Where is the evidence of man-made climate change?

Written by Hans Schreuder

After more than eight years analysing all aspects of climate alarm, from the initial scare that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide caused global warming to a name-change to man-made climate change – when the globe stopped warming despite ever increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide – to a further name-change to climate disruption – then it was realised that climate changes all the time – it is time to face the music and ask: “Where is the evidence regarding man-made climate change?” evidence

Let me to point you in the direction of some recent reports and studies that use the scientific method to analyse and appraise the current situation of blaming carbon dioxide emissions, especially those coming from human activity.

1. There has never ever, as yet, been presented any empirical evidence that can be interpreted as proof that the totality of atmospheric carbon dioxide has any influence upon the climate; quite the reverse: climate influences the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The man-made proportion of the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is in any case only around 3%, that’s three percent and is the figure detailed in several UN IPCC reports.

2. For an extensive report on many popular climate alarm scenarios, please refer to Marc Morano’s summary.

3. Here is proof, one of many, that there is no magical greenhouse effect, making or keeping earth warmer that it should be and being enhanced by the increase in carbon dioxide.

4. The scientific truth about atmospheric carbon dioxide is that is causes atmospheric cooling and no global warming at all is even possible; quite the opposite of what you have been told thus far!

5. Please immerse yourself in this letter to Australian Climate Minister Greg Hunt and decide if you have been shown any evidence that would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

6. One of the pillars of the UN IPCC science – the K&T earth energy budget – is effectively overthrown in this report.

7. For any further scientific research please refer to http://principia-scientific.org/ and get a copy of this book “Climate for the Layman” and then decide for yourself what is likely to be the truth: man-made climate alarm or a politically motivated scenario based on the principles of the UN’s “Agenda 21“, from within which the UN IPCC was formed.

It’s all about population control and natural resource preservation and nothing at all to do with the climate, but don’t take my word for it, please find out for yourself and make sure to watch this stark analysis of Agenda 21.

Do not hesitate to present proof positive that atmospheric carbon dioxide causes global warming or climate change or climate disruption; to date – January 2015 – none has been found.

The settled science is nothing of the kind and is in fact a misunderstanding about thermodynamics to which none of the scientists currently employed to find that elusive “proof” dare admit, as it will mean instant dismissal and shame.

To then teach children about the incorrect use of science is nothing short of a betrayal of trust in the education system.

Comments (28)

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    Kiehl and Trenberth Debunk Climate Alarm
    Mon, Jan 19th 2015
    Most everyone knowledgeable on this subject has heard of the “K&T Energy Budget” (diagram right). So how did Kiehl and Trenberth help debunk…
    Why o Why are no comments allowed on this BS?

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

    (continued)

    Hence we know that there must be additional thermal energy reaching these lower troposphere regions on a planet, as well as any surface. Where can this extra energy come from and how does it get down there when the laws of physics tell us it cannot get there by radiation?

    On Venus, for example, the incident solar radiation is only strong enough to raise the temperatures in regions in the upper troposphere (and above) where temperatures are less than about 100ºC because the maximum intensity is comparable with that for our Moon. But the surface of Venus is hotter than 460ºC and so we must expect a transfer to a much hotter region somehow.

    Fortunately the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes to our rescue, as explained on the Home page. Does a convective heat transfer to a hotter region violate that law? No, not in a vertical plane in a gravitational field, for the reasons explained in detail on the Home page. The corollary that heat always passes from hot to cold only strictly applies in a horizontal plane where gravitational potential energy remains constant. That energy plays a role in determining when entropy reaches a maximum and there are no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. When that occurs we have thermodynamic equilibrium which has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient which is cooler at the top. If the temperature at the top is then increased by absorption of new solar energy, some of that new energy will be transferred downwards to warmer regions in order to maximise entropy and establish a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Beneath the surface of a planet or moon similar conductive heat transfers can occur to warmer regions, transferring energy from the Sun even down to the center of the core. For example, the temperature at the core of our Moon is thought to be over 1300ºC. Could it have cooled off in billions of years? When you consider how cold the surface gets on the dark side, the answer is certainly “yes” if there were no solar radiation. Any matter half way between the nearest stars would be close to -273ºC which is about the coldest anything can be.

    The best confirmation for the hypothesis comes from the planet Uranus. There is no convincing evidence of significant net energy loss at the top of its atmosphere, so it is not just “cooling off” or generating energy from mass in its small solid core that is about half the mass of Earth and is at a temperature of about 5,000ºC. The solar radiation is mostly absorbed in a methane layer near the very top of its atmosphere that is thousands of kilometers high. Yet somehow over the life of the planet we know that some of that solar energy must be getting down into the atmosphere and keeping it at existing temperatures at each and every altitude. This I suggest could only happen if the hypothesis on the [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]Home[/url] page is correct.

    Yes, it is the Sun which keeps all planets and moons at existing temperatures, even down to the center of their cores.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “Yes, it is the Sun which keeps all planets and moons at existing temperatures, even down to the center of their cores”
      Except Neptune which has a slightly higher temp than Uranus because of heat leakage from a cooling off core…..so the Sun is not keeping Neptunes existing temperatures..the core is. A little fly in the ointment., Duggie boy.

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

    (continued)

    Now in physics we can postulate an hypothesis using the laws of physics and then test it against empirical evidence. We can’t “prove” it, but if no one finds evidence anywhere that disproves it then, over a period of years, it gains acceptance and may take on the status of a “theory” which has a very high probability of being correct.

    The radiative greenhouse hypothesis implicitly assumes that the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor does most of the extra warming of the surface which we have shown must happen somehow because the Solar radiation cannot do it all.

    But in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” (see link at the top) I have published a comprehensive study showing that moist regions have lower mean temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. No similar study that I am aware of shows water vapor warms, especially not by over 25 degrees as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would like you to believe.

    So the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is not based on the laws of physics, because it assumes the Earth’s surface acts like a black body, which it does not, and it assumes that radiation from a colder atmosphere causes the surface temperature to be much hotter than the solar radiation could make it. There is also no evidence that water vapor warms to the extent they claim, and some evidence that it in fact cools, as the laws of physics imply we should expect it to do.

    Now let us consider what happens to the energy radiated by our Sun which strikes any planet or satellite moon in our Solar System. We should expect the same laws of physics to apply, and so we should expect the hypothesis outlined on the Home page to be able to explain observed temperature data, not only on Earth but for these other planets and moons.

    The planets and moons may or may not have surfaces, and may or may not have atmospheres. We will also consider those temperatures below the surface, because, as Josef Loschmidt postulated in the 19th century, gravity will produce a temperature gradient even in solids.

    ​Earth’s atmosphere is known to absorb a little over 20% of the incident solar radiation before it reaches the surface. About 30% is reflected, and so only about half is absorbed by the surface. In the case of Venus, barely 2% is left after absorption which warms the mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere for that planet. A planet like Uranus has no surface at the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere where the temperatures are hotter than Earth’s surface, even though no solar radiation reaches down there.

    Furthermore, because an atmosphere absorbs some of the incident solar radiation, there is less radiative flux the further you go down into that atmosphere.

    But we know the temperatures increase at lower altitudes in a planet’s troposphere, and so the attenuated radiation in the lower regions cannot raise those already warmer temperatures at all, just as it cannot raise the mean surface temperature for Earth.

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

    SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST AGW

    There is evidence in the temperature records that there were peaks roughly around the years 1880, 1940 and 2000 indicating a superimposed cycle of just under 60 years which can also be traced further back. We see this cycle (correctly positioned) in the above plot which is derived from angular momentum determined by planetary orbits.​

    There is also evidence of previous longer-term maximum and minimum temperatures in periods called Roman warming, Dark Ages cooling, Medieval warming and the Little Ice Age. Again, the above plot shows a long term cycle of 934 years which appears to be correctly positioned also.

    Whilst this evidence is statistically significant it does not prove that carbon dioxide could not have some additional effect, but we should note that the computer climate models do not correct for these natural cycles. This I believe was deliberate and of course, when both cycles were rising in the 30 years between about 1970 and 1998-2000 they should have expected the observed rises due to the natural cycles, not blamed the rise on carbon dioxide.

    Of course, now that there has been a slight net cooling effect for a decade and a half (which will continue until about the years 2028-2030) there is no correlation at all with the continued rise in carbon dioxide.

    Now let us turn to other evidence and consider the Moon which has no atmosphere. Standard physics tells us that we can estimate the maximum temperatures of such bodies from the radiation they receive because, unlike the surface of Earth, the Moon’s surface does not lose energy by conduction into an atmosphere. It only loses energy by radiation back to space. The physics gives us the right answer which gels with measurements showing a maximum of about 123ºC. But on the dark side the temperatures can be well below -200ºC and so the average temperature of the surface of the Moon is obviously far colder than Earth’s mean surface temperature.

    But it is well accepted that the atmosphere of Earth reflects and absorbs solar radiation to the extent that the surface only receives about half the direct solar radiation that the Moon receives. Hence you might expect that it would be far colder than the sub-zero mean temperature of the Moon’s surface.

    Indeed that would be correct if it were the direct solar radiation from the Sun which were the only source of warming for the Earth’s surface.

    But could Earth and its atmosphere somehow accumulate thermal energy from one day to the next? All the air and also water molecules in the oceans can store thermal energy, and so about 98% of the thermal energy (heat) in the atmosphere is stored in nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules which do not radiate much of that energy to space. They act like a blanket, whereas the so-called “greenhouse gases” like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane act like holes in the blanket. They receive thermal energy in collisions with nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules and then transfer thermal energy only upwards in the troposphere and eventually to space.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    Right, OK now Duggie boy, Listen up..you’ve read what I had to say to you in the previous thread about the gross mistake in the incoming solar radiation and hopefully you’ve had the mental capacity to absorb and understand that. So let me spell it out. Your Power point presentations will slot you directly into the “insufficient solar radiation” brigade. The “not enough sunlight brigade”. You don’t want to belong to that brigade Duggie boy.
    Take a good, hard, long look at this Earth Energy Budget cartoon by Trenberth et al..
    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-1-1-fig-1.jpg
    Look at the watts and think of them in terms of the wattage of lightbulbs,heating elements and electrical appliances. They’ve got a large 168 watt light bulbs worth of energy striking Earth’s surface from the sun..and yet there’s a tungsten halogens worth of energy,324 watts,belting down from the “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere 24/7 !
    This, they say, means that the ATMOSPHERE is preventing the OCEANS from becoming a FROZEN ball ! Now, how crazy is that !
    This piece of science is being taught to your children at this very moment Duggie. These kids wind up going to “climate change” conferences not knowing their ass from their elbow.
    YOU subscribe to this Earth Energy Budget diagram Duggie…except you replace their “backradiation” with a “Gravitational-thermal effect” !!
    You’re still in the looney brigade !
    This Earth Energy budget diagram is an insult to science. It’s an insult to your intelligence…it’s an insult to human intelligence itself. People in the future will look at these cartoons and muse.. Einstein was right..human stupidity is infinite..especially a collective human stupidity.
    It’s a mistake so pure and simple that a person like myself, with only a C pass in physics 101, can see through it. A mistake you could “drive a bus load of polar bears through.”
    I suggest you should change your “New Paradigm in Physics” to “I’ve Come to my
    Senses” Duggie boy.
    power presentation off/

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

     

    Here is my [b][i]evidence[/i][/b] that climate change is not man-made …

    [url]http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/evidence.html[/url]

     

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

     

    PSI members still can’t explain this …

    All planets and satellite moons exhibit a temperature gradient based on -g/Cp which actually runs from the center to the tropopause. So why is it that the temperature gets down to the right level (in radiative balance with the Sun) at just the right altitude. Is it coincidence? No. It is because the temperature profile builds up from the level where there is radiative balance down towards to core, by downward convective heat transfer.

    You can’t prove me wrong without proving the Second Law wrong. Your problem is just that you don’t take the trouble to read, understand and think about it.

    http://whyitsnotco2.com (now in English and German)

    Chairman
    “Planetary Physics” group

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      To the moderators considering my little power point dissertation to Doug Cotton…don’t bother to publish it because looking at his physics in this last comment of his..I’ve finally concluded it would be water off a duck’s
      back….so to speak. :-*

  • Avatar

    DJ Cotton

    |

    Oh here you both are on this thread!

    What is the flux at the South Pole around December 22nd? What therefore is the temperature there? Your IPCC pseudo science explaining planetary surface temperatures with radiation should help you out. Then do the Equator at noon on March 22nd.

  • Avatar

    Mack

    |

    You’re a character Doug Cotton . You remind me of a drug addicted dwarf, we had in town, who tried to rob a chemist wearing a mask.

    • Avatar

      DJ Cotton

      |

      Which proves you’re the one with the vivid imagination about radiation and most things it seems.

      Not one of the questions I posed has been answered by either of you clowns, because you can’t answer, now can you. All you do is ruin the trust of silent readers. This blog is deteriorating,

    • Avatar

      DJ Cotton

      |

      Aren’t yo a clever little detective. It was glaring you in the face if you had opened [url]http://climate-change-theory.com[/url] which links to my sites which have had over 99,500 hits in total.

  • Avatar

    Planetary Physics

    |

    (Please forward to any you know with physics qualifications)

    I am forming a world-wide group called “Planetary Physics” whose website will be [url=http://whyitsnotco2.com]here[/url] at this stage. Group submissions may be added to that site after suitable review processes. I will also coordinate comments from the group on climate blogs.

    At some stage in the future we may produce PowerPoint productions and/or youtube videos which may be used at meetings anywhere that members can talk and spread the word in any country they live or visit.

    Any wishing to join should just send name, address, qualifications etc to the email address on our website and they will receive emails from time to time and of course be welcome to comment and contribute material.

    • Avatar

      Peter Wardle

      |

      There’s a typo in the first sentence of your home page “wuth” instead of “with”. Just thought you’d like to know.

      • Avatar

        Planetary Physics

        |

        Fixed – thanks

      • Avatar

        Hans Schreuder

        |

        Thanks for the heads up, but despite best efforts, I can not find the homepage you are mentioning. Please supply the URL and it will get fixed.

    • Avatar

      Mack

      |

      “we may produce PowerPoint productions”
      I hope your PowerPoint productions doesn’t include your fake Gravitational- thermal hypothesis Doug. You wouldn’t want to replace the pseudoscience of the “Greenhouse” effect with more pseudoscience, now would you.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Mack, I suspected PP might be really be Dug. Thanks for verifying.

        • Avatar

          Mack

          |

          Yep geran, Dug is always here. He has this obsessive- compulsive disorder over his “gravitational thermal” hypothesis that makes schizophrenics look positively relaxed.

      • Avatar

        DJ Cotton

        |

        Well there’s only one way for you to find out what our new group website contains and that is to read it, now in English and German

        [url]http://whyitsnotco2.com[/url]

      • Avatar

        DJ Cotton

        |

        Prove Loschmidt wrong with correct physics. You can’t can you.

  • Avatar

    Mark Stoval

    |

    Thanks for the essay, I enjoyed it.

    But the links for point #3 and #4 don’t work here.

    • Avatar

      Hans Schreuder

      |

      Thanks Mark, now fixed.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Thanks for that.
    I will be sending this to my MP[Member of Parliament] and MLA [Member of the Legislative assembly].

Comments are closed