Over 100 Papers Assert CO2 Has Little or No Climate Effect

Written by Kenneth Richard

Icy Chemical Formula Of Carbon Dioxide CO2 Stock Image ...

image source: dreamstime.com

Within the last few years, over 50 papers have been added to our compilation of scientific studies that find the climate’s sensitivity to doubled CO2 (280 ppm to 560 ppm) ranges from <0 to 1°C.

When no quantification is provided, words like “negligible” are used to describe CO2’s effect on the climate.

The list has now reached 106 scientific papers.

Link: 100+ Scientific Papers – Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

A few of the papers published in 2019 are provided below.

Krainov and Smirnov, 2019 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C, 2X anthroCO2 = 0.02°C):

The greenhouse phenomenon in the atmosphere that results from emission of its molecules and particles in the infrared spectrum range is determined by atmospheric water in the form of molecules and microdrops and by carbon dioxide molecules for the Earth atmosphere and by carbon dioxide molecules and dust for the Venus atmosphere.

The line-by-line method used the frequency-dependent radiative temperature for atmospheric air with a large optical thickness in the infrared spectral range, allows one to separate emission of various components in atmospheric emission.

This method demonstrates that the removal of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere leads to a decrease of the average temperature of the Earth’s surface by 4 K; however, doubling of the carbon dioxide amount causes an increase of the Earth’s temperature by 0.4 K from the total 2 K at CO2 doubling in the real atmosphere, as it follows from the NASA measurements.

The contribution to this temperature change due to injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuel, and it is 0.02 K. The infrared radiative flux to the Venus surface due to CO2 is about 30% of the total flux, and the other part is determined by a dust.

Image Source: Krainov and Smirnov, 2019

Ollila, 2019 (2XCO2= 0.6°C):

“If a climate model using the positive water feedback were applied to the GH effect magnitude of this study, it would fail worse than a model showing a TCS value of 1.2°C.

If there were a positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere, there is no scientific grounding to assume that this mechanism would start to work only if the CO2 concentration exceeds 280 ppm, and actually, the IPCC does not claim so.

The absolute humidity and temperature observations show that there is no positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere during the longer time periods… The contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is 7.3% corresponding to 2.4°C in temperature.

The reproduction of CO2 radiative forcing (RF) showed the climate sensitivity RF value to be 2.16 Wm-2, which is 41.6% smaller than the 3.7 Wm-2 used by the IPCC.

A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC’s climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.”


Varotsos and Efstathiou, 2019:

“The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming).

In this context, the temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset.

Our analysis did not show consistent warming with a gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory

Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.”

Read more at No Tricks Zone

Comments (60)

  • Avatar

    Tom O

    |

    Einstein reportedly said that there could be a 100 experiments proving my theory right, but it only takes one to prove my theory wrong. Climate science, of course, falls under the same statement, and as in the case of Relativity, the points that suggested it wrong were manipulated to prevent that, just like we see going on in the field of climate “wannabe science.” Some things never change.

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Tom O,

      But we need to keep reminding PSI readers of what Einstein knew about science and now Jim Allison, another Nobel Prize Winner, is making a concerted effort to get ‘the message’ out. One should not need to be a Novel Prize Winner to understand this simple fact of the scientific method of learning. We can never be certain of what is but we can be certain of what is not.

      So, keep reminding PSI readers and others of this fact of science and I will too.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        JaKo

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        I would advance this pragmatic idea further: “I know that I know nothing”
        If this was conceived some 24 centuries ago, it certainly would be valid today. The probability of any recent ‘discovery,’ however appreciated (e.g. Nobel Price etc.), as being “IT,” is ever so dismal.
        We are still in a guessing stage of acquiring knowledge; being proven wrong should be regarded as blessing rather than failure.
        Yup, the epistemological nihilism rules… The question is, will there be a “Next Stage” for humanity? Under current conditions, I think not. So, could there be a “revival of humanity?” — I do not know; I may hope so, but not likely. The reason being — it would be too painful for us to undertake it.
        Just my humble opinion…
        Cheers,
        JaKo

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi JaKo,,

          I believe you missed the point of Einstein’s and Allison’s wisdom. We can absolutely know something: that which is wrong.

          I will let a popular author state their and my case: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            The problem is that for many people the only impossibility is that they could be wrong.
            Have a good day,
            Herb

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Herb,

            As I read some of your comments and articles, it seems you accept that nothing is wrong and therefore anything is possible.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            To the contrary I believe that most of what we believe is wrong. It is quantum physics that holds everything is right and is used as a magic spell to offer excuses for any anomaly discovered.
            When an electron combines with a proton creating a neutron it releases energy (exothermic). When a neutron is not contained in a nucleus it will spontaneously decompose into a proton, electron, and a gamma ray. This is also an exothermic reaction. How can this not violate the first law of thermodynamics?
            Have a good day,
            Herb

          • Avatar

            JaKo

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            I don’t think I missed that point.
            What I think is that if we could eliminate a theory, as you said, with absolute certainty, did we really advance our knowledge? If there were a limited number of possible explanation of a phenomenon and we eliminate some of them, while the number of possibilities hasn’t changed, then yes; however, with this ‘advancement’ we are as likely to increase the number of possibilities or even change the metrics of that phenomenon, and the apparent “progress” may turn to be ‘negative’…
            “The more i know the more i know i don’t know…”
            Cheers,
            JaKo

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Jako,

            Thank you for your continuing comments.

            Relative to the most recent, you wrote: “If there were a limited number of possible explanation of a phenomenon and we eliminate some of them, while the number of possibilities hasn’t changed, then yes.

            In the history of ‘modern’ science, there often have been mainly two options.

            The earth stands still or it doesn’t. Bodies twice as heavy fall twice as fast or they don’t. Arrhenius’s radiation balance calculation considered all the possible factors or it didn’t. The earth’s average temperatures would be about 30 degrees C less if not for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or not.

            The first necessary step is to eliminate what is absolutely wrong. Only then will people be forced to look for alternatives if there do not appear any. In the case of bodies falling, I do not believe we had any idea how they might fall until we tried to observe how they did fall. Which took a little ingenuity to design instruments which were capable of actually observing this.

            And a truth is that in physics laboratory we used such an instrument and observed its result and at the time I had no clue as to what I, by the instrument, had observed. Now, it is still very hard for me to imagine how I could have been so ‘dense’. But I know I and the students in my group had no clue of what we had done and observed. And I do not blame the physics professor or the laboratory assistant.

            Except for the fact that no one during my formal science education ever suggested I should read the English translation of Galileo’s book. And I know that for 20 years I never suggested to my chemistry students that they should read this book because I had not yet read it.

            And I have not yet suggested that you should read it if you haven’t. But now I do suggest this.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            JaKo

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            I have downloaded the translation to my “night reading tablet” — so I do, in principle, comply with your suggestion;-)
            OTOH, I really wish the advancement of our species were so straight-forward and based on binary problems. What I see ‘behind the curtains’ of modern science is nothing binary. As Mr. Rose mentioned the paradox with neutron — there are many of these.
            I tell you my little experience: As a sophomore in one of the oldest universities in EU, I was drilled with “Check your units!” — OK I did, and upon analyzing Newton’s (engineering) formula of gravitation I found that his “constant” was actually reflecting the expansion of universe; or, rather, acceleration of nothingness, to be exact. There’s nothing wrong with engineering formulas (as I, a trained physicist, I spent a generation in Chemical Engineering); however, I always understood the role of “true science” as “to explain things” — phenomena can be measured, quantized and evaluated as such to fit our “liddle universe;” yet, as you could surely see in application of thermodynamic “laws,” we have a long way to go, even in the PRACTICAL kind of way…
            BTW, poor Swante did recant his original ‘Carbonic Acid’ idea, but nobody listened then.
            You have a good night, Jerry,
            Cheers,
            JaKo

          • Avatar

            Matt

            |

            Hi Jako.

            In the war of propaganda over climate change your appendaged comment sparked my attention.

            “BTW, poor Swante did recant his original ‘Carbonic Acid’ idea, but nobody listened then.”

            Jako. Do you have a reference to Svante’s recantation at your fingertips and if you do posting that reference would be appreciated.

            The things we learn talking to Jerry and his pals and associates.
            Kind regards Matt

          • Avatar

            JaKo

            |

            Hi Matt,
            Dr. Arrhenius amended his original estimates of Carbonic Acid influence on Earth surface temperature in 1906, Vol. 1, No. 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute; there he reduced the originally proposed ‘Climate Sensitivity’ by factor of 3:
            “Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 ºC or +1.6 ºC respectively.”
            Whether this would constitute a “recanting” is up to the beholder 😉
            (I did have links to the originals; however, they all point to 404 now…)
            Cheers,
            JaKo

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Matt,

            You wrote: “I have downloaded the translation to my “night reading tablet” — so I do, in principle, comply with your suggestion;-)”

            In principle, or any other way, you have not begun to comply with my suggestion. So do not be surprised if I do not address any more comments to you. Which I doubt will be of any concern to you.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Matt and JaKo,

            Sorry, I get confused easily and the quote I attributed to you was actually that of JaKo. And now that I read that JaKo made the effort to literature search and find what Arrhenius actually said, maybe I was hasty in what I wrote. But one must put the +/- 1C changes in the context of the about 30C difference, due his calculations between the carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere relative to an atmosphere with no carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) does the insignificance of his change become apparent.

            JaKo, you should not tell only half of the story and then write: “Whether this would constitute a “recanting” is up to the beholder.” It’s deceptive.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Jerry I agree, you do get confused easily. The “about 30C difference” you mentioned is seen more often as “33 K”. It is NOT due to “calculations between the carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere relative to an atmosphere with no carbon dioxide…”

            The 33 K is the difference between Earth’s believed average surface temperature (288 K), and the calculated equilibrium temperature of a black body sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 (255 K). 288 K minus 255 K equals 33 K.

            The calculation has NOTHING to do with carbon dioxide, or a real-world situation.

            You should not tell only half of the story. It’s deceptive.

            Have a great day.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Herb Rose

            Do you have any supporting evidence that scientists believe a neutron will give off energy when forming from proton and electron and also give off energy when decaying? I have not read any valid science to this date where science violates the 1st Law of thermodynamics as you propose. The discovery of the neutrino was because of the potential for 1st Law violation.

            I think you are just making up stuff and I am challenging your claim. Can you support this claim you made or are we to just blindly believe it is correct because you posted it?

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Norman,
            When a neutron decays it not only produces a proton and an electron but gamma radiation which is an electromagnetic wave. The proton and electron are given enough kinetic energy that they do not immediately recombine into a neutron but eventually form a hydrogen atom
            This is strong evidence that it is an energy producing reaction. When beta decay occurs in the nucleus of an atom it not only propels an electron out of the nucleus overcoming the attractive force of the increased number of protons in the nucleus but also gamma radiation.Beta radiation is from the decay of a neutron in the nucleus of the atom.
            The belief is that the energy given off by a neutron star is from the protons and electrons of atoms combining to form neutrons. Again an exothermic reaction.
            The neutrino was not created from any evidence but because the energy produced when an atom decayed was not enough to account for the change in mass of the atom according to E=mc^2. It is totally an imaginary particle and the fact that physicist have “proved” its existence doesn’t make it real. They have also proven the existence of quarks which are the theorized building blocks of proton and neutrons and I will explain why they do not exist either.
            When a neutron passes between two oppositely charged plates its path does not change. When an alpha particle passes between two charged plates it is attracted towards the negative plate. It turns out that an alpha particle is not a particle but a subatomic molecule made from two protons and two neutrons.
            What if a neutron is also a subatomic molecule made from an electron and a proton (which corresponds to its mass) and instead of no charge it has both a negative and positive charge? The structure would conform to the experimental results but when a neutron has velocity it would represent two currents going in opposite directions. If the dual charged molecule was moving through a magnetic field, according to the right hand rule, the two currents would be pushed in opposite directions creating a shearing force between the electron and proton. A magnetic field provides the energy needed to causes a neutron molecule to decay. There are no quarks.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Herb Rose

            Are you trying to induce pain in my brain? Your lack of any real knowledge of physics is painful. I think it is not possible to reach you. You have a scrambled mess of ideas on physics derived by your limited reading of some physics material and forming awful conclusions based upon complete ignorance and an unwillingness to correct your total destruction of any rational or logic based physics.

            With your neutron example, you don’t understand radioactive decay at all but make up some false notions, believe them factual and then form horrible conclusions based upon your incorrect understanding.

            Here:
            https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Map%3A_University_Physics_III_-Optics_and_Modern_Physics(OpenStax)/10%3A__Nuclear_Physics/10.03%3A_Nuclear_Binding_Energy

            The reason a neutron in a nucleus emits energy when turning into a proton is because it loses mass. Look at the graph of binding energy.

            Now find a neutron formed outside the nucleus that gives off energy in formation. The energy you are claiming is because the nucleus converted some mass to energy. I am certain you will not understand this point at all.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Herb Rose

            You are also wrong about you declaration about Quarks. Experimental evidence has shown them to exist. You would not be able to follow the ideas in this article but you are still wrong and know far less about physics than you think. You are another Kruger-Dunning person. Lots of you on this blog. You really don’t know much real physics but think you know far more than you do and are unwilling or unable to learn actual physics or follow logical evidence based material.

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/qevid.html

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            Norman (to Herb): I think it is not possible to reach you.

            James: It may be impossible for you. Because you would first have to have a substantive argument or at least a point. All you have is the certainty that comes with brain-dead faith.

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
            http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
            Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.

            In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
            The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Norman,
            The mass of an atom given on the periodic table is an average of the mass and number of the different isotopes of the element. There are zero atoms that have that mass in reality. The mass of an a real atom is always an integer multiple of the mass of a neutron. There are no fractional protons or electrons. If you are going to convert mass to energy you must convert the entire mass of an electron or proton not a part of it. If you destroy an electron or proton what happens to the electrical charge associated with it?
            Do you deny that a neutron outside a nucleus spontaneously decomposes? The reason why neutron bombs were developed is because there is little radioactivity after ten minutes unlike conventional nuclear bombs.
            The radioactive decay of a neutron is different than the radioactive decay of an atom. A neutron does not have a half life.
            Do you deny that the creation of a neutron in a neutron star produces energy? You can’t have it both ways if you accept the first law of thermodynamics.
            You are a book physicist who accepts the explanations of others to try to make evidence conform to their theories without question and without thought.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Herb Rose

            The only thing I can accept is that you do not have a solid understanding of physics and used a very sporadic grasp of the topic to make up conclusions that just are not true. You have zero understanding of binding energy (that runs nuclear reactors and makes bombs) . Since you don’t wan tot read and learn how it works it seems you will continue to peddle your crackpot ideas based upon half truths and limited understanding of the topic you discuss. I think you might do yourself some good to actually read some solid physics and learn it before you attempt to make up your own crackpot ideas on the topic. Real science takes work and effort to learn. Your crackpot route is the lazy man’s way out. Reject accepted science and make up your own (of course not based upon anything) then declare yourself a genius and all the brilliant minds in science are just wrong because you said so.

            Sorry you are wrong. It might hurt to learn the truth but what I see from crackpot mentality they do not change regardless of the overwhelming evidence showing they are wrong.

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi JaKo,

          I have not submitted the following essay to John O’Sullivan, the editor of PSI, for a possible posting for possibly wrong reasons. I submit it here as a comment because it most definitely is related to our conversations about the refutation of wrong scientific ideas. This essay, written nearly two years ago, even reviewed what Darwin had written as to how his idea could be refuted.

          Darwin’s Idea (Evolution) About The Origin Of Life
          Is A Wrong Scientific Idea

          Jerry L Krause 2018

          You are a human being if you are reading this. As a human being reading this, I am reasonably sure you know that you were born perfectly helpless. This, not because you remember being born this way but because you have observed other newly born babies. Most of us were nurtured by our parents during this early helpless period of our lives and if not by parents, by another human, or humans, who were ‘older’ and no longer helpless.

          For the objective of this essay is to establish with a video (https://vimeo.com/224854624) about the nesting bald eagles in Smith Rock State Park (2017) by George Lepp, that Darwin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life is wrong. I began this essay with the first paragraph because I was reasonably sure that you, a human, could understand the first paragraph while you might have no clue as to what the title is about. For to most simply achieve this objective requires specific knowledge about which I was not aware until today (9/26/2018).

          “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Albert Einstein

          However, I have been long aware that Darwin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life, first published in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,1859, immediately challenged the idea of creation which was written about on the first page of The Holy Bible. This idea of creation is believed by both Jews and Christians, to be the inspired words of the Creator God as written by various humans of old. About the last day of God’s creations, the 6th, one can read: “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kinds.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creators that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:24-27 NIV)

          But until I did some literature search for this essay, I had not read (https://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/): “Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Footnotes:
          1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
          2. Ibid. p. 158.”

          Surely an eagle pair (male and female) are a ‘complex organ’. A common question which commonly leads to endless debate is: Which came first: the chicken or the egg? As you view the video and observe the extreme care with which this eagle pair incubates their eggs, the answer should be obvious and seemingly undebatable. This demonstrates the power of the common observation in science which is so commonly overlooked. Do I need to ask: Who programmed these eagle parents before they actually became parents?

          Addendum: (https://www.nationaleaglecenter.org/eagle-nesting-young/)

          Who incubates the egg?
          After it is laid, the egg must be constantly kept warm, or incubated, and protected from predators. Both males and females share incubation responsibilities but the female typically spends more time on the nest than the male. Males leave the nest to hunt, often providing food for the female. However, the female will sometimes leave the nest to hunt for herself, at which times the male will be called upon to remain at the nest.

          How do eagles keep the eggs and young eaglets warm?
          The body heat of the parent keeps the developing egg warm. Like most birds, eagles develop a brood patch, or bare spot on their belly, to better facilitate heat transfer to the egg during incubation. Both male and female eagles develop a brood patch.

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi JaKo,

            I have written I get confused and because my previous comment had not been immediately posted, I studied my biblical reference and saw I should have referred to the 5th day as the day when the fish and birds has been created. Which seems significant relative to a study of Natural History.

            Now, my mistake is corrected and I feel better.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            JaKo

            |

            Hi Jerry,

            I’m very sorry — I couldn’t respond to your commentary (re Darwin) as I don’t dwell upon old comments I made and there is no mechanism, on this site, to notify me of updates…

            Regarding this rather ‘touchy’ subject — evolution:
            I think Darwin did not mean to have an absolute answer to Genesis. He just cast a foundation on which, he assumed, others would build.

            I think I can make my point based on many aspects; I’ll abbreviate these in form of the greatest antagonism:
            I’ve read the Genesis etc. in many formats, but the best I found was in ‘Book of J’ (gentler and kinder then that of “E” — think of Canada;-); I also read a few Dr. Dawkins’ books and, as I agree with many of his ideas, overall, I found him rather similar in attitude to those he is trying to refute (Creationists), and so in many ways. (The real extreme, Dr. Harris, would come in as from different perspective.)
            I’ve also been to many places around the world; Galapagos and Creation Museum, Paarl Valley and the Red Middle, the Death Valley and Amazona or Nevado Cayembe. I’m observant and also a mad photographer and my conclusion is:
            I would never jump from my skeptic / agnostic wagon to either theist or atheist one — on principle! My daughter suggested to me a “custom version” of agnosticism — “Militant Agnosticism = I don’t know and you and neither do you!” That may be funny, but quite on and beyond the point…
            I can see that many people need an omni-everything kind of being; in many cases, just to amend my point — “The more I know…”
            OTOH I do realize there must be something beyond our comprehension, an omni-presence which we may somehow “feel,” yet can’t define or identify. That is really beside the point I made above.

            Sorry again for being “late,”

            You take care
            JaKo

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Hi Jako.
          Thank you for the reference to the proclaimed re-evaluation Dr Arrhenius did to his own hypothesis. A factor of three is significant.
          Kind Regards. Matt

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Tom O,

      I did not ‘catch’, or understand, what you had written. So I need to clarify what you intended to communicate to PSI readers. Of which I am one.

      You wrote: “Climate science, of course, falls under the same statement, and as in the case of Relativity, the points that suggested it wrong were manipulated to prevent that, just like we see going on in the field of climate “wannabe science.”” Are you claiming, or implying, that there is an experimental result, hidden by the scientific establishment, which refutes the idea that E=mc^2?

      Now, that I question what you intended, I see that “Einstein reportedly said that there could be a 100 experiments proving my theory right, but it only takes one to prove my theory wrong.” is partially correct.

      For the quote of which I am familiar is: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

      Hence, Tom O, I conclude that you have deliberately tried to deceive PSI readers and there is no need for you to clarify anything for me.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Jerry, is this how you use your time?

        You make a comment, over a week after Tom O., trying to misrepresent and misinterpret what he stated, hoping to somehow make yourself appear smart.

        Why not have something constructive, lucid, and meaningful to offer?

        Have a great day.

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Geran,

          You asked: “is this how you use your time?”

          My answer is: Yes!!! Because I believe it is how the scientists whose names can be generally recognized, because of their scientific achievements, actually spent their time.

          I’m a nobody but this doesn’t distract me from trying to contribute more to science than to tear down the efforts of other scientists of past, even if they concluded wrong ideas.

          I know that Arrhenius’s calculation of the earth’s average air temperature required great effort and an ‘observed’ fact is that the present ‘average’ air temperature is not far from that he calculated from more limited data.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            So you actuallly believe scientists spent their time backstabbling others?

            You are delusional.

      • Avatar

        Herb Rose

        |

        Hi Jerry,
        Einstein may have believed that 1 experiment could prove him wrong but his disciples believe that no experiment can prove him wrong. When E=mc^2 did not give the correct answer for the energy produced from the mass difference in a radioactive atom, instead of deciding the formula was wrong they created the neutrino, designed to be undetectable, which contained the missing mass.
        There is nothing that will dissuade a true believer whether it is AGW or Einstein.
        Have a good day,
        Herb

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Geran and Herb,

        I suggest you go to the book–“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”–and read the story–The 7 Percent Solution.

        It is about the mistakes that good scientists make and then try to correct as they gain new (better) information.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Jerry,
          The essence of being a scientist is knowing you don’t know and questioning everything, especially what you think you know. If there is good evidence that you’re beliefs are wrong you must reassess those beliefs and change them to account the new data. Looking for evidence that supports your knowledge is counterproductive and useless because it is the aberrations that lead to advances Believing in a “right” answer is the death of science. Many so called scientists, like Michael Mann (who tried his best to kill dissent and questions of his con scam) are the opposite of scientists. In a religion you accept a dogma as being true. In science the only truth is that what you believe will turn out to be wrong.
          Have a good day,
          Herb

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Herb,

          I am curious. How is it that you claim to know so much about Science?

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Jerry,
            The only thing I think I know about science is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is no evidence to support these beliefs but there must be a basis (taken on faith) that forms the foundation for beliefs. For DesCarte it was “I think therefore I Am.”
            When something violates the basic belief you must either determine what is wrong with the new evidence/theory or change the basis of your belief system. I believe that reason is the means by which we determine what is true and when physicist state that things don’t have to make sense they have lost the ability to judge evidence or theory.
            When a theory lacks evidence to support it you must determine how it conforms to your basic beliefs. There is no evidence that gravity is a function of mass (C = V^2 times d) so when it becomes necessary to invent potential energy (for which there is no evidence only need to preserve theory) the theory needs to be questioned.
            When an object accelerates towards a black hole it gains velocity which means it has an increase in energy and according to Einstein an increase in mass. This violates the foundation that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. The question is how far will you go to support a theory that’s based upon an assumption (the speed of light is constant) that has no evidential support?
            Have a good day,
            Herb

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Herb and PSI Readers,,

            This comment is addressed to Herb and PSI Readers because some PSI readers might not understand to what Herb was referring when he wrote: “I believe that reason is the means by which we determine what is true and when physicist state that things don’t have to make sense they have lost the ability to judge evidence or theory.”

            The physicist’s to whom Herb refers are the physicists, who near the beginning of the 20th Century saw physical evidence (phenomena) that their classic physics of large bodies could not explain.

            Hence there was a small group of physicists who became ‘quantum mechanical’ physicists whose theories, they admitted, they could not understand as these new theories explained the observed phenomena that their previous classical physics could not.

            Now, a known (observed) fact is that this small group of quantum mechanical physicists designed ‘bombs’ which were constructed according to their plans, which worked the first 3 times they were tested. For while the world did not know about the first test, the world learned that bombs 2 and 3 destroyed thousands of innocent lives and much property.

            And it is still an observed fact that these terrible bombs have not yet been used again to destroy innocent lives and much property.

            But it certainly is an observed fact that this small group of physicists used theories they could not ‘understand’ to design a bomb which worked the first 3 times it was tested.

            Which is something that DesCarte, sitting in a fireplace and concluding–“I think therefore I Am.”, and his fellow philosophers have never done.

            There are two worlds; and it seems it would be intelligent to admit that one has never done anything but ‘think and write’.

            Have a good day, Jerry

            Ha

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Herb,
            Are you saying it’s Charge, not mass? Coulomb’s equation is essentially the same as Newton’s.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Zoe,
            No Zoe.The formula is wrong. Gravity is a function of energy not mass. Objects orbit another object because they are in equilibrium with the energy field of that object. This explains why asteroids orbit other asteroids even though their mass does not produce enough force to allow this. I wrote an article in PSI (A new theory of gravity) that eliminates all the odd behavior of the force of gravity. I also wrote an article (an experiment with magnets) that shows that the force of a magnet does not decrease as approximately the cube of distance and the force between two magnets (Actually the strength of a third magnet being created from the two magnets) is M3 = (M1 + M2)/d where d is the distance from one magnet the magnetic field of the other magnet.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Thank you Herb, but what is energy? Seriously, what is energy? Can it be defined not circularly?

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Zoe,
            Energy along with matter are the two indestrucatable building blocks that form the universe I now all it Energy t to distinguish it from the motion or energy of an object. Energy t and matter cannot be created or destroyed but they do interact. They both emit field that produce all the objects in the universe. Matter emits positive and negative electric fields. Energy t emits an energy field we identify as gravity and magnetism Magnetism is an energy field given direction by metals and doesn’t decrease with the square of the distance, just as a laser or spotlight does not decrease as the square of the distance. Gravity is an expanding energy field that fills an area as distance increases (Kepler’s law: C= V^2 d where d is the radius of the energy sphere)
            The energy t field and electrical fields interact. Electromagnetic waves are where a change in an electrical field produces a change in the energy field, which produces a change in the electrical fields. You can use the interaction of the two fields to eliminate a force of gravity from mass and the two nuclear forces.
            (I wrote an article for PSI called Why the nuclear forces don’t exist)
            Herb

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Thanks Herb.

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Jerry, here’s a better suggestion: How about you quit trying to cover for your lack of knowledge by mentioning real scientists.

          Then you could start admitting some of the mistakes you have made. Who knows, maybe you could then learn something?

          Have a great day.

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    If we accept the 800-year time lag, it’s difficult to see how CO2 can have any effect on temperature at all. If we accept radiative forcing is real, then we have to accept that alarmist view that CO2 does indeed drive temperature, and therefore may indeed heat the atmosphere dangerously.

    • Avatar

      Kevin Doyle

      |

      Andy,
      Unlike thorough laboratory testing and demonstrations of medicines, glues, and pet food, the ‘radiative forcing’ quality of CO2 has never been demonstrated in a laboratory.
      A sort of interesting fact.
      This observation should be pointed out to CO2 warmists. Do you think they might actually undertake a demonstration of the magical qualities of CO2 in a laboratory to convince all of those nefarious deniers?
      KD

    • Avatar

      JaKo

      |

      Hi8 Andy,
      There are many reoccurring phenomena, affecting this correlation, identified so far; however, the 800-year one fits rather a long term analysis of historical climate deduced from ice cores.
      And, if you really want to be pedantic, the recent rise of CO2 concentration would fit nicely following the Medieval Warming Period…
      Cheers,
      JaKo

      • Avatar

        Andy Rowlands

        |

        Both you Jako and Kevin above are right, the MWP is the example I use when talking about the 800-year time lag, I was using the radiative forcing argument to illustrate that if we believe it happens, then we are effectively believing the alarmists, or at the very least, support the so-called ‘Lukewarmers’ who say CO2 does cause a minor amount of warming. As far as I am aware after discussing it at some length with Tim Ball and Joe Postma, the 800-year time lag is well-established, so we can therefore say with good confidence that radiative forcing from CO2 does not happen.

  • Avatar

    Chris

    |

    We can all be certain that anthropogenic climate change is not right.

  • Avatar

    Brian

    |

    Dec 14, 2019 Disaster Plan of Worlds’ Richest Man? | S0 News

    Need to Catch Up on Climate or Cosmology? Go into the show notes for so much more data.

    https://youtu.be/k7oVh88INcE

    Nov 26, 2019 Eighteen Inches Of Global Warming

    Toto goes on strike, protesting too much global warming.

    https://youtu.be/jvN11I5KB4s

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi JaKo,

      I had not submitted the following essay to John O, the PSI, for possible posting for possibly a wrong reason. But given our conversation and the fact that its topic is clearly science and that Darwin even described how his theory could be refuted. I believe it is definitely appropriate and share it with you and PSI readers for your considerations.

      Darwin’s Idea (Evolution) About The Origin Of Life
      Is A Wrong Scientific Idea
      Jerry L Krause 2018

      You are a human being if you are reading this. As a human being reading this, I am reasonably sure you know that you were born perfectly helpless. This, not because you remember being born this way but because you have observed other newly born babies. Most of us were nurtured by our parents during this early helpless period of our lives and if not by parents, by another human, or humans, who were ‘older’ and no longer helpless.

      For the objective of this essay is to establish with a video (https://vimeo.com/224854624) about the nesting bald eagles in Smith Rock State Park (2017) by George Lepp, that Darwin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life is wrong. I began this essay with the first paragraph because I was reasonably sure that you, a human, could understand the first paragraph while you might have no clue as to what the title is about. For to most simply achieve this objective requires specific knowledge about which I was not aware until today (9/26/2018).

      “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Albert Einstein

      However, I have been long aware that Darwin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life, first published in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,1859, immediately challenged the idea of creation which was written about on the first page of The Holy Bible. This idea of creation is believed by both Jews and Christians, to be the inspired words of the Creator God as written by various humans of old. About the last day of God’s creations, the 6th, one can read: “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kinds.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creators that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:24-27 NIV)

      But until I did some literature search for this essay, I had not read (https://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/): “Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Footnotes:
      1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
      2. Ibid. p. 158.”

      Surely an eagle pair (male and female) are a ‘complex organ’. A common question which commonly leads to endless debate is: Which came first: the chicken or the egg? As you view the video and observe the extreme care with which this eagle pair incubates their eggs, the answer should be obvious and seemingly undebatable. This demonstrates the power of the common observation in science which is so commonly overlooked. Do I need to ask: Who programmed these eagle parents before they actually became parents?

      Addendum: (https://www.nationaleaglecenter.org/eagle-nesting-young/)

      Who incubates the egg?
      After it is laid, the egg must be constantly kept warm, or incubated, and protected from predators. Both males and females share incubation responsibilities but the female typically spends more time on the nest than the male. Males leave the nest to hunt, often providing food for the female. However, the female will sometimes leave the nest to hunt for herself, at which times the male will be called upon to remain at the nest.

      How do eagles keep the eggs and young eaglets warm?
      The body heat of the parent keeps the developing egg warm. Like most birds, eagles develop a brood patch, or bare spot on their belly, to better facilitate heat transfer to the egg during incubation. Both male and female eagles develop a brood patch.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Geran,

        Relative to your comment of December 15, 2019 at 4:27 pm, I do not believe I was the one who is confused. My comment was in reference to Svante Arrhenius’s essay, ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276. Which was Arrhenius’s later comment, brought to our attention by JaKo, of his calculated results of possible temperature changes relative to certain proposed changes of carbon dioxide’s atmospheric concentrations was about. So the history being considered is clearly about carbon dioxide and temperatures irregardless of your opinion to the contrary.

        Have a good day, Jerry
        |

        • Avatar

          geran

          |

          Jerry your confusion continues.

          But, it gets worse. You now appear to be backing away from your own words. Your reference does not mention “about 30C difference”, or “calculations between the carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere relative to an atmosphere with no carbon dioxide”

          Here is your reference`: https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

          You have already mentioned that you get easily confused. Don’t make yourself look any worse by also being incompetent.

          Have a great day.

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Geran,

          What as the effective radiation temperature that was the result of his radiation balance calculation? What was the average air temperature which he calculated? I approximated the 30C because the necessary data that he had to work with was extremely limited. I can up with an ‘about’ difference of 30C because I can subtract.

          It takes a little effort to digest what others describe they have done.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Jerry, you are still confused.

            I supplied the link to the reference you mentioned. You believe the reference answers your two questions. The reference’s pages are numbered. So, please indicate where the text states what you believe it states.

            Thanks, and have a great day.

  • Avatar

    James Gobbett

    |

    I didn’t expect to see denied the idea of Latent Heat in a science site. Measuring the Latent Heat of water with respect to ice and steam with respect to water were among the first physics experiments I did at school almost 70 years ago. The name Mollier means nothing?
    The latent heat of water vapour explains why warm wet air ascending cools less (about 5C per km) than dry air descending (about 10C/km), which is what is routinely observed in mountainous areas, where it’s called Foehn. The warming is due to adiabatic compression, also observed when I inflate my bike tyres. This effect could be what is known as AGW but is in fact NWG where N = natural, if enough water vapour is condensed. The rain and snow somehow climbed to the top of the hills, so a massive heat engine must be operating.

  • Avatar

    James Gobbett

    |

    The supposed 33C difference between earth surface temperature and the surface of an airless sphere at the same distance from the sun and with the same albedo has been shown to be in error. Though hard to find on NASA sites, real measurements of the Moon’s surface and that of Earth have been found to be much larger; which cannot be explained by CO2.
    https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    The term latent heat is part of meteorological pseudo science. It is neither concise, measurable. It’s just science propaganda.

    Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.

    In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi James,
      “Latent heat”, like potential energy, refers to energy that cannot be accounted for by the instruments used or the accepted theory. In water the “heat of crystallization” refers to the disappearing 80calories/gram needed to convert 0 C ice into 0 C water. The latent heat of evaporation refers to the 540 calories/gram needed to convert 100 C water to 100 C steam. This energy is hidden by the limitations of the thermometer by only detecting kinetic energy in a narrow range.
      A cursory examination shows that 0 C water has more movement (kinetic energy) than 0 C ice and that 100 C steam has more kinetic energy than 100 C water. The problem is that a thermometer does not register the energy need to form and break the bonds of the crystal nano droplets. A thermometer treats water as individual molecules and consequently misses 86 % of the energy needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam. People will ignore the limitations of their instruments and believe them other than their owners.
      Herb

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        Herb, you get some of it right, but are still confused.

        A thermometer does NOT measure “latent heat”. It does NOT miss “86 % of the energy needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam.” It was never intended for such a purpose. That does not make a thermometer useless.

        Your computer cannot fly. It was never intended to fly. Are you going to claim your computer is useless because it cannot fly?

        However, properly used, a thermometer could measure the temperatures of 0ºC ice, 0ºC water, and 100ºC steam.

        Stop trying to bad mouth thermometers, or the proper use of a thermometer. It just makes you look like you don’t have a clue.

Comments are closed