• Home
  • Current News
  • Global Warming Alarm is built on 200-year-old discredited science

Global Warming Alarm is built on 200-year-old discredited science

Written by Hans Schreuder & John O'Sullivan

Have you ever wondered how, despite evidence to the contrary, so many scientists could believe humans were catastrophically altering our climate? It becomes even more of a wonder when you learn that any supposed climate catastrophe is based on junk science.

The junk science component of climatology relies on an untested and spurious hypothesis: “downwelling” or “back” radiation heating. This unproven mechanism as the linchpin of the so-called “greenhouse gas theory.” Grandfather of the hypothesis of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), Svante Arrhenius (pictured), was discredited for claiming the existence of another such  “magic gas” (the “luminiferous eather“). It may have taken longer, but today it is the GHE itself, the second “magic gas”  myth promoted by Arrhenius, that now bites the dirt.

Svante Arrhenius

 

“Back Radiation heating:” A Post-normal Paradigm

So-called “downwelling” or “back” radiation heating is a climatic chimera conjured up by government-funded researchers who made themselves a post-normal breed apart from those in the “hard” sciences. Climatologists want you to believe in their “magic gas.” But their notion of back radiation heating is an alien concept to those trained in tougher disciplines such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, etc. Frankly, for more than a generation third rate researchers have been peddling a computer-generated fiction, a slant on radiative physics that relies heavily on discredited 19th century notions of a “magic gas” and little, if anything, on actual measurements and verifiable scientific techniques.

This is what makes “Climate physics” a veritable post-normal science anomaly; a faith-based concoction. It is a facsimile of real science only given the veneer of validity thanks to expensive computer models fed on a diet of secret data. The staple foodstuff of those computers is that they are pre-programmed to regard the earth as flat, with no day or night. Doing so allows the fiction of NASA’s Dr. James Hansen’s “missing” 33 degrees of greenhouse heat to be added to make up the difference. But PSI proved that when taking the exact same solar radiative input numbers and modeling in three-dimensions insteads of two, there is no need to add any such extra 33 degrees of GHE heat. As such, the GHE is an expendable superfluity – an utterly unwarranted simulacra of wrong-headed algebra.

Flat Earth Physics in a Two-dimensional Climate Model

To better understand why climatologists opted for two-diminensional (literally!) flat earth physics rather than aim to model closer to reality with a 3D version Principia Scientific International (PSI) offers a short history of radiation by Dr.Matthias Kleespies as one source for your consideration [1]

In fact,  you will see that the debate of whether there is any “greenhouse effect” (GHE) in our atmosphere was held more than half a century ago among the world’s leading scientists. Unsurprisingly, with no evidence to prove the GHE the hypothesis was universally rejected by the mainstream. [2]

Today, the pro-global warming American Meteorological Society (AMS), a prominent body that back then dismissed the GHE as bogus, would rather you didn’t know such truths. Only during the 1980’s did the AMS capitulate to political pressure and switching to the “dark side” of science rather than demanding hard evidence from GHE promoters. The grassroots of the wider scientific community are naturally regarding their national bodies with greater suspicion. What is very clear is that no national science academy endorsed the GHE  before the ’80’s – when the post-normal era took hold. [3]

Climate Science’s Perpetual Motion Machine

During the 1980’s university academics became increasingly dependent on government grants for their income. New faculties of climatology were born in the image of the CRU, England. They were emboldened by new post-normal ideas and increased availability of computers to begin the revival of GHE speculation. So was re-born the GHE, which is indeed a perpetual motion machine (PMM). Their new climate PMM was capable of heating up the atmosphere to a level higher than the temperature originally gained by the external heat source (the sun). It is achieved by claiming nothing more than certain gases in the atmosphere can repeatedly reflect back such heat over and over again. 

 With three decades to win over an increasingly post-normal academia it is no wonder so many believe such a process is “real” and even some with PhD’s insist that a cooler atmosphere can make earth’s warm surface even warmer still. Such beliefs about radiation theory were first set up by a Swiss scientist named Prevost in 1791Prevost’s ideas are now ingrained in the charade. Just discuss with any scientist believing in “back” or “downwelling” radiation and you will almost always here something like this:

“Quantum physics tells us that statistically there are more photons flowing from the warmer body to the cooler body than the other way around but that does not mean that there are NO photons – statistically – moving from the cooler to the warmer body. Only the NET FLOW is decisive. And the net flow, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, of course is only from hot to cold. BUT, because – statistically – there are some photons moving from cold to warm, i.e., from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface, the rate of cooling of the earth is smaller than it would be WITHOUT the somewhat colder body, i.e., the atmosphere.”

Lies, Damned Lies and Climate Science Numbers

Once immersed in the post-normal fug you begin toTHINK the source of their belief is the “undisputed” Planck theory of radiation, known as “Planck´s law”, which later led to quantum physics. Because quantum physics is regarded as the “crown of modern physics” Planck’s radiation law is made the cover for their belief in “back” or “downwelling” radiation. With the kudos and imponderability of Planck seemingly bolted on, then of course, the climatologists’ interpretation of the physics appears “right” and thus indisputable.

However, if you look at the history of radiation science since Planck´s law the most erudite and expert in the “hard” sciences will tell you while it is all very sophisticated, it is clearly not understandable (because no one can understand how any physical effect should be governed by statistics). In truth, by involving Planck’s law,  the debate has been shifted beyond the limits of what can currently be proven by empirical (or experimental) science. In short, the most skilled sophists among post-normal climatologists often seek to draw any debate of their beliefs into Planck’s law where it serves as a smoke screen.

And let us not forget: Prevost didn´t know anything about thermodynamics. So we should forgive Prevost for the errors in his theory. But today´s scientists should know better than to rely on Prevost. Now, of course, it may possibly be the case that all skeptics are wrong and there is such an igneous fluid within our atmosphere allowing “back” or “downwelling” radiation” to happen. After all, the very “father of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” Svante Arrhenius believed in a “luminiferous aether,” too!

So, please do peruse ‘A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming?‘ and judge for yourself:

  • How Prevost developed his idea;

  • Even Prevost was not undisputed within the historic scientific community;

  • The scientific debate whether light, and radiation, is based on particles or waves started before Prevost and is still not ended;

  • Arrhenius´ “greenhouse theory” was based on flawed data and his belief in the idea of luminiferous aether;

  • Arrhenius, in contrast to today´s alarmists, believed AGW were BENEFICIAL for mankind;

  • Arrhenius was refuted by Wood already in 1909;

  • Planck created his radiation law in an “act of despair;”

  • Einstein was never really satisfied with quantum physics;

  • Planck´s radiation law is NOT undisputed;

  • The American Meteorological Society (AMS) admitted that the idea of a greenhouse gas theory had been “abandoned” before 1950 by scientists;

  • In contrast to Planck´s and also Einstein´s conviction, both blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect CAN BE explained by a wave model available since 2010;

  • The new wave model developed to explain blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect does not allow any transport of heat from cold to warm and thus strongly contradicts any “back” or “downwelling” radiation as alleged source of AGW.

  • Read the full paper here.

    *************

    [1] Kleespies, M., ‘A Short History of Radiation Theories-What do They Reveal About Anthropogenic Global Warming?’ (2011), published by principia-scientific.org

    [2] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

    [3] O’Sullivan, J., ‘U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist,‘ (2012), principia-scientific.org

     

    Tags: , , , ,

    Comments (4)

    • Avatar

      John in France

      |

      Don’t understand why you are linking the Phlogiston theory to Arrhenius. “Lumiferous aether has nothing to do with the phlogiston theory that was dead and buried well before A’s time ; The phlogiston theory was related to combustion, and I get the feeling looking at the terms involved, that it was closely linked to Alchemy. But what does appear to have been an unconscionable time a-dying was Lavoisier’s theory of “Caloric”, dominant at the end of the 18th – early 19th Century. But whenever today’s scientist and engineers start talking in terms of heat “traveling” or “quantities” of heat, I think we haven’t entirely shaken off Caloric yet and the notion that heat is a substance.

      But I am probably being over simplistic. I am in the course of reading the Kleespies article you linked to, that so far appears to be exceptionally good.

      • Avatar

        josullivan

        |

        John, both are examples of where consensus science relied on untested fixed assumptions in an absence of empirical evidence, that prevailed for years. There are parallels to be drawn with the greenhouse gas ‘theory.’

        • Avatar

          John in France

          |

          I see you’ve “disappeared” phlogiston on the sly. It makes my comment look a bit foolish now. Well, I’m not one to bear a grudge and your article does make more sense that way – and we can still be grateful for link to the Kleespies paper. I don’t know how that managed to escape me first time round.
          Regarding the caloric theory : though dominant, it never was consensus science in today’s twisted sense of the word. Moreover, it was never based on untested fixed assumptions. On the contrary, they did lots of practical experiments, the (mis)interpretation of which appeared to confirm the premisses. Also James Watt, a disciple of Black used the theory to develop his first steam pump and rotary engine. In that respect Joe Postma’s Copernicus paper is worth a revisit, especially the beginning where he talks about “broad observables” and “boundary conditions”.

          • Avatar

            josullivan

            |

            John,
            The mention of phlogiston did somewhat gild the lily so thanks for putting the idea up for me to remove it.
            I also agree with you about Postma’s insightful observations on the “broad observables” and “boundary conditions”

    Comments are closed