Two New Studies Destroy Climate Crisis, Greenhouse Gas & Carbon Claims
Written by John O'Sullivan
It’s official: the greenhouse gas theory and the litany of fake
science claims it spawned about carbon dioxide climate forcing suffer
two hammer blows in the peer-reviewed literature.
Shrewdly relying only on accepted chemistry and
physics plus official data from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), experts from the ‘hard’ sciences present two new
papers offering an objective appraisal of the science argued over in the
politicized global warming debate.
physics plus official data from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), experts from the ‘hard’ sciences present two new
papers offering an objective appraisal of the science argued over in the
politicized global warming debate.
With the first paper addressing the greenhouse gas
theory of climate and the second paper dissecting the alleged role of
carbon dioxide, these peer-reviewed studies throw cold water on the
purported ‘settled science.’
theory of climate and the second paper dissecting the alleged role of
carbon dioxide, these peer-reviewed studies throw cold water on the
purported ‘settled science.’
First Paper Demolishes Greenhouse Gas Claims
Set out in ‘Role of greenhouse gases in climate change‘
the first of the two papers from the Sage Energy & Environment
Journal demolishes the most quoted descriptions of the greenhouse gas
theory. [1]
the first of the two papers from the Sage Energy & Environment
Journal demolishes the most quoted descriptions of the greenhouse gas
theory. [1]
Identifying and dismantling the six key pseudo
scientific claims woven into the ‘settled science’ the authors refute
the following:
scientific claims woven into the ‘settled science’ the authors refute
the following:
(a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere;
(b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm;
(c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface;
(d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative
cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known
as ‘otherwise radiation’;
cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known
as ‘otherwise radiation’;
(e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations;
(f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted
from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of
the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny
when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to
them.
from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of
the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny
when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to
them.
The authors, who are experts trained in higher-level
physics and chemistry, painstakingly apply a fresh eye to the convoluted
and often contradictory assertions made by ill-trained researchers in
the infant science of climate studies. It was discovered that due to
deficiencies in understanding of the tougher concepts of thermodynamics,
the poorly-trained generalists within the tight-knit climate community
had overly relied on 19th century half-baked and simplistic interpretations.
physics and chemistry, painstakingly apply a fresh eye to the convoluted
and often contradictory assertions made by ill-trained researchers in
the infant science of climate studies. It was discovered that due to
deficiencies in understanding of the tougher concepts of thermodynamics,
the poorly-trained generalists within the tight-knit climate community
had overly relied on 19th century half-baked and simplistic interpretations.
Specifically, the authors identify how certain key
historic figures from the Victorian era – the originators of the
greenhouse gas theory – held an obsession for fanciful ideas that carbon
dioxide (CO2) operates within ‘fixed air’ and oxygen was
‘dephlogisticated air.’
historic figures from the Victorian era – the originators of the
greenhouse gas theory – held an obsession for fanciful ideas that carbon
dioxide (CO2) operates within ‘fixed air’ and oxygen was
‘dephlogisticated air.’
Those originators of the greenhouse gas hypothesis
were firm promoters of the phlogiston theory – a concept even more
firmly debunked by modern science and the later laws of thermodynamics.
Both hypotheses went hand in hand and relied on each other.
were firm promoters of the phlogiston theory – a concept even more
firmly debunked by modern science and the later laws of thermodynamics.
Both hypotheses went hand in hand and relied on each other.
While those misconceptions about the nature of gases
was abandoned by modern science, the mechanism from the ‘greenhouse’
analogy became strangely re-born in the 1970’s when it was seen to be a
useful fit for a political agenda.
was abandoned by modern science, the mechanism from the ‘greenhouse’
analogy became strangely re-born in the 1970’s when it was seen to be a
useful fit for a political agenda.
Certainly, those nineteenth-century greenhouse
gas/phologiston believers earnestly performed laboratory experiments in
labelled flasks and containers of gases, liquids and solids. As the
author’s noted:
gas/phologiston believers earnestly performed laboratory experiments in
labelled flasks and containers of gases, liquids and solids. As the
author’s noted:
“An added difficulty is that so far no way
has been found to be able to readily transpose or correlate experiments
conducted in the contained, static, isothermal and isobaric conditions
of a laboratory to the great vastness of earth’s atmosphere.“
In short, it appears the very barrier of the lab’s
glass containers themselves was inadvertently misappropriated within the
mechanism of a supposed ‘greenhouse’ atmosphere. That is, they imagined
a glass-like barrier applied to the earth’s open atmosphere. We know
today that our atmosphere is an ‘open system’ merging gradually into the
vacuum void of outer space, unlike the closed system of a lab flask or
any glass-pane greenhouse.
glass containers themselves was inadvertently misappropriated within the
mechanism of a supposed ‘greenhouse’ atmosphere. That is, they imagined
a glass-like barrier applied to the earth’s open atmosphere. We know
today that our atmosphere is an ‘open system’ merging gradually into the
vacuum void of outer space, unlike the closed system of a lab flask or
any glass-pane greenhouse.
The limits of their laboratory apparatus combined
with their obsession with the later discredited phlogiston concept – set
alongside the fact their ideas pre-dated the foundation of the laws of
thermodynamics – led those Victorians to their ‘greenhouse’ errors.
with their obsession with the later discredited phlogiston concept – set
alongside the fact their ideas pre-dated the foundation of the laws of
thermodynamics – led those Victorians to their ‘greenhouse’ errors.
Second Paper Demolishes Carbon Dioxide Claims
The second damning paper is ‘Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate change‘ and similarly analyses official data and claims before eviscerating them. [2]
Sensibly, the authors begin by citing a wealth of
non-controversial and official data concerning what is known and
accepted about carbon dioxide. The data examined includes:
non-controversial and official data concerning what is known and
accepted about carbon dioxide. The data examined includes:
(a) Vostok ice-core measurements;
(b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere;
(c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes;
(d) global temperature trends;
(e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere;
(f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2;
(g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover.
The authors find that:
“Nothing in the data supports the supposition
that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human
emissions control atmospheric CO2.”
Both papers are likely to be relied upon by other
experts from the ‘hard’ sciences who have for years doubted the
far-fetched and unphysical claims made in the fledgling climate science
community.
experts from the ‘hard’ sciences who have for years doubted the
far-fetched and unphysical claims made in the fledgling climate science
community.
A great many physicists, chemical scientists,
geologists and mathematicians have long doubted the claims made premised
on dubious parameters fed into government computer models. They will be
emboldened further to speak against the cherry-picked alarmist
narrative by these two new papers.
geologists and mathematicians have long doubted the claims made premised
on dubious parameters fed into government computer models. They will be
emboldened further to speak against the cherry-picked alarmist
narrative by these two new papers.
As the authors conclude in the second paper:
“As demonstrated, empirical evidence does not support
the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause global warming and/or
climate change. We suggest that without adequately proven evidence being
demonstrated – should it exist in the first place – such a conclusion
can not be adduced from the known facts. “
the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause global warming and/or
climate change. We suggest that without adequately proven evidence being
demonstrated – should it exist in the first place – such a conclusion
can not be adduced from the known facts. “
