If you want crap science

February 28, 2014

(CLIMATE CHANGE DISPATCH) – If you want crap science then look no further than Google and look up the causes of Global Warming, or man-made, or Anthropogenic Warming. Website after website is designed for dummies, that is for those who are gullible, suggestible and even more so for those who are hysterical.

by Anthony Bright-Paul

Let us think for one moment about what we can all certainly agree on. Is there anybody alive who doubts or who can doubt the Sun warms the Earth? It is so self-evident that it is often overlooked. It is evident that the heat from the Sun is greatest at the Equator and the tropics and is least at the Poles. This is so elementary that I feel diffident even to put it into writing. This is simply caused by the angle of the Sun upon our spinning globe.


Secondly everyone is agreed that seasons are a fact of experience, that while it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere it is summer n the Southern. Neither does anyone dispute that we orbit the Sun in an ellipse, which means that there are times when we are nearer the Sun and times when we are farther, by as much as 3, 4, or 5 million miles. We are swinging round the Sun at a rate of 67,062 miles per hour. Everyone also agrees that the Earth is spinning on its own axis, which accounts for daytime and nighttime. And everyone has agreed to this since the days of Copernicus, Galileo and Giordano Bruno, though these great gentlemen had to suffer every sort of indignity and humiliation before their ideas were accepted. Copernicus conveniently died before his great work was published; Galileo was forced to make a confession of guilt under threat of torture on the rack; and the great monk Bruno was held in prison for seven years before being burnt alive at the stake.

So we owe these great scientists a huge debt. And it is not meet, it is not right, that we should allow the scientific truths for which they suffered at the hands of ignoramuses to be disbanded and cast aside, in favour of a scientific mumbo-jumbo pursued by a small cabal of so-called climate scientists, who could more readily be called quacks.

Have I any justification for making this assertion? Let us therefore examine what the Warmists, those who insist that man is warming the Globe; let us examine what they have to say, whether it is true, whether it is false, or whether it is full of half-truths.

So let us start with ‘What is Global Warming?’ http://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/a/GlobalWarm1.htm

Which was the first site that appeared when I Googled the above question.

“The global surface temperature is an estimate of the global mean surface air temperature. However, for changes over time, only anomalies… are used, most commonly based on the area-weighted global average of the sea surface temperature anomaly and land surface air temperature anomaly.”

You have to read that first sentence carefully to understand what it means. It is an estimate of the global mean surface air temperature. So it is not the temperature of the air surface for the very good reason that the surface is changing second by second everywhere upon this Planet. Not only that, these supposed temperatures are based on what is called ‘anomalies’. Let me put this in layman language. They are based on averages against former pre-supposed averages and they can be fiddled just any way the Warmists want, if they are so disposed. If you want anomalies this is where you get them.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that… greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century, and that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect afterward.”

Hallo! Just read this second paragraph carefully. Let me ask you, dear reader, have you observed personally, have you observed a temperature increase where you live? I mean was the temperature around your home static, and has that that was static increased? Codswallop. The temperatures that we all enjoy are going up and down as the sun rises and the sun sets and according to the seasons. A gas cannot increase its own temperature! The atmosphere cannot heat itself.

Don’t be taken in by scientific gobbledegook. greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase  I am afraid that that is utter rubbish. It is the sort of rubbish that is designed to fool the common man. In the first place there is not any observed increase, and neither can a Greenhouse Gas be responsible for any supposed increase. Why?  I will quote from a correspondence I had with Dr Helen Czerski, who far from being a Sceptic is a Warmist, despite her excellent Television series on “Orbit: Earth’s Journey Round the Sun.”

Of course the temperature of carbon dioxide varies – it is the same temperature as the other gases around it.  And the atmosphere has different temperatures at different heights, largely dictated by the adiabatic lapse rate.

So how can a gas whose temperature varies warm anything? The simple answer is that it cannot. A gas by law cannot generate heat. Helen Czerski went on: –

The point is that carbon dioxide absorbs and *re-emits* energy.   So it doesn’t heat up, but it gives the energy away almost immediately, and because it re-emits the energy in all directions, some of this re-emitted energy goes downwards. This energy is re-absorbed by what’s below, making the lower part of the atmosphere hotter than it would otherwise be.

Here she enunciates clearly the classical warmist position, and it is exceedingly interesting the way she puts is. According to this renowned Physicist the Carbon Dioxide molecules in the atmosphere do not warm up, but give their energy away almost immediately, making the lower part of the atmosphere hotter than it would otherwise be.

But that final assertion is impossible. The source cannot re-heat itself. Since the lower part of the atmosphere is the warmest, as per the aforesaid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, a higher and colder part cannot possibly heat what is warmer below.  If that were possible then there would be empirical evidence, but there is none and a little thought shows just why that cannot be.

Dr Phillip Bratby, who is a PhD physicist and has worked all his life in industry, doing all sorts of heat transfer calculations, (being in industry, his calculations had to be correct and accurate) put it most succinctly in direct answer to Dr Helen Czerzki: –

Certainly, radiation is emitted by all molecules at all temperatures and in all directions, but there is only net radiation (hence heat flow) from hot molecules to cold molecules.  As long as there is a temperature gradient, heat is transferred by radiation upwards through the atmosphere, none is transferred downwards by radiation.”  In none of my calculations did I need to consider ‘back-radiation’ as it is always cancelled out in the Stefan Boltzman T^4 difference.

So Dr Bratby agrees that radiation is emitted by all molecules every which way including earthwards, but there is only net radiation from hot to cold molecules.

Let us return now to the Global Warming website.

Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.”

I am afraid this sort of pap is taught to schoolchildren. Back Radiation is a defiance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and as for the Greenhouse Effect it has long been blown apart.

To quote now Dr Darko Butina in his paper ‘Gas Laws and Greenhouse Theory’ “Every molecule has the ability to absorb heat, a property quantified by its heat capacity.” He goes on: – “Please note that a statement like “CO2 has the capacity to trap heat is totally meaningless since every molecule has the ability to absorb or trap heat.”

Conclusion – gas molecules of an open system are driven by temperatures and it is physically impossible for gas molecules of the open system to control temperature in any shape or form.

The atmosphere is an open system, not a closed box. There is no igloo in the sky!

The truth of the matter is that the Warmists with their obsession with Carbon Dioxide have got everything topsy-turvy. Far from the gases of the atmosphere being responsible for warming the atmosphere, precisely the opposite is the case. Without the atmospheres the Earth would be as hot as Hades by day and as cold as the Moon is by night. Our atmosphere mitigates the heat of the sun by day and releases the heat by night.

When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The “dark side of the moon” can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C).


Certainly a humid atmosphere can slow the exit of heat more than a dry one, but that is all.

The obsession with ‘man-made’ warming is a sinister political shibboleth having little to do with real science. It is maintained by corrupted rather than corrupt scientists, since they are corrupted by their very remit – to find a human fingerprint. That is, they begin with a conclusion before assembling the facts or evidence.

Surely only if the Earth were knocked off its Orbit and flew nearer the Sun, only in that way could the Earth be made substantially warmer than it is.

The end of phoney science is near. When Michael Mann the creator of the famed Hockey Stick graph that Al Gore used in his film, when Michael Mann was unable to produce his metadata in a court case against Professor Tim Ball, this was surely the beginning of the end of the greatest scam since the South Sea Bubble.

The collapse of the Warmists is nigh, though they will put up a desperate rear guard fight as is happening right now.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

You must be logged in to comment

Log in