The Sun moves the atmosphere, rules the weather and is the energy source for all life on Earth!

The Sun as an energy source

The Sun is the source for life on Earth and has a direct influence on most of the physical processes within the Earth’s atmosphere. Sunlight provides the energy for photosynthesis within plants, which in turn creates the atmospheric oxygen required for us to breathe. The solar daily cycle regulates our lives, and the solar annual cycle determines the seasons and hence the agricultural cycle. Yet the role of the Sun in determining the sate and behavior of the Earth’s climate is much greater than just a simple observation of its warmth would lead us to suppose. The Earth’ atmosphere is literally solar-powered, the Sun being the primary cause of all the atmosphere processes, including the General Circulation, the formation of clouds and the generation of both local and global wind patterns.

The Sun, at the centre of the Solar System, is a typical star 1.392.000 km in diameter, with a mass roughly 1 000 times that of the rest of the Solar System combined. Like most stars it is composed mainly of hydrogen (≈70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}), with most of the remainder being helium. The Sun generates its heat and sustains itself from nuclear fusions in the core where the temperature reaches some 15 million °C, and in which an estimated 600 million tones of hydrogen are converted into helium every second. The total solar output into space is 2.33×10²⁵ kJmin^-1, but only a tiny fraction (1/2.000.000.000), i.e. one two thousand millionth, of this is actually intercepted by the Earth since the energy received by any planet is inversely proportional to its distance from the Sun. Owing to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the receipt of solar energy on a surface normal to the Sun is 7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} more on 3 January at the perihelion (when the Erath is closest to the Sun) than on 4 July at the aphelion when the Earth is furthest from the Sun. The “solar constant” is therefore not a constant. The “solar constant” changes from 1416 W/m² at the beginning of January to 1321 W/m² at the beginning of July.

90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of government scientists feel they can’t speak freely: union survey

OTTAWA — A large survey of science professionals in the federal public service has found that almost 25 per cent of respondents say they have been directly asked to exclude or alter information for “non-scientific reasons.”

Some 71 per cent of those surveyed said political interference is compromising policy development based on scientific evidence, and almost half of those who took part said they were aware of cases in which their department or agency suppressed information.

The study, entitled “The Big Chill,” was commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and paints a disturbing picture of government scientists who feel they are being muzzled.

More than 4,000 federal scientists — out of more than 15,000 who were invited –responded to the union-commissioned, online survey handled by the polling firm Environics.

“A chill has settled on federal government science that is even greater than that suggested by the cases so far reported by the media,” Gary Corbett, the president of PIPSC, said Monday.

Federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is already conducting a study of how communications policy changes under the Harper government have clamped down on the sharing of government science with the public.

On a windswept evening in the heart of Scotland’s capital an eager audience was left in no doubt about Salby’s message. The American climate professor, fired by his Australian university employer for daring to speak the unspeakable truth, admitted that the peer-reviewed historical data proves that global temperatures conclusively drive carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, not the reverse.

In short, the message from this principled researcher stands loud and clear for policymakers: the CO2-forcing ‘greenhouse gas’ hypothesis has ’cause and effect’ back to front. But before we go deeper into Salby’s presentation we can’t overlook a most bizarre appearance (enter stage door left!) from the indefatigable (Lord) Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

Obviously it was quite a surprise to all present when the self-styled former “science adviser” to Margaret Thatcher popped up out of the blue. Judging by the facial expression of Mike Haseler (the scottish sceptic who organised this event) it surprised Mike as much as the rest of us. That said, his lordship was quickly allowed a small speaking slot before Salby. Salby did look a little none plussed, but leaned in the doorway and warmed to the speech as Monckton did his usual excellent job (more on that later below).

Salby was able to demonstrate, by reference to such official data, that recent and short term CO2 levels do not directly follow temperature swings, but are induced by and dependent upon the time integration of the temperature changes. If Salby’s analysis is correct, then all those expensive government computer models programmed to show CO2 and temperature correlation are completely wrong and the ‘decarbonisation’ crusade is all based on junk science.

From Wiki:

The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. It became the standard map projection for nautical purposes because of its ability to represent lines of constant course, known as rhumb lines or loxodromes, as straight segments which conserve the angles with the meridians. While the linear scale is equal in all directions around any point, thus preserving the angles and the shapes of small objects (which makes the projection conformal), the Mercator projection distorts the size and shape of large objects, as the scale increases from the Equator to the poles, where it becomes infinite.

The Mercator projection is all about the problem of how to transform a physically 3-dimensional object into a two-dimensional representation.  The problem is that this can’t be done without distorting the intrinsic physical properties of the 3-dimensional object, when viewed in the 2-dimensional representation.

What does this have to say about the greenhouse effect?  Simple.  A flat Earth is not a physically correct approximation to the true 3-dimensional nature of the planet.  Just like a 2-D map of the planet Earth is not a true representation of the 3-D planet.

Not only do things like day and night disappear, and rotation stops, but the physics numbers themselves get modified by this physically incorrect mathematical transformation to make the Sun twice as far away as it really is and its energy four times less intense (far below “freezing cold” in fact).

And since the greenhouse effect only exists in these 2-D maps of the planet, such as the IPCC K&T and related energy budgets, and it comes about only in order to reconcile the difference in the physics between the false 2-D and real 3-D planet, then the greenhouse effect is demonstrated as a fiction invented to fix a fiction.

Senior UK government minister tells the Daily Telegraph (James Kirkup, November 8, 2013) that a water industry study confirms that ‘frakking’ to exploit Britain’s shale gas reserves is “safe.” Kirkup reports as follows:

Households “right across the South” should prepare for gas fracking to begin in their areas, a senior minister has warned. Michael Fallon says that in the next few weeks, a study by the water industry will conclude that fracking will not contaminate the water supply.

“Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” E.R. Beadle.

In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton, graduate of Harvard Medical School and author of State of fear, said,

“I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”

We are in virtual reality primarily as Public Relations (PR) and its methods are applied to every aspect of our lives. The term “spin doctors” is more appropriate because it is what they are really doing. A spin doctor is defined as: “a spokesperson employed to give a favorable interpretation of events to the media, esp. on behalf of a political party.” It doesn’t say truthful interpretation. There are lies of commission and omission and this definition bypasses the category of omission. It’s reasonable to argue that if you deliberately commit a sin of omission it encompasses both. A ”favorable interpretation” means there is deliberate premeditated deception. The person knows the truth, but selects information to create a false interpretation.

Despite all the discussion and reports about weather and climate the public are unaware of even the most fundamental facts. Recently, I gave a three hour presentation with question and answers. The audience was educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me the difference between weather and climate. Nobody could name the three major so-called greenhouse gases, let alone explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. My goal was not to embarrass, but to illustrate how little they knew and how easily PR can deceive and misdirect.

COMMENT TO CAMILO MORA ET AL., THE PROJECTED TIMING OF CLIMATE DEPARTURE FROM RECENT VARIABILITY, NATURE 502:183–187 (10 OCTOBER 2013) DOI:10.1038/NATURE12540:

THE CLIMATE MODELS DO NOT FAIL BECAUSE OF “VARIABILITY” BUT BECAUSE OF THE NEGLECTED MULTI-DECADAL NATURAL OSCILLATIONS AND THE OVERRATED EFFECT OF THE ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION

Albert Parker

E-mail: [email protected]

If the authors of [1] carefully analyse the reconstructed global land and sea temperature time history since the 1800s (for example GISS [2]), they may certainly realize that the reason why climate models are failing so badly so quickly is not because of the “variability” in the climate, but only because of their wrong assumptions about the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission driving the climate and the neglected natural oscillations. This “inconvenient truth” emerges clearly as soon as the reconstructed global temperatures are compared with the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions not only during the last upwards phase of a quasi-60 years natural oscillation affecting the climate, but also including what happened prior of 1970 and what is happening since 2000 [3-8]. Fitting the data with functions that minimize the error over the full record length and not only a small time window of the recent past it is clear that the theory of exponentially growing temperatures is wrong.

Wind turbines are illegally inflicting severe losses on so many protected bird species that the problem can no longer be ignored or tolerated.

Astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma pulls no punches in his latest blog post exposing so-called global warming skeptics who appear to be propping up the increasingly discredited ‘greenhouse gas theory’ of climate change.

Naming and shaming those he suspects may be intentionally misrepresenting the facts, Postma points his accusatory finger fairly and squarely first and foremost at WUWT’s Anthony Watts, Dr Robert Brown and Dr Roy Spencer.

Postma has on many occasions – not only in private emails, but in detailed published articles – set out his scientific case as to why standard physics, chemistry and thermodynamics disprove the belief that carbon dioxide can play any measurable role in climate change.

The Canadian astrophysicist insists that such errors are:

“helping  to destroy the credibility, use, and function of true science.  You can not have a PhD in physics and insist that cold heats hot, that insulation in your walls determines the burn temperature of the natural gas in your furnace, that as something warm heats up something cold the cold thing heats up the warm thing in proportion, etc.  You can not believe that turning on a lightbulb and putting it in front of a mirror will make it shine brighter.”

To quote Mr. Watts:

“Let me make this simple, the greenhouse effect is a well established property of radiative physics in our atmosphere, one that I have observed firsthand through experimentation.”

Oh really?  He’s observed it first hand?  Like when he turned on a lightbulb in front of a mirror and demonstrated no greenhouse effect?  Like when the greenhouse effect “radiative physics” ignores the natural lapse rate gradient that already establishes that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average?  As when Watts and his associates didn’t know what a time-dependent differential thermal equation is. 

A paper has been recently posted to arXiv by Fromholz, Poisson, and Will (http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0394). In their paper titled “The Schwarzschild metric: It’s the coordinates, stupid!” the Authors consider the so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ for “a vacuum, static spherical spacetime” and attempt to determine a general means by which equivalent solutions can be generated.

They have however, failed to obtain this means, deriving instead by their methods only one already
known equivalent form, which has no physical significance. Their paper is without any scientific merit.

The full downloadable PDF, ‘On The ‘Stupid’ Paper by Fromholz, Poisson and Will,’ may be located at viXra.org where, over 19 pages, Stephen J Crothers addresses the false arguments for the black hole adduced by Fromholz, Poisson, and Will. Mathematics is employed. Version [2] corrects some typographical anomalies.

Here are selected extracts:

What these Authors don’t realise is that even if it is assumed, as they do, that linearization of Einstein’s field equations is admissible (which they have not proven or even addressed), the “simple wave equation” they refer to is in fact coordinate dependent. Consequently the speed of propagation of the ‘gravitational waves’ they allude to is coordinate dependent. In other words, the speed of propagation of Einstein’s gravitational waves can be given any speed one likes, by a simple change of coordinates. Einstein merely wished his gravitational waves to propagate at speed c (light in vacuum) and so he deliberately chose a set of coordinates to make it so. The wave equation obtained from the linearised field equations is not unique at all.

The speed of propagation of Einstein’s gravitational waves is not deduced from Einstein’s linearised form of his field equations; it is set by hypothesis and a set of coordinates deliberately chosen to satisfy the hypothesis.

Only this morning very early the enormity of what I had written yesterday struck me. Whereas the Rev Philip Foster had supplied some elegant constructs, I will now tempt you with some extremely simple arithmetic. Twice one is two, twice two is four. Are we agreed? But what is twice nought? Of course, it is nought. Let us go further. What is one thousand times nought? Of course, that is also nought, nothing, zero. Let us try one more time – What is 6,000C, which is reckoned to be the temperature of the corona of the Sun, what is 6,000 Centigrade times nothing? – you have it in one. It is zero, it is nix, it is nil, it is absolutely NOTHING!

This accounts for the temperature of Outer Space. Since space contains nothing, then the temperature of Outer Space is zero. Okay, it is given a Kelvin number, since dust particles may stray there. But the space itself is zero.

So now I am going to attempt to answer some of the questions that I posed yesterday in my essay ‘What’s in the space?’ Was Galileo right? I mean, does the atmosphere have mass? The answer is complex, but in the simplest terms the atmosphere has increasing mass from the top down. At the edge of space there are very few molecules and according to an email I had from the astrophysicist James Peden there are very few molecules at the Karman line, but they are very hot – how hot cannot be possibly measured by conventional thermometers. But the vastness of the Thermosphere is cold. Why? Because it is near vacuum, it is nearly empty. And you cannot heat empty, as per the foregoing conclusions.

I don’t follow Anthony Watts or “Watts Up With That”, and so, I didn’t see this post from WUWT that was posted back in the summer: ‘Friday Funny – reflections on the greenhouse effect,’ (July 19, 2013):

Let’s quote Mr. Watts:

“After the essays in May on mirrors and light bulbs, I’ve been regularly poked and prodded via email for not wanting to engage “the slayers” anymore, or to do that “third experiment” I mentioned in May. I long ago concluded by my experiences afterwards with “the slayers” that it is a waste of time and effort to try to explain anything to them. Curt Wilson, who did the second experiment and was planning to do the third, has come to the same conclusion, as have many others.”

In regards to the “essays on mirrors and light bulbs”, we demonstrated with Mr. Watts own work that he and Curt Wilson weren’t aware of high-school level math and physics, and that their experiments directly demonstrated that there was no greenhouse effect.  See Slaying Watts with Watts and Closing with Watts.  Also see Slayers “Putting Up” not “Shutting Up” for what started it all and how Mr. Watts et al. walked right into their own debunk of the greenhouse effect.  By the way, I wonder what that “third experiment” was anyway – they were either too embarrassed to continue at their own scientific incompetence, or the experiment didn’t do what they wanted it to, and buried it.

Watts:

“WUWT regular, Duke physicist Dr. Robert G. Brown has been trying to talk some sense into them over at Principia Scientific.”

Let us deal with this “Dr.” Robert G. Brown for a moment.  First of all, this supposed physicist doesn’t understand the basic equations for heat flow, as seen here The Difference between Math and Physics and Greenhouse Fraud 20: Physics disproves the GHE; Steel Greenhouses; & General Electric Lightbulbs.  Those posts come directly from attempting to educate this supposed physicist that cold doesn’t heat hot…seriously this fellow has a difficult time with the concept that cold doesn’t heat hot, and he claims to be a physicist.  Just wait to see what comes next.

To add to the character and competency self-defamation of this supposed physicist, scanning a few comments down into the WUWT article linked above, we see this quote from Robert Brown:

“It takes around 100,000 years for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!”

The time it takes for “a photon” to get from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun is a function of the mean-free-path a theoretical photon would have to go through to travel that direct distance, given the number of times scattering/absorption/reemission etc. it would have to go through because the density of the solar gas is so thick.  This has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect.  Seriously, Robert Brown’s example intersects the supposed mechanics of the greenhouse effect nowhere.  What is Robert Brown trying to say, that there’s a greenhouse effect in the solar atmosphere which creates the high temperature and nuclear fusion at the core?

The Spectator has an article (November 5, 2013) by David Holmes who poses the question, ‘Is climate change a socialist plot?‘ in which Holmes infers that those who question the global warming narrative are tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

Apart from the tens of thousands of scientists who would disagree with Holmes on this issue, there is also an excellent article by Dr Tim Ball, co-founder and first Chairman of Principia Scientific International (PSI) to put the question into a more factual context. Although the article primarily addresses the fraudulent acts of alarmist professor Peter Gleick, it also provides a unique insight into how the UN’s Agenda 21 goes hand in glove with man-made global warming scare stories.

Below we cite freely from Dr Ball’s article.

Dr. Ball is not only a respected scholar of the back story of the climate fraud, he is a climatologist who witnessed the rise of the global warming fraternity among his academic colleagues in the 1980’s. He has always bravely defended real science, even in the courts when required. To better guide us into deciding the answer to the Holmes question Tim advises us to look no further than the grandfather of the UN’s IPCC, Stephen Schneider, who made the following admission in Discover magazine in 1989:

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Dr Ball advises that Schneider’s ‘science’ was incorporated by the Club of Rome (COR), that is well known for advocating for a ‘new world order’ based on socialist ideals.

Comment to Otto, A., Otto, F.E.L., Boucher, O., Church, J., Hegerl, G., Forster, P.M., Gillett, N.P., (…), Allen, M.R., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013 6 (6):415-416:

The climate models sensitivity to carbon is overrated

Albert Parker

E-mail: [email protected]

Comparison of reconstructed global land and sea temperature (for example GISS [1]) and anthropogenic carbon dioxide time histories (for example CDIAC [2]) over the last century show a very different sensitivity of temperatures to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions than what is claimed by Otto, A., Otto, F.E.L., Boucher, O., Church, J., Hegerl, G., Forster, P.M., Gillett, N.P., (…), Allen, M.R. in their paper Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013 6 (6):415-416.

The reason why climate models are failing so badly so quickly is not because of the “variability” in the climate, but because of the overrated effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and neglected natural oscillations.

Figure 1 presents the non-dimensional global temperatures as reconstructed by GISS and the non-dimensional carbon emission as reconstructed by CDIAC vs. time 1910 to present. While carbon emissions are growing almost exponentially, the temperature has a much more complex behaviour where two natural oscillations of about 60 years are clearly superimposed to a longer term trend that may be natural and/or carbon driven. The upwards phases 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 are followed by the downward phases 1940 to 1970 and 2000 to the present (and very likely to 2030). As pointed out in the recent works [3-7], the climate sensitivity is overrated when correlating the temperature and carbon dioxide emission behaviour over the time window 1970 to 2000.

This is written in response to an earlier contribution by Derek Alker, which I criticized and I need to begin with an apology to Derek. My criticism was clumsy in its wording and could have been interpreted as arrogant in spirit. As far as I know Derek has no ill intent towards me and I have none towards him but I was surprised by my own apparent aggression when I saw the contribution on-line. This is important, though I withdraw none of the points of criticism I made, since the manner of criticism is an important issue in the community of science and in particular in the debates about climate change, which (as anyone will know who is familiar with the main blogs) are awash with insults and bad behaviour and even threats. I want to begin by correcting my own mistake in that respect by referring to a key aspect of Popper’s philosophy.

In the debate about the relative merits of Popper’s and Kuhn’s ideas about what I will call the dynamic of science, this matter of attitude is pivotal, though few commentators have analysed it. And this in spite of the repeated emphasis that Popper gave to it. It is captured in the often-quoted lines;

“I may be wrong and you may be right,

and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth”

These lines encapsulate what Critical Rationalism means and they hold the secret to the whole of Popper’s approach. They have many layers of meaning; logical, methodological and social. They point to a logic of discovery that is based on criticism, to an attitude of mind that is non-authoritarian, to a culture of tolerance and to humility in the individual.