Why the Anthropogenic Global Warmers are the real Deniers!

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

It has been going on for so long now. For far too long the scientifically illiterate have hurled abuse at Climate Sceptics for the great sin of believing in Great Nature and the scientific method. So now in the United States of America you have the real possibility of electing a President who does not believe in man-made Global Warming, but in Sun-made Global Warming, who actually believes that the Sun makes us warm, and believes that the Sun is inconstant with Solar flares and mighty Solar storms.

psi 4

Is it not amazing that such a collective madness could have troubled mankind for so long? In the United Kingdom there was a well-loved Botanist who appeared regularly on BBC television, who suddenly disappeared from the networks. His contracts were not renewed. He became persona non grata.

What was his great sin in the eyes of the scientifically illiterate mob? He believed and declared that Carbon Dioxide was, and is, a food for green plants, and that these same green plants produce for us and for all mankind the Oxygen of life.

So that was the very first thing that the Warmists denied. Even now if I write on a Facebook site of those avowedly interested in the environment and point out that the increased presence of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has led to a distinct greening of the Sahel, who are the first to leap up and hurl abuse at me? Why! Non other than the Greens! One might have thought that the Greens would want a green world, that they are the ones who might want to protect the Amazonian forests, and whatever new craze has taken their fancy. Instead of which they wish to bury the very gas of life that is food for green plants and which is elementary Biology.

‘Where did you get your figures from? You, Mr Anthony Bright-Paul are very ignorant and deluded. Don’t tell me you have written a book!’ Oh these are just a sample of the abuse that is hurled at me. Shall I tell you something? I quite enjoy baiting these ignoramuses and trolls and tell them they harm me not at all, but only advertise to the world at large the levels of their separate IQs.

It is time now to turn the tables on these self indulgent and scientifically illiterate ignoramuses. There are some, mind, who do have a smattering of what they call ‘climate science’ (what a giveaway that is!) and they explain to me that this Carbon Dioxide has now got such a thick layer in the atmosphere that it is preventing the heat escaping. Aha! The overcoat in the sky!

It is a wonder that our aircraft have not bumped into it now and then! This puerile nonsense has been passed around as science. Even a jobbing plumber will know that there is a continuum to Outer Space. Now you can see why these nincompoops are the real deniers. They deny that the Sun warms the Earth and they deny that there is a continuum to Outer Space.

No! No! The temperature of the Earth is rising and it is all because wicked man is burning fossil fuels. So what is the temperature of the earth today? Well, I do not have it handy. But surely CNN and the BBC, they both show these wonderful weather forecasts and maps of the whole world. I can see the temperature in San Francisco and New York and Mexico City and Havana. Surely with such an important matter they would declare that the Global temperature is such and such and that it has advanced 1/10th of a degree since yesterday.

Why are they so shy, when they roundly declare that the Earth is getting hotter and hotter and these great panjandrums are going to limit the rise to 2º Celsius? Why, whole nations have just signed up to this risible nonsense, led by the US secretary of State. Have we all gone crazy to allow these scientific illiterates to lead us by the nose?

If there is such an entity as the temperature of the Globe there is clearly only one thing that can make us warmer and that is the mighty Sun. The Sun is one million three hundred thousand times as big as the Earth and is immensely hot. The radiation from the Sun is intense. Just tell me how ‘intense’ is the radiation from a frozen molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere which I am assured is radiating downwards to Earth and making it ‘hotter than it would other wise be’. Hotter than it would otherwise be? Believe me these are the precise words of a famous Physicist, who has appeared on numerous documentaries of the BBC; words that she emailed me many moons ago.

Ah yes! The Lower Atmosphere is getting hotter. And what precisely is this Lower Atmosphere? Where does it start and where does it end? The atmosphere has a huge range of temperatures, as anyone flying today will know. Modern aircraft have monitors on board and one is able to see the temperatures declining as the aircraft ascends and increasing as the aircraft comes in to land.

That is a matter of empirical experience for everyone who is awake enough to look at the monitor. Here is proof that there is a huge range of temperatures in the atmosphere, the hottest part being at the bottom. 

Hot air rises. Anyone disagree? It is a gas law. As gases are heated they rise up and expand and the molecules get farther and farther apart, which is why it feels colder. Ask any one who has climbed Mt Everest or even been up in a balloon. There is a huge range of temperatures in the atmosphere. A Global temperature? Depends what you are assessing. The truth is much simpler. There is no such entity.

So the Anthropogenic Global Warmers are at pains to find a human fingerprint in everything. They have a massive guilt complex, which they endeavour to thrust upon everyone else. Look carefully at what they say, regarding the atmosphere. Effectively they are denying that hot air rises.

They are denying that the atmosphere is a great cooling escalator. They are the Grand Inquisitors, in the spirit of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, while I represent Giordano Bruno who was imprisoned for seven years before being burnt to death for declaring that the Earth travels round the Sun in an ellipse. Who was proved right and who proved wrong?

So these pseudo-scientists declare that we must fight climate change. Why? Because humans are changing the climate. Do I deny climate change? Far from it! Nor do I deny Gondwana and the breaking up of the Continents. Although the earth has tremors they deny the movement of the tectonic plates.  Nor do I deny the great Ice ages and Warm periods. Nor do I deny that the Mediterranean has emptied and filled several times. I do not deny the forces of Great Nature, but the Warmists do just that.

Effectively they deny the winds that cause the flow of warm waters toward the Poles. They deny the presence of innumerable smokers and hot vents in the ocean floor. If the Arctic ice melts it must be because of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere caused by mankind using fossil fuels. The possibility that Great Nature might be at play never crosses their minds – because their minds are closed.

So who are the real deniers? Who are the supporters of a phoney science? I ask you. Whatever their faults – and all human beings have faults – at least Donald Trump and Sarah Palin are not phoneys!

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Ed Bo

    |

    Rosco:

    Please identify the error that one of the greatest physicists of the 20th Century, Richard Feynman, made when he dismissed the idea of a gravitationally induced lapse rate in an isolated gas system here:

    http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      I would never presume to argue with Feynman.

      However – as he also said –

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

      That said, there IS a lapse rate and it is observed on all planets with an atmosphere, it matters not if the atmosphere contains “greenhouse gases” or not, and it seems to correlate to simple thermodynamic principles.

      Increase the pressure on a gas in constrained volume and its temperature will rise.

      It has been a long time since I worked with differential equations and I no longer have my reference texts.

      Hence I assume you believe the lapse rate is the “greenhouse effect” and due to radiating properties of trace quantities of “greenhouse gases” as you seem determined to disagree with anything which challenges your belief systems ?

      As I said I can’t or wouldn’t argue with Feynman but I am confident he would not support the “greenhouse effect” either.

      There IS an observed lapse rate of the atmosphere and gravity does seem to constrain the atmosphere from simply flying off into space.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    As Joe Postma has recently pointed out sound theoretical Physics predicts an atmospheric lapse rate from pure thermodynamic principles alone. This is approximately – g/c(p).

    For Earth this “dry” adiabatic lapse rate calculates out to be of the order of -9.81/1.005 or ~ -9.8 K/1000 m.

    There are a few things we should consider about this in relation to climate alarmism:-

    1. If “greenhouse gases” cause surface warming and a lower radiating temperature to space then they must INCREASE this theoretical lapse rate – agreed ?

    After all higher surface temperature plus lower top temperature must be a bigger number over a constant.

    The values of g and c(p) for air are remarkably invariant – at least according to the Engineering Toolbox.

    Water vapour is the principal “greenhouse gas” BUT reliable observational evidence PROVES it lowers the theoretical lapse rate from ~9.8 K/1000 m down to ~6.5 K/1000 m.

    Surely that in itself is a major nail in the coffin of the standard explanation of the “greenhouse effect”.

    As they say on TV – But Wait – there’s more !

    2. Venus is reputed to have a runaway “greenhouse effect”. We know remarkably little about Venus but there is some meager data !

    a. Gravity on Venus is 8.87 m/sec2 – according to NASA.
    b. CO2 has a lower c(p) value than ordinary Earth “air” – ~0.85 at ~300 K.

    If we compare the lapse rate of Venus from the meager data available at temperatures similar to Earth’s temperature and air pressure we have:-

    (i) Theoretical lapse rate of – 8.87/0.85 which is approximately 10.4 K/1000 m.
    (ii) An observed lapse rate of ~260 K at 58 km to ~339 K at ~49.5 km which equates to ~9.3 K /1000 m.

    It is also interesting that Harry Huffman performed an analysis indicating that the meager data we have from one probe indicates the temperature ratio between the 2 atmospheres at similar pressure values is remarkably the ratio of the solar radiation of each. Taking the fourth root to equate SB temperatures produces a remarkable correlation to the ratio of solar radiation.

    What to take from this ?

    Well it is amazing that the lapse rate of Venus is not significantly different to that of Earth’s theoretical lapse rate and Venus has very little water vapour. It appears the lapse rate of Venus is an approximate straight line down to the surface – although as I said we only have meager data for Venus.

    But I find the reliable observational data for Earth and the data for Venus inconsistent with the proposition that “greenhouse gases” cause surface warming whilst lowering the radiating temperature to space.

    If anyone wishes to continue their faith in the greenhouse effect as explained by climate scientists – alarmists and sceptics alike – they need to explain why the observed environmental lapse rate is lower than the theoretical one whilst insisting it must be higher !

Comments are closed