False Science of Global Warming.

Global Warming ; not a ScientificTheory, not a Scientific Model, but a Scenario/narrative (Best Guess/“abduction logic”)

The science of “Global Warming” is not economic but a question of the the Physics of “The Greenhouse effect of CO2?”. Misdirection is quite common in false science.

“Faculty teaching “Global Warming Proofs” as true incontrovertible science are generating a false “molded image in your mind”. It is not a carved idol but generated by word strings creating a False Science. Habakkuk 2:18 “….The molded image, a teacher of lies, that the maker of its mold should trust in it”. Do they know they are building an Idol that will give that idol economic and global power and control ….”Rank Globalism”! The Physicists who destroy the scientific underpinning of Global Warming, “Greenhouse effect of CO2” say the following:

The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse eﬀect, in particular CO2-greenhouse eﬀect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.”

After you read Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper I think you will say like I did that True science is awesome.

See: Gerlich, G. And Tscheuschner,R.D. (2009) "Falsefication of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics", arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-pg] 4 Mar 2009. 115 PAGES[i]

Gerhrd Gerlich:Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina, Mendelssohnstraße 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of, Germany. Ralf D. Tscheuschner Postfach 602762, D-22377 Hamburg, Federal Republic of, Germany. Received: 12 March 2010

“A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ﬁctitious atmospheric greenhouse eﬀect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms “greenhouse eﬀect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.

2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet

• with or without an atmosphere,

• with or without rotation,

• with or without infrared light absorbing gases.

The frequently mentioned diﬀerence of 33 ◦C for the ﬁctitious greenhouse eﬀect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.

3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant ﬂux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.

4. Average temperature values cannot be identiﬁed with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature’s fourth power.

5. Radiation and heat ﬂows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.

6. Re-emission is not reﬂection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat ﬂow without mechanical work.

7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the “average” ﬁctitious radiation balance, which has no physical justiﬁcation anyway, was given up.

8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.

9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.

10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.

11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.

12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.

13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the deﬁnition of appropriate dynamical constraints (ﬂux control) having become a part of computer modeling is nothing but another form of data curve ﬁtting. The mathematical physicist V.Neumann once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a ﬁfth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will ﬂy.” [ii]

14.Higher derivative operators(e.g. the Laplacian)can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.

15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial diﬀerential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamentally diﬀer from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.

16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butterﬂy phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth.

In other words: Already the natural greenhouse eﬀect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse eﬀect, however is a “mirage” [iii]

“…Advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justiﬁed arguments as a discussion of “questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday”[iv]. In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad inﬁnitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the speciﬁc ﬁeld of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulﬁlled in natural science, though, even if the scientiﬁc ﬁelds are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clariﬁed in the philosophy of science.”

The above paper was severely criticized by Halpern et al. Gerlich and Tscheuschner responded to their critiques with the following:

International Journal of Modern Physics B, April 2010, Vol. 24, No. 10 : pp. 1333-1359

“Reply to "comment on 'falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979210055573

Received: 12 March 2010

It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a "Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.[v] If we look at the GreenHouse Co2 pseudo-science we will find a amazing attempt to predict or prophecy the future with a very weak scientific analysis tool for prophecy. Let us look at the data that has been gathered before it is “adjusted” or fudged where “weighing factors” are applied to the data points in an arbitrary and capricious manner. (view the Easterbrook YouTube referenced in the next section for graphs of the original data points.)

Scenario analysis as False Prophecy

Isaiah 25:1 “…Your councils of old are faithfulness and truth.

What Creator-God creates he maintains….were in this too.

A fine scientists, Dr Don Easterbrook, in discussion the false science of CO2 and the Global Warming hoax said:

Editorial Boards of the world will not even read a paper critical of CO2 as a Cause of Global Warming”……..like it is a “Religion of Climate”. [https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk]

From 1915 to 1945 there was global warming but no CO2 increase. Conclude that warming can occur without an increase in CO2.
The model maximum effect just due to CO2 is 0.1%..not meaningful.
CO2 is the result of global warming, not the cause.
CO2 increase always follows an increase in temperature, it does not precede it.
CO2 has risen eight 1/1000 of one percent, miniscule increases have a miniscule effect.
CO2 rise is not correlated with changes in global temperature.
Sea has risen about 6 inches in the past century, and continues at that slow rate probably due to increased volume of the 300 million cubic miles of ocean when it happens to warm.
Only the south pole has an Ice cap and it is not melting. The average temp of Antarctica would have to rise 100 degrees to melt the ice cap….impossible.
There is no ice cap on the north pole, the ice is about 3 to 4 feet thick.

Scenario analysis is from gaming theory. It has some mathematical underpinnings but it is essentially used as “curve fitting”. We should ask how do the global weather people control errors, indeed how do they know they have committed an error. The assumption of uniformitarianism…things will be as they have been, which is a fallacy.

In the critique “The Fallacies of Scenario analysis”[vi], the author tries to define the process as one of analyzing possible future events or series of actions by considering alternative possible outcomes (scenarios) The analysis is designed to allow:

“…..rehearsing the future” sometimes to model the uncertain factors in the analysis. There is often ambiguous and ill-defined factors with little consensus about what the problem is.[vii] In the last sense,.. it is a compromise between computational complex stochastic models and overly simplistic and often unrealistic deterministic models. Each scenario is a limited representation of the uncertain elements and one sub-problem is generated for each scenario.” Often best case/worst case decision making for the purpose of investment… which ends up plotting two lines on a graph. The authors note that when you have a large number of correlated and non-correlated variables there is no way of finding out where you are on the probability distribution-unless you do a complete Monte Carlo simulation (start with a truly random position). “It is like being out in the woods at night without a map and compass-you know you are in the woods but not where.” What I would like to see is a calculation of risk and cost. Is it being completely wrong, since the Paris agreement would cost the U.S. Trillions?

The biggest error in the modeling is the false assumption or presupposition that if CO2 increases therefore water vapor will increase with that increase. We know that CO2 only contributes 3% or 4% to “global warming”. And the rest is mostly water vapor. So the greatest effect by far has nothing to do with CO2!!!

Is this an APPEAL FROM IGNORANCE (argumentum ad ignorantiam) assuming a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false? Or is it a ECOLOGICAL FALLACY –inferences about a specific (WATER VAPOR) are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group (Atmospheric gasses) to which those individuals belong. Or are they committing a LUDIC fallacy- the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.

In spite of these likely fallacious errors the most damning problem the modeling has is it is not predictive. The curve the models draw the past 15 years are not at all the path of reality. The satellite measures of temperature have not risen significantly.[viii]

Imbedded false correlations and disinformation…their best guess is hidden so well that attempts to defend it fall short. For example:

Matthew Hudson’s Washington Post review or Nov. 13, 2015. :Jamie Holms “The Power of Not Thinking” ( Crown Books ) “Holms might have mentioned, say, the documentary “Merchants of Doubt”, which explored the strategy of equating the weather with the repair manual of an airplane.”[ix] The weather is a chaotic system which is compared to “an airplane” , a non-chaotic system in which the physics is almost completely understood. This comparison is completely absurd on its face.

Most recent global warming studies are economic or financial cost studies that assume that we really know how to measure the average temperature of the globe accurately, which we don’t. Satellite data is probably the best, but it changes minute to minute. The models are so crude. Bayesian logic requires a accurate database that shows an associated accurate prediction of future events. While it begins with some belief about the weather, the likelihoods or inferences are completely tied to the input data. If you cannot get an accurate average global temp, and there is no proven correlation between CO2 and Warming, you look pretty foolish.

A British House of Lords member Lord Moncton provides the identification of a significant error in the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) climate modeling of greenhouse gas interaction with light photons. It turns out that the physics equation (initiated by Boltzman) for the molecular-photon interaction between CO2 gas and infrared photons has a key parameter time constant of 1.6 picoseconds that is ignored in the small local model of a lab gas, but cannot be ignored in a column from the troposphere to the ground….the flaw in the atmosphere chemists model. The Error according to Lord Moncton is 40% or more in the sensitivity of earth’s temperature to the increase in CO2 atmospheric gas. This is supported by the fact that CO2 concentration has increased the past 15 years but world mean temperature has not. (why they call it global “climate change” not ‘warming’ today). Since the Error is the radiative forcing function, it is a multiplier, increasing the equilibrium sensitivity way out of proportion to reality. If the atmosphere chemists do it correctly, they don’t get the grant dollars and loose the power to be part of a one world government.(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg).

Moncton concluded at the Climate Conference at hartland.com “ It’s very easy to find excuses to depart from freedom and that is why the totalitarians have made up this “nonsense” (clever ruse of global warming).[x]

Monckton said at the Ideacity Conference in Toronto Canada June 18, 2014 .” The breaching the Berlin wall and the melting down the iron curtain marked not the end of totalitarianism, but the end of its confinement. The new menace to liberty is groupthink gone global. The globalization of groupthink is guilefully disguised under the green fig leaf of pietistic environmentalism. From behind that fig leaf, emerges today’s tumescent totem of totalitarianism tyranny [xi]of climate change.”

Complex global models would require Cray X computers with massive data sets. to run them, especially if the consideration of the earth spinning 1000 MPH stirring the atmosphere, and the sun heating extremely variable structures with a large number of unknowns “guessed at” like the average temperature of the earth (which no known equation exists for the estimate accurately.) (also:The Harvard Fatigue Lab developed the “Belding Points” for sampling temperature to try and estimate the body surface temperature of an exercising human but the scientists honestly questioned the fractional assignments for each sampling location. It was a best guess, with little proof the estimate was accurate.) While the original computer model that the U.N. decided to move the world into “Global Warming” could be run on your X-Box.

GOD AS CONTROLLER OF THE WEATHER

Cosmic rays were discovered unexpectedly in 1912. It is now known that most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei. Most are hydrogen nuclei, some are helium nuclei, and the rest heavier elements. In 1995, Henrik

Svensmark

discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover. He found that when the sun is more active–more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.–fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures. Svensmark offers a complete chain of events that explains the variations in global temperature that have puzzled climatologists for so many years, and that has now led to an explanation for the recent global warming episode that ended approximately 17 years ago.

Changes in solar activity change the flow of small, charged, highly energetic particles (known as cosmic rays) that travel through the atmosphere toward Earth. These particles in turn create more ions (charged atoms or molecules) from air molecules in the atmosphere, and it has been suggested that these ions might modify cloud formation, causing large changes in weather and temperatures below.

An experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, confirmed this theory of cloud formation and cosmic rays. For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet’s atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds then build up around the droplets.

Cosmic Rays creating clouds over the oceans, thereby control the temperature of the oceans subtlety by the amount of heating of the ocean surface, and therefore resulting in the weather we see.

A paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2014 corroborates the Svensmark cosmic ray theory of climate, whereby tiny 0.1% changes in solar activity are amplified via the effect on cosmic rays and cloud formation, which in turn may control global temperatures. The authors find cosmic ray variations due to changes over solar cycles may have as much as 10 times larger effect than previous studies have estimated. The paper also finds that a tiny 0.2C temperature increase increases the cosmic ray induced cloud condensation nuclei by around 50%, thus acting as a natural homeostatic mechanism.

The sun, normally puts out a higher velocity of solar wind (a million mph) that protects the earth from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, which we are now experiencing, the solar winds decrease allowing more cosmic rays to penetrate, which increases cloud formation, which would be the main cooling mechanism from diminished solar activity. Whatever theories are presented we have history to tell us that we have had mini ice ages at times when the sun has shown diminished sun spot activity.The sun’s corona produces the solar wind and it fills the solar system space. It carries with it a magnetic field that modulates the cosmic ray’s seen by the trophosphere. We have no idea where these high energy cosmic rays come from, but I strongly suspect the LORD of Heaven and earth does. He give us rain in His time. He gives us weather in His time.

Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees, most climatologists believe, so this could explain what we are seeing with intensifying rainfall. The amount of ultra fine condensation nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of cosmic rays. Normally this quantity varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. But lately there seems to be an unexplained increase in cosmic rays and this is troubling scientists.

Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees, most climatologists believe, so this could explain what we are seeing with intensifying cooling. The amount of ultra-fine condensation nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of cosmic rays. Normally this quantity varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. But lately there seems to be an unexplained increase in cosmic rays and this is troubling scientists [Credit for the Svensmark segment☹ Cold Climate Change ]

Cosmic Rays study continues at CERN’s ATLAS and LHCf

One of the LHCf detectors

Primary cosmic rays can have very high energies – above 10¹⁷ eV – similar to those of the high-energy collisions that are produced in the LHC. Located 140 m from the ATLAS collision point of the LHC and measuring only 20cm by 40cm by 10cm, LHCf analyses neutral particles that have been thrown forward by collisions, mimicking the production of secondary cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere. The experiment is able to analyse neutral particles because they are not deflected by the LHC’s strong magnetic field, and can measure their properties with extremely high precision. This five-day run is likely to be the final LHCf run involving proton-proton collisions, because in the next data-taking period of Run 3 the collaboration hopes to study proton-oxygen collisions that better emulate the interaction of primary cosmic rays with the Earth’s atmosphere.

. “High energy cosmic rays are still a mystery. They are very difficult to measure. You need huge detectors, and you cannot perform direct measurements while they are in orbit because the flux is too small,” continues Adriani. “So, LHCf is really the only experiment in the world that can shed some light on these interactions at very, very high energy. This is a critical element for cosmic ray physicists.”

The LHCf collaboration is very thankful to the ATLAS run coordination team for their continued collaboration and support.

See: https://home.web.cern.ch/science/experiments/cloud

https://home.web.cern.ch/news/news/experiments/lhcf-continues-investigate-cosmic-rays

( Cern LHCf continues to investigate Cosmic Rays )

For Further Study Consider: https://youtu.be/ogjUtZeoHOo

https://home.web.cern.ch/news/news/physics/cosmic-rays-throw-surprises-again

Iron Nuclei Cosmic Rays: https://home.web.cern.ch/news/news/physics/ams-reveals-properties-iron-cosmic-rays

New Iron Discussed: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.041104

Odd Frequency Pairing superconductivity: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/s165

I think CERN will eventually have to consider Svensmark’s theory. When they will acknowledge it I haven’s a clue.

They still are enormously below the energy level of the high energy Cosmic Rays we know strike the ionosphere.

RETURN