New Paper Exposes Long-standing Data Fudge by Climate Scientists
New independent climate analysis reveals what may be the greatest flaw in modern climate science- a simplistic over-reliance on the assumption of steady state atmospheric conditions. New research from France employs a two-way formulation for heat evacuation by radiation from the planet rather than the standard one-dimensional ‘greenhouse gas theory.’
It reveals that convection plays a more dominant role than radiation in our climate and that number fudging by so-called climate “experts” may be the only truly discernible extent of “man-made” global warming.
In a new paper, ‘Diurnal Variations of Heat Evacuation from a Rotating Planet,’ submitted to open peer review at Principia Scientific International (PSI), Joseph Reynen, a retired Dutch scientist living in France, puts standard climate science calculations under the microscope and reveals that for too long the “experts” used an outdated guesstimating process relied on before the modern era of accurate computing.
Reynen’s study is yet further validation to what an increasing number of independent scientists are saying is a major error by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC gave an uncritical free pass to an assumed physical interpretation from a pre-computer era approximation which put a great emphasis on a fixed artificial energy absorption rate instead of actual absorption for the real energy flux coming from our sun.
As Reynen delves into the technicalities he explains, “In the beginning of the 1900’s computers were not available and by splitting-up the radiation in up-ward and down-ward components, and introducing a co-ordinate transformation with the so-called optical thickness concept, analytical solutions were possible, although in the form of integrals. Quadrature techniques were available at that time to evaluate numerically those integrals, with no need for computers.”
But that assumption of fixed solar energy flux has been blown apart by the latest physical measurements by satellite and by rigorous ground-based analysis from experts from the “hard” sciences. Indeed, the scope of Reynen’s paper is not to give detailed results for diurnal variations of the sun power, but rather to demonstrate that one-dimensional steady state models based on the one-way heat flow concept of Swedish professor, Claes Johnson is an accurate tool to show the very small influence of infrared-sensitive gases for the global and annual mean heat budget of the planet.
The innovative open peer review process being pioneered by PSI encourages anyone with an insight of specialist training from the “hard” sciences to cast a critical eye over papers such as this astonishing one from Reynen. “Although we are excited by Jef’s findings we always let our knowledgeable readers be part of the review process” says PSI CEO, John O’Sullivan. “Unlike the biased establishment science journals we do our peer-review in public and papers such as these stand or fall by the judgment of the wider scientific community, not by a secret, hand-picked clique,” adds O’Sullivan, who highlights where readers will find some of the most fascinating details of Reynen’s paper.
In figure 1, taken from [1, 2, 4 in Reynen’s paper] readers can see where the implementation of the one-way heat flow finite element model has been described in detail, it has been shown that the evacuation of heat from the planet surface in steady-state is not by radiation but rather by convection.
In diurnal transients radiation has more effect.
Radiation is of course also in steady state conditions the mechanism to evacuate the heat to outer space from higher levels of the atmosphere by means of the IR-sensitive gases with 3 or more atoms per molecule.
It has been shown in [2, 4] that doubling the concentration of the IR-sensitive CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% is causing a mere 0.1 °C increase in surface temperature, the so-called CO2 sensitivity.
Readers are encouraged to study Reynen’s paper and either add their comments in the comments section at the end of this article or to submit more detailed critiques to email@example.com.