CO2 levels in air. It’s useless to cut human CO2 production;

4. Warmer periods in Earth’s history are highly beneficial to people, humanity, civilization

and the natural environment. This is the opposite of UN IPCC, CSIRO and government

claims. Warmer periods are scientifically classified as optimums.

As a result, this damning analysis, says Roberts, shows that CSIRO scientists are deeply enmeshed in producing corrupt UN IPCC reports. The evidence shows the IPCC colluded with CSIRO to enlist contributing scientists of various rank and to have papers referenced and presumably act as reviewers. Without applying any safeguards, CSIRO endorsed UN IPCC reports despite those reports being demonstrably corrupt and pushing a political agenda. UN IPCC contributors and officials are shown to have bypassed and at times prevented scientific peer-review. “As a method of quality assurance, the process of peer-review is now worthless” says the Roberts report.

Evidence reveals that all four UN IPCC reports to national governments and media—1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007—contradict empirical scientific evidence and provide no logical scientific reasoning for their core claim that human CO2 caused, causes or will cause global warming. “The corruption is pervasive, systemic and driven by a political agenda to achieve a political outcome,” says Roberts. Empirical scientific evidence and discussion in Appendix 4 reveals corruption of ground-based temperature data and of CO2 data used by the UN IPCC and CSIRO.The propaganda relied upon by alarmists is ostensibly that collated by former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, shows Appendix 3.

Major international banking firm Merrill Lynch is implicated in the climate shenanigans. (Appendix 6). They and other international banks are shown to profit enormously from trading in CO2 credits. This relationship raises perceptions and questions about the opportunity for conflicts of interest.

Evidence Proves Natural Forces, not Humans Drive our Climate

This telling Australian report lays out in black and white that our atmosphere is not warming, much less unusually. “Fluctuations since 1958 reveal modest natural cyclic temperature variation.” While ground-based rural measurements reveal the same since 1890. In Appendix 4 it is shown that the strongest natural factors proven by empirical scientific evidence to control global climate. They are El Nino, La Nina and other regional ocean-atmosphere decadal cycles. Scientists have identified many factors driving climate. These include galactic, solar system, solar, planetary and lunar cycles ranging from 150 million years to 11 years. Strong drivers include:

• Solar: (1) variations in sun’s solar output; (2) Output of solar particles; (3) Sun’s magnetic field polarity and strength;

• Water vapour: (1) atmospheric water content; (2) Cloud cover;

• Cyclic regional decadal circulation patterns such as North American Oscillation and the southern Pacific ocean’s El Nino together with their variation over time;

• Ocean: (1) temperature; (2) salinity; (3) currents; (4) sea surface temperatures;

• Volcanic activity.

The above natural drivers are either omitted from, or downplayed in erroneous unvalidated computerized numerical models used by the UN. CSIRO has thereby used deception dressed up as science to cede sovereignty over Australian science to an unscientific and corrupt foreign political organisation pushing a global political agenda. “CSIRO is thus abetting systemic and pervasive documented corruption of science,” says Roberts.

Tellingly, the prestigious Inter Academy Council’s (IAC) August 2010 review of the UN IPCC showed that there were “crippling deficiencies” in UN IPCC processes and procedures that should have sounded alarm bells that CSIRO is supporting implementation of UN Agenda 21, the greatest threat to Australian sovereignty.  

Roberts invites readers to examine the evidence on offer in this new study and to verify for themselves that CSIRO has misled the media. He points to three key falsehoods that any objective examination of the available scientific proves. They are:

1. Human CO2 controls and determines global temperature and climate. False;

2. There is an overwhelming consensus of scientists supporting that claim. False;

3. Catastrophic consequences will result at some unspecified future date from human disruption of global climate: sea level rise, extreme weather, floods, drought, snowfall, fires, ocean pH (alkalinity), disease, species extinction, … All false.

 “Through the National Press Club and media, CSIRO misled the people and parliament of Australia. CSIRO has been actively engaged in UN IPCC corruption of climate and science, “ concludes the Brisbane climate analyst. How Steve Austin, the listeners of ABC radio and other Australian citizens react to these damning findings remains to be seen.

By David Spady (Townhall.com)

Something’s amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”

Fictional book authors operate in a convenient world, unconstrained by facts and experiences of the real world. The antithesis of works of fiction are scientific findings solely based on provable facts and experience. For agenda-driven environmental science, facts can sometime prove inconvenient. It’s far easier to advance an agenda with agreeable science, even if that means creating science fiction or fictional science. Fictional science thus becomes the pseudo-reality of environmentalist’s absolutism and any science that disagrees with their predetermined conclusions of man-made harm to the environment is ignored or distorted. Now we learn that in some government agencies, scientists who question the veracity and validity of scientific evidence used to formulate environmental regulations and policies are shunned, kept quiet, and purged.

The purpose of fictional environmental science is to sway public opinion through what amounts to propaganda. Intransigent purveyors of “green” propaganda know their greatest enemy is truth. One of the most famous propaganda experts was Germany’s Joseph Goebbels, who taught that if a lie is repeated often enough it will eventually be accepted as truth. Goebbels also knew that truth has to be suppressed if it contradicts the objectives of the propaganda. Goebbels wrote, “It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Over the past three decades, government has unleashed an unprecedented wave of environmental rules and regulations that affect nearly every aspect of American life, and for the most part the public has tolerated it. Public embrace of environmental propaganda and fear mongering about the apocalyptic consequences of mankind’s abuse of the planet have elevated environmentalism to a status above national security. The public is now more likely to give up rights and freedoms for the cause of saving the planet than for security reasons.

Read more here.

By Pierre R Latour, PhD ChE (and N. Kalmanovitch)

In 1827 celebrated French Mathematician Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier determined that the theoretical temperature of the Earth based on just the thermal radiation from the sun was cooler than the actual temperature due to atmospheric insulation. He named this insulation effect “un effet de verre” (an effect of glass) after work by French Scientist de Saussure who demonstrated this insulation using glass panes for insulation.

Later work by physicists Planck, Stefan, and Boltzmann provided understanding of the relationship between temperature of a body (blackbody) and the intensity of radiation allowing for the calculation of the Earth’s theoretical radiative temperature exclusive of atmospheric insulation according to the formula  T_e = [S_o(1-A)/4σ]^1/4 derived from Planck’s equations using the Stefan Boltzmann constant “σ”.

We can measure planet surface temperature from its radiative spectrum.  We can also calculate T_e by making some estimate of both solar Irradiance (S_o) and the planet albedo (A). The subtraction of T_e from the planetary temperature provides a metric for comparing the relative atmospheric insulation of the planets essentially calibrating the insulation effect first noted by Fourier back in 1827. This theoretical temperature difference depicting atmospheric insulation was renamed “the greenhouse effect” relating the insulation against thermal transmission by conduction by the glass in a greenhouse to the insulation against thermal radiation provided by the atmosphere of the planets.

Preying on overall public ignorance of science unscrupulous scientists rebranded the greenhouse effect as some sort of physical effect driven by CO₂ emissions causing catastrophic global warming. This fraudulent use of the term greenhouse effect was introduced over 25 years ago and spawned a series of equally fraudulent terms such as “greenhouse warming” and “greenhouse gases” providing the propaganda vocabulary that has created a climate change issue out of nothing to serve the political agenda of the climate change scam perpetrators.

While the term greenhouse effect is perfectly valid in its geophysical scientific context; it is completely ludicrous when used as a mechanism whereby increased CO₂ creates energy out of nothing and causes the Earth to warm to catastrophic levels as a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect. This article takes the fraudsters to task exposing the fraudulently rebranded version of the greenhouse effect for what it is.

In 1981, James E Hansen assumed Earth radiates as a theoretical black body, with emissivity = em = 1.0. (J Hansen, et. al., “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Science, V213, n 4511, pg 957-966, 28 Aug1981)

Hansen converted the measured solar constant 1366 w/m² of the sunbeam intercepted by Earth’s circular disk to Earth’s spherical area of average emission plus reflection intensity back to space, 1366/4 = 341.5 w/m² of the globe’s surface. Then he accounted for its reflectivity, mostly by clouds, assuming albedo = 0.30, to estimate Earth’s average radiation absorption and emission intensity to space to be I = 1366*0.7/4 = 239 w/m² of its spherical surface.

Using Boltzmann’s equation for a radiating temperature, Te, by Earth’s surface corresponding to this estimate of its average radiating emission intensity:

I = 5.67*em*(Te/100)⁴ = 239, Hansen calculated Te = 100(239/5.67)^0.25  = 254.80K = -18.30C. (Subtract 273.1K = 0C.)

In doing so, Hansen made a simplifying assumption that Earth’s emissivity em = 1.0

The average thermal temperature of Earth’s atmosphere is difficult to measure equator to poles, surface up to 100 km, night and day, over seasons, for a decade, but was estimated to be about Ta = 288K = 15C.

Hansen declared the difference, Ta – Te, to be the greenhouse gas effect of gases and clouds, GHE = 15 – (-18) = 33C. As a conjecture, he attributed much of this “anomaly” to the presence of increasing CO₂ because he had no explanation verified by evidence.

This famous 33C global warming by CO₂ conjecture has caused great concern, controversy and research since his declaration and subsequent Congressional testimony. Humanity, through the UN IPCC, has struggled since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to fashion a thermostat to throttle fossil fuel combustion to reduce this GHE to hold Ta = 15C to save the planet from runaway global warming. (Said thermostat was proven by control system engineering mathematics to be unworkable in 1997.)

One difficulty is GHE is the difference between two different types of temperature, thermal Ta measured by thermometers and radiant Te measured by photometers and spectrometers. Two different phenomena in nature. Everyone can sense the distinction between the two on a bright winter day ski slope. Facing the sun Te = 25C and turning away, Ta = -5C. At night Te approaches -270C while Ta may drop to -10C. They are naturally different; CO₂ is not the cause. GHE has been explained to represent a meaningless Whatchamacallit.

The black body assumption that Earth absorbs and emits all incident radiation, em = 1.0, is very poor for many reasons, including because it does not account for photosynthesis by land plants and ocean plankton. Flora consume solar power and store it in hydrocarbon molecules they make: starch, sugar, cellulose, animal food. Which means Earth’s forests, grasses and jungles do not emit as much as they absorb, so emissivity < absorptivity. A cooling effect. Besides, the globe is not black.

Emissivity of different materials varies between near zero (0.022) for polished silver to near 1.0 (0.98) for lamp black. Measuring or estimating emissivity of the whole radiating globe; ocean, land, ice, desert, jungle, mountains and atmosphere, is not easy, so Hanson made his simplifying black body assumption, em = 1.0. But it surely is not black. em < 1.0.

We now know Earth’s emissivity is much less than 1.0, so its corresponding radiating temperature to emit at 239 w/m² must be higher than -18C.

Global Climate Model, under Zero-dimensional models provides an estimate em = 0.612 without reference. It goes on to state “Taking all this properly into account results in an effective earth emissivity of about 0.64 (earth average temperature 285 K (12 °C; 53 °F)).”

Using Earth’s emissivity em = 0.612 rather than 1.0 and the same Boltzmann equation Hansen used, Te = 288.08K = 14.98C.

So GHE = 15.0 – 14.98 = 0.02C, not 33C. 

Using the other reference em = 0.64 and T = 285K gives Te = 284.88K and GHE = 0.12C.

The GHE collapses to zero when the black body assumption is abandoned for colorful Earth, within any margin of error. It doesn’t exist! There is nothing to it! Much ado about nothing! The sky is not falling after all. Another inconvenient truth. Good news. Problem solved! CO₂ is innocent! UN IPCC can close shop and go home. No more climate change research needed. No need to collect temperature data for a billion years to discern a correlation with CO₂, which cannot prove causality anyway. Everyone can relax and return to normally exhaling CO₂, nonpolluting green plant food, and burn as much inexpensive, abundant fossil fuel as they can afford.

There is no new science here, just careful attention to assumptions, definitions, logic and accurate parameters

CO₂ and H₂O are radiating gases because they are dipole (asymmetric) molecules; O₂ and N₂ are not. But they don’t trap heat beyond natural thermal heat capacity, they just absorb some IR in the sunbeam vector and emit it in all directions. This scattering does modify the EMR field in Earth’s atmosphere slightly, but doesn’t really affect average temperature very much. If anything it is a cooling effect below. The basic GHG theory notion that cold atmospheric CO₂ does not absorb/emit incoming solar IR, only upwelling IR from Earth’s surface, and back radiating it down to warm the hotter surface below is false. If it were true that cold CO₂ molecules high in the sky can transfer heat back down to the warmer surface, it would constitute creation of energy, a perpetual motion machine (just what AGW promoters need to drive AGW), because the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow energy transfer from cold to hot bodies. It is a one way street, hot to cold. Always and everywhere.

CO₂ may increase Earth’s emissivity slightly. Which would cause it to radiate Te < 14.98C, another cooling effect. [CO₂] has been steadily increasing recently at about (386 – 316)/(2009 – 1959) = 70 ppm/50 years. Temperature has stabilized since 1998.

In 2010, Earth emitted at 233 w/m², less than 1981 because solar intensity dropped with sunspot activity, on its normal 11 year cycle. Albedo may have changed also. You are now in a position forecast this effect on Earth’s Te assuming em = 0.612. Like Hanson you can calculate Te = 286.3K = 13.2C. It turns out measured Ta = 287.7K = 14.6C and GHE = 1.4C = 0 within the margin of error again. This is a remarkable confirmation of your prediction! I would congratulate you for your model’s predictive power of global warming/cooling. All you need to do is estimate emissivity and predict solar intensity disturbance on Earth’s radiation emission rate. Now you see J Hansen’s monumental mistake.

Greenhouse gas theory is hereby refuted, three ways: Whatchamacallit, blackbody, perpetual motion machine. The political and financial ramifications of these discoveries are enormous. Consensus is irrelevant because correct science and engineering trump consensus. Skepticism is the foundation of the scientific method of Newton.

By John O’Sullivan (and N. Kalmanovitch*)

Carl Brehmer reminds us of a crucial internal conflict within the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. So vague and self-contradictory are the myriad explanations given by climatologists of this “theory” that anyone who critically examines it soon understands that it is best explained as a tautology.

In rhetoric ‘tautology’ is defined as using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct. We never have and never will get a detailed scientific explanation of the “greenhouse gas” effect (GHE) because for climatologists to seek one would require them to dissect it, thus exposing the truth; it hangs on nothing of any substance.

We are never given the “how” and yet science is all about how things work. When Principia Scientific International (PSI), comprised of 200 experts in science and engineering, sought clarification from the supporters of the GHE they were either ridiculed or ignored. So with no answers as to the “how” inquiring minds turned to the “why” for the rise of this climate chimera.

In a series of articles we saw that the idea of a GHE driven by carbon dioxide was re-invented in the late 1970’s after being widely accepted in science as having been refuted before 1950.

After decades this re-invented “theory” finally gained acceptance during the 1980’s as the field of government-funded climatology grew. We were given no reason why mainstream science had got it wrong in dismissing it so unequivocally for more than a generation. There were certainly no new discoveries in the 70’s suddenly proving carbon dioxide did “trap” heat after all. Moreover, despite all the inward investment in climate research no time, let along any rigor was applied to providing any standard definition of what this newly re-born “greenhouse effect” actually was.

“Analogously but Different”

Incredibly, despite forty years and a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded “carbon reduction” industry avidly pursuing control of this alleged climate thermostat there are no agreed equations and no agreed descriptors of how this “thermostat” actually works. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adds to the confusion in this tragic-comedy by glibly declaring our atmosphere is analogous to a greenhouse “but different.”

These handwaving proponents of the hypothesis will always start out by admitting the only meaningful source of heat to the surface of the earth is the sun. But then they will often declare that certain gases then serve to drive “down-welling radiation” (or “back radiation”) from the atmosphere as a secondary heat source.

Please take no one’s word on this. Just do your own Google search; most definitions of the “greenhouse effect” either overtly assert or at least imply that downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere adds additional heat to the ground/ocean.

But nowhere will you be told where the extra heat generated by the atmosphere goes, because all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight.  So, within the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis all that “additional” thermal energy that the atmosphere generates disappears as mysteriously as it appeared in the first place (see diagram).

Image source: National Academy Press.

Astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma speaks for most critics of this shape-shifting GHE. Postma points out that the duty of modern empirical science is to seek to identify the physical principles that underlay observed phenomena.  He writes:

“By identifying and understanding the underlying principle, we thus understand reality.  If we can mathematize the principle and justify it on a-priori mathematical absolutivity, then the phenomenon becomes a scientific Law, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics or Kepler’s Law of Universal Gravitation, or the Laws of Least Action or Least Time.  We can also engineer the physical principle and use it to our benefit, to produce products, services, and generally, to create wealth and increase the standard of living of people, etc.

The obvious question:  is the underlying principle of the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually defined, anywhere? All I have to tell you, is that “No, it is not.””

A healthy skepticism demands of us that we look again at the above diagram, sold to us as the basic model of the greenhouse gas effect. Imagine what difference the addition or removal of that cyclical flow of phantom internal energy would make on the system as a whole. It makes no difference scientifically at all and we could easily discard it if we wished by applying the accepted principle of ‘Occam’s Razor‘ (“plurality should not be posited without necessity”). But to a charlatan looking to pick your pockets for more tax dollars, it is very necessary being the cleverest and most powerful tautology ever sold.

————————–

*In 1827 celebrated French Mathematician Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier determined that the theoretical temperature of the Earth based on just the thermal radiation from the sun was cooler than the actual temperature due to atmospheric insulation. He named this insulation effect “un effet de verre” (an effect of glass) after work by French Scientist de Saussure who demonstrated this insulation using glass panes for insulation.

Later work by physicists Planck, Stefan, and Boltzmann provided understanding of the relationship between temperature of a body (blackbody) and the intensity of radiation allowing for the calculation of the Earth’s theoretical radiative temperature exclusive of atmospheric insulation according to the formula  T_e = [S_o(1-A)/4σ]^1/4 derived from Planck’s equations using the Stefan Boltzmann constant “σ”.

We can measure planet surface temperature from its radiative spectrum.  We can also calculate T_e by making some estimate of both solar Irradiance (S_o) and the planet albedo (A). The subtraction of T_e from the planetary temperature provides a metric for comparing the relative atmospheric insulation of the planets essentially calibrating the insulation effect first noted by Fourier back in 1827. This theoretical temperature difference depicting atmospheric insulation was renamed “the greenhouse effect” relating the insulation against thermal transmission by conduction by the glass in a greenhouse to the insulation against thermal radiation provided by the atmosphere of the planets.

Preying on overall public ignorance of science unscrupulous scientists rebranded the greenhouse effect as some sort of physical effect driven by CO₂ emissions causing catastrophic global warming. This fraudulent use of the term greenhouse effect was introduced over 25 years ago and spawned a series of equally fraudulent terms such as “greenhouse warming” and “greenhouse gases” providing the propaganda vocabulary that has created a climate change issue out of nothing to serve the political agenda of the climate change scam perpetrators.

While the term greenhouse effect is perfectly valid in its geophysical scientific context; it is completely ludicrous when used as a mechanism whereby increased CO₂ creates energy out of nothing and causes the Earth to warm to catastrophic levels as a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect.

This article takes the fraudsters to task exposing the fraudulently rebranded version of the greenhouse effect for what it is.

by Douglas Cotton

It is common to find proponents of the much publicised radiative greenhouse conjecture adopting smear tactics in an attempt to discredit ourselves and authors who have contributed papers and articles to Principia Scientific International (PSI).

On various climate blogs they monotonously ask questions like: “When are you going to have your paper published in a proper journal?” But to them, the only “proper” journals (or websites) are those which support their conjecture that carbon dioxide warms the world. Many of them have jobs to protect, research grants to obtain or perhaps valuable domain names and websites which may well crumble should the greenhouse tumble.

Why would a member of PSI wish to support a journal which helps to propagate the very conjecture which virtually all of nearly 200 members here know to be false? Why waste time, and in some cases pay for reviews, when there is no chance of any papers being published if counter views are expressed therein? Why, in any event, should we imagine their “peers” are any more suited, qualified or knowledgeable enough to review PSI papers than any others, such as these from among our fast growing membership?

The carbon dioxide related “greenhouse effect” will one day soon take its brief place in history as the greatest scientific mistake of all time. Many within the ranks have now become aware that is was, in fact, a huge error initially dreamt up by a handful of people and then very successfully marketed upon the politicians and the general public, including young school children. This started over 30 years ago around 1979, and so now a whole generation has been brainwashed with watered down descriptions which the gullible lap up.

Websites such as Skeptical Science, WattsUpWithThat, Science of Doom and many more are set up by those with a vested interest in swaying public beliefs. School children and climatology undergraduates alike flock to these sites to arm themselves with arguments, which they then copy verbatim in order to rubbish any counter views expressed elsewhere. Frankly, it is amazing just how many people get involved in reading and writing the millions of comments on these climate blogs. It is little wonder that the owners of the above three in particular just simply delete comments with contrary views and ban those who post them, sometimes even blocking their internet access so that they can’t even read the pseudo science posts and comments.

The facts are that this is a science which, at its heart, requires a deep, advanced understanding of atmospheric physics, for it is all about heat transfer mechanisms and such are the domain of physics. But most climatology researchers have limited understanding of the physics involved. They have picked out a few equations from the first year textbooks, and then used such equations without understanding the very important limitations and prerequisites for these to be applicable.

They probably know that radiation has a dual particle and wave nature, but it suits them to imagine strings of identical photon particles crashing into the Earth’s surface like little hand grenades, always imparting more thermal energy to that surface. But radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not transfer heat to a warmer surface – not one little bit – ever.

The Sun’s radiation could never have heated Earth’s surface by the proverbial 33 degrees, nor the Venus surface by about 500 degrees, especially when we know that the Venus surface actually receives less than 10{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} as much direct solar radiation as does Earth’s surface. Mind you, the anonymous author of Science of Doom would like you to think it receives closer to 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} when he writes “The surface receives radiation from the sun, S. In the case of Venus this value would be (averaged across the surface), S = 158 W/m².” He could have found out that the Russians had actually estimated about 10W/m^2 (averaged across the surface) using measurements made with probes dropped to that surface. But, as is usual with Science of Doom, it’s all about what you can “prove” with voluminous computations that show how at most 10W/m^2 (or was it 158W/m^2 SoD?) of radiation coming back out of the Venus surface then gets its energy multiplied somehow up to 16,000W/m^2 due to a postulated “runaway greenhouse effect.”

Many climatologists don’t appear to understand the maximum entropy states required for thermodynamic equilibrium, nor the limited effect of radiation from molecules like carbon dioxide with few radiating frequencies, nor the gravitational effect on thermal gradients, nor exactly how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law should be applied, nor the diffusion process which is the only valid explanation for the high Venus temperatures. Then they ignore the consequences of non-radiative processes which transfer the energy from the surface into the ordinary nitrogen and oxygen molecules at the boundary. It is these molecules which then carry much of this energy from the surface into the atmosphere, until water vapour and carbon dioxide radiate it away to space. Nitrogen and oxygen are the real blanket: radiating molecules like carbon dioxide are holes in that blanket. Water vapour reduces the thermal gradient, and thus lowers the surface temperature for the new radiative equilibrium. But the IPCC will tell you that water vapour warms the surface, and so it supposedly has a positive feedback effect, multiplying the assumed warming by carbon dioxide.

The only thing it seems the climatologists don’t ignore is their marketing efforts in propagating what now smells much more like a fraudulent hoax than a mere scientific mistake. Do people get their information direct from peer-reviewed papers? Do school children? No. The children are brainwashed at school and the public is brainwashed by selective, biased media propaganda, carefully orchestrated by the establishment of the all-knowing IPCC rubber stamp mechanism.

If they really had valid counter arguments to the physics presented in PSI papers, then you would think that they would take advantage of the opportunity offered to anyone in the world to submit an attempted rebuttal for papers that are online for “Peer Review in Open Media” because that, we believe, is the way science ought to operate. Indeed, we await seeing their own papers subjected to open review by the “peers” who can so easily rebut them with science from the realm of valid atmospheric physics and related disciplines. We at PSI will take on any challenges in a spirit of open debate, such as on our forums, and we will investigate all official rebuttal attempts in the spirit of true science. For only then will truth prevail and the world be a better place.

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Cold Heat

Have Cold, need Heat. Global temperature means haven’t risen for 16 years now but some politicians still think the globe is experiencing runaway overheating. At the -50 C/F in mid latitude Canada right now even the polar bears are not frolicking on the beaches, but elsewhere, the heat is being turned on; namely on the climate prognostications previously given by the proponents of global treaties to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which have been claimed to be the mother of all evil.

Nomenclature

The climate debate suffers from many misconceptions, some of which arise from misleading terminology. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls carbon dioxide (CO2) a “pollutant.” Nothing could be further from the truth. CO2 is an invisible gas without any smell, and non-toxic. In some environments, such as the air in submarines its concentration is typically several times that of the earth’s atmosphere where its level is approximately 400 ppm (parts per million).

Just to juxtapose CO2 with a real (air) pollutant, for example sulfur dioxide (SO2); SO2 is an entirely different kettle of fish. It has nothing to do with CO2. Sulfur dioxide burns your nostrils and lungs and causes respiratory illness, etc.

Vital Necessity

The fact is that CO2 is absolutely vital for all life on earth. All of the carbon in our food, in fact in our own bodies is entirely derived from the atmospheric CO2 through the photo-synthesis (PS) process. Apart from CO2, the PS process also requires some other nutrients (phosphorous, nitrogen, minerals and trace elements) and, of course, sunlight to function. Plant growers make use of that by artificially boosting the CO2 level in their greenhouses to 1,000 ppm and more as plants just thrive under high CO2 levels, from pine and citrus fruit seedlings, to cassava, corn and wheat. But, you say, the summer sea-ice in the Arctic is shrinking, supposedly due to increasing CO2 in our atmosphere…

Ice at the North Pole

The North Pole is a geographical point on the earth. It has no other redeeming features. In fact, it is not even on land, but covered by the water of the Arctic Ocean. The extent of Arctic sea-ice varies tremendously with the seasons, namely from an annual maximum of ~15 at the height of the Arctic winter to a mere ~4 million square kilometers at the end of the Arctic summer. In other words, its annual variation of ~11 million square kilometers is much greater than its average minimum extent. That fact alone should give you some food for thought.

Contrary also to widely-held beliefs, the North Pole has often been open water during the summer and not just in recent years. That is on record by a variety of submarines surfacing there over the last 50 years. If you don’t believe me, just check the newsreels and logs of the USS Skate which encountered much open water on its voyages there in 1958 and 1959.

Old Charts

Old charts of the Arctic typically show the extent of the Perennial Sea-Ice (PSI) in the Arctic Ocean. I have one of those, published in 1973 by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada. It shows the southern / eastern limit of the PSI being entirely being west and north of the Canadian Arctic island archipelago, as you can see in Fig. 1, below.

Fig. 1. Perennial Arctic sea-ice extent (light colored area), chart published in 1973.

Obviously, that ice cover is in stark contrast to the ice-coverage graphs published in recent years by National Geographic (NG) magazine and other publications. The latter typically show the maximum and minimum extent of ice cover at the height of the Arctic winter and summer periods, but never the PSI extent. To show you how misleading some articles can be, let’s look at an ice-chart published by NG in 2011 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Minimum extent (white area) of Arctic summer se-ice, as per National Geographic magazine, July 2011.

As you can see, the minimum summer sea-ice extents vary substantially between the two graphs. NG’s graph (Fig. 2) has it extending through much of the Canadian Arctic archipelago islands, while the older map (Fig. 1) shows it entirely outside of the archipelago. You may wonder, why is there such a difference? Once again, it’s in the definition, this time of what is “ice.” According to the answer I received from NG, the PSI ice [Fig 1] is “more than 2 years old and tends to be thicker and more resilient than younger ice” [Fig. 2].

Are other claims as to a shrinking Arctic ice cover more trustworthy than those about the ice cover? What about the polar bears?

Polar Bear Range

Pictures of cuddly polar bear cubs have been a mainstay of many organisations wanting you to donate to their cause of “saving the polar bears” for many years. Polar bears live in the Arctic and are well adapted to that environment. The NG article “On Thin Ice” mentioned above also contains photographs of polar bears in their natural habitat. That’s where things really get interesting: most of these pictures were taken at Svalbard which is OUTSIDE even NG’s exaggerated minimum summer sea-ice extent, the other ones at unspecified locations, perhaps the local zoo.

The Gist

The gist of the message here is that the “climate change” agenda has been hyped in many reports, even in some outlets of high reputation and previously deemed to be reliable. No wonder that much of the public falls for such stories; after all very few people have ever to cope with chills of -50 C or less.

In short, there is a difference between a temperature of +50 F in Houston, TX and -50 F in International Falls, MN or further north in the “great white north” of Canada.

By Carl Brehmer

Instruments called radiometers are believed to measure both up-welling and down-welling longwave radiation, but what do radiometers actually sense and what do their readouts actually mean?

The core of a radiometer is a thermopile held within a vacuum under a dome that has one end attached to a case that holds a “reference temperature.” Depending upon the target a positive or negative electrical charge will be induced in the thermopile, which is transmitted to a circuit board. If the target is warmer than the reference temperature of the case (the ground for instance) radiative warming of the thermopile will occur and a positive current will be induced and if the target is cooler than the case (the open sky for instance) radiative cooling of the thermopile will occur and a negative current will be induced. Along with the electrical signal generated by the thermopile two other temperature signals are sent to the circuit board: 1) the case temperature and 2) the dome temperature. The voltages from these three signals are then mathematically converted into a readout in W/m2.

“The Eppley PIR has 3 output signals; the thermopile (mV), case temperature (V), and dome temperature (V). The 3 signals are combined in the Pyrgeometer Equation, which determines the thermal balance of the instrument and hence the contribution of down-welling longwave radiation (LW).” PIR – Precision Infrared Radiometer on Kilo Moana by Frank Bradley

“The mV output from the thermopiles is converted to W m-2, then corrected for the temperature effects on the PIR’s case.” Eppley PIR (Precision Infrared Radiometer) ® CAMPBELL SCIENTIFIC, INC. Copyright © 2001-2007 Campbell Scientific, Inc.

Here is an example of one such Eppley PIR calculation of DLWR examined in the paper PIR – Precision Infrared Radiometer on Kilo Moana by Frank Bradley. When pointed upwards towards the sky what the Eppley PIR (Precision Infrared Radiometer) actually sensed was radiative cooling of the thermopile. This radiative cooling induced a small negative voltage in its output wires and this was mathematically converted into a negative W/m2: in this example -66.6W/m2. The radiometer then, using S-B formulae, calculated the potential IR emission of the thermopile itself based on the reference temperature of the case and it’s presumed emissivity (the result of this calculation was 460.9 W/m2) These two numbers where then added together (-66.6 + 460.9 = 394.3). Finally the Eppley PIR estimated the affect of the dome temperature on this number, which was -10.9 W/m2. It then added this number to the previous sum:
(-10.9 + 394.3 = 383.4)

This is how a measured up-welling IR radiant energy flux of -66.6 W/m2 became a down-welling IR radiant energy flux of 383.4 W/m2. So, even though the thermopile was sensing a -66.6 W/m2 up-welling flux the Epply PIR readout said that there was a 383.4 W/m2 down-welling flux. In reality, the Epply PIR readout is a calculation of what the downward radiant energy flux from the atmosphere would be if it were not being cancelled out via destructive interference by up-welling IR radiation. As such, the existence of an atmospheric down-welling radiant energy flux is a mathematical confabulation; it is a hypothetical reality not a measured or sensed reality.

If you direct the Epply PIR towards the ground the thermopile experiences radiative warming and the same calculations are done to produce an up-welling IR radiation number. The readout is, again, a hypothetical rather than what is actually sensed. An honest radiometer would just tell you the actual radiant energy flux and in what direction it is flowing. In which case the “net” up-going IR radiation would be the total up-going IR radiant energy flux and the down-welling IR radiant energy flux would be nil.

I think that it would be valuable to review what the unit W/m2 actually means.

“A watt per square meter (W/m²) is a derived unit of heat flux density in the International System of Units SI. By definition, watt per square meter is the rate of heat energy of one watt transferred through the area of one square meter, which is normal to the direction of the heat flux.”

“Heat flux” is “The amount of heat transferred across a surface of unit area in a unit time. Also known as thermal flux.”

Flux (n) “the rate of flow of something, such as energy, particles, or fluid volume, across or onto a given area.” Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation.

The unit W/m2 then is a measurement of the rate that thermal energy is actually moving from one place to another. It is not a measurement of potential energy flow. Actual thermal energy flow is always unidirectional down a temperature gradient. Think of the unit used to measure water flow in a river: gallons/min. This is a measurement of how much water is actually flowing past a particular point over a given time period. It is not a measurement of what the flow would be if the river bed where infinitely steep. Yet this is what the ULWR and DLWR numbers on the K-T Earth Energy Budget chart are; they are potential thermal energy flows and not actual energy flows. Radiometers, in reality, only sense the flow of radiant thermal energy in one direction, but the readout on radiometers, rather than being a readout of what is actually being sensed, is a calculation of what the heat flux would be if the radiating matter were in a vacuum radiating towards a perfect black body at zero °K.

Ergo, a radiometer takes something that is physically sensed (either the radiative cooling or the radiative warming that induces a small negative or positive current in the thermopile) and converts it into a hypothetical number. We can deduce from their design that engineers of IR radiometers are adherents of the two-way radiant energy exchange paradigm and design these instruments to manifest that paradigm. For example, if you took one of these instruments down into a wine cellar and allowed it to assume room temperature and then measured the IR radiation flux coming from room’s walls and ceilings it would say that ~300 W/m2 is coming from each surface. In reality, the actual “heat flux density” within a wine cellar in W/m2 would be 0.00 since the entire room is in thermal equilibrium and there is no heat flowing from anywhere to anywhere. From where then does the ~300 W/m2 number on the radiometer readout come from? It is the calculated amount of IR radiation that the thermopile would emit if it were in a vacuum opposite a blackbody at 0 °K. In reality a radiometer in a wine cellar whose temperature has equilibrated with that environment should read 0.00 W/m2, because the amount of heat that is actually flowing from one wall to the other within a wine cellar is nil.

Let’s move then to the outside world. Again, neither the DLWR number 333 W/m2 nor that the ULWR number 396 W/m2 seen on the K-T Earth Energy Budget chart’s are measurements of actual radiant energy fluxes. Rather they are instead mathematical estimates of what the upward or downward flux would be if the other were absent. This is like measuring the wind speed to be 10 mph from the west, but calculating that there is actually a 20 mph wind coming from the east that is being opposed by a 30 mph wind coming from the west to yield a net 10 mph wind from the west! Just as wind only flows in one direction so to does thermal energy. Again, the empirical evidence that DLWR is completely extinguished by ULWR is the very radiometer that presumes to measure its presence. These radiometers detect 0.00 W/m2 downward heat flux; what they do sense is an upward radiant energy flux and then calculate what the DLWR would have been had it not been extinguished.

Here is the kicker. The IPCC in its soon to be released AR5 report* will again affirms that they consider DLWR to be substantively identical to insolation in that they just add the hypothetical number seen on the readouts of IR radiometers to the actual measured short wave radiant energy flux coming from the sun.

“The instantaneous RF (radiative forcing) refers to an instantaneous change in net (down minus up) radiative flux (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) due to an imposed change.” AR5 draft chapter 8

This sets up the perspective that the atmosphere is actually the surface of the earth’s primary heat source since the readouts on radiometers assert that the down-welling longwave radiant energy flux coming from the atmosphere is twice that of direct sunlight! In reality it is nil.

*PSI has a fully-searchable copy of the recently leaked AR5 draft report. PSI members may enjoy use of this facility by entering the back end of the site (enter ‘LOGIN’ details on the right of this page).

Carl Brehmer

End Note: In one of my career paths I obtained a degree in Electronics Technology and it was from that knowledge base that I did the above analysis of the internal operation of the Epply PIR using Epply’s description of their own instrument found in the Owner’s Manual. I challenge anyone to find within the Owner’s Manual of any radiometer the claim that they actually sense down-welling IR radiation. What you will find on close inspection is that these Owner’s Manuals will reveal that DLWR readouts are always a calculated hypothetical based on the two-way radiant heat transfer paradigm, rather than an actual direct measurement of DLWR.

Ivan Oransky over at Retraction Watch is giving readers the heads up on a new initiative by Grant Steen who has published a number of important papers on retractions. Steen is now looking to gather stories from anyone involved in science fraud.

Here is Oransky’s piece setting out the details:

Why is there fraud in science?

Scientists believe—or at least profess to believe—that science is a process of iteratively approaching Truth.  Failed experiments are supposed to serve as fodder for successful experiments, so that clouded thinking can be clarified.  Observations that are fundamentally true are thought to find support, while observations that are flawed in some way are supplanted by better observations.

Why then would anyone think that scientific fraud can succeed?  Fraud would seem to be intellectual pyrotechnics; a dazzling light that leaves us in darkness.  If science truly is self-correcting, then why would people risk perpetrating fraud?  The notion of self-correction suggests that fraud is certain to be found out. Why risk it? Or are most scientists wrong?  Does science often fail to self-correct?  Is the literature full of misinformation, left behind like landmines in an abandoned battlefield?

What is the rationale for data fabrication and data falsification?  We invite anyone who has been involved in a scientific retraction due to fraud, or otherwise implicated in scientific misconduct, to write an essay for inclusion in a projected book about scientific fraud.  Essays are solicited from people who were involved as either a perpetrator or a co-author.  It is vital that this account be written from a personal perspective.  Please limit speculation and stick to verifiable facts insofar as possible, so that future historians can learn what actually happened.  Please do not discuss retractions that resulted from an honest scientific mistake, and do not dwell on transgressions such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or co-author squabbles.  Discussion should focus primarily on data fabrication and data falsification.  We are especially interested in first-person accounts that relate to any (or all) of the following questions:

What actually happened?

What is the scientific story behind the transgression?

How did you (or a colleague) fabricate or falsify data?

What was the short- or long-term goal of the deception?

Did you perceive any significant obstacles to fabrication or falsification?

Did the research infrastructure fail in any way?

How was the fraud discovered?

Do you believe that the scientific enterprise was damaged?

What was the aftermath for you and for your collaborators?

What are your thoughts and perceptions now? 

Please limit your essays to no more than 3,000 words and send them to [email protected]

Be prepared to prove that you are who you claim to be; we will try hard not be taken in by a scam.  However, it may be possible to publish the piece anonymously, though this would greatly lessen the impact.  If accepted for publication, your work will be edited for clarity only; there will be no censorship, no editorial intrusion, and no correction of what are claimed as facts.  However, these essays will become part of a multi-author dialogue about scientific fraud.  If a book contract can be secured, each essay will form a chapter in the book.  No profits are anticipated, so no financial gain can accrue from the project.  However, this is a chance to tell your story on a national stage.

Appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America is a paper from Princeton University, New Jersey suggesting sexual discrimination is alive and well in the elite science schools of America.

Obtaining willing participants from what the authors refer to as “high-quality United States science programs” the study recruited from six anonymous American universities. All the institution have rankings by the Carnegie Foundation as “large, Research University (very high research productivity)” with “prominent, well-respected science departments (both at the undergraduate and graduate level).” These are the very science graduates anticipated to pursue life-long careers in the sciences. A distinct bias against females was displayed by participants who tended to rate male applicants as significantly more competent and employable than an (identical) female applicant.

The study’s Abstract appears below:

Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

Supporting information for the Princeton study is found here.

by Professor Claes Johnson

Will an atmosphere under the action of gravity assume a linear temperature profile with slope equal to the dry adiabatic lapse rate? Loschmidt said yes, while Boltzmann and Maxwell claimed that the atmosphere would be isothermal. Graeff (2007) has made experiments supporting Loschmidt and so it is natural to seek a theoretical explanation. 

by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

The planet Mars is Earth’s next of kin; just a little further out from the Sun. President Obama thinks we should go there with a manned mission. I wonder why? Is there a reason to visit Mars, other than to mark your bucket list with “been there, done that?”

The Idea

The idea that mankind should “conquer” Mars has been around for a while, i.e. one hundred years plus. The idea that it is worth exploring Mars, similar to Earth’s Moon was proposed by President Obama in 2010, to be achieved in the 2030’s. Russia and possibly other countries have similar thoughts.

No doubt, sending astronauts to Mars and having them return safely to Earth would be a major technological achievement. One may ask though to what purpose and is the effort really worth it?

Some of you may remember President Kennedy back in the 1960’s announcing his plan to send astronauts to the Moon by 1970. That goal was achieved well within time. The glory was great and a few small samples of moon rocks were retrieved which can now be seen in museums here and there, mostly collecting dust.

The main benefit of the Apollo (moon) program was to demonstrate US superiority in the race to develop advanced materials and technology. However, whether or not a similar excursion to Mars would produce similar results in innovation is rather questionable.

Characteristics

Mars and Earth share similar characteristics. The data in Table 1 illustrate my point. Their diameter, distance from the Sun, tilt of the orbit, length of day and number of moons are quite comparable. In terms of mass, Mars has only 11{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of that of Earth but, in planetary scales that is still quite comparable.

Table 1. Size, distance and other characteristics of the Earth and Mars, all data in “Earth units:”

With similar basic parameters, how do some other comparative data stack up? Let’s look at table 2, which shows the composition of the atmosphere on each planet. That’s where some major differences come to the fore.

Atmospheres

Table 2. Atmospheric compositions of Earth and Mars, units as stated.

As is apparent from Table 2, when it comes to the composition of the atmospheres and the surface temperatures (at least on the night side), Earth and Mars are vastly different from each other. To begin with, the atmosphere of Mars lacks any meaningful level of molecular oxygen, which is the stuff we need to breathe to live. The Earth’s atmosphere contains approximately 400 ppm (parts per million) or 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of carbon dioxide (CO2). We live by breathing in air with 400 ppm CO2, consuming a large portion of the oxygen and then exhaling air with approximately 50,000 ppm (or 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) CO2.

Compare that with Mars. Its atmosphere consists almost entirely of CO2, namely 950,000 ppm (or 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}) being CO2 to begin with. Any creature from Earth would quickly suffocate in the atmosphere on Mars, due to both the high level of CO2 and lack of free oxygen. Of course, the lower air pressure would also cause a problem for us.

As an aside: despite the high CO2 level, the Martian surface temperature on its sunny side is quite similar to that of Earth. If you were to believe the computer models showing the (Earth’s) atmospheric temperature to be strongly influenced by the CO2 content, Mars ought to be “just cookin;” which, clearly is not the case.

Water and Biota

The most important difference is the distribution of water, hence biota, as shown in table 3. Life as we know it is predicated upon the presence of water and the photo-synthesis process. For all intents and purposes neither exists on Mars.

Table 3. Critical differences between Earth and Mars.

Table 3 shows the most important and critical differences between Earth and Mars. To begin with, Mars has no free water, actually no water at all except for some trace amounts bound in minerals and rocks. The polar “ice caps” on Mars consist not of frozen water, but of pure solid carbon dioxide, also known as “dry ice.” In contrast, more than three quarters of the Earth is covered with water in the oceans, freshwater lakes and rivers all of which harbor abundant life. No such things on either the Moon or Mars as they are barren places with sand and rock not unlike the most extreme deserts on Earth. So let me close with a note to the missionaries-to-be.

Note to Sons

It’s a long way to Tipperary. When you finally get to Mars, don’t forget to mark your diary with “been there, done that;” and please send home a postcard!