Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home                 store                 policies                 features                contact

Global Warming Models
First written on Aug 1, 2008
Updated last on Jun 24, 2014

Links to parts below

Special Interest section

Climate Model section
   Uniformitarian Model
   Catastrophic/EU Model

Skeptics Section
   Skeptics

CO2 Science Section
   CO2 Science Debunk

Best Perspective Article

Scandal Section
   Climategate

Questions and Answers

The latest on scandals:

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - June 23, 2014
http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html


The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record - 21 Jun 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Major Issues Section

There are 3 distinct issue areas that MUST be separated and addressed in sequence in order to understand the truth about what is going on in relation to the current uproar over "Global Warming" and its successor "Climate Change". This separation is crucial because these issues do NOT necessarily have a CAUSAL relationship. Any linkage between these may be only associative, temporary, or even just incidental. Of course the factual reality of the development or situation must first be determined, and THEN AND ONLY THEN should we look for a cause. The fourth and final issue is our current state of relevant scientific knowledge.

1. Global Temperature Change
Since we know that global temperature averages wax and wane over time, the issue here is whether or not any change--increase or decrease--is permanent and represents a threat to humanity that we can do anything about.

Question: Has the global temperature average risen in the recent past?
Answer: Evidently.

Question: Is the global temperature average increasing in the current span of about 10 years?
Answer: Evidently not.

Question: Is it clear whether the temperature average will rise or fall in the near future or that we are in danger of some "runaway" change?
Answer: Evidently not.

2. Climate Change
Since we know that there have been dramatic climate changes in the past, the issue here is whether or not the current global temperature change has any significant effect causing a dramatic climate change that represents a threat to the wellbeing of our world.

Question: Is the climate changing somewhat in our world today?
Answer: Probably.

Question: Has the climate always been subject to change in our world?
Answer: Probably.

Question: Is it clear that small incremental temperature average changes cause significant climate changes?
Answer: This is not well understood at all.

3. Human Impact
Since it is obvious that human activity has SOME effect on local ecologies, the issue here is whether or not this activity has any effect upon any long term change to the global environment that represents a significant threat to the wellbeing of our world. Since everyone except polluters is against pollution, the issue here is whether or not manmade pollution has any significant effect on some kind of global change and NOT whether it is undesirable.

Question: Does the current level of human activity have any significant affect on either global temperature change or global climate change?
Answer: This is not well understood at all, and given the scale of the other factors, the human impact is miniscule.

4. The Current State of Relevant Scientific Knowledge and Understanding
Since we now have a global scientific community that has dedicated a fair amount of resources to the study of the global environment, this issue breaks down into four sub-issues:

Question: Has the collection of the data, facts, and information been done carefully enough?
Answer: Maybe not!

Question: Do we have enough knowledge to make a valid assessment of the situation?
Answer: Probably not!

Question:  Is the current paradigm or model of the global environment adequate enough to come to a valid understanding of the real causes and their effects?
Answer: Not really!

Question: Is there an emotional bias or political agenda that would override any valid scientific conclusion?
Answer: Obviously there is!

Special Interest Section

Two recent articles:

Study Claims “Global Warming” Will Cause More Rapes
Smugness of the Climate Changers

In the Wall Street Journal, scientists condemn “spectacularly wrong” climate forecasting
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8034;jsessionid=3ee3vki3ktm7o.x-aip-live-06

Wall Street Journal, McNider and Christy: "Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

This is a great article, and one that deals with the pertinent factors.
"Why I deny Global Warming" by David Deming
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming6.1.1.html

“The Sun-Weather Relationship Is Becoming Increasingly Important”
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3868-the-sun-weather-relationship-is-becoming-increasingly-important.html

Three outstanding articles concerning the role of the sun and the energy balance on earth:
Electric Weather
Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance Science
Politics and Global Warming.

A few years ago Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever quit the American Physical Society, because of the organization’s rigid position--that “the evidence is incontrovertible, global warming is occurring.”--on anthropogenic global warming. Kudos to this scientist of integrity and good sense. Since then, the APS has reversed its position.

Satellite data study shows more atmospheric heat being released
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New Research Confirms that Earth's Upper Atmosphere is cooling off:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091221timed.htm

"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research. (Emphasis added)
UCLA Newsroom release.

Excerpts from The Skeptics Handbook by Joanne Nova

The climate is complex, but the only thing that matters here is whether adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will make the world much warmer: Everything hinges on this one question.

None of the current models forecast that temperatures would stop rising from 2001 – 2008. So there is at least one other factor that is more important than CO2 and the models don’t know what it is.

The only four points that matter:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing.
2. The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out.
3. Temperatures are not rising appreciably.
4. Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all the warming it can do.

...either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. Either way, CO2 is trivial, or the models are missing the dominant driver.

Climate Model Section

Satellites show that the world has not warmed in the last dozen years, and that is a perfect foil for a simple exposition and comparison of the conventional and Electric Universe models for explaining climate changes including the
erstwhile global warming.

Are the prevailing climate models missing something?

The Uniformitarian Model

Assumption Package #1
This model assumes, among other things, that the earth has been in a stable orbit around a stable sun in a fairly stable galactic environment for millions of years. Early in this time the environment of the earth would have settled into what we will call a "baseline" climate system. During this era the baseline climate, which contains various normal cycles, has been periodically disturbed by external--comets, asteroid impacts, etc.-- and internal--volcanic activity, plate tectonics, etc.--agencies and forces which have resulted in extreme but nevertheless temporary climate changes, i,e,. ice ages and hot periods. When over time the effect of these forces is being ameliorated, the global climate heads back towards its baseline.

Assumption Package #2
The second major assumption is that the sun's energy is self generated internally by nuclear fusion, and we get all of our global energy input from the sun. There would be no other significant external factors with which we must deal concerning energy input. And since it is well established that the sun has various cycles--sunspots, luminosity, CME activity, magnetic polarity, etc.--it is easy to expect some correlation between solar activity cycles and climate cycles. Troubling however, is that when the external and other internal-to-the-earth factors are not in play, the variation of the energy received from the sun does not seem to be enough to explain the magnitude for the cycles of global warming and cooling.

Resulting Model Constraints
Given the above two assumption packages and that the amount of energy radiated away from the Earth would be relatively constant, the basic factors that go into a global climate model are just this one, along with these additional two: (1) The amount of energy coming from the sun, and (2) the amount of this energy that is absorbed. Not that building a climate model with just these simple factors is easy. Some of that radiant energy may be variably blocked by changes in the earth's atmosphere and some may be reflected or absorbed differently by changes on the earth's surface. Measuring the actual radiant output from the sun is complicated, and trying to arrive at the right radiant energy absorbing and reflecting factor is even more so. We also are often not quite sure whether we are still in a recovery stage from an ice age or a hot period.

Bottom Line
The bottom line is that the model makers are working with the unwarranted and flawed assumption that atmospheric pollutants (mostly CO2) are causing a "greenhouse effect" that explains the recent warming. The "runaway greenhouse effect" was just a hypothesis floated in the vacuum of having nothing else to explain the high heat of Venus, our "sister" planet. It is seriously ill-advised for this purpose, probably has little, if anything, to do with global warming on earth, and it is not about to cause some runaway climate change.

An obvious problem is that mathematical modeling of the solar processes, under the assumptions being made in current science, do not do a very good job at short-term forecasting at best and at worst are spectacularly wrong, not to mention predictions over hundreds of thousands of Earth revolutions about her primary. This prominent failure should be leading inquisitive minds to look around for more successful models, or even to consider what qualitatively "other" power transfer phenomena or model might be at work, instead. Look at the predictions made for Solar Cycle 24 and the discrepancy between the predicted smoothed sunspot numbers (the surrogate for energetic activity or power radiated) and the observations. These error bars wouldn't earn much if applied to stock market modeling. So, there is one overriding consistency with the various climate models that have been developed with the above assumptions. They don't work! They may be wrong because the very premises upon which they stand are fundamentally incorrect.

Here is a good article that explains the mainstream theory of global warming and shows why it is wrong:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Are the prevailing climate models missing the dominant driver?

The Catastrophic/EU model

Three BIG factors not in other models:

1. No Baseline
The Catastrophic/EU model of climatology posits a radically different set of starting points, which results in the absence of any meaningful "baseline" to which the climate may return.

2. No Stable Solar Environment in the Past
The catastrophic model of the reconstruction of ancient times tells us that the earth settled into its current orbit just a few thousand years ago, and that the earth is still relaxing from being in the Polar alignment; thus being more pear shaped (prolate to the North) to being more spherical in shape. There have been two huge ice dumps from space over the terrestrial polar regions in the recent catastrophic past and these have had a significant cooling effect on the overall global climate.. The first was essentially from "purified" water in the south. The other was water mixed with much other material drawn up in the polar vortex--the world mountain, the axis mundi--from the underlying region in the north, and this was consequently cooled to near absolute zero temperature in space before its collapse. Of course, the above statements make no sense to anyone not familiar with the Saturnian Reconstruction of the ancient past and its attendant structural, orbital and electrical aspects.
    Outside of significant climate changes due to being in a different solar and orbital arrangement, the climate of the earth has been constantly adjusting during these latter few thousands of years and hasn't yet reached the same degree of "baseline" that one would expect in the Uniformitarian Model.

3. Sun Powered Externally by Plasma Current
The EU part of this model, which can be considered separately from the catastrophic aspects, posits that the sun is powered externally by electric current. The sun maintains its energy balance by feeding from the galactic Birkeland current directed to and from it. In the EU paradigm, very diffuse Birkeland currents, with huge cross sections, carry enormous currents that link to some degree every astral body in the universe. Plasma phenomena and plasma structures are extensively scalable, and so galaxies also would be energized by intergalactic currents. We know the universe is entwined by magnetic fields. It should be understood that these are the result of the largely invisible, diffuse Birkeland currents, but this is not widely accepted because solar astronomers got off on the magnetic "foot" of EM way back in the beginning.

All Solar System Bodies Take Energy from the Current Feeding the Sun in this model.
It proposes that the sun--like other stars--is fed by a current with a variation of the basic hourglass shape oriented with the polar axis. All the planets of the solar system are immersed in this current, and all draw energy directly from it. All bodies in the Solar System would therefore radiate more energy than they receive from the sun. We know this latter statement to be true for the gas giants. All bodies in the Solar System have been heating up during the recent warming period, even Pluto which is retreating from the sun. This fact should elicit major consideration, and would seem to be totally inexplicable in terms of increasing atmospheric pollutants on earth. Earth therefore in this model would receive a not inconsequential amount of energy directly from the local Birkeland current. This factor has never even been imagined, much less taken into account by the conventional climate model makers.

Here is what the UCLA newsroom has to say recently:

UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.

"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research. (Emphasis added)

Full article at: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx

Electric Current through the Solar System has Periodic Cycles of Increase and Decrease
Part of the EU model is that the galactic current feeding the solar system has periodic larger cycles of intensity increase and decrease other than just the more evident 22 year solar cycle, and that the sun has an "electronic" vacuum-tube-like mechanism for smoothing out these fluctuations in terms of its own radiant output. The sunspot and solar wind cycles would be driven by the cycles in the "direct" current, and the cyclical magnetic polarity reversals of the sun would have their explanation in the change from increase to decrease and back again in the 22 year solar cycle. Currently as of 2008, the sun has gone on an extended solar minimum, 2 years instead of one. And the solar wind, the stream of charged particles ejected from the sun, has dropped down to the weakest level seen in 50 years. The first time in a hundred years the sun has gone without sunspots for two months. These are strong indications that something has changed in the energy balance of the sun's input and output.

See articles by Wal Thornhill: Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance, and Science, Politics and Global Warming

Bottom Line
This Catastrophic/EU model  is consistent with the observations of the entire solar system heating up, and actually explains the overall findings. Given the current--as of 2008--quiescence of sunspot activity, we have probably already turned the corner of the cycle and are heading back into a global cooling period.

Contributors to the model
Major credit for contributions to the development of EU cosmology, and consequently to the above climate change model, should be given to Irving Langmuir, James Maxwell, Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven, Immanuel Velikovsky, Ralph Juergens, Halton Arp, Donald Scott, Anthony Peratt, Wal Thornhill, and others. Most probably the man who now best understands these matters of the physical universe is Wal Thornhill.

Petition website: http://www.petitionproject.org/

An ongoing audit of IPCC climate science papers along with lots of other interesting stuff is happening here: http://www.climateaudit.org/

A site examining climate science pitched more at lay people by TV meterologist Anthony Watts: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

And the ongoing volunteer Surface Stations survey project started by Anthony Watts: http://www.surfacestations.org/

You will find lots of interesting stuff being highlighted via ICECAP: http://www.icecap.us/

Patrick Michaels has a good site commenting on various climate science papers: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Roger Pielke Sr. has an excellent site dealing with papers on climate effects of land use and other issues: http://climatesci.org/

A simpler summary exposition of the arguments of the Gerlich, etc., paper by Hans Schreuder.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf.

"The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide" by Jeffrey A. Glassman, Phd,
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Interesting article describing how Wikipedia systematically censors out all but warmist/alarmist views on Global Warming.
http://network.nationalpost.com:80/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx

Science Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate by Michael Asher (Blog), Daily Tech, 7/16/08

Skeptics Section

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The Skeptics Handbook by Joanne Nova. A great concise, hard-hitting download PDF

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
     In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
full article: http://tinyurl.com/5uvwc4

In a paper titled Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, arXiv:0707.1161v3 [physics.ao-ph], is the following abstract:

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33šC is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Interesting information on cooling phenomena and current developments at:
http://www.iceagenow.com/index.htm

Captain Cook and Lord Nelson's logs indicate 1730's global warming wasn't man made
http://www.thelondonnews.net/story/390064

Global Warming piece by Floy Lilley on the Lew Rockwell Column at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy4.html

Christopher Monckton's paper with the contentious APS disclaimer can be found here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Some significant quotes:

"I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.". Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

For a fascinating compatible view of meteorology and climatology by Dr. Henrik Svensmark, the head of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, see:
http://www.thecloudmystery.com/Clip.html

Another article that tells us of the informational chicanery, Deafening Silence on Real Climate Change by Patrick J. Michaels has some pointed (barbed?) facts and comments:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10638

Amazing Climate Predictions Revealed—Climate Models Reviled
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125300.html

A critical excerpt from the above site:

"[O]ne of the more disquieting presentations was by retired TV meteorologist Anthony Watts. Part of Watts' training back when he was getting his degree in 1970s was to construct a Stevenson screen in which to shelter weather instruments. When he was putting it together his hands got covered in whitewash. He complained to his professor and suggested that he paint it with latex paint instead. His professor objected that whitewash had been used since 1892 and new paints would change the way the instruments functioned and possibly bias the data they collected. The U.S. Weather Bureau changed paints in the late 1970s.

"With time on his hands, a retired Watts decided to run a back yard test with Stevenson screens using whitewash, white latex paint, unpainted wood and an aspirated temperature shield. He measured for several months, but typical among his results was one day in August when he found that the bare screen registered a maximum daytime temperature of 98.47 degrees, the latex screen was 97.74 degrees, the whitewashed one was 96.94 and the aspirated temperature shield reported 95.03 degrees.

"Watts decided to check to see how the Stevenson screens housing nearby weather stations that were part of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) had been painted. What Watts discovered was much more disturbing—many USHCN weather stations were deplorably placed near parking lots, air conditioning vents, under shade trees, at sewage treatment plants, and so forth.

"Watts then proceeded to show the audience slide after slide of badly, even absurdly, sited weather stations. Watts has now created a website of volunteers who are working to identify and audit the siting of all USHCN weather stations. The results are reported at SurfaceStations.org (regrettably down for maintenance at the moment. But for 50 examples of badly sited stations, go here.) So far Watts' volunteers have reported 502 of the 1221 stations in the U.S., and only 13 percent of the network so far conforms to the National Weather Service's own best practices manual. This is shocking when one considers that these are the same surface stations that climatologists rely upon to detect temperature trends."

CO2 Science Section

How unsettled can science get?
    Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effect

From climatologist Professor Timothy Ball:

“I have said the IPCC focus on CO2 is akin to saying my car is not running well and I am going to determine the cause by ignoring the engine (sun), the transmission (water vapor), and most other mechanical parts and focus on one nut (CO2) on the right rear wheel. Worse, they only look at one thread of the nut, the human portion of CO2. The ease with which they have achieved this degree of focus is frightening, but understandable because it was premeditated.”

"The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide" by Jeffrey A. Glassman, Phd,
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

It seems that direct observation didn't turn up the CO2 signature that planetary scientists were looking for (heavy absorption in specific IR wavelengths). That would SEEM to indicate little CO2 ice present. However, they seem to have discarded that result assuming that "it must be there" and that somehow it must be "covered" by some other sedimentation so as to "hide" the signal they were looking for.
See Decoding Mars's Cryptic Region
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMMT0O7BTE_0.html

Is the Fox Guarding the Henhouse?
The trainee astrophysicist that first proposed the runaway CO2 greenhouse effect for Venus as his dissertation for his Ph.D in physics at the university of Iowa in 1967 was James E. Hansen - the very same James E. Hansen who is now the current director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the number one global warming alarmist "climate scientist" that looks after the NASA GISSTEMP global surface temperature record and oversees the NASA GISS Model E climate modeling project.

Below is the body of a letter to the EPA by Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn.  Prof. Hayden added to his email the comment: "People will do anything to save the world -- except take a science course"

It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false. The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive. We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a "tipping point." Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output "goes to the rail." Not only that, but it stays there. That's the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA/GISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value.

The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming? Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

* A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.

* The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough.

* CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.

* CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.

* A warmer world begets more precipitation.

* All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.

* The melting point of ice is zero degrees Celsius in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 degrees, and the lowest is -117. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin "proved" that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He "proved" it using the conservation of energy. What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth. Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have "proved" that CO2 causes global warming. Except when it doesn't.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Fox News has reported on the latest unseemly development in the GWA movement by making public a fair amount of email that was hacked from the Hadley Climate research unit. "Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind." See:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

Perspective Section

New climate science vindicates global warming skeptics
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/new-climate-science-vindicates-global-warming-skeptics#ixzz1XVSmy78d

Best Article yet for perspective from: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Worst Case Scenario
This would be where expensive, disruptive yet inconsequential efforts are made by humanity at the urging and political pressure of the Global Warming alarmists, and that these somewhat coincide with the natural cycle of cooling. We already know that the better, more careful science gets buried by the unleashed opinion floodwaters of a misinformed agenda. They may even try to take credit for the cooling!

A Word On Pollution
Whilst any reasonable efforts to minimize the amount of pollution man adds to our planet are commendable, the promotion of such efforts should never be at the expense of truth or good science.  As the Anthropological Global Warming theory is based on flawed models and bad science, it should not be the basis upon which environmental concerns are addressed.

Scandal Section

Climategate

Global Warming Scandal Suggested by email made public: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx3q2arm_ek

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4f98fBCfk&feature=related

GW email Scandal affects Scientists:

Climategate: 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDyfNVUt08&NR=1 Climategate......Scientists under fire in climate change 'cover-up' scandal!.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_bFthzGQ0Q&NR=1

Australian Newspaper Article by Andrew Bolt
"There is a Global Warming Conspiracy"
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26396181-5018727,00.htm

Excerpt from above:
What does it mean?

THIS does not mean all global warming science is bogus. But it does mean the "consensus" of scientists you keep hearing of may not exist.

It means the IPCC reports cannot be trusted to be balanced. It means "peer review" is actually too often "mates' review".

It means sceptical scientists have not had the hearing they deserve, and leading warmist scientists have not been honest or frank.

It means claims we've never been hotter are false or unproven.

And in all it means that the theory of global warming is too weak to accept.

Even Dr Tim Flannery, the alarmist who predicted that global warming could cause Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide to run out of water by last summer, now admits - after reading some of these emails - that "the computer modelling and the real world data disagree", since "for the last 10 years we've gone through a slight cooling trend", and this actually proves "we don't understand all of the factors that create Earth's climate".

Why Earth may be entering a new ice age.

http://www.helium.com/items/1837151-why-earth-may-be-entering-a-new-ice-age

 home                 store                 policies                  features                contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665