The Last Battle of Climate Alarmism?

Written by Dr Vincent Gray

The Environmentalist religious dogma that humans are destroying the earth has spawned many scams. Its most ambitious project, veritably a Superscam has been the claim that the climate is controlled by human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. the end

These cause global warming which will ultimately destroy us unless we cease using ‘fossil fuels.’ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 in order to supply scientific evidence to support this scam.

It was realised from the start that the task was impossible.

The earth does not have a temperature and there is no way that a scientifically acceptable average temperature can currently be derived. it is not possible to know whether the earth is warming or cooling, Then, the climate is constantly changing. No part is ever in equilibrium.

The trace gases in the atmosphere are not well mixed and their concentrations change constantly in every place. It is not possible to derive an average concentration for any of them. Then, the science of the study of the climate, built up over many centuries as the discipline of meteorology, has officially established weather forecasting services in most countries. These services now measure many climate properties with a variety of instruments, including satellites.

The measurements are used in the most up to date computer models based on currently accepted physics, thermodynamics and statistics. They provide the only scientifically valid daily forecasts of future weather for every part of the earth.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement has not proved to be useful and they do not even bother to measure it. It is simply not possible to overcome these difficulties with honest science, It has therefore been necessary to employ fraud, dishonesty, distortion fabrication, massive public relations, and enormous sums of money.

Jim Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York provided a pseudo global temperature technique that has proved useful to the scammers. He admits that there is no such thing as an absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT : He calls it elusive) Meteorologists know it is impossible to measure a plausible average surface air temperature. Instead they record a daily maximum and minimum in a protected screen at their weather stations. Today they often also measure at different intervals as well.

These are a useful guide to temperature conditions.

Hansen and Lebedeff 1987 decided to ignore what Hansen had said was impossible. They assigned a constant temperature to each weather station for a whole month and assumed that this temperature applies also to a radius of 100 km around each weather station. The chosen temperature was the total average maximum and minimum temperatures measured at that station for a each month, the sum of the statistically unacceptable maximum/minimum averages.
 
They considered that could correlate each station figure with the next weather station. But their correlation coefficient was only 0.5 or lower. By subtractimg the average from stations in all latitude/longitude boxes from the average in each box they got an annual global temperature anomaly record. There is no mention of the very large inaccuracy figures that should accompany this exercise, or of the varying number and quality of the global weather stations, both currently and over time.
 
The IPCC has used the supposed trend of a measly few decimals of a degree of this concoction to prove that global warming is happening and will inevitably rise dangerously. Now it has broken down.
 
This trend has hardly changed for 18 years while greenhouse gases have supposedly increased The IPCC has resorted to desperate measures. Instead of annual warming we now have to worry about decadal warming, Efforts are escalated to fudge the figures and publicise a slight rise of hundredths of a degree at any opportunity The required treatment of atmospheric carbon dioxide was made by Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institute off Oceanography La Jolla California.
 
The grossly oversimplified climate models demand that atmospheric carbon dioxide is globally constant, only increasing from more human emissions.
 
This was a problem because there exist some 40,000 previous measurements going back to the early 19th century, published in famous peer reviewed journals, sometimes by Nobel Prize-winners. These measurements showed that surface concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are never constant and vary from one place to another, time of day, season, and wind direction.
 
Keeling suppressed this early information. He gave the excuse that he had a slightly different measurement method and he had discovered fhaf there was a background concentration which was almost constant and increased steadily with increased emissions. Keeling based his figures on sites at the Mauna Loa volcano on the island of Oahu. Hawaii, and a site in Antarctica.
 
In order to come close to a globally constant value at any one time it was required that most other measurements were made from coastal sites on winds from the ocean. Any figures that did not comply are rejected as noise.
 
A difficulty was that the steadily increasing figures over the years did not easily agree with the rather sporadic behaviour of the approved global temperature. Now this carbon dioxide scam has broken down.
 
The NASA satellite AIRS system now provides frequent global maps of carbon dioxide concentration showing that it is not well mixed, is highly variable, and tends to be higher in regions of high emissions. The officially sponsored background is no longer relevant, and the fact that the supposed warming effect of carbon dioxide is logarithmic with concentration means that increases have little effect in high concentration areas and is most effective over forests and pastures where it is beneficial.
 
The IPCC climate models defy all of the accumulated knowledge of climate science currently practised by meteorologists and replace it with a system of absurdities which has been amazingly successful.
 
Instead of the ever changing climate we know. It is now assumed to be static. All heat exchanges are by radiation. Admittedly the input and output are radiation but everything else in the climate combines all methods of heat exchange, predominantly conduction, convection and latent heat change.
 
The sun is assumed to shine all day and might with equal intensity. The earth is dead where living creatures are impossible except they emit greenhouse gases. All the past climate effects known to meteorology are parameterized and assumed to be constant.
 
There is no hope that such a model could possibly forecast future climate and the IPCC even admits this. They say the models provide projections, never predictions.
 
At the beginning they avoided being proved wrong by projecting only so far ahead that they could be sure nobody living would survive to check. The IPCC has now been running for 25 years and the early reports had to show that the models fitted their temperature record. Now it doesn’t.
 
Also the models could be used to calculate present upper troposphere temperatures, and that does not work either. They are therefore in deep trouble. All they can do is prevent people from telling the truth.
 
Every news bulletin, every newspaper must have a daily reference to global warming or carbon footprint or endure protests from climate activists who must all write letters to the press and organise rentacrowd gatherings of environmental devotees to picket any discussion venues. There must be constant lectures by those most financially dependent on the scam.
 
With luck the downfall of Valhalla will take place at the Paris Climate meeting in December where the attempts to impose a global climate dictatorship will either fail miserably or fizzle slowly. What a relief!

Trackback from your site.

Comments (11)

  • Avatar

    MFKBoulder

    |

    Dear Dr. Gray, In your article you state:
    „They considered that could correlate each station figure with the next weather station. But their correlation coefficient was only 0.5 or lower.“
    Which part of the (quite long) paper let you assume “correlation coefficient was only 0.5 or lower.“
    I couldn’t find it, so please clarify.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    MFKBoulder

    |

    Best thing of your article is reminding me to check the GISS page with lot of valuable links.
    Thanks.

    Michael

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Lighthorseman

    |

    My concern is, should we not be able to stop these scammers and they go forward with utopia, who then will control the thermostat assigned to my area once we have global warming, I mean climate change renamed ‘climate controlled’? I think the thermostat control should be given to those of us with live stock, especially horses. I’m tired of blanketing my show horses during really cold winters. Should I write Dr. Mann for his approval to allow me to control our regional thermostat? I can be a religious GW or CC fanatic just as good as the next acolyte. Hey you crop farmers get in line behind me with your requests!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote]Written by Dr Vincent Gray on 11 Mar 2015: “The earth does not have a temperature and there is no way that a scientifically acceptable average temperature can currently be derived. it is not possible to know whether the earth is warming or cooling, […] Jim Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York provided a pseudo global temperature technique that has proved useful to the scammers.”[/quote]

    Sounds good. But at the same time you stated “the climate is constantly changing. No part is ever in equilibrium.” How do you know that? From that nonsensical “global temperature” you have just rejected? Or is it anything else?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Greg House”][quote](Written by Dr Vincent Gray on 11 Mar 2015: “The earth does not have a temperature and there is no way that a scientifically acceptable average temperature can currently be derived. it is not possible to know whether the earth is warming or cooling, […] Jim Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York provided a pseudo global temperature technique that has proved useful to the scammers.”)[/quote]

      Sounds good. But at the same time you stated “the climate is constantly changing. No part is ever in equilibrium.” How do you know that? From that nonsensical “global temperature” you have just rejected? Or is it anything else?[/quote]

      Greg, do you really claim that temperature “at your” location does not change? Temperature at your location is an indication of “sensible heat’ of some finite mass with known specific heat, at your location. Temperature is never anything else. Some aggregation of various temperatures of various masses, at various locations with various sensible heat, can have [b]no possible meaning[/b]. This is the SCAM, not ever some nonsense claim of “back_radiation”. A mere intentional distraction from the SCAM. 🙂

      Reply

  • Avatar

    PhysicistsGroup

    |

    The models start from the wrong assumption that a planet’s troposphere would be isothermal in the absence of any molecules that absorb anything in the range of frequencies emitted by the Sun. It would not be and it would be colder at higher levels and probably liquefy and rain to the surface.

    In other words, those like James Hansen (with little understanding of radiation, let alone thermodynamics) had absolutely no understanding that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate.

    [b]So of course the models are totally wrong.[/b]

    In fact water vapor causes surface temperatures to be lower – as proved in a study of 30 years of real world data in the paper linked [url=http://climate-change-theory.com]here[/url] which I suggest you read if you have any interest in finding out what really happens in planetary tropospheres, crusts, mantles and cores.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    PhysicistsGroup

    |

     
    [b]CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENT PROVES LOSCHMIDT RIGHT AND GREENHOUSE WRONG[/b]

    On the average, nitrogen molecules, for example, travel at a speed of more than 1,700 kilometers per hour at room temperature, or almost one-and-a-half times the speed of sound. This means the particles are much too fast for many experiments, and also some conceivable applications. However, physicists at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have now found a rather simple way to slow down polar molecules to about 70 kilometers per hour. They let the molecules of various substances, such as fluoromethane, run up against the centrifugal force on a rotating disk, while being guided by electrodes. The speed of the decelerated molecules corresponds to a temperature of minus 272 degrees Celsius. The new method makes it possible to produce relatively large quantities of cold molecules in a continuous flow, which could be useful, for instance, for targeted chemical reactions of individual particles, or the processing of quantum information.

    So we have evidence that force fields like centrifugal force and gravity do in fact set up temperature gradients as per the Second Law, and thus raise surface temperatures.

    [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Oliver Manuel

    |

    The UN was formed on 24 Oct 1945 and adopted terms like “renewable” and “sustainable” in UN’s Agenda 21 to obscure the UN’s basic mission:

    To deny society access to benefits from Albert Einstein’s 1905 and Aston’s 1922 discoveries that atomic mass (m) is stored energy (E) –

    E = mc^2

    One British politician is now awakening to this possible explanation for society’s current demise:

    https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/the-uns-agenda-21/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Limburg

    |

    Excellent overview Vince. Well done
    Michael

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Alder

    |

    An excellent summary by Dr Gray.
    I disagree with the conclusion that the last battle is to be lost by the scammers next December, religious beliefs of this kind rely not on facts or evidence but on propaganda of which there is massive amounts paid for by governments.

    Suggestion
    Insert the word ‘measurement’ as-
    Atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement has not proved to be useful

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jsullivan

      |

      Thanks for the suggestion – amendment now made.

      Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.