Outstanding New Website: Global Warming Solved

Written by PSI Staff

Further expert independent research affirms the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ of man-made global warming is bogus. Dr. Ronan Connolly, Dr. Michael Connolly and Dr. Imelda Connolly have launched a new website detailing their five-year intensive study. We believe their research is a compelling addition to the body of work exposing the greatest scientific fraud of all time.global warming solved

Below we run an introductory extract from the Connolly Family’s website to both encourage wider reader participation in ongoing open peer review of such analyses, as well as to demonstrate the unstoppable rise of principled scientists against government-sponsored academic fraud.

 

Start Here

Contents

  • What we have found
  • The methods we used
  • Our motivation for this work
  • Where to learn more about our research
  • What we have found

    1. We are not warming the planet

    For several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Our research has convinced us that this man-made global warming theory is wrong. We will explain why we have come to this conclusion on this website.

    It is true that humans have been increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because of our use of fossil fuels. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide seems to have been about 0.03% of the atmosphere, while it is now about 0.04%.

     

    However, our research has shown that:

    It doesn’t matter whether we double, treble or even quadruple the carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide has no impact on atmospheric temperatures.

    We carried out new laboratory experiments, and analysed the data from millions of weather balloons, to calculate exactly how much global warming carbon dioxide was causing. When we did this, we discovered that the answer was zero.

    It turns out that some of the assumptions used in man-made global warming theory (and in the current climate models) had never actually been tested. When we tested them, we discovered that they were invalid.

    See the link below for a discussion of why:

  • Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere I-III”
  • In addition, we have also shown that:

    The “unusual global warming” that has caused such concern is not unusual, after all.

    We found that the world naturally switches between periods of global warming and periods of global cooling, with each period lasting several decades.

    We also identified a number of serious mistakes in the studies which had claimed that there has been unusual global warming. These mistakes meant that the amount of warming in the last global warming period (1980s-2000s) was overestimated and the amount of cooling in the last global cooling period (1950s-1970s) was underestimated.

    When these mistakes are corrected, it turns out that it was just as warm in the 1930s-1940s as it is now.

    See the following links for our global temperature analysis:

  • Summary: “Urbanization bias I-III”
  • Summary: “Has poor station quality biased U.S. temperature trend estimates?”
  • Summary: “Global temperature changes of the last millennium”
  • 2. We are not causing catastrophic climate change

    In recent years, we have been inundated with tragic reports of disasters from hurricanes, typhoons, floods, droughts, etc. We are also told that there have been dramatic decreases in the Arctic sea ice, and that sea levels are rising. This has led many people to believe that we are causing an increase in extreme weather events, melting in the Arctic, dangerous sea level rises.

    However, this perception of catastrophic climate changes seems to be mostly down to simple improvements in our climate monitoring technology.

    Our ability to monitor and report on extreme weather events and changes in the climate has dramatically improved in recent years. This means that we are now able to detect events and changes which we wouldn’t have noticed when they occurred in the past. This doesn’t mean these events and changes are unusual. It just means that we’ve only started noticing them!

    We discuss our analysis for some of these phenomena in the following essays:

  • Is the Arctic melting?
  • Is man-made global warming causing more hurricanes?
  • What is happening to sea levels?
  • 3. The scientific consensus on global warming was premature

    First of all, the theory behind man-made global warming was based on a number of fundamental assumptions which had never been tested. When we tested those assumptions, we found that several of them were invalid.

    Our research also identified several important energy transmission mechanisms which had been neglected by the theory.

    Taken together, these results show that the man-made global theory was wrong. This means that the scientific consensus on global warming was also wrong.

    Secondly, it seems that the attempts to get a scientific consensus on man-made global warming were overly forced. Although there are a lot of scientists who believe that we are warming the planet, and that we need to urgently do something about, there are quite a few climate scientists who don’t agree with that.

    See our blog posts about the scientific consensus:

  • Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
  • What does the IPCC say?
  • 4. Increasing or reducing our carbon footprint will make no difference to the climate

    Many people think that burning fossil fuels causes global warming, and that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. As a result, major policy changes are being pushed worldwide in a desperate attempt to urgently reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

    For example:

  • Carbon taxes are being implemented to penalise the use of fossil fuels
  • Uneconomical wind turbine and solar power projects are being subsidised and promoted, purely as a means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions
  • Agricultural land is being diverted to producing biofuels, solely because they have no net carbon emisssions
  • People are being unnecessarily made to feel guilty for their personal “carbon footprint”
  • Our research has shown that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no impact on global temperatures, or the climate.

    This means that increasing or decreasing our fossil fuel usage, or our “carbon footprint”, will make no difference to the climate.

    There may be other reasons we might have to change our lifestyles, or how we produce our energy… but worrying about climate change is not one of them!

    The methods we used

    For our research, we used a wide range of data sources, including:

  • More than 13 million weather balloons
  • Temperature records from more than 7000 weather stations, distributed across the entire planet
  • Satellite measurements of incoming/outgoing radiation, atmospheric temperatures, sea levels, atmospheric carbon dioxide and sea ice extents
  • Various climate proxy datasets, such as tree rings, ice core records and lake sediments
  • Radiative physics algorithms used by the current climate models
  • More than 500 tidal gauge records
  • Mass balance records from more than 100 glaciers
  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements from 11 monitoring stations
  • We have read and analysed 1000s of peer-reviewed articles on climate change. In addition, we studied those findings reported in non-peer reviewed sources, such as internet sites and blogs.

    We designed and carried out a number of new laboratory experiments to study energy transmission within the atmosphere.

    We developed new analytical tools for studying weather balloon data.

    We identified major statistical, logical and methodological errors in a number of widely-used studies. We then reanalysed the data used by these studies using more appropriate methods.

    Our motivation for this work

    We received no funding for this work. However, as you can probably tell from our About Us page, as a family, we are passionate about science and very concerned about the environment. Specifically, since the 1980s, we have been concerned about overfishing and the mismanagement of water resources. See the Overfishing.org website for an overview of the overfishing problem.

    aquarium0001_small

    The National Aquarium which we founded and ran from 1991-1996 in Ireland.

    In 1989, we set up and built the National Aquarium in Ireland to promote public awareness of the beauty and fragility of the ocean ecosystems. We ran this from 1991-1996, and it became the most popular privately-owned tourist attraction in the country.

    It seems to us that the overfishing of declining world fish stocks will not supply enough fish to meet the requirements of an expanding world population. For that reason, we believe that a major expansion of fish farming is needed now and in the coming years. Unfortunately, most of the current fish farming techniques are expensive, non-sustainable and typically involve overcrowding of the fish being grown.

    Since 1996, we have been researching and developing new technologies to improve the current methods of fish-farming and waste-water treatment. Out of this research, we have developed new ecologically-friendly techniques which give high yields of healthier (and happier) fish, without causing any water pollution (because we recycle our water), and at a much cheaper cost than the current approaches.

    We have been granted patents for our new fish-farming methods, waste-water treatment systems and a new heat exchange system. We have also developed cheap and efficient waste water treatment methods, and several new energy efficient building materials and techniques. Currently, we are refining our systems so that they can be easily set-up and maintained by farmers in any country.

    lab3

    One of the laboratories in our aquatic research facilities.

    While we were investigating the fish habitats in different parts of the world, we were not finding any evidence for the unusual global warming predicted by the man-made global warming theory. We were finding that there had been some small climate changes, but they all seemed to be well within the ranges that the fish were used to. In other words, the climate changes we were detecting seemed to be a result of the natural climate variability of the planet.

    In addition, our research into the solubility of carbon dioxide and other gases in water was giving us experimental results which did not agree with the standard models for the carbon cycle, or the claims that carbon dioxide was causing ocean acidification as well as global warming.

    With that in mind, in early 2009, we started carefully studying the science behind the man-made global warming theory, and analysing the data for ourselves. Our research has revealed that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in atmosphere does not cause global warming.

    Read more at: globalwarmingsolved.com

     

    Tags: , , , ,

    Comments (18)

    • Avatar

      John Marshall

      |

      All my claims now vindicated. Many thanks. Is there a pdf copy available?

    • Avatar

      jsullivan

      |

      John, PSI doesn’t have such pdf’s but if you go the globalwarmingsolved.com website and inquire there they may be able to help.

    • Avatar

      Mervyn

      |

      Could this fascinating research by the Connollys, about the greenhouse effect myth, do for climate alarmism what Australian researchers, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, did regarding the world’s understanding of the real cause of peptic ulcers?

      I hope so!

    • Avatar

      Tim Folkerts

      |

      Not too surprisingly, this paper contains fundamental misunderstandings.

      Consider this line near the beginning of their paper (and remember — they chose to add this line because they thought it was important): [i]”After all, it takes a lot of energy to hold an object up in the air without letting it fall, doesn’t it?”[/i]

      Anyone who passed Freshman Physics should know it takes NO work and NO energy to simply hold an object in the air at a constant height.

      If they can’t get something this basic right, do you really trust them to get more advanced ideas correct?

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Unfortunately, Connolly family a)supports the “global warming” fiction, b) do not dispute the IPCC’s “greenhouse effect” which is warming the source by back radiation and c)support the unscientific calculation of -18°C being the maximum average temperature the Sun can induce on the earth surface (which invites speculations on why the Earth is 33°C warmer and makes the non-existing “greenhouse effect” to an extent plausible).

      Worse, in the section “Popular Questions” they essentially [s]fake[/s] misrepresent the “greenhouse effect” selling it as just “slowing down the rate of cooling”:

      [i][b]Q.[/b] Is there a greenhouse effect?

      [b]A.[/b] …Some theoreticians proposed that these infrared-active gases should slow down the rate at which the Earth’s atmosphere loses energy to space (known as the rate of “infrared cooling”), and so keep the lower atmosphere warmer than it would be otherwise, e.g., Stone & Manabe, 1968 (Open access). This theory became known as the “greenhouse effect theory”, and the infrared-active gases became known as “greenhouse gases”.[/i]

      Again, the IPCC “greenhouse effect is not slowing down the rate of cooling, it is back radiation heating the source, which is physically impossible.

    • Avatar

      jsullivan

      |

      Greg, ideally we would like the Connollys to enter into debate on those points and address those elements of PSI science that refute them. They certainly appear to be open to changing their views.

    • Avatar

      Stephen Wilde

      |

      Tim Folkerts said:

      “Anyone who passed Freshman Physics should know it takes NO work and NO energy to simply hold an object in the air at a constant height.”

      Except that no molecule in the atmosphere stays at a constant height. There is constant up and down motion.

      Work is being done continually as energy flows through the atmosphere such that to maintain the height of an atmosphere a portion of the energy flowing through is always being diverted to carrying out that mechanical work.

      It is that diverted energy holding the atmosphere off the surface that gives rise to the mass induced greenhouse effect which is nothing to go with the radiative features of GHGs.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Stephen Wilde”]Tim Folkerts said:

      “Anyone who passed Freshman Physics should know it takes NO work and NO energy to simply hold an object in the air at a constant height.”

      Except that no molecule in the atmosphere stays at a constant height. There is constant up and down motion.

      Work is being done continually as energy flows through the atmosphere such that to maintain the height of an atmosphere a portion of the energy flowing through is always being diverted to carrying out that mechanical work.

      It is that diverted energy holding the atmosphere off the surface that gives rise to the mass induced greenhouse effect which is nothing to go with the radiative features of GHGs.[/quote]

      Thank you,
      It is time to destroy the Climate Clown Concept of “Green House” anything!. If the absorptive/emissive components of the atmosphere are in a Kerckhoff thermodynamic equilibrium,which does not require equal temperature, but only constant temperature of each and constant flux from/to all. Then there is no effect on energy flux from/to anything, without regard to conductive, convective, radiative, sound,or electromotive energy transfer. The phrase “Green House” must be destroyed if we are to survive!

      There are atmospheric components that absorb/emit at various wavelengths. The effect/explanation of what they contribute to surface temperature has never been discovered.
      Climate Clowns intentionally lie. They do not know anything, This is called stupidity, which like entropy always increases!

    • Avatar

      Alder

      |

      Re comment #5 Greg House 2014-03-01 20:02

      Sorry Greg, it seems they agree with you!

      See http://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-here/
      which states, emphasized by a shaded box:

      ” It doesn’t matter whether we double, treble or even quadruple the carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide has no impact on atmospheric temperatures. ”

      A statement which is the most warmy alarmist I can find is in answer to the question-
      Is there a greenhouse effect? see:
      http://globalwarmingsolved.com/faq/

      “However, our analysis of the experimental data shows that atmospheric temperatures are determined by gas laws, which are independent of the infrared activity of the gases. So, if greenhouse gases do cause a “greenhouse effect”, then it is probably negligible. ”

      Ok, I agree that negligible is not the same as nil, but their approach, from a quick reading, is from experiment- analysis of data, rather than theory- use of the laws of thermodynamics.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Alder”]Ok, I agree that negligible is not the same as nil, but their approach, from a quick reading, is from experiment- analysis of data, rather than theory- use of the laws of thermodynamics.[/quote]

      From the scientific point of view, “2+2=4.01” and “2+2=99” are equally wrong.

      We do not need to use laws of thermodynamics and gas laws to demonstrate that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible.

      The most suspicious thing is that they mentioned both “greenhouse effect” and the IPCC many times in their papers, but neither said that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” was physically impossible nor what exactly the IPCC presented as the “greenhouse effect”.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”Alder”]Ok, I agree that negligible is not the same as nil, but their approach, from a quick reading, is from experiment- analysis of data, rather than theory- use of the laws of thermodynamics.[/quote]

      From the scientific point of view, “2+2=4.01” and “2+2=99” are equally wrong.

      We do not need to use laws of thermodynamics and gas laws to demonstrate that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is physically impossible.

      The most suspicious thing is that they mentioned both “greenhouse effect” and the IPCC many times in their papers, but neither said that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” was physically impossible nor what exactly the IPCC presented as the “greenhouse effect”.[/quote]
      So what Greg, your approach is 100% ineffective. From that site:
      “Here’s what changes when you add greenhouse gases: The atmosphere is no longer transparent to *outgoing* radiation.”
      Indeed, In radiometry, the active atmosphere can more than replace any radiative exitance from the surface, at a lower temperature. Your S-B equation is not applicable to an atmosphere with no flat surface. No Green House Effect, no Greenhouse! Only one effective and variable moderator, “atmospheric aqueous vapour”, that controls all radiative exitance, in each direction from this Earth. There is no global temperature, only a wet squirming atmosphere trying as quickly as possible to exit all absorbed Solar energy, With much water evaporation and rapid winds, this planet controls, all sensible heat in the vicinity.
      This is quite independent of what seven billion earthlings do, or do not do. What a wonderful planet! 🙂

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      @#12 Pat Obar

      What is “my approach” in your understanding?

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”Greg House”]@#12 Pat Obar

      What is “my approach” in your understanding?[/quote]
      Greg, your approach is to attack myopic “back radiation”: as in the T-K cartoon. This is beating a dead horse! Your opponent fraudsters have successfully transferred that to “NET” and some claim of reduced flux from the surface, by a variable based on fictitious atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This is the “new” “same knowledgeable FRAUD”.
      My approach is to get those responsible, to admit, before a court of law, their intentional Fraud, before we kick them into the volcano. If not done properly, Science will never recover. 😮
      Go back and read my above “claimed” radiative properties of an atmosphere with water vapour.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      #14 Pat Obar.

      I do not actually attack “back radiation” as such, it is YOU who has been demanding from the opponents all the time here “demonstrate back radiation!!!”.

      My approach is a)to draw the readers’ attention to the fact that the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is [b]raising the temperature of the source by back radiation[/b] and b)to demonstrate in the most understandable way that [b]even if back radiation exists[/b], it can not raise the temperature the source.

      To your [i]”Your opponent fraudsters have successfully transferred that to “NET” and some claim of reduced flux from the surface”[/i], they simply try to lead the readers away from the apparently absurd IPCC “greenhouse effect” and replace it with something else, but this is irrelevant to the main point, which is the IPCC “greenhouse effect”. Note, governments base their policy on the IPCC reports, not on what Mr.Folkerts and a few others write here.

      Debunk the core IPCC concept of their “greenhouse effect” and the climate policies lose ground immediately.

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      “Greg House”#14 Pat Obar.
      Greg, your political techniques fail at every level. Your scientific techniques are non existent. Please go somewhere and try to learn how to tie your own shoes. Riding a bicycle comes way later!

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      Recently a lot of stuff about me was made public by a nortoriouis cyber-stalker. I am just thankful for what he didn’t find. But if Pete Ridley had dug deeper he would have eventually found that I am a leader in autoharp denial movement. We’ve been aware of the Connellys for quite some time now–most notably their ring leader, Imelda.

      If their website is any testament, people that believe in the autoharp will stop at nothing. Note how slyly they made reference to the autoharp in the text of this website. This is the kind of trickery that myself and the other members of the autoharp denialist network are endeavoring to expose. Obviously this website is just a front. A guise. A way to slide a note under the door of the minds of many people on this planet that are susceptible to belief in autoharps. Strangely, in their effort to create subterfuge, they made a few statements that would appear to make sense and that would appear to be provocative and insightful and some might even say advanced. I would just like to take this opportunity to clear up any misconceptions created by the politically motivated misthinking of this website.
      There is no reason to pay any attention at all to what follows:
      there were several surprising results. Region 3 variations are mostly water-related. Indeed, Region 3 corresponds to the boundary layer part of the troposphere, which is generally the wettest part of the atmosphere.

      What about Regions 1 and 2? The change in behaviour of the plots between Regions 1 and 2 is so pronounced that it suggests that some major change in the atmosphere occurs at this point.

      In Paper 2, we propose that this change is due to some of the oxygen and/or nitrogen in the air joining together to form molecular “clusters” or “multimers”.

      in each of the regions, the change of molar density with pressure is very linear. Another thing is that the change in slope of the lines between Regions 1 and 2 is very sharp and distinct.

      Mark my words. The ramifications of the autoharp believers movement are going to be orders of magnitude greater than even the worst we might imagine from the pennywhistle lobby!

    • Avatar

      Pat Obar

      |

      [quote name=”solvingtornadoes”]Recently a lot of stuff about me was made public by a nortoriouis cyber-stalker. I am just thankful for what he didn’t find. But if Pete Ridley had dug deeper he would have eventually found that I am a leader in autoharp denial movement. We’ve been aware of the Connellys for quite some time now–most notably their ring leader, Imelda.

      If their website is any testament, people that believe in the autoharp will stop at nothing. Note how slyly they made reference to the autoharp in the text of this website. This is the kind of trickery that myself and the other members of the autoharp denialist network are endeavoring to expose. Obviously this website is just a front. A guise. A way to slide a note under the door of the minds of many people on this planet that are susceptible to belief in autoharps. Strangely, in their effort to create subterfuge, they made a few statements that would appear to make sense and that would appear to be provocative and insightful and some might even say advanced. I would just like to take this opportunity to clear up any misconceptions created by the politically motivated misthinking of this website.
      There is no reason to pay any attention at all to what follows:
      there were several surprising results. Region 3 variations are mostly water-related. Indeed, Region 3 corresponds to the boundary layer part of the troposphere, which is generally the wettest part of the atmosphere.

      What about Regions 1 and 2? The change in behaviour of the plots between Regions 1 and 2 is so pronounced that it suggests that some major change in the atmosphere occurs at this point.

      In Paper 2, we propose that this change is due to some of the oxygen and/or nitrogen in the air joining together to form molecular “clusters” or “multimers”.

      in each of the regions, the change of molar density with pressure is very linear. Another thing is that the change in slope of the lines between Regions 1 and 2 is very sharp and distinct.

      Mark my words. The ramifications of the autoharp believers movement are going to be orders of magnitude greater than even the worst we might imagine from the pennywhistle lobby![/quote]

      Jim do you have any human translation of what you are trying to say or claim here? Is this part of your heavy air theory?

    • Avatar

      solvingtornadoes

      |

      [quote name=”Pat Obar”]Jim do you have any human translation of what you are trying to say or claim here? Is this part of your heavy air theory?[/quote]

      It might seem I was being sarcastic here, but really I am not. I support the Connelleys because they think outside the box. They are asking the right questions. But they’ve made some basic errors. The notion of N2 or O2 multimers will never fly.

      The obvious choice for multimers in the upper troposphere is H2O. And this is a result of the hydrogen bond (not a covalent bond). N2 and O2 don’t form multimers.

      Multimers of H2O are the structure (pervection) in our atmosphere manifested in the jet stream. Surface tension of water is “ratcheted up” in multimers of H2O (this is the phase change), the exact mechanism for which I prefer to keep secret at the moment [too complex]) and it is the ensuing structure (pervection) that explains the missing lubrication (Lorenz) in our atmospheric circulation.

      The fact that the Connelleys recognize the issues discussed in these three papers shows me that they are head and shoulders ahead of all the pretenders out there (including slayers).

      I think the Connelleys are on the right track. But multimers of N2 O2 are a dead end. Multimers of H2O is the key. Understanding how H2O can form multimers and be stable is the key to understanding how they can release the [b]ratcheted up surface tension[/b] that forms the structure (pervection) that is most plainly apparent in the jet stream.

      The precise mechanism by which H2O forms multimers in our atmosphere and thereby provides the structure (pervection) in our atmosphere will be revealed in my book, coming out in June.

      Actually, I was quite pleased to see that the Connelleys are, it seems, relatively immune to a lot of the dimwitted assumptions of the meteorological paradigm.

      Jim McGinn
      http://www.solvingtornadoes.org

    Comments are closed