• Carbon capture and storage a waste of time and money

    Written by Kelvin Kemm, Cfact.org

    The best response to changes in climate, whether temporary or long-term, are adaptation and resilience.

    Here I sit enjoying a long warm summer in Pretoria in South Africa.

    Some nights I go home, and in the dark I jump in into my swimming pool and lazily float around looking up at the millions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless sky.

    I then get out and go inside and switch on the TV to watch the news and I see the results of massive snowfalls in parts of the U.S. and Europe.  Regularly, on TV, one sees some person, with sombre face, talking about severe weather events, climate change, and global warming and often they try to explain that the deep snow is somehow linked to climate change.

    It is not.  There is no evidence of increased severe weather events anywhere in the world.  Statistically, the world weather is doing what it has always done.  What really amazes me is when one sees a TV reporter interviewing some old-timer and it goes like this: “Hello, your farm is covered waist deep in snow; is this bad for you!” “Farmer: “Yes it is, it is killing my animals.”  Reporter: “Do you think this is due to climate change?”  “Oh yes,” says the farmer. “I am sure it is.”

    Then the reporter says: “Have you ever seen it this bad before?”  The farmer replies: “Well not for a long time; this is as bad as the 1972 snowfall, but not as bad as the 1966 fall.”  Nobody then points out that if there was a 1972 snowfall as bad, and one in 1966 which was worse, and then you cannot possibly attribute the current one to climate change.  This fundamental piece of logic is never followed up by the reporters.

    Even the IPCC, which is not known for having balanced views, or even scientific views, has recently admitted that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years.  That is worth repeating; no global warming 16 years!

    So, for the past 16 years all the claims of observed warming during that period — claims of hottest years on record, and so on — have just not been true.  Meantime, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has continued to increase to the 400 ppm mark, where it now stands.

    So again by elementary logic this would seem to indicate, very strongly, that increasing CO2 is not causing any significant global warming.  So CO2 is also not causing increased extreme weather events.  Actually the increased CO2 is causing no effect observable to average citizens.

    Oh, wait a minute, there is an observable effect:  The government “panic-effect” which is seen all over the world.  Many governments are panicking that CO2 is a problem, so they feel that they had better do something.  So they do.  They put an additional tax on new car prices to ‘pay’ for the CO2 coming out of the exhaust; air travel is carbon-taxed; and so it goes.  The average citizens certainly do experience these effects … right in their pockets.Money down hole

    If one believes that increasing CO2 is a real problem, then such a belief can lead to very silly conclusions and actions.

    If enough people believe that ghosts are spreading across the country, on a nationwide path of destruction, then a government will set up a department to combat ghost effects; the Department of Ghost Effects.  The department will draw up ghost control legislation; will conduct potential ghost damage studies; and will introduce ghost multiplier taxes, and so on.

    There will be ghost avoidance lessons in schools, and the silliness will spread.

    One of the really silly results of an extreme fear of CO2 is the plan to execute “carbon capture.”  This entails various schemes to capture CO2 and then to store it away somewhere.

    In South Africa there is a project to investigate burying CO2 in deep underground geological storage areas.  This is just plain crazy.

    Now some U.S. professors have “warned” that this plan could induce earthquakes.  This opinion is pitched as a horrific outcome, something to be scared of.  Oh, Dear, they say: What if the deadly CO2 escapes during an earthquake?

    Reading their comments somewhat carefully it becomes evident that the supposed “earthquakes” are nothing more than almost imperceptible cracks or movement, and that the horrific outcome is nothing more than that the CO2 could leak out and end up back in the air where it was taken from in the first place.

    carboncaptureCarbon capture and storage is a waste of time and money.  There is no CO2 problem needing a panic response.  There is probably negligible anthropogenic CO2 effect on any perceived climate change, and if there is some, it will be so small as to be totally dwarfed by the natural forces of Mother Nature.

    It appears strongly as if all the observed global warming and cooling, for thousands of years, can be explained by cosmic rays from outer space interacting with the magnetic field effects of the magnetic fields of the Sun and the Earth.  The observed effects fit the physics of the magnetic field theory well; it does not fit a CO2 theory.



    In the row over whether climate change is causing the current floods and storms, the sceptics are the ones who are sticking to the consensus, as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — you know, the body that the alarm-mongers are always telling us to obey. And it is the sceptics who have been arguing for years for resilience and adaptation, rather than decarbonisation. While the green lobby has prioritised decarbonisation, sceptics have persistently advocated government spending on adaptation, so as to grab the benefits of climate change but avoid the harm, and be ready for cooling as well if the sun goes into a funk. –Matt Ridley, The Times, 17 February 2014

    Extreme weather events being taken as signs for the coming end unless sinful ways are repented is as old as civilization. Today’s climate panic is merely just the latest relapse to a very old mental disorder that has afflicted mankind for thousands of years. The only antidote is reason and knowledge. –Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, 17 February 2014

  • Greenpeace Co-Founder debunk co2 climate fear

    Originally published by Marc Morano – Climate Depot

    Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee:

    “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

    Humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

    Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears:
    ‘When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’

    On UN IPCC’s 95% confidence in man-made global warming: ‘Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

    What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.”

    Read the full statement here

  • A very cold reality

    Written by Alan Caruba, Cfact.org

    Maybe SuperBowl Sunday will be cold enough to awaken people to the myriad of lies that have kept the climate alarmists’ pockets well lined


    It’s not as if those in the Northeast have not experienced bone-chilling cold or that it is predicted to extend from the Midwest down into our southern States. There may possibly be a snow storm that will require the National Football League to reschedule the Sunday, February 2nd, Superbowl at the MetLife stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Crews spent 18 hours working to remove the snow from last week’s storm.

    A visit to IceAgeNow.info yielded headlines of news stories last week that included “Record Cold—Millions of Americans hit by Propane Shortage”; “Ice and Snow Closed Texas highways This Morning”; “Ice-cover Shuts Down Work on New Hudson River Bridge” — and so you understand this is a global phenomenon — “Kashmir—Heaviest January Snowfall in a Decade”;“Heavy Snowfall Sweeps Eastern Turkey”; “Romania—Heavy Snowfall and Blizzard”; and “Bangkok Suffers Coldest Night in Three Decades—Death Roll Mounts.”


    Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo of WeatherBell Analytics and editor of http://www.icecap.us says that, as the President addresses the nation on Tuesday, every State will have freezing temperatures and parts or all of 27 States will be below zero.

    All this is occurring as President Barack Obama is anticipated to talk about “climate change,” and a warming Earth, during his Tuesday State of the Union speech. He will be speaking to the idiots who still think the Earth is warming because they are too stupid or lazy to ask why it is so cold.

    Michael Bastasch, writing for The Daily Caller on Saturday, confirmed D’Aleo’s and other meteorologist’s forecasts. “The bitter cold that has hit the U.S. East Coast is expected throughout February, and on Jan 28—the day of the address—the Mid-Atlantic region is expected to be hit with freezing cold air that could drive temperatures below zero in big cities among the I-95 corridor.”

    Washington, D.C. will be one of those cities, but as Bastasch reported, “Environmentalists and liberal groups are urging Obama to use the speech to reaffirm his commitment to fighting global warming. ‘President Obama should rank the battle against climate change as one of his top priorities in his State of the Union speech next week’, said Center for Clean Air Policy president Ned Heime.”

    For environmentalists, it does not matter if the real climate is a deep cold. They committed to the lies about global warming in the late 1980s and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) has maintained the hoax ever since. Along the way we learned that the computer models on which it based its assertions and predictions were rigged and bogus, but that has not deterred the IPCC which is now referring to a “pause” in global warming. This is lying on a global scale.

    It was the environmental group Greenpeace that put out a television advertisement featuring a Santa Claus telling children that he might have to call off Christmas because the North Pole was melting. How malicious can they get? When a group of global warming scientists and tourists took a ship to the Antarctic to measure the “melting” ice down there, the ship got caught in the ice — which also resisted the efforts of two icebreaker ships to rescue them.

    We are dealing with environmental groups, the IPCC, and government leaders like Obama for whom the telling of huge and blatantly obvious lies about global warming is nothing compared to the billions generated by the hoax for the universities and scientists that line their pockets supporting it and industries that benefit by offering ways to capture carbon dioxide or conserve energy by first banning incandescent light bulbs.

    The “pause” has lasted now for17 years and, as is the case with all climate on the Earth, the reason is the Sun.


    A report published by CBN News noted that, “The last time the sun was this quiet, North America and Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s known as ‘Little Ice Age’ when the Thames River in London regularly froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and people starved.”

    Jens Pedersen, a senior scientist at Denmark’s Technical University, said that climate scientists know the Earth stopped warming 15 years ago. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which Pedersen is an expert reviewer, suppressed a recent report from its own scientists that the UN’s climate model has been proven wrong.

    “Global warming is nowhere to be found,” said David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Colorado, in a January 16 commentary in The Washington Times. “As frigid conditions settled over the nation, global-warming alarmists went into full denial mode,” adding that “weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe.” That is why the public is being told that cold weather has been caused by global warming!

    Whatever the President has to say about “climate change” should be taken as just one more example of 5 years of lies to advance policies that have nothing to do with the welfare of Americans needing jobs or the execrable Obamacare attack on the U.S. healthcare system.

    The cold reality may well be a Superbowl played on another day and a President for whom the truth is incidental to his shredding of the U.S. Constitution, the increase in the nation’s ever-growing debt, a lagging economy, and his intention to bypass Congress rather than working with it.

    That kind of thing will put a chill up any American’s spine if you think about it.

    © Alan Caruba, 2014

  • Record Arctic ice return

    Article appeared in “Daily Mail”, written by David Rose

    Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

    • Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
    • BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
    • Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

    A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

    The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

    Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

    MoS2 Template Master

    The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

    Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

    The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

    In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

    The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

    Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.



    The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.

    Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.

    At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

    In its draft report, the IPCC says it is ‘95 per cent confident’ that global warming has been caused by humans – up from 90 per cent in 2007.

    This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: ‘In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.’

    She pointed to long-term cycles  in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and  suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.

    Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

    Then... NASA satelite images showing the spread of Artic sea ice 27th August 2012

    Then… NASA satelite images showing the spread of Artic sea ice 27th August 2012


    ...And now, much bigger: The spread of Artic sea ice on August 15 2013

    …And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013

    ‘The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’

    Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

    Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

    Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

    Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.

  • Warming causes fewer hurricanes

    Review paper finds warming causes fewer hurricanes & little to no change of intensity

    A review paper by SPPI & CO2 Science finds, contrary to claims by climate alarmists, that warming causes fewer Atlantic hurricanes and has little to no impact upon the intensity of hurricanes.

    [Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]
    Climate alarmists continue to claim that rising temperatures lead to ever more intense Atlantic Basin hurricanes. But are they correct? We here review the results of a number of studies that are germane to this question.
    Several studies have actually found yearly hurricane numbers to decline as temperatures rise.
    When all is said and done, they report that their results “show no significant trend in potential intensity from 1980 to 1995 and no consistent trend from 1975 to 1995.” What is more, they report that between 1975 and 1980, “while SSTs rose, PI decreased, illustrating the hazards of predicting changes in hurricane intensity from projected SST changes alone.”
    The comparison of SSTs actually encountered by individual storms performed by Michaels et al. refutes the idea that anthropogenic activity has detectably influenced the severity of Atlantic basin hurricanes over the past quarter-century.
    While some researchers have hypothesized that increases in long-term sea surface temperature may lead to marked increases in TC storm intensity, our findings demonstrate that various indicators of TC intensification show no significant trend over the recent three decades.
    In addition to the growing body of empirical evidence that indicates global warming has little to no impact on the intensity of hurricanes, there is now considerable up-to-date model-based evidence for the same conclusion.
    Clearly, the temperature/hurricane connection is nowhere near as “one-dimensional” as Al Gore and others make it out to be. Warming alone does not imply that hurricanes are getting stronger.

    A future where relative SST controls Atlantic hurricane activity is a future similar to the recent past, with periods of higher and lower hurricane activity relative to present-day conditions due to natural climate variability, but with little long-term trend.

  • The Heating and Cooling of the Atmosphere of the Earth

    Written by Karl L. Erdman Ph.D. Professor Emeritus UBC



    The unrealistic picture of the regulation of the temperature of the earth that has led to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has arisen because of a misunderstanding of how the energy arriving from the sun heats the earth. It was postulated that radiation arrives at the surface, heats it, and then the atmosphere is heated from the warmed surface by direct transfer of some of the energy by means of conduction, convection, and evaporation. The majority of the energy was thought to be transferred by radiation which was trapped by the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere in a layer at some distance from the surface. It was then thought to be re-radiated from this layer and equal amounts were radiated outward into space and back to the surface. The surface was postulated to be heated additionally by “backradiation” from this “blanket”. According to the progenitors of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) the surface is heated above the temperature calculated from the simplistic model used to define the black body temperature of the surface. In this note is a short description of what constitutes a black body and explains why the earth is not one and why the presence of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to a drop in the temperature at the surface rather than a rise.

    The detailed description outlines how the energy from the surface is transported to the level at which the radiation temperature measured from space corresponds to the physical temperature measured by the use of radiosondes and how this altitude if determined by energy arriving from the sun. It explains how the fraction of the energy arriving at the surface that is transformed into heat, and does not enter the atmosphere by physical means but leaves the surface by infrared radiation, is converted near to the surface into heat by means of the principal greenhouse gases, water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). The measured results of the variation of the surface temperature with the increased concentration of the “greenhouse gases,” of which water vapor contributes 95% to the so-called greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide only 4%, show that the temperature is lowered with an increase in their concentration rather than raised, and so if we wish to regard it as a blanket, it is an unusual one since it cools rather than heats. The idea that increasing the concentration of CO2 will warm the surface is not only wrong but has been experimentally determined to be a bit of malicious nonsense.

    Although it is not discussed in this note, there is little difficulty in explaining how ice ages could occur with 4000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is an inverse correlation between high levels of it in the atmosphere and the surface temperature.

    The Important Physical Concepts

    The energy to heat the atmosphere arrives principally from the Sun, and the energy removed from it when it cools, is radiated into the cosmos. The average temperature of the surface is determined by a number of physical processes involving the transformation of the energy into various different forms and its storage at various stages of its passage between where it was created in the center of the sun by thermonuclear fusion and its dissipation into the universe after it leaves the surface of the earth. Its passage through the atmosphere is facilitated by radiation, conduction, and convection and temporary storage by the excitation of atoms and molecules into states of higher energy, and /or motion, and the energy stored and released during the changes in the state of the solids, liquids and gases that constitute the outer surface layer of the earth.

    The initial difficulty we have in the description of the process is due to the changes in scale during the description, as we trace the path of the energy flow. As an illustration, if we think of the earth as a solid ball that is about 20 cm in diameter the atmosphere in which everything that we will be considering in this description takes place, from the bottoms of the oceans to the top of the atmosphere, is only a 1/2mm thick layer on the surface of the ball, about the thickness of a coat of paint. Even a big weather event such as a hurricane would only be a spot on this surface layer perhaps 4 mm in diameter. The “rivers” in this surface layer which distribute a lot of energy, such as the jet streams in the atmosphere, or the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean are like thin strings of woolen yarn embedded in the layer.

    The mechanisms for the various methods of energy transfer are seemingly un-related. The way that energy is transferred by radiation requires an understanding of the quantum mechanical description of nature as the energy is transmitted in bundles called photons whose motion is described using formulae governing the passage of electromagnetic waves. Most of the energy that arrives at the earth from the sun is carried by photons and the amount of the energy in an individual photon depends on the frequency of the electromagnetic wave used in the description of its motion. Ultra violet radiation is described by high frequency photons and infra red radiation is described by low frequency photons. The old scientific idea that heat (and cold) was transferred by an invisible fluid called caloric refuses to go away and many of the mistakes made in the description of energy transfer by radiation is the persistence of this description in our thinking, in spite of the fact that it leads us to the wrong conclusions.

    When the theory of atomic structure of the elements was developed, which is now the basis of all chemistry and solid state physics, it completely changed the way that we think about the ways that energy is stored in those bodies in specific discrete amounts. The picture of the energy stored as heat in a gas is due to the kinetic energy of the molecules and so it can change in a more continuous fashion. It has altered the picture of how energy is absorbed and emitted.

    As an example, visible light can pass right trough glass as there are no energy levels in the atoms and molecules in the glass that can accept the specific energy carried by the photons in the visible spectrum. On the other hand carbon in its normal state has all sorts of energy levels that cover the band of energy carried by the visible light and so all photons of varying energy can be absorbed and carbon appears black. We call it a black body. The surface of the earth is not a true black body as 30% of the energy that falls on it is not absorbed but is reflected but many of the physical descriptions of energy transfer can be done using the formulae and ideas developed for black body radiation using the appropriate approximations.

    If we heat up the carbon, we are putting energy into it in the form of heat which is how we describe it as the energy in the motion of the molecules. Atoms and molecules, and indeed the lattice of a crystal, can store energy by being raised into higher states of excitation. The carbon can radiate energy as atoms change from states of higher energy to states of lower energy by emitting photons whose energy is specific to the energy difference between those two states. We detect these photons as electromagnetic radiation and the amount of energy carried by each photon is described by what we call the color of the light. Photons carrying a lot of energy are at the violet end of the spectrum and photons carrying a lot less energy are at the red end of the spectrum.

    If the way the way the carbon atoms are linked together as a solid body is changed those energy levels disappear and then photons can pass through the piece of solid material made of that same element without absorption. We then have a transparent lump of solid carbon which we call a diamond and it is no longer a black body like a lump of coal. In other arrangements when the photon is travelling through a medium it encounters a region where instead of being transmitted without absorption it is reflected or scattered like electromagnetic radiation, also without absorption.

    The Application of the Concepts to Energy Transfer

    The first idea that is an important addition to the above picture is that the surface of the earth is not a black body and the atmosphere surrounding the earth certainly is not as there is no physical association between the molecules and atoms. The emitted radiation comes from various locations that are all at different temperatures, as is also true of the radiation emitted from the sun. All parts of a “truly” black body are all at the same temperature and the spectrum of energies that are emitted has a characteristic shape that is only a function of the temperature at which the energy levels in the body are populated. By looking at the shape of the spectrum we describe its temperature in terms of the equations that are used to define black body radiation and so we say that the body has a certain black body temperature which is measured from absolute zero using the Kelvin temperature scale where the object whose temperature is being measured has no energy whatsoever. Such a region does not exist in our universe except perhaps in black holes which we do not yet completely understand.

    The length of time that the quantized energy is stored in the higher energy levels in the atoms and molecules is very short. The de-excitation time is determined statistically as in all such decay processes described by quantum mechanics. There is a half life associated with the event. The half life is the time for ½ of all of the excited states to decay to lower energy so when an atom or molecule is raised to a state of higher energy by the absorption of a photon it can emit a photon, with the same energy as it absorbed, in a period of time after its absorption determined by the half life of that excited state. For the infra red photons absorbed by the so-called greenhouse gases that time is quite short, the order of a millisecond which is 1 thousandth of a second. The time that the energy can be stored is thus very short, and the idea that “greenhouse gases” store heat as radiation is rubbish.

    But the energy in an excited state can also be lost by heating up another atom or molecule by a collision between the excited atom and one of the other atoms around it, which are a hundred times more numerous. Energy can be transferred from the excited state into kinetic energy of the other atom or molecule in the collision. The transfer can go in either direction but the change in the kinetic energy of the gas molecule has to be exactly right for transferring the energy to the excitation or it won’t take place, just like it was for the photons passing through the materials.

    We can now estimate the length of time required for a collisional de-excitation of an energy level by looking at the collision rate between the molecules. First the speed of molecules in a gas is determined by the temperature and at our normal room temperature is about 400 meters per second. We can also get a rough idea of the average distance between the molecules or atoms since we know that a molar volume contains 6 x 1023 molecules. The distance between two molecules is thus about 0.3 x 10-8 meters and so the time between collisions is about 1 millionth of the length of time it takes for the emission of the radiation from the excited state.

    As a result very little of the infrared radiation that is emitted from the surface of the earth that is absorbed by the “greenhouse gases” is re-radiated. Since these gases have their highest density near the surface of the earth, and 95% of them are molecules of water and only 4% of carbon dioxide, adding a little carbon dioxide will not change the rate very much. Almost all of the energy lost from the surface by radiation is transformed into heat in the oxygen and nitrogen that constitutes 99% of the atmosphere and whose density decreases exponentially with the altitude, as also does the temperature.

    At the surface of the earth, where the collision rate is high, the excited “greenhouse gases” don’t have time to radiate the energy before it is transferred to the oxygen and nitrogen, which cannot radiate it because it is all in the form of heat (the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules). The hot gases then carry the stored energy upwards where the collision rate progressively decreases and more and more energy can escape into space by radiation by the “greenhouse gases” at the rate controlled by the energy transfers that can occur at that temperature and pressure. When the rising gases reach 10 km in height, about half of the energy is being lost by radiation to space. The fractional rate of conversion of the heat to excitation increases as the pressure continues to drop (at 20 km altitude the pressure is 1/20 of its value at the surface) and the temperature is 70° colder.

    The calculated black body temperature of the earth as measured from space is made up of the sum of the spectra emitted at various intensities from various altitudes at which the heat in the gas is transferred to the excitation of the atoms and molecules that do the radiating. There is no real radiating surface and only a small fraction (about 6%) of the infra red radiation leaving the atmosphere comes from a region near the surface where the rate of capture of the higher energy infrared radiation by the “greenhouse gases” is low.

    In his paper entitled Climate Thermodynamics, Claes Johnson outlines how the heat energy captured by the oxygen and nitrogen is distributed throughout the atmosphere. It is here that the third effect that influences the temperature happens. The fractional concentration of all of the gases except water is relatively constant from the surface to a height of 100 km. The molar concentration ratio of water to carbon dioxide decreases from 50:1 to nearer 1:1. The thermodynamic lapse rate of the temperature in the atmosphere is determined by the concentration of water vapor which changes from a value of 5.5°C per kilometer where the humidity is high to 10°C per km at about 10 km in altitude, where it is almost the same as for a dry atmosphere.

    At this altitude called the tropopause another mechanism begins to become important. The energy from the sun carried by the ultra violet end of its pseudo black body spectrum (high energy photons) is augmented by the presence of high energy ions. The energy of the ultra violet photons is sufficiently high that they no longer require vacant energy states in atoms to be captured by the atoms and molecules in the gases as they can ionize atoms. Along with the flux of incoming high energy ions they can be absorbed in the atmosphere at that altitude by producing chemical reactions such as converting oxygen to ozone and producing a large variety of other compounds that aid in the formation of clouds, among other effects. The table shows how the ozone concentration suddenly increases at this altitude.

    Ozone Concentration and Altitude

    The next graph is a collection of all of the parameters describing the properties of the atmosphere from the ground to a height of 100 km at which the atmosphere is considered to have ended. An inspection of this picture shows that the lapse rate that was defined by the thermodynamics of the atmosphere ends at the level called the tropopause. The temperature of the atmosphere no longer is decreasing with the altitude but is steady and even beginning to rise. The altitude at which this happens is determined by the energy that is being deposited by the absorption of the high energy ultra violet photons and the ions being emitted by the sun. We can even see this visually when the surface of the sun is highly active and an unusually large cloud of ions impacts the atmosphere. The radiation emitted by the excited atoms appears in the Technicolor display we call the Aurora Borealis or Aurora Austrialis (or Northern Lights). The green color in the display is due to the radiation from an excited state in Oxygen.

    Atmospheric Properties at Various Heights

    By looking at this graph we can also see that using the temperature at the tropopause as our reference, the temperature at the surface depends on the lapse rate (the line representing the temperature that begins at the tropopause and ends at the surface). For a low lapse rate the temperature at the surface is lower and for a high lapse rate the temperature of the surface is higher.

    The next two graphs of measured lapse rates show how changes in the lapse rates change the temperature at the surface. The altitude at which this happens can be seen on the graphs of the temperature of the atmosphere as a function of altitude measured by radiosondes in different parts of the world, during existing local atmospheric conditions. The first measurements were taken at a location in Australia and shows what happens if there are more “greenhouse gases” near the surface, there is more water vapor in the air on the wet day and the temperature at the ground is lower. In the theory of AGW a small increase in the concentration of CO2 is amplified by an increase of water vapor, and the temperature is supposed to increase. Instead in the measured data the temperature falls when the concentration is increased and the theory of AGW is hopefully dead at last.

    Arid v Humid  Atmospheric Temp Profile

    The measurements displayed of two temperature vs altitude sets of data taken in two different locations in the United States at the same latitudes at the same time is even more illuminating. They show how the surface temperatures are different although they begin at the same temperature at the same high altitude and how this high altitude is the same as it was in Australia. The temperature was lower in Little Rock because the air had a higher humidity than in the desert at Las Vegas. It is easy to understand why jungles are cooler than the deserts just next door particularly if the horizontal and vertical scales in our climate graphs are kept in mind.

    Radiosonde Data Las Vegas v Little Rock

    The last and even more interesting correlation is that of the changes in the average temperature of the climate and the sunspot numbers which is now easy to understand. In the next two graphs we can see the correlation between the changes in the temperature of the earth and the sun spot cycles strength over a 130 year period.

    NOAA NCDC Annual Global Temp Change


    Variation of sunspot numbers since 1880

    There is an obvious correlation between the drop in the average temperature of the earth and the low point in the sun spot numbers and the increase in temperature during the high numbers. Historically the last two major cold periods in the climate (the Maunder minimum and the little ice age) were accompanied by a major decrease in the number of sun spots. The sun spot number in this last cycle (not displayed in this graph) is lower then it has been in 100 years and the winter temperatures in Europe have dropped.

    As was discussed above, the height of the tropopause, which determines the altitude at which the lapse rate in the atmosphere begins, and consequently determines the temperature at the surface, is the height from which the average temperature of the earth is defined. Radiosonde measurements show that the height of the tropopause varies as a function of latitude but also is determined by the activity of the sun. This varies from high activity when the sunspot number is high to low activity when the sunspot numbers are low. Not only is the magnitude of the magnetic field of the sun connected to the number of sun spots, which affects the number ions from the sun that can reach the earth, but also the ultra violet flux from the sun is strongly influenced by the sunspot number. The change in level of the atmosphere at which energy from the sun is deposited was discussed above and the evidence for the definition of this altitude is displayed by the measurements of the ozone levels.

    A Quick Review

    The objection to the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), which depends on the transmission of energy by radiation in the atmosphere, has caused much controversy concerning the behavior of the so-called greenhouse gases. It has led to the implementation of draconian policies to attempt to control the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This article describes the physical processes involved in the manner that the energy produced in the sun warms the earth. The supposed trapping of the energy arriving on the earth by “greenhouse gases” is shown only not to lead to incorrect results but to be deficient in accounting for the lack of correlation between the theory and measured temperature variations on the surface of the earth. The theory is clearly wrong as the mechanisms postulated for the transmission and transformation of the energy in the atmosphere contravene the basic laws of both thermodynamics and how energy is transmitted by electromagnet radiation, which are explained in this note.

    The energy flux arriving from the sun is converted into heat in the atmosphere by several different physical processes. It is then distributed throughout the atmosphere according to the laws of thermodynamics used to describe the behavior of the atmospheric gases, which also determine the lapse rate. The relatively small concentration of CO2 has a minor influence in the transformation of the surface radiation into heat in the atmosphere. The lapse rate determines how much the temperature of the atmosphere increases toward the surface from the altitude at which the tropopause begins. The height of the tropopause is determined mainly by the flux of ions and ultraviolet radiation arriving from the sun and their ability to ionize the gases in the atmosphere. The tropopause is the beginning of the altitude in the atmosphere at which the ozone in the atmosphere is created. The height of the tropopause and the lapse rate determine the temperature at the surface.

    The “greenhouse gases” convert the energy carried by the infrared radiation emitted from the surface into heat in the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas (water vapor) that produces 95% of the “greenhouse effect” near the surface is also the component in the atmosphere that sets the lapse rate. The supposed amplification of AGW by the increase in the concentration of water vapor by an increase in the concentration of CO2 is contradicted by the measurements taken by radiosondes of temperature changes in the atmosphere, which clearly show that an increase in the concentration of water vapor causes the temperature of the surface to fall rather than rise.

    The hot blanket of the friends of AGW has been discovered to be a cold blanket by those who took the trouble to go outdoors and take a few measurements. The theory of AGW is dead at last. The science fiction that led to its creation is being exposed. There will be no celebration at the burial. The damage it has done is measured in the hundred of billions of dollars wasted in a futile attempt at correcting a problem that does not exist by raising irrational fears about the use of coal and oil and gas and instituting crash programs for the creation of alternative sources of energy. It has been done by promulgating scenarios of death and destruction by a non existent physical phenomenon and attempting to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a necessary gas for plant growth, and helps in the cooling of the atmosphere rather than warming it. How stupid can we be!

  • Climate Theory Fail: Carbon Dioxide Levels Rising but Temperatures Falling

    Written by John O’Sullivan

    Principia Scientific International’s Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo publishes the latest monthly climate data on his excellent site, Climate4you, and it makes scary reading for alarmist global warming climate scientists.

    The official government data, as presented in the graphs below, is as telling as it is iconic: while the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) measured at Mauna Loa (the official reference source) continues its ceaseless rise the satellite records – month on month – continue to show our climate is cooling.

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 1958 to 2013


    Temperature Anamoly 1979 to 2013

    In other words, the real world ‘laboratory experiment’ of adding more CO2 into the atmosphere is showing that this trace gas (<0.4 %) is associated with cooling, not warming.

    Of course, if you ask a biased government-funded climate scientist he/she will tell you this isn’t proof that the “greenhouse gas theory” is busted. They will, as always, point to their computer models that “prove” that CO2 “must” cause warming. So which is wrong: is it nature or the models?

  • Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect: Materialism versus Idealism

    Written by Joseph E : Postma

    The only games in town that have a chance at fundamentally explaining all aspects of existence are Scientific Materialism vs. Mathematical Idealism.

    Scientific Materialism fails as a possible answer before it even gets out of the starting gate, because it can’t explain how subjective mental experience arises, or what the mind actually is.  At best, Scientific Materialism says that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter, an emergent state of complexity that gives rise to the impression of mind.  This is actually a blind statement of faith, because how such a process actually leads to the impression of mind is not and specifically can not be explained – it is simply assumed.  It is simply called “emergent”, as if such a label explains something.  Moreover, Scientific Materialism fails because it can not explain the numbers zero, infinity, or i, even though it uses them in all of its equations; Scientific Materialism is therefore incomplete, since it can not fundamentally explain all aspects of itself.  Scientific Materialism can discover the laws of physics, but it can’t actually explain where the laws come from, why matter obeys them, where the laws are stored, and why they are always mathematical in the first place.  Finally, it can not explain why the Big Bang occurred, or what it was. Besides, quantum mechanics has already proven that there’s no such thing as material anyway.

    Mathematical Idealism, on the other hand, already subsumes Scientific Materialism because it is based on the very things where materialism breaks down: zero, infinity, and the number i.  Moreover, this basis does explain the nature of reality, where physical laws are stored, why matter obeys them, why the laws are always mathematical, what mind is and how it arises, and how subjectivity can be experienced in an objective universe.  It also explains what the Big Bang was and why it occurred.  Hmm, perhaps this would be a good basis for a rational religion?

    But this does not mean that human usage of mathematics on paper is infallible.  In fact, mathematics is so powerful that it can describe almost anything, even concepts which have no basis in reality.  The mathematics which corresponds fundamentally to reality is called “Ontological Mathematics”, because ontological means “the basis or essence of existence”.  We are about to see that there is an important difference between mathematics, and physics, and that this difference depends on the comprehension inherent in Mind.  Discovering Ontological Mathematics is the true activity of science and physics, although science does not currently understand this.  We are trying to fix that.



    Let’s look at a simple mathematical model of the Earth and its energy balances, as advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and essentially all alarmists and sceptics of the entire climate debate.  This is a model taught to physics students at almost any university in the world:

    Standard Model Greenhouse Gas Budget

    This model apparently conserves energy, surface area, and temperature, and uses physics equations like the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.  If modern science is defined as the pursuit of models of reality which appear sufficient, then this is indeed a successful scientific model.  And there are mathematical formula which can be created to describe the “physics” in this model.


    However, if we “zoom out” on the above model, so that we can see both the Sun and the Earth and the energy exchanges at once, then this is what is automatically and directly produced:

    Climatologys False Paradigm

    Even though the model appeared to conserve all physical quantities, with a slight change of reference frame some very important problems are discovered, and several reconsiderations should automatically be generated.

    Because the solar energy is distributed over a plane of the entire surface area of the Earth, the solar flux is mathematically reduced by a factor of four, and so if this energy were truly falling onto a plane in space, this would require a Sun two-times the distance from the Earth so that the inverse-square law could account for it (i.e. one over two-squared is 1/4).  This is a violation of reality since the Earth is not two-times the distance from the Sun as it is.

    Further, if the solar flux is averaged out over the entire surface at once, then the sunshine only has the heating strength of -180C, and so it can’t melt ice, evaporate water, create clouds, or do much of anything at all.  In the zoomed-in model from the University of Washington, this problem is taken care of by simply creating a mathematical equation that lets the cooler atmosphere provide just as much heating power to the warmer surface as the Sun does, essentially implying that the climate drives itself – the climate is thus responsible for driving the climate, rather than sole sufficient energy input from elsewhere (i.e. the Sun).  This is a basic logical fallacy of self-reference and another violation of reality, since it is obvious that only the Sun provides energy to drive the climate.  This logical fallacy of self-reference can be called the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”.


    Climatology produces a model which is apparently satisfactory to science.  A slight change of reference frame indicates some fundamental error inside the model because not all physical quantities or physical expectations are satisfied.

    This isn’t very complicated: the Earth is not flat.

    Nor is it static.  The equations which describe the flat-Earth model would always be time-independent equations, essentially static equations, because there is no terrestrial rotation and there is no variation in flux over the planet’s surface.  Such time-independent equations are those produced as we have seen by PhD’s such as Roy Spencer, and many other apparently trained scientists, who yet did not have the mind to consider larger reference frames and who were unable to distinguish between static vs. time-dependent physics and mathematics.  With no time-dependence or flux gradients in such models, we could essentially say that there is no life, in the sense that there is nothing dynamic, in this model of the Earth.  It is essentially a dead Earth.

    But where do we discover that the model of climatology is wrong?  Where is this discovery made?  Exclusively, the error is discovered with the mind.  The mind thought of a different way of looking at the same model, that is, a different reference frame but of the same model, and then discovered, using the necessary mathematical indications, that something was wrong.  Of course, the Earth is not flat, and thus, the Sun is not twice as far away, and thus, sunshine is not freezing cold, and thus, the idea that the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere some more is wrong.

    All of this, of course, has a parallel to the history of the Ptolemaic, Brahe’s, and Copernican models of the solar system which were all mathematically equivalent, and in which only Kepler’s mental shift of reference frame to physics away from mathematics truly placed the Sun at the center of the solar system.

    Some scientists and laymen will still attempt to claim that the flat Earth model is an “approximation” to reality that nevertheless still tells us some useful information.  This mentally misses the point: the flat Earth models tells us exactly nothing about reality, and represents nothing about reality, because it is not a valid approximation to reality.  A flat Earth is divorced from reality entirely, and nothing about it and particularly no inferences or consequences from it, have anything to do with reality; in particular, the logical self-reference fallacy of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect which is a result of the unreality of the flat Earth, has no reality.  It is impossible that anything which comes out of the flat-Earth model corresponds to reality; that such a model uses a partial but incomplete set of physical quantities, while violating other physical quantities, doesn’t make the model partially correct, but makes it completely incorrect.  The math and physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect which comes out of such models is completely incorrect – it is certainly not useful!

    This can’t be stressed enough:  The Earth is not flat.  The Earth is not two-times further from the Sun than scientific instruments tell us.  Sunshine is not freezing cold.  I am being totally serious, and I am willing to put my scientific career and credentials on this: The Earth is not flat, but is a rotating sphere.  It is 150 Million kilometers from the Sun, not 300 Million.

    I will renounce everything I have ever written on this blog and give my masters degree in astrophysics back to my university if I am wrong about this.

    It can’t be stressed enough that the difference between a flat Earth and a spherical Earth is important – it means something, it is real.  We’re talking about two completely different phase-spaces, two completely different geometric boundary conditions.  We’re talking about different degrees of dimensionality.  A flat plane can not represent anything about the dimensionality of a sphere; if it can’t represent the dimensionality, then it can’t represent the correct physics, or the correct math.

    These are two entirely different regimes or phase-spaces of physics.  For example, imagine if the only H2O molecule ensembles you ever encountered, ever, were below 0 degrees Celsius.  You lived on a world which was ice, and you never discovered fire, and your body temperature was below 00C, and you never experienced a temperature higher than 00C.  Your understanding of the H2O molecule would be that it was permanently a solid, ice.  You would have never discovered that H2O can behave any differently than a solid.  This is the world described by the solar power of the flat-Earth model.

    However, if you ever did figure out a way to raise the temperature of ice to higher than 00C, you would discover a completely new phase state of matter: liquid.  The physics of liquid is completely different and completely unique compared to solid.  You can’t describe the physics of liquid with the physics of solids.  You have totally new qualitative and quantitative physics, a totally unique regime of reality, and totally different math.

    This new liquid regime can not be created, established, or discovered by the power of sunlight in the flat Earth model.

    However, it can and is created, established, and discovered by the sole power of sunshine in a spherical model.  The spherical model can go even further and create water vapor, yet another new phase-state of matter which has even more energy.

    To put it more simply: can you cook a TV-Dinner at 32F0 for 8 hours, and expect to get the same result (cookage  😉  ) if you baked it at 425F0 for 1 hour?  Of course you can’t, hence the greenhouse effect is wrong.  Full stop, it is no more complex than that.

    Mind + Physics + Math

    So then why not create a reality-based spherical rotating model and see what comes out of it?  First, let’s start from the zoomed-out reference frame so that we can make sure we utilize the correct physical quantities at that scale:

    A more realistic starting point

    Now let’s zoom in a little to see the earth up close:

    POSTMA 3D model

    These results demonstrate a qualitatively unique phase-space or regime of physics that the flat-Earth model is incapable of producing.  It produces temperatures and physical responses with the input from the Sun alone that the flat-Earth model must use a logical fallacy to also partially achieve.  The math which can be created with the flat Earth model has no intersection with reality whatsoever, even though the equations might be algebraically consistent and even though a lesser mind might merely imagine them as such.

    This model also shows that latent heat helps to hold a higher temperature overnight, and hence on average, than if latent heat weren’t present – the latent heat acts much like a battery but for heat storage.  In the figure below, we see that the temperature doesn’t drop as low overnight when latent heat is present in H2O, and we also see that if the solar input forcing is removed on the last day, that the energy from latent heat keeps the surface at 00C while if latent heat weren’t present, the temperature would have dropped to -730C; that is, latent heat kept the surface 730C warmer than otherwise!  It has been calculated that there is about 120 years’ worth of solar power input stored hidden in the latent heat of liquid water, and about 7 days’ worth of solar power input stored hidden in the latent heat of water vapor.

    Time Depedent Thermal Model

    To improve the model further, we can also include some observational data regarding the energy balances just at the Earth/outer-space boundary, which can be called a “boundary condition”, and such conditions are known as the “Zero Energy Balance” plot, as shown here:

    Mean Latitudinal Distribution of Earths Radiation

    What this data shows is that energy is not conserved on a local basis, but only on a global basis (assuming the integral of the energy differences sums to zero).  Locally, more energy comes in than leaves to about plus or minus 40 degrees in latitude, while the opposite is the case beyond that latitude.  Essentially, excess energy is being transported from the tropical & temperate region to the polar regions but without showing up as radiative thermal energy – such energy is somehow being hidden during its transport.  Of course, the only obvious physical mechanism candidate for being able to fulfill such a condition is the energy trapped in the latent heats of liquid and vaporous H2O.

    It might be interesting to integrate the absolute-valued difference between the input and output energy curves from the above figure, i.e., the total absolute area between the two curves which would be the absolute value of the energy flux represented by that area.  Maybe it would be correspond to something interesting.  For example, in terms of radiation output, the only way for something to emit less radiation than its input temperature is if it has low emissivity.  This also means it can have a higher temperature than its input, in particular if energy is hidden away somewhere such as in latent heat.  Similarly, the only way for something to emit more energy than its input is if it is warmer than the input.  So, it might be possible that even though the total energy between the curves is zero, both the positive and negative portion of the differences indicate physical situations where the temperature can naturally be higher than expected.  The absolute-valued sum of the differences, or simply acknowledging the differences themselves, may indicate something about temperature decoupling relative to the scalar-valued average input.

    The above paragraph is certainly speculative, but it does represent the type of thinking and postulating that a creative and good scientist should cultivate, and then be willing to be modify or abandon.  Pseudo-scientists are the ones who won’t abandon their speculative jaunts, such as the flat-Earth conjecture and its greenhouse effect models.

    Then for example, a much more direct consideration for the atmosphere would be its emissivity.  The atmosphere is 99% composed of nitrogen and oxygen, and at terrestrial temperatures and pressures these gases are known to thermally radiate extremely poorly, meaning they have very low emissivity.  Quite directly, this means that the atmosphere has to hold a higher temperature than the equivalent temperature of the solar input, in order for the atmosphere to be in energetic balance with said input.  Note that the physics of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that the atmosphere has to, not just perhaps, be warmer.

    We can also consider how temperature and energy distributes itself in a gas in a gravitational field.  This is a little more difficult to demonstrate with a diagram, so we have to go straight to the physical equation.  Basically, the energy in a parcel of gas at some altitude above the surface is given by U = mgh + mCpT, where m is the mass, g is the strength of gravity, h is the altitude, Cp is the thermal capacity, and T is the temperature.  By differentiating the equation and setting it to zero (to imply that there are no net energy flows in or out of the system [although energy can still be flowing, it is just equalized]), you find the result that temperature must decrease as a function of altitude.  This is very well known.  If the average temperature of a whole column of gas must correspond with the equivalent solar input temperature, but within the column itself its temperature is distributed from hot at the bottom to cool at the top, then the average must be found in the middle and so the bottom will naturally be warmer than the average. These facts explain why the surface of Venus is so hot even though its blackbody temperature is so cool at its cloud-tops, for example.


    We see that there are lots of natural reasons why the bottom of the atmosphere will be warmer than the equivalent average solar input temperature.  We have the subsurface temperature maintained by geothermal energy; even though the heat flow rate through soil is small, the absolute heat energy content is still there and thus maintains the high temperature of the subsurface, and this then helps maintain the top-surface layer temperature.  The temperature beneath the ground is not absolute zero, but more like 100C.  We have the latent heat from water liquid and vapor which helps keep the surface and air warmer than it would be otherwise, due to its “heat battery” effect.  We have the natural lapse rate which indicates that the bottom of the atmosphere must be warmer than the average temperature.

    But most importantly, the creation of the GHE is a plain logical fallacy of self-reference.  The GHE is created via a conjecture that the Earth might be flat.  This conjecture breaks down as a valid approximation if it is scientifically inspected for consistency with reality.  Not only is the idea of a flat Earth obviously wrong, trying to make this approximation work mathematically leads to violations of physical reality.

    Now, it is certainly possible to create some math and perform some algebra and create a physics of that algebra based on a flat Earth model.  But this does not mean that it is correct.  To be a great scientist, you really need to appreciate the Ontological Mathematics, the physical reality, of the model you choose to support.

    Ptolemy, Brahe, and Copernicus all had the exact same model of the motion of the planets.  Few people are aware of this, but their 3 models were mathematically equivalent – they could all be transformed from one to the other.  Copernicus didn’t really place the Sun itself at the center of the solar system, but only a mathematical point called the equant, which was just the center of Earth’s orbit.  That’s only near the Sun, not the Sun itself and certainly not the Sun as a causative force.  The 3 models were all simply based on geometry and all used math, and the math was all geometrically and algebraically consistent, and the math described a physics that scientists of the day used to understand the solar system.  And so, it was Kepler who intuited that the Sun was the actual physicaldriver of the solar system, that the motions of the planets were physically caused by the Sun, through what he conjectured must be a force like magnetism.  It was Kepler who actually placed the Sun at the physical center of the solar system, and, given the physics he postulated to have the Sun as an actual driving force, who discovered gravity.  This changed the mathematics, the physics, the theory, the entire mental/cognitive phase-space and boundary-conditions of astronomical thought, and it marked the creation of the field of astrophysics as an actual physical science.  None of the previous solar system models, not even Copernicus’, could do what Kepler’s physics could do.

    The flat Earth energy model leaves almost everything that is known to be important about the climate, out of the climate.  Including the real Sun.  In place of what it leaves out, the flat-Earth model manufactures a self-heating mechanism with a logical fallacy of self-reference, where the climate is responsible for creating the climate, instead of the Sun being responsible for creating the climate.  This fallacy is called the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, which incidentally has nothing to do with the physical operating principles of a real glass greenhouse.  The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect is entirely equivalent to Ptolemy’s epicycles – an invention created merely to make the appearances work.  That math and algebra and an inferred physics of those can be created to describe a flat Earth, does not mean in any way, shape, or form that such math is ontologically valid.  The math might appear consistent in terms of algebra and some logic, but such math is not Ontological.  The only physically correct, and hence ontological math, is that which places the Sun as the sole driver of the climate, in real time.  And when such a thing is done, the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, as it is known, no longer makes an appearance.

  • Climate Saviors” by Klaus Ermecke

    Article first appeard on http://principia-scientific.org


    Klaus Ermecke with his ‘Rescue from the Climate Saviors‘ provides a telling exposition of the junk science underpinning the so-called greenhouse gas theory. It merits showcasing here for the edification of the increasing number of likeminded scientists now recognising that a paradigm shift, led by Principia Scientific International, is now in full swing.

    Klaus Ermecke

    If one believes politicians and the media, the world is in danger: the earth is heating up – catastrophe will result – and civilization is the cause! Even school children are frightened and taught that mankind can and must save the climate.

    But this message is linked to a hidden agenda. Its purpose is to prepare the citizens for sacrifice: Rescue is possible – maybe – though unfortunately it is awfully expensive!

    In spite of the rising burdens imposed on almost all businesses and citizens, few politicians have questioned the “fight against climate change”. Over years, hardly a newspaper challenged the scientific basis of the “greenhouse” dogma. If asked, its proponents referred to a “scientific consensus” regarding “human made climate change”.

    Accordingly, dissenting opinions had to be unfounded and were not worth consideration.

    The derivation of the “effective temperature of the earth” being -18°C is based on the assumption of a rocky planet without atmosphere and oceans. But, as Gerlich and Tscheuschner demonstrated, the assumptions and the reasoning leading to this result contain several physical and mathematical errors. Consequently, the supposed “natural greenhouse effect” of 33°C is just a lore, not rooted in the laws of physics that apply to the realworld around us.

    According to Gerhard Gerlich (fig. 31), Professor for Mathematical Physics at TU Braunschweig and one of the most prominent critics of the CO2 dogma in Germany, there is no hint to anything like a “CO2 greenhouse effect” in any of the classical textbooks on physics and thermodynamics respectively.

    In particular, we have noticed that in many research areas the leading scientists forcefully reject the inclusion of their respective topics into the CO2 greenhouse dogma. So Prof. William M. Gray, a meteorologist and the best known expert in the field of tropical storms and hurricanes, states: “Global warming is a hoax”. The leading expert in sea level research, Stockholm geologist Nils-Axel Mörner, calls the claims about dramatically rising sea levels “The greatest lie ever told”, and Polish environmental scientist and expert in analysis of glacial and polar ice, Prof. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, titled one of his papers “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time”.

    Read the full report here. 

  • Carbon dioxide is greening the planet

    Posted on by admin

    Written by Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com

    Thank goodness carbon dioxide levels are finally rising ever so slightly in our atmosphere, bringing much-needed carbon dioxide to the plants and forests of the world which have been starving for CO2. The lack of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the most devastating limiting factors for plant growth and reforestation of the planet, and at just 400ppm — that’s just 400 micrograms per kilogram — carbon dioxide is so low that Earth’s plant life can barely breathe.

    Throughout the history of our planet, atmospheric CO2 was much, much higher, and it supported eras of lush rainforests, rapid plant growth and far greater biodiversity than what we see today. In fact, 525 million years ago, Earth’s atmospheric CO2 levels were as high at 7,000 ppm — and far from the planet “dying” as global warming hoax pushers try to claim, it was one of the most lush and biodiverse times in our planet’s history.

    As the following chart clearly shows, CO2 levels are at one of their lowest levels in the history of our planet:


    Carbon dioxide is greening the planet

    Global warming alarmists and hoaxers, of course, have warned that CO2 levels crossing the threshold of 400ppm will spell certain doom for the human race. What they don’t mention is that rising CO2 levels actually set off a “global greening,” complete with forests re-growing at an accelerated rate, gardens producing more food and arid regions seeing a restoration of green plants.

    In fact, a study just published in Geophysical Research Letters has documented that a 14% increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere gave rise to a 5% – 10% increase in green foliage, with a total increase in plant “cover” of 11%. That study is entitled, CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments.

    That study refers to CO2 as a “fertilizer” that causes a “fertilization effect.” As the study authors explain:

    Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.

    CO2, you see, isn’t a “pollutant.” It’s a nutrient!

    By the way, your body is 18% carbon and 65% oxygen. (I’m going to pre-empt some stupid Facebook trolls who will say, “Not true! Your body is 75% water!” by answering in advance that H2O is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen has such a low atomic weight, however, that it doesn’t contribute more than about 10% to your total body mass. Then again, trying to teach science to Facebook trolls is a lot like trying to teach pigs to write javascript.)

    In total, you are 83% made of the same stuff as CO2, just in a different molecular arrangement. CO2 is, of course, constantly reformed and recycled throughout the planetary ecosystem. Ocean biological activity alone produces 90 billion tons of CO2 each year — many multiples of the far smaller amount produced by human activity (about 6 billion tons). If CO2 alone caused global warming and global death, we’d all be dead by now. It turns out that CO2 actually helps fertilize the growth and restoration of plants and forests!

    Ocean plants love carbon dioxide, too!

    By the way, it’s not just land plants that are starving for CO2. Marine plants also need more CO2, and most marine biology came into being in a time when CO2 levels were far higher than they are today.

    The higher CO2 levels are in the atmosphere, the more CO2 gets absorbed into ocean water, making it available to help marine plants thrive. This CO2, importantly, is also used to build coral reefs.

    Wait a second! Haven’t we all been told that CO2 is destroying coral reefs? I used to think so, too, because I hadn’t scrutinized the science closely enough. But if you really dig into this issue, it turns out that coral reefs are largely being destroyed by toxic chemical runoff from human activity, not from CO2.

    If you love plants and forests and gardens, you gotta love CO2

    The bottom line in all this is that if you love plant life on planet Earth, you’ve gotta love carbon dioxide. CO2 is the key nutrient that’s needed to bolster the rapid growth of nearly all plants, and right now Earth’s atmosphere is in a state of carbon dioxide deficiency.

    That’s why professional greenhouse owners actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant production.

    Rising CO2 levels are a huge benefit to plant life across the planet. Hare-brained plans to “sequester” CO2 will cause an artificial reduction in this crucial plant nutrient, resulting in the mass global die-off of plants and the thinning of forests. Carbon sequestration is, quite literally, plant starvation and an attack against Mother Nature.

    So don’t buy into the disinfo hawked by CO2 alarmists like Al Gore. They are pushing an utterly fictional story about how “CO2 will destroy the world” and end human civilization if we don’t stop its rise. I welcome rising CO2 levels and being scientifically trained, I know that carbon dioxide only exists at less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere. In fact, it’s currently at less than half of 1/1000th of the atmosphere. That’s an extremely small amount of CO2 — just 400ppm. And it’s just barely enough to keep Earth’s plants from dying en masse.


    • CO2 is an essential plant nutrient that accelerates the growth of plants, gardens and forests.

    • CO2 is present in the atmosphere at just 400 ppm. By comparison, oxygen is present at 210,000 ppm. There is barely any CO2 in the atmosphere at all.

    • Higher CO2 levels means better reforestation and “greening” of the planet. As CO2 levels rise, barren regions are able to “re-green” with trees that couldn’t grow there before.

    • CO2 is chronically deficient in the atmosphere today; many plants are “starving” for carbon dioxide.

    • NO, I do not support the oil and gas industries. In fact, there is hardly any link between energy usage and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. The vast majority of CO2 emissions come from biology, not burning fossil fuels.