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 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 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.

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 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:”

Planet	Distance from Sun	Diameter	Tilt, relative to orbit [angle, deg.]	Length of year	Length of day	Mass	Number of moons
Earth	1.00	1.00	23	1.00	1.00	1.00	1
Mars	1.52	0.53	25	1.88	1.03	0.11	2

 

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.

Planet	Atmospheric CO2 [ppm]	Atmospheric Oxygen [{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}]	Surface Temperature (day side, C)	Surface Temperature (night side, C)	Air pressure [Earth units]
Earth	400	20	+30	+10	1.0
Mars	950,000	~nil	+30	-145	0.6

 

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.

Planet	Free water	Photo-synthesis	Life	Polar caps
Earth	prevalent	prevalent	prevalent	water
Mars	absent	absent	absent	carbon dioxide

 

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!

Forbes is running a superb article by Bill Frezza turning the spotlight on science fraud. Many of us share such concerns because misconduct in the sciences now seems endemic.

 

Bill writes of the “decaying credibility of Big Science” and rightly laments the sad case of whistleblower site Science Fraud that was shut down due to a barrage of legal threats for bravely exposing suspicious research results in over 300 peer-reviewed publications in six months since the site began.

 With billions of dollars in government funded science up for grabs the integrity of academic researchers is increasingly being strained. This isn’t just by external peer-pressure to get the ‘right’ results but also by the inexorable need to make ends meet in a struggling economy.

The banking profession hit rock bottom in 2008 and who is to say 2013 won’t be the year that signals the collapse of confidence in government funded scientists.Frezza tells us what many of us have long suspected, “Fraud, plagiarism, cherry-picked results, poor or non-existent controls, confirmation bias, opaque, missing, or unavailable data, and stonewalling when questioned have gone from being rare to being everyday occurrences.”

 Just look at the soaring retraction level across multiple scientific publications and the increasingly vocal hand wringing of science vigilantes, says Bill. Read more here.

Online project seeks crowd-sourced help to reproduce chemists’ published results. Katharine Sanderson writes in Nature (January 21, 2013 ):

 Scrounging chemicals and equipment in their spare time, a team of chemistry bloggers is trying to replicate published protocols for making molecules. The researchers want to check how easy it is to repeat the recipes that scientists report in papers — and are inviting fellow chemists to join them.

“We’re just a bunch of people who want to make the reactions work,” explains blogger See Arr Oh, who is based in the United States and prefers not to reveal his real name. The other team members include chemistry graduate student Matt Katcher from Princeton, New Jersey, and two bloggers called Organometallica and BRSM, who together have launched Blog Syn, in which they report their progress online.

Among the frustrations he and others have experienced with the chemical literature, says See Arr Oh, are claims that reactions yield products in greater amounts than seems reasonable, and scanty detail about specific conditions in which to run reactions. In some cases, reactions are reported which seem too good to be true – such as a 2009 paper which was corrected within 24 hours by web-savvy chemists live-blogging the experiment; an episode which partially inspired Blog Syn. ”I never forgot that reaction,”

See Arr Oh adds:

“Ask any synthetic chemist what they spend most of their time on, and they will admit that it is getting literature reactions to work,” says chemist Peter Scott of the University of Warwick in Coventry, UK. “That is the elephant in the room of synthetic chemistry.”

Read more here.

The next UN climate report will be released this year. Be prepared to refute it.

For too long, scientists who promote the hypothesis that man’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous global warming have been given a free ride by politicians and the press. Their pronouncements, no matter how fantastic, are accepted without question and repeated ad nauseam by compliant governments and reporters alike. When scientists do what all scientists are supposed to do — question and probe — they are treated as enemies of the people and condemned by opinion leaders.

With the upcoming release of the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, 2013 can be the year governments and media grow up on climate change.

Treat catastrophists who push for climate and energy policies that would bankrupt us just as we do other end-of-the-world cultists: demand they prove their beliefs before providing them the time of day, let alone our tax dollars. Insist that climate catastrophists cease with their speculations and instead employ the scientific method.

This involves creating hypotheses based on predefined assumptions. Other scientists, in their proper roles as skeptics, challenge the hypothesis by testing the assumptions. They try to disprove — or as philosopher Karl Popper explained, falsify — the assumptions. Popper’s doctrine of falsifiability: “Our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it.”

This part of the scientific method has not been applied to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, and it is costing us plenty: literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year, the loss of thousands of jobs, and the rapid destruction of our most reliable and least expensive power source — coal-fired electricity.

The problems started when proponents of the AGW hypothesis, mainly the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), abandoned the scientific method and set out to prove the hypothesis because of a political agenda. They ignored or rejected contradictory evidence, no matter how convincing, and attacked those who tried to disprove the hypothesis. They produced false, imaginary, or concocted ideas and data instead of considering limitations and errors in their work.

This is well illustrated by their failure to properly consider the null hypothesis that global temperatures will not rise appreciably because of CO2 emissions from industrial activity.

Environmental fundamentalists knew that weakening the developed world by cutting off the fuel supply would be met with howls of protest, so politicians have not dared try this, at least not overtly. But an engine may also be stopped by choking off the exhaust, and so extremists worked hard to demonize CO2, the principle byproduct of civilization.

They ignored the benefits of the gas, such as its role in sustaining life. Instead, they labeled CO2 a pollutant and a harmful substance because of its supposed impact on climate.

Read more here.

 

 

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 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.

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.

 

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. 

Group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecasts.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth’s atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.

TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA’s increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of CO2isGreen.org as well as the educational non-profit, PlantsNeedCO2.org, makes the following comments regarding the TRCS posting, which can be found at www.therightclimatestuff.com:

1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.

2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.

3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.

4. There is no immediate threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what climate change alarmists claim.

5. The U.S. Government has overreacted to a possible catastrophic warming. The probable negative impacts to the economy, jobs and an increased cost of food, transportation and utilities will be severe and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Real experiments show that Earth’s habitats and ecosystems could be damaged if CO2 levels are actually reduced. Environmentalists have been grossly misled to believe CO2 is a pollutant.

6. Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently “greening” significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.

7. Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.

Dr. Harold Doiron, team leader for TRCS and former NASA scientist, along with H. Leighton Steward, will be participating on The Hard Question panel debate on climate change tonight at 5:00pm at The National Press Club, Holeman Lounge (13 th floor) , 529 14 th Street, Washington, DC.

More information can be found at www.CO2isGreen.org.

Supporting scientific information can be found at www.PlantsNeedCO2.org.

SOURCE CO2isGreen.org

 

Sweden’s leading math professor has uncovered what appears to be a major scientific deception perpetrated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concerning a device that supposedly “proves” the greenhouse gas effect of global warming is real. Professor Claes Johnson has discovered that infrared thermometer manufacturers have been calibrating their devices to a WMO measure known to have little reliability and may even be bogus. Johnson calls the device a “fabricated product.”

 

Professor Johnson, a skeptic of man-made global warming claims, says he has found a fatal flaw in key instrumentation that supposedly measures, and thus proves, the radiation emitted because of of the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHE) which is calibrated in Watts.These instruments are used for scientific measurements of outdoor downward atmospheric long-wave radiation- the supposed source of the GHE’s added heating mechanism. Johnson performed detailed research into the thermometers of one leading manufacturers of IRT’s  Kipp&Zonen pyrgeometers, with their model CGR 4. Kipp & Zonen describe their CGR4 thermometers as having “extremely high reliability and accuracy.” But as Johnson discovered, this is a bogus and perhaps intentionally fraudulent claim.

The stunned professor laments, “There is no reason to believe that the fabricated “radiance product” has anything to do with reality. There is good reason to believe that we the people are deceived by government scientists. But if science can be used to deceive, science can also be used to reveal deception.”

Sweden’s most cited math professor says, “We read that the pyrgeometer measures a voltage proportional to net absorbed radiation, from which “by calculation” a quantity named “downward long-wave radiation DLR” is derived.” But is it?

Johnson tells us that the basic idea for a GHE measurement is from “atmospheric re-emission” by in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), which is claimed to be a “greenhouse gas.” By using the CGR4 thermometer it is possible to see a warming effect from DLR of about 4 W/srm2 per micrometer at a wavelength of 15 micrometer where the trace gas CO2 is emitting/absorbing.

However, after carefully crunching the numbers Johnson has spotted a monumental error. The pyrometer has been calibrated using a bungled calculation of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) Law. The Swedish math professor from RTH claims, “The consequences for climate alarmism, and Kipp&Zonen are far-reaching.”

Digging deeper Johnson found that the S-B numbers Kipp&Zonen (and other manufacturers) used were taken from Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation issued by the World Meteorological Organization  (section 7.4.3 formula (7.17).  However, the Swedish math genius uncovered that “No scientific reference to (7.17) is given by WMO. So Kipp&Zonen uses a formula issued by WMO without scientific support.”

But it gets worse! The WMO admit this whole area of science is not actually known. In section 7.4.3 of their aforementioned document the WMO claimed that: “Over the last decade, significant advances have been made in the measurement of terrestrial radiation by pyrgeometers, which block out solar radiation. Nevertheless, the measurement of terrestrial radiation is still more difficult and less understood than the measurement of solar irradiance.”

The big question Johnson now poses is who is responsible for this deception? “ I think this is an interesting case concerning the responsibility of scientists and scientific institutions, and commercial actors relying on the science. It is clear that in medicine or building technology there are those who are held responsible. It must be so also in atmospherics science. I will ask WMO for the scientific source and report the answer,” said the professor.

Even Professor Roy Spencer, a climatologist who believes in the GHE but is skeptical of man-made global warming, has been duped by relying on these junk devices. Spencer says he “proved” the GHE by driving  “around pointing this thing [IRT] straight up through my sunroof at a cloud-free sky.”

Spencer continues, “If the device was perfectly calibrated, and there was NO greenhouse effect, it would measure an effective sky temperature near absolute zero (-460 deg. F) rather than +34 deg. F.” Yes, Roy IF the device was perfectly calibrated, but it can’t be according to the WMO’s own admission. When I challenged Roy suggesting he has been fooled his reply was, “I suppose I’m just a sucker for quaint old wives tales.” Yes, Roy it seems you are!

If the WMO now decline to give Johnson a straight answer and admit to these serious flaws then once again we shall see how the man-made global warming fraud is sustained by a coterie of self-serving participants. With fellow Principia Scientific International (PSI) colleague, Dr. Tim Ball on the threshold of two astonishing courtroom victories against junk climatists Johnson asks the question: “Can the WMO be sued for distributing science which is admittedly not understood but which they say is valid simply by referring to measurements made by a pyrgeometer using the WMO formula?” if the WMO are allowed to get away with this con trick of circular reasoning then any formula can be validated this way.

Astrophysicist and weather expert, Piers Corbyn who runs WeatherAction.com, has been uncannily accurate so far this winter. Londoner Corbyn produces long-range weather forecasts so good that they never cease beating and baffling Britain’s gigantic £200 million-a-year official weather forecaster, the Met Office.

What is truly remarkable is that the details for Corbyn’s daring January 2013 forecast were made 45 days ahead, a task beyond the competency of “traditional” methods. In the early part of this winter this mild-mannered and avuncular upstart had already made fools of the Met Office (MO) for their “Beast from the East” scare. The MO flunked badly while Corbyn’s bold prediction for a mild early winter proved totally accurate.

On January 10, 2013 The Daily Express front page quoted Piers Corbyn when some standard forecasters started to see WeatherAction’s very icy blasts and blizzards coming (see graphic). However although WeatherAction’s very cold weather soon came Met models still dithered about heavy snow / blizzards until they were almost upon us and, lo and behold, on January 15, 2013 there was a dramatic switch towards copycatting WeatherAction – again. Perhaps some bright spark at the MO has decided to sign up to Corbyn’s paid services, at a tiny fraction of the cost of the heavily taxpayer-subsidized misfits.

London’s colorful Mayor, Boris Johnson, is fully up to speed. Boris says “It is time to consult once again the learned astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn.

Now Piers has a very good record of forecasting the weather. He has been bang on about these cold winters. Like JMW Turner and the Aztecs he thinks we should be paying more attention to the Sun. According to Piers, global temperature depends not on concentrations of CO2 but on the mood of our celestial orb.”

So what is the latest from Corbyn? “The problem”, said Piers, “is the BBC-MO cannot predict or understand Sudden polar Stratospheric Warmings which drive these blizzardy cold blasts. Behind their thick veneer of arrogant ‘expertise’ they are clueless. Disgracefully they still refuse to acknowledge our skill saying ‘it can’t be done’, yet expect taxpayers to continue to reward their failure. Their credibility is near a tipping point!”

Piers and others put a big part of the blame of the Met Office’s obsession with global warming. Their computer models are set to factoring a dubious warming effect due the so-called “greenhouse gas” effect, a theory that mainstream science regarded as being debunked prior to the 1950’s. I’m one of those lucky to receive Corbyn’s forecasts and routinely keep tabs on just how pitiful both the BBC and MO are when it comes to weather forecasting. Meanwhile, the service I’m getting from Corbyn looks very much as good as the 85 percent accuracy this weather guru claims. So much so, I can’t help wondering why Downing Street isn’t calling for a meeting with Piers to find a better use for that £200 million a year. Corbyn has now issued his prediction for February and while it would be unfair to give out the details, if you think January was bad just wait till February, because next month is set to be “a month of wild contrasts.”

 

 

 

        Here we go again.  Multiple news outlets have been asserting of late that manmade global warming is causing the current Australian drought and heatwave.  During the summer of 2012 it was the drought and heatwaves of the Central Plains of the United States that were said to be proof of manmade global warming; in 2011 it was the drought and heatwaves in Texas; in 2010 it was the drought and heatwaves in Russia. 

 Just two months ago the World Bank released a report entitled, “Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided, Turn Down the Heat,”[i] which has since been cited in dozens of news outlets bolstering the mass hysteria currently sweeping the globe over impending catastrophic manmade global warming.  Attributing droughts and heatwaves to manmade global warming they wrote, “an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought” and “Increasing vulnerability to heat and drought stress will likely lead to increased mortality and species extinction.”  Regardless of how alarming these reports may be and how frequently they are cited in the news they all betray an unfortunate reality; those who fret over impending catastrophic manmade global warming don’t even understand the scientific hypothesis upon which it is based—anthropogenic humidity.