SCI Climate Alarm = Total Pseudoscience

[thinkright]

Not sure I linked to this paper here when it came out:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

A few pertinent quotations with my commentary:

N & Z:

“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual near surface temperature] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure.”

This means that the temperature of the atmosphere has no dependence on so-called greenhouse gases. That’s what you would expect if there is no such thing as the climate science greenhouse effect and hence no such thing as “greenhouse gases”. A planet’s near-surface atmospheric temperature is instead determined by the Sunlight it receives, and the amount of atmosphere above it. Who knew!?

N & Z:

“A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition.”

There is no climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect, hence no climate alarm. The climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect attempted to claim responsibility for something else entirely, and got it all wrong.

N & Z:

“Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.”

The thermal radiation from the atmosphere is a consequence of the atmosphere having been warmed by sunlight, not the cause of the atmosphere being heated!

N & Z:

“If a trapping of radiant heat occurred in Earth’s atmosphere, the same mechanism should also be expected to operate in the atmospheres of other planetary bodies. Thus, the Greenhouse concept should be able to mathematically describe the observed variation of average planetary surface temperatures across the Solar System as a continuous function of the atmospheric infrared optical depth and solar insolation. However, to our knowledge, such a continuous description (model) does not exist.”

The climate alarmist radiative greenhouse effect which the alarmists invented for planet Earth cannot be applied to other bodies in the solar system. Nikolov & Zeller’s fully developed physics, however, can be and it has been successfully.

N & Z:

“Furthermore, measured magnitudes of the global down-welling LW [long wave] flux on planets with thick atmospheres such as Earth and Venus indicate that the lower troposphere of these bodies contains internal kinetic energy far exceeding the solar input []. This fact cannot be explained via re-radiation of absorbed outgoing thermal emissions by gases known to supply no additional energy to the system.”

The climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect is predicated upon the thermal radiation emitted as a consequence of earlier warming to cause more warming again, even though this thermal radiation doesn’t represent an additional input to the system given that it is a consequence of matter having been warmed. This is where and why the climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

N & Z:

“At the same time, greenhouse-gas concentrations and/or partial pressures did not show any meaningful relationship to surface temperatures across a broad span of planetary environments considered in our study.”

So-called “greenhouse gases” have no relationship to planetary surface temperatures. This is because the climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, and hence there are actually no such thing as “greenhouse gases”.

N & Z:

“The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed, but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition;”

There is no radiative greenhouse effect upon which climate alarmism is based. There is in fact no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” at all, aside from what occurs in a real greenhouse which is about trapping warmed air, much like your vehicle parked in sunlight. The open atmosphere and a real greenhouse are opposites. Ever park your vehicle on a black asphalt parking lot in the summer time? When you come back to your vehicle its interior temperature is much more like the temperature of the black asphalt which you know you wouldn’t want to walk on in bare feet, while the air temperature around the vehicle is much cooler. The real greenhouse effect in an actual greenhouse stops normal atmospheric activity, just like you vehicle does with its windows closed.

N & Z:

“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure;”

There is no radiative greenhouse effect. There is the Sun heating planets, and how much atmosphere the planets have.

N & Z:

“The equilibrium surface temperature of a planet is bound to remain stable (i.e. within ± 1 K) as long as the atmospheric mass and the TOA mean solar irradiance are stationary. Hence, Earth’s climate system is well buffered against sudden changes and has no tipping points;”

This is why the planet has supported life for billions of years and why there are no, repeat, no examples in geologic history of atmospheric “tipping points” even though there have been wild variations in atmospheric composition.

N & Z:

“The proposed net positive feedback between surface temperature and the atmospheric infrared opacity controlled by water vapor appears to be a model artifact resulting from a mathematical decoupling of the radiative-convective heat transfer rather than a physical reality.”

In other words, the models created by the climate alarmists in order to prove their politically alarming science in order to support their politically alarming agenda were not based in reality…the goals they wanted were inserted into their models in order to get the results that they politically desired.

--
The biggest point to take home here is that there is no climate alarm greenhouse effect. All this stuff you hear about greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect and the need for greenhouse gas pricing etc etc etc...there is no climate alarmist greenhouse effect at all, and hence there are no such thing as so-called "greenhouse gases". Sure, some gases are labeled as such...but the label is meaningless because the effect that they're supposed to produce, the climate alarmist "greenhouse effect", doesn't actually exist.

 

[FarmerJohn]

Not sure I linked to this paper here when it came out:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

A few pertinent quotations with my commentary:

N & Z:

This means that the temperature of the atmosphere has no dependence on so-called greenhouse gases. That’s what you would expect if there is no such thing as the climate science greenhouse effect and hence no such thing as “greenhouse gases”. A planet’s near-surface atmospheric temperature is instead determined by the Sunlight it receives, and the amount of atmosphere above it. Who knew!?

So what Svante Arrhenius figured out circ. 1898 was wrong?

Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Nobel-Prize winning Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903, becoming the first Swedish Nobel laureate, and in 1905 became director of the Nobel Institute where he remained until his death.[1] His lasting contributions to science are exemplified and memorialized by the Arrhenius equation, Arrhenius definition of an acid, lunar crater Arrhenius, the mountain of Arrheniusfjellet and the Arrhenius Labs at Stockholm University, all named after him. He was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide increase Earth's surface temperature through the Arrhenius effect, leading David Keeling to conclude that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are large enough to cause global warming.[2]

Arrhenius thought that climate change from the increasing fraction of the atmosphere occupied by CO2 would take a lot longer than it seems to be doing and that it would be a good thing.

Citations left intact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Arrhenius2.jpg

 

[JF&P]

There are those of us in the conspiracy community who have heard that its the Rothschild's who started this scam...and a scam it is.

 

[Rayku]

Spin and counter spin from warming and cooling in 3, 2....

 

[summerthyme]

So what Svante Arrhenius figured out circ. 1898 was wrong?

Apparently so. It wouldn't be the first time someone's theory didn't prove out.

Summerthyme

 

[Rayku]

So what Svante Arrhenius figured out circ. 1898 was wrong?

Some things that were not around in 1898.

1. Satellites and every scientific instrument designed for them.
2. X-ray diffraction spectrometry. Remember Conrad Roentgen didn't discover X-rays until 1895. British physicist Charles Barkla won the Nobel physics prize for his work correlation between atomic weight and xray radiation in 1917.
3. Then there was the work of radiochemist Frederick Soddy. It was he that gave birth to the concept of isotopes in 1913 which in 1921, got him a Nobel as well.
4. Then there was the Curie family and Henry Becquerel. None of their work came until after Svante Arrhenius.

I could go on for a month of Sundays, but the bottom line is, he didn't have enough information, and couldn't have had enough information to fully grasp the problem. Doesn't mean he was stupid, he just lacked key information and the means to get it.

 

[thinkright]

So what Svante Arrhenius figured out circ. 1898 was wrong?

Yes. Wrong. That's what they were referring to when they said: "The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure;"

 

[thinkright]

There are those of us in the conspiracy community who have heard that its the Rothschild's who started this scam...and a scam it is.

Possibly. I say cui bono? Who benefits? Follow the money. In who's interest is it for the West to not produce oil? You never see anyone protesting Saudi oil, do you? I've never heard of it. Probably the Saudi's. Possibly the Russians. But likely the Saudi's. All it is is economic intrigue. So who benefits from weakening the West? Well, a lot of countries do...and possibly they work together.

 

[FarmerJohn]

Possibly. I say cui bono? Who benefits? Follow the money. In who's interest is it for the West to not produce oil? You never see anyone protesting Saudi oil, do you? I've never heard of it. Probably the Saudi's. Possibly the Russians. But likely the Saudi's. All it is is economic intrigue. So who benefits from weakening the West? Well, a lot of countries do...and possibly they work together.

This risks thread drift but.... I'd rather that we burn their oil first. Wait 'till oil is very pricy then boost US production.

Even with solar-nearly-everything, it's clear that oil will remain valuable forever, even as a motor fuel. I may find that my tree-hugger card could be at risk of being revoked for saying this....