Almost As Many Greenhouse Gas Theories as Clueless Climate Scientists

April 25, 2014

(CLIMATE CHANGE DISPATCH) – Do they even know what they’re fighting? One simple statistic is perhaps the sorriest indictment of the credibility of government climate ‘science.’

By John O’Sullivan, Principia Scientific International

Did you know that the number of official greenhouse gas theories almost matches the number of government climatologists spouting them? We were told “lower your carbon footprint!” We had to cut our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pay more taxes or face “tipping points” of “runaway” human-caused environmental disasters. All because of a hypothesis about an invisible “heat trapping” blanket of CO2 that was going to fry us with higher global temperatures. But this century Nature hasn’t cooperated with the climate “experts.” If anything – quite the reverse has been happening –  despite massive increases in human emissions of CO2, global cooling now seems a real threat.

WHERE IT ALL WENT HORRIBLY WRONG

activistsSo, we all know the basics of the global warming “theory.” We are told industrial emissions of burnt hydrocarbons are adding “man-made” CO2 to the atmosphere creating a potent chemical cocktail that dangerously “traps” more heat energy making our planet warmer. In a nutshell that’s the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHE) in play.  After 30 years of these ‘Chicken Little’ alarmist scare stories independent scientists, specialists in a myriad of related disciplines, are speaking out about what they see is junk science. The “experts” – those generalists that dominate the undeniably infant field of research that is climate science – are finally being called to account. Climate realists are increasingly telling the alarmists to stop computer-modeling Earth as if it were a greenhouse! The reason is two-fold: first, it is obvious to experts from the “hard” sciences that Earth’s atmosphere does not act in any way like a greenhouse. Second, and more embarrassing for the “experts,” despite a huge increase in human CO2 emissions over recent decades our planet stubbornly refuses to get any warmer. In short, the real world shows no proof of any CO2-driven GHE whatsoever.

EARTH ‘LABORATORY’ PROVES NO GREENHOUSE GAS WARMING

For years now the scientifically illiterate mainstream media has been hyping government-sponsored man-made global warming alarm. Government-paid climate researchers were not subjected to the old-fashioned rigors of journalistic scrutiny. Instead, skeptics were ostracized and open debate eschewed because the science was somehow deemed “settled” and doomsayers of the cult wallowed in almost god-like eminence. Nowhere did we see investigative journalists probing the glaringly obvious fact that in the broader scientific community climatology is regarded as an infant field of study. As such, it is a field in which few, if any, aspiring first rate talented physicists, mathematicians, etc. would ordinarily choose a career path. Now let’s rewind to the 1980’s. Back then there were no university climatology faculties or academically qualified and trained climate scientists per se. But as climate change became a political hot issue a rag-tag array of third rate self-described experts – who invariably had little if any training in thermodynamics – came to the fore.We can see climate scientists are certainly not particularly numerate. In the last 30 years we know that CO2 emissions have grown from 19,000 Million metric tonnes in 1981 to 33,000 million metric tonnes today (2010 figure).That’s a whopping 74 percent increase in CO2 emissions. Yet despite all that extra CO2 floating above us global temperatures have flat lined since 1998.Indeed, even the “best” among them, NASA’s (now retired) greenhouse gas guru James Hansen, who spawned the carbon climate craze in 1981, dodges the issue that the CO2 climate numbers don’t correlate with global temperatures. No correlation = no causation. Thus discrediting the crux of the “theory” that CO2 controls climate.With such a backdrop of non-disaster and a failed “theory” no wonder the global warming crowd are in full retreat.  So, exactly how many actual climate scientists still stand toe-to-toe with NASA’s now ousted climate front man? A survey by the University of Illinois shows us that Hansen’s ‘consensus’ – those experts who state they believe in man-made greenhouse gas warming – is a mere 75 researchers from the 2,500 scientists associated with the IPCC. [1.]With those numbers we can fairly describe Hansen and his doomsaying ilk as an endangered species.

NASA APOLLO EXPERT BLASTS FORMER NASA COLLEAGUE

At the fore of highly-qualified independent experts debunking the greenhouse gas charade is Texan Dr. Pierre Latour. Latour is carving a reputation as Hansen’s nemesis since he joined the unpaid ranks of independent analysts at Principia Scientific International, where he is now Vice Chairman.Dr. Latour built a stellar career in industry first making his name as Chemical Engineer on NASA’s Apollo space mission. He and other experts in thermodynamics have this to say to Hansen: “Chemical engineers design and operate radiant, convection and conduction furnaces, kilns, forges, chemical reactors and boilers for refining petroleum, manufacturing chemicals and generating electricity since 1920. Not once have we seen any GHE.”Latour and his ‘Slayer’ colleagues at PSI say the time has come to eradicate the word ‘greenhouse’ and all connotations associated with it from any description of the mechanisms describing atmospheric physics.

NO PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE TO PROVE GREENHOUSE ‘BLANKET EFFECT’

The Slayers say if you scratch the surface of the well-funded climate science veneer you’ll find that there is also not a single peer-reviewed paper that scientifically substantiates the existence of so-called “back radiation’ heating,” the key to the GHE. This is climate science’s alleged mechanism that turns a trace amount of CO2 in the air into a deadly super heating climate “blanket.” But the term “back radiation heating” is strangely absent from any industry thermodynamics textbooks.Indeed, the very idea that energy from solar radiation can be “trapped” by carbon dioxide (CO2) to form a gaseous atmospheric “blanket effect” in the atmosphere was famously refuted in 2011 by Professor Nasif Nahle. [2]But as Mexico’s Professor Nahle has experimentally demonstrated

“the warming effect  is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the greenhouse, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings…”

Canadian space scientists Joseph E. Postma and Nahle rigorously applied the science from the groundbreaking book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’  Applying the ‘Slayer’ science they elucidated the key flaw in GHE equations – a “trick” in the calculations that on the surface may appear a workable shortcut, but to trained thermodynamics experts, proved to be a fatal error. The over simplification was to model earth as if it were a flat disk rather than a sphere. Thereby reliance is dubiously placed on a plane-parallel model whereby the ground and atmosphere are treated as “planes” that are “parallel” to each other (i.e. a flat earth model). The incoming solar flux number is thereby crassly fudged by dividing by a factor of “4” (this is the numeral “4” you see in so many GHE diagrams) so as to average the Solar energy over the entire globe. Taking the average seems ok to non-experts, but to those in the “hard” sciences it was the critical error that made the numbers meaninglessness in complex thermodynamics terms. Technically what climate science had done wrong was they equated the energy flux density of the incoming power, to that of the outgoing power (not a requirement of the Law of Conservation of Energy (LCE)).

TWILIGHT COLDNESS: THE FLAT EARTH OF CRUMBLING GREENHOUSE GAS SCIENCE

Thus the fudged, flat earth numbers fed into the standard model effectively treat the Earth as having sunlight coming in over all parts of the Earth at once, with no day-time and no night-time, and with one-quarter the value of the incoming energy flux density of the actual solar power to account for this, which makes it equal to the average terrestrial output power.But, as we said at the top of this article, this infant field of science couldn’t establish agreement about the details of the fudge. So they devised 63 competing official climate models that are mutually contradictory in their details (but good enough for “government work”).  As such, they offer 63 different ways to be wrong and each displaying a model “average” solar input power of 240 J/s/m2 that provides an equivalent temperature of about  –18 degrees Centigrade (255K or -0.4F). In other words, these geniuses have their start point an “earth” that is a freezing flat disk without any possibility to allow liquid water!

A BETTER MODEL: ALL DAY AND NIGHT ON A ROTATING PLANET

Astrophysicist, Joe Postma – in his momentous paper ‘The Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect’ – goes on to prove that by treating Earth as a sphere so that night and day exist we can suddenly explain with standard physics how daytime gives us the +30 degrees C worth of “added” GHE temperature; on average over half of the Earth (reaching a theoretical maximum of up to +121 degrees C under the solar-noon if it was not for the cooling power of the atmosphere). To sum up then, the government fed world of third rate climate science spawned 63 self-contradictory and idiosyncratic two-dimensional models that are (excuse the pun) roundly debunked by “hard” scientists. Climate science made a monumental error by addressing Earth as a (non-existent) flat, cold twilight planet, the way Hansen preferred. But when  our planet is more correctly treated as a three-dimensional spherical mode – with the entire incoming solar energy impacting just one hemisphere alone – the climate numbers add up without the contrivance of any ‘greenhouse gas’ effect. Therefore, there is no risk whatsoever posed to our climate by human emissions of CO2 because the “theory” those claims are made upon is shown to be junk science.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

You must be logged in to comment

Log in