The Mystique of Science
There is a lot of mystique connected to science, indeed mystery. And scientists themselves foster this mystery as it gives them a sort of invulnerability and unaccountability. When I was at school I was interested in literature and poetry and in science not at all.
So it was only much much later that I began to ask questions, just like a kid, because there were certain things I simply did not understand.
Because I asked questions, I acquired a series of mentors. Looking back it was quite Miraculous. How did it happen that I who was a dunderhead at science began to be coached for free by some of the finest scientists in the world? I am pretty slow on the uptake, so I kept on asking questions and the more I asked the more I received – it was almost biblical.
I also began to ‘see’ science. This is difficult to explain. Some things may be dead obvious now, but I began to see certain concepts in patterns. And as that happened I realised that these special scientists, who took me under their wings as sponsors, also saw things. That is to say they were not your run of the mill scientists, who had just learned from books, and knew a lot but did not understand what they were seeing. They were seers.
There was nothing formal arranged between me and any of these guys. I did not pay a cent, I just asked questions, and as is my wont I wrote articles, which is my way of teaching myself. And the more I wrote the more scientists joined in and commented and corrected me. When I look back it was very strange. Moreover I could feel that they were one and all seekers of the truth and honourable. Whereas I had formerly met only those who were interested in ideas and philosophy, these were seekers in Geography, in Marine Biology, in Astrophysics, in Biology, and in Analytical Chemistry.
They were mystics in science.
I better go to bed now as I have not even begun to write what I intended to write about. But that also happens with me quite a bit. A certain phrase comes into my head and it is like an illumination. Yes, I think, that clarifies that.
Next day.
As I was lying in bed a phrase came to me.
The function of the Sun is to warm the Earth.
The function of the atmosphere is to cool the Earth.
I understood that this was immutable. And I realised that a fundamental error in observation is made by those who aver that the air warms the Earth. That is simply an illusion. Unfortunately this illusion has grave consequences for all mankind.
I am accused by several people of ranting. Since I take great pains to relate all my observations to the experience that everyman can verify, I take exception to such accusations and such coarse and unbecoming behaviour. Let us establish facts and at the same time banish falsehoods.
The air is transparent. Does everyone agree? I can see unhindered across a room to see a clock on a wall, and likewise I can look out of the window and see ships on the horizon circa 9 miles away. Now we know that air is composed of a number of gases and that 1 molecule in 250,000 is Carbon Dioxide. Is it equally transparent with the rest of the gases or does it stick out as black? Are there black specks in the sky?
Well the answer is No, the air is uniformly transparent, save for those times of fog or mist. So those people who portray Carbon Dioxide as smoke or as some sort of pollutant are guilty of false science, of deliberately propagating a lie.
The arguments between scientists are couched in language that flies over the heads of the common man, which is why my kitchen Physics has been welcomed by many of those who are miles more learned than I will ever be.
There is good reason however why so many are deluded. It is very easy on a summers day to think that the air is making one warm, when the prime cause is the radiation of the Sun. It is easy not to see primary cause.
Let us take David Attenborough (pictured, top) out in the desert on one of his numerous films. He remarks that the sand is at 70 degrees and the air immediately above at 40 degrees. A lizard climbed up on a twig in order to reduce the heat. Even 1 foot up the air is marginally cooler. Indeed we know that if the sand was 40 degrees Celsius the air 1,000 feet up would have been 38 degrees, 2 degrees less for every 1,000 feet of altitude.
We also know that Mr Attenborough himself was mass, and therefore he was heating up from the Sun’s radiation not from the air. In fact if anything he was concurrently losing heat to the air through perspiration, that is evaporation.
We likewise know that in any dry desert atmosphere once the Sun goes down the drop in temperature is dramatic. Where has all the heat suddenly gone? It has been carried up and away by the atmosphere. In humid areas precisely the same happens only more slowly. On the other hand in humid areas the temperature will not reach as high in the first place.
Can a normal uneducated Layman prove this to him or herself? In practice it is done every day. In my own garden in Hampshire when it was very hot we either sat under the shade of a large Magnolia tree or retired inside with curtains drawn, which is the natural recourse of elderly people. In this way one removes oneself from direct radiation, just as does a dark cloud in the sky.
Let me repeat the mantra. Radiation encounters mass to produce heat. The idea that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide causes heat in any way is a no no. We are all of us being subjected to the biggest con that mankind has ever suffered. Far from the Globe warming we have just entered a Mini Ice Age, as judged by Piers Corbyn, Managing Director of Weather Action long range weather forecasting.
Hot or cold our world is ruled by Solar Radiation and those who aver that a trace gas high up in the atmosphere is making us too hot and changing an ever evolving climate are charlatans with their snouts in the trough of public money. It is totally impossible for a gas, a cold gas at that, to generate heat, let alone the truly absurd claim, to trap heat. It is ludicrous to imagine a heat that is trapped, for it would be neutered, not radiating, not giving warmth, a travesty of the very concept heat. How to deal with the illiterate who do not inderstand the meaning of language!
In fact this climate debate is as much about the right use of language, the right understanding of words, as about ‘Climate science’. It is evident that certain leading lights on the Warmist side evidently find difficulty in differentiating between correlation and causation, and others, some of whom are scientists, evidently cannot distinguish between cooling and warming. This is a semantic problem, not necessarily a scientific one.
We can see that in the reference to Attenborough in the desert as the sands lost their heat to the air the sands were cooling concurrently while being heated by radiation. As the warmed air expanded and rose it continued to lose heat and cool.
It is the same with the water of the oceans. As Radiation causes warmth in the top layer of water, evaporation takes place and Carbon Dioxide rises into the air as from a fizzy drink. Evaporation is cooling – any nincompoop knows that. The whole gradient from surface to Outer Space is one of cooling. Yet the Warmists maintain that a very slight increase in Carbon Dioxide – or what Svante called Carbonic Acid – was trapping heat, causing also these tiny molecules to radiate heat back to the surface against the gradient flowing upwards.
Are there some eminent scientists of that Warmist view? Yes, there are plenty, but it does not mean they are right, no more than the Catholic Church were right when they defended the Ptolemaic model inthe times of Galileo and the Dominican monk, Giordano Bruno, whom they shamefully tortured for 7 years before burning him at the stake.
Such was the ignorance in the Middle Ages! Such is the ignorance perpetuated by incessant propaganda in this present day. So some of the ignorant who have bought this Warmist story, will declare that I am ranting. Well I am asking everyman to look at the evidence, the evidence of their own senses. Can everyman see snow on the tops of mountains? Does not every hill walker know it gets colder with altitude? Does not every child know that it gets warmer when the Sun shines?
Is there any evidence that in the last 30 years we have gotten appreciably hotter? No, on the contrary we are on the edge of a mini Ice Age. It has already begun. The Earth is getting colder and colder.
At this present time mankind needs to do what it has always done in the past – adapt. We will need all our resources of coal, oil and natural gases to survive. Great Nature has known about renewables long before the present lot produced useless wind turbines and glass panels over arable land. Great Nature has provided us with all the natural gas we will need, as long as the super ignorant do not forever oppose it’s extraction.
If that is a rant, if a rant is simply an expose, then there are many more to come, till we have thrust this evil from our Earth!
Trackback from your site.
EnergynEntropy
| #
“We will need all our resources of coal, oil and natural gases [and a trillion new tree planted a year] to survive [and prosper]”.
The energy in the fossil fuel put in making and running a chainsaw that cuts a tree then transporting it by trucks, is in many order of magnitude bigger than all the useful energy coming from burning the tree cut.
Planting a trillion new tree a year is what protects the planet not cutting hundred of thousands of them every day for an assumed ‘green’ fuel – whether an ice age coming or not, I think.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Someone who is too embarrassed to share an actual name,
If farmers followed your analysis they would have never planted a kernel of wheat or corn or of whatever. Because so much energy is put into the effort of planting and harvesting relative to what is gained by the harvest. Just plant and plant and eat the birds and animals who do the harvesting for you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Whomever,
A question for you. When the Europeans discovered the New World and began to settle it, did they discover trees a thousand or ten thousand or a million years old?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
EnergynEntropy
| #
No, no a thousand year old tree found then, but they cut millions of trees never replaced them: Energy is very scarce to do that, of course.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi ????,
No, thousand year old trees and no one to cut them. I question why were there no thousand year old trees? In the Pacific Northwest they replanted and within a hundred years or so are cutting for the 2nd growth trees for lumber. Other places they have planted fast growing trees for fuel that do not need to replanted after cut. And these trees were originally planted where sage brush mainly grew.
My point, in case you missed it. Many trees have limited lifetimes and some are regularly consumed by wild fires started by natural lightning. Or are blown over by volcanic eruptions.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Anthony,
You write such wonderful essays and I consider this is the best I have read.
‘They were seers.’ Have you read ‘Louis Agassiz As A Teacher’ by Lane Cooper, a professor of English language? If you have not, maybe you should because you might be amazed as I was as I read your essay.
‘I am pretty slow on the uptake.’ I am too.
‘as is my wont I wrote articles, which is my way of teaching myself.’ Which is mine. I write essays to see what I know and what I do not know. And many, many have never been shared with anyone. What I find is I frequently have forgotten what I did know and often can see things which answers the question of which I did not know the answer before. For if one does not know what one does not know, how can one ever see the answer to the question which has never been asked?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rosco
| #
What a farce – you can’t even do basic primary school mathematics and the people who supposedly “review” these ludicrous submissions apparently can’t either !
Since when is 1 molecule in 250,000 equal to the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 400 parts per million ?
Total fail – no wonder PSI has the reputation it has.
At least get the primary school maths right – if you can’t even do that why would I accept anything you write ?
Reply
Rosco
| #
“Is there any evidence that in the last 30 years we have gotten appreciably hotter?”
Absolutely !
I will tell you without a doubt that where I have lived for over 60 years the winters are hotter than they were when I played football in the 1960’s and marked the fields on cold winter mornings with the frost causing blades of grass to snap. The recorded temperatures prove this beyond doubt as does my personal experience.
To say it isn’t true is absurd beyond belief.
This article is a complete joke.
Reply
Rosco
| #
“Well the answer is No, the air is uniformly transparent, …”
Absolute rubbish – as was established more than 150 years ago !
This article is a complete joke.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Roscoe,
Information for you to consider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2009–10_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
The winter of 2009–10 in the United Kingdom (also called The Big Freeze of 2010 by British media) was a meteorological event that started on 16 December 2009, as part of the severe winter weather in Europe. … A low of −22.3 °C (−8.1 °F) was recorded in Altnaharra, Scotland on 8 January 2010.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/how-extreme-was-the…of/26257
Mar 19, 2010 – Millions of Americans from coast to coast faced unusual cold, damaging flooding and mudslides, or blizzards of mammoth scale from December 2009 through February 2010. These conditions required massive cleanup and repair efforts, cost millions of dollars and disrupted daily life at a seemingly routine …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_1962–63_in_the_United_Kingdom
The winter of 1962–1963 was one of the coldest winters on record in the United Kingdom. Temperatures plummeted and lakes and rivers began to freeze over. In the Central England Temperature (CET) record, extending back to 1659, only the winter (defined as the months of December, January and February) of 1683–84 …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2009_southeastern_Australia_heat_wave
Coupled with an intense tropical low and a monsoon trough over Northern Australia, this produced hot, tropical air to be directed over southeastern Australia, raising temperatures significantly. The CSIRO stated that “The warm lower tropospheric anticyclone is the key synoptic weather system responsible for the heat-waves …
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/national/…/extreme-weather-forecast-australian-cities
Apr 27, 2017 – Extreme weather events can cost lives. In 2009, 432 people died in Victoria and SouthAustralia in a heatwave that preceded the terrible Black Saturday fires, in which another 173 people perished. In 2011, 23 people drowned in the devastating Queensland floods. In November 2016, eight people died in …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article…/Coldest-start-winter-Australia-128-years.html
Jun 1, 2017 – Adelaide dropped below five degrees for five consecutive mornings this week as predicted, making it the city’s coldest spell this early in winter for 128 years, according to Weatherzone. A coldfront combined with winds and clear skies culminated in a severe drop in temperatures along Australia’seast coast …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/A-foot-snow-hits-parts-Australia-country-hit-lowest-temperat...
Jun 3, 2015 – Parts of New South Wales, in Australia, have been buried under a foot (30cm) of snow on their first day of winter; Temperatures plunged to minus nine degrees Celsius in some areas while Melbourne had its coldest day in 40 years; Freezing conditions welcomed by skiers who are expected to flock to …
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rosco,
Spoken like a man who has never made a mistake. Yes, it seems Anthony made a math error, which I believe may not be simple to one many decades later then when he was in primary school. I would challenge you to go into a primary school math class and ask each student of the class to independently convert 0.04% into parts per million and tabulate the correct results and then report the percentage of correct answers to Anthony..
‘We likewise know that in any dry desert atmosphere once the Sun goes down the drop in temperature is dramatic.’ And Anthony asked: Where has all the heat
suddenly gone? Do you dispute his explanation also? If so what is your answer?
I read that you had decided to not frequent PSI. I believe that was a good decision. But here you are criticizing Anthony, who has recognized that ‘all human beings have faults’. I copied this from one of his essays because it is a truth I personally have to accept.
Have a good day, Jerry
Learn that everyone is not perfect.
Reply
Rosco
| #
This article is titled “The Mystique Of Science”.
Everyone knows PSI’s position on climate science !
The purpose of publishing “friends” articles is apparently to support the proposition that climate science is in error – there is no greenhouse effect.
To do so effectively one must mount arguments that are actually factual !
To not do so leads to the inevitable position that there are unlimited critics who can easily spot such failings and report them using ridicule – not on this site – but on the huge audiences to be found elsewhere.
As a result of publishing innaccurate articles with mocking titles it appears only PSI itself believes it has a credible reputation !
Hence a new comer to PSI would expect this article to provide something of value. The clear implication from the title is that the author has some “Earth shattering” relevations presented with impeccable references to expose obvious myths which mislead the ordinary person.
However, as with so many thoughtless articles provided here, it is simply a rehash of obvious basic facts combined unsubstantiated claims and easily refuted denial.
I can only assume that apparently you think it is acceptable to post articles full of mistakes and expect them to be welcomed as enlightening.
Here are just some of the ridiculous claims in this.
“and those who aver that a trace gas high up in the atmosphere is making us too hot and changing an ever evolving climate are charlatans with their snouts in the trough of public money.”
Not one climate scientists states that trace gases high up in the atmosphere are making us too hot !
This statement is completely wrong AND insulting ! To insult someone by stating something they never actually say is quite simply so undignified it borders on pathalogical. This BS happens all the time here !
If you find this acceptable as a scientific discourse I am just astounded.
All of the claims about CO2 absorption of infra-red terrestrial radiation claim the mean path length is less than 100 metres above the surface – not high in the atmosphere !
“It is ludicrous to imagine a heat that is trapped, …”
Absolute rubbish – has he never heard of the concept of insulation ?
Or does he not believe that an insulated body can be kept hot by continuous influx of energy ?
Whether or not CO2 traps heat is not really relevant – as the author acknowledged there exists a continuous influx of energy from the Sun.
It is obvious basic physics that Earth’s atmosphere holds thermal energy and that the emissivity of gases is far lower than solids or liquids.
To deny this is just completely absurd.
“Evaporation is cooling – any nincompoop knows that.”
What insulting ignorant nonsense !
Yes, radiant energy incident upon water resulting in evaporation results in the water surface not achieving the temperature it may have otherwise achieved.
But the latent heat is released – always.
Seriously, the people PSI is attempting to argue against simply fall on the floor laughing at stuff like this !
“Are there some eminent scientists of that Warmist view? Yes, there are plenty, but it does not mean they are right…”
Let me tell you that all of them, competent and not, find stuff like this so ludicrous they don’t even bother to dignify it with a response !
Anyone can criticize me for pointing out these obvious failings but this site will never be regarded as credible while it continues to publish insulting and ridiculing gutter press headlines with article full of – well – nonsense.
But all I have tried to do is to instil some sense of decorum in the ludicrous mantra of writing ridiculing titles for articles which are just ludicrous themselves and thinking this is smart and will engender respect – it clearly doesn’t !
This article – “CO2 Absorption Spectrum & The Bogus Greenhouse Gas Effect” – is the perfect example of shooting yourself in the foot.
Whilst it was reasonably factual it was ONE OF THE BEST ARGUMENTS FOR the greenhouse effect I have ever read – but the title say “bogus” ?????
Continue with your playground antics and continue to wonder why there are a plethora of websites ridiculing PSI !
Reply
Rosco
| #
I should have mentioned that this tactic – ridiculing what is, rightly or wrongly, accepted science with ridicule and insult and articles with either no facts or no clue has been so successful that is has resulted in a litany of litigation against the perpetrators !
Who cares if such litigation is right or wrong ?? The fact is it costs a fortune to defend yourself – completely unnecessarily if one sticks to stating facts and arguments !
I’ll say it again – Continue with your playground antics and continue to wonder why there are a plethora of websites ridiculing PSI !
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ross, If there weren’t “a plethora of websites ridiculing PSI” then we wouldn’t be doing our job properly. Anthony Bright-Paul does an excellent job communicating with our non-science readers. Long may it continue – unlike your carping.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi John,
Well said. Today in the USA there are two people who have great influence–Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh. At the beginning of the USA there was one man with great influence and an author (whose name I cannot find) wrote a book titled, as I remember it: The Most Dangerous Man In America. Who was this man? Benjamin Franklin. To whom or what was he dangerous?