Science is not what it used to be. This concern is the starting point of Principia Scientific, where the focus is on correcting global warming science. Due to the vastness of climatology, it's impossible to criticize the science without getting buried in a quagmire of endless details which displace relevance and perspective.
Books on global warming cannot sustain relevance and perspective, because they get immersed in too much one-sided detail. Flaws get carried too far, and corrections and responses are not possible. Another problem in this area is that there tends to be an absence of basics throughout global warming "science" and its criticism. When the basics are wrong, the problem is going to persist, even when the rest of the subject is corrected. The basics are the starting points which create the foundation for the rest of a subject.
One of the most basic errors in global warming "science" is a fudge factor for determining how much heat carbon dioxide produces in the atmosphere. If that fudge factor is correct, then carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and what it does is unquestionable. It's all wrapped up in the fudge factor. The fudge factor has to be wrong before there can be anything wrong about the concept of global warming or how much heat will be produced by CO2 (before other "forcings").
Yet the fudge factor is nowhere to be seen in criticism of global warming (or its promotion). It first showed up in a publication by James Hansen et al in 1988. Its origins cannot be determined. Norm Kalmanovitch took a look at it and said it appears to be an extension of past assumptions into the future. Supposedly, a temperature increase of 0.6°C occurred in the past with an increase of 100 parts per million CO2. So the fudge factor says increases in CO2 will always hold those proportions.
It won't happen, and it is not happening with a recent cool-down, because temperatures constantly change for any number of reasons which have nothing to do with carbon dioxide. The fudge factor is fed into models, with the only question being how much secondary effect will be created by other factors (called forcing) such as increased water vapor causing more warming, since water vapor is a so-called greenhouse gas even stronger than CO2.
Global Warming Alarm is built on 200-year-old discredited science
Have you ever wondered how, despite evidence to the contrary, so many scientists could believe humans were catastrophically altering our climate? It becomes even more of a wonder when you learn that any supposed climate catastrophe is based on junk science.
The junk science component of climatology relies on an untested and spurious hypothesis: "downwelling" or “back” radiation heating. This unproven mechanism as the linchpin of the so-called “greenhouse gas theory.” Grandfather of the hypothesis of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), Svante Arrhenius, was discredited for claiming the existence of another such "magic gas" (the "luminiferous eather"). It may have taken longer, but today it is the GHE itself, the second "magic gas" myth promoted by Arrhenius, that now bites the dirt.
"Back Radiation heating:" A Post-normal Paradigm
So-called "downwelling" or “back” radiation heating is a climatic chimera conjured up by government-funded researchers who made themselves a post-normal breed apart from those in the "hard" sciences. Climatologists want you to believe in their "magic gas." But their notion of back radiation heating is an alien concept to those trained in tougher disciplines such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, etc. Frankly, for more than a generation third rate researchers have been peddling a computer-generated fiction, a slant on radiative physics that relies heavily on discredited 19th century notions of a "magic gas" and little, if anything, on actual measurements and verifiable scientific techniques.
C.S. LEWIS: WHEN SCIENCE BECOMES MAGIC
“The new oligarchy must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists until in the end the politicians become merely the scientists’ puppets.”
– C. S. Lewis, “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State” (1958)
Legendary scholar, writer and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) more than a half century ago, warned about how science (a good thing) could be systematically perverted to attack religion, deconstruct law and destroy human freedom (a bad thing). In this essential documentary, “The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism,” noted scholars analyze Lewis’ prophetic warnings about the political corruption of science (scientism) or the efforts to use the scientific method to explain, control, enslave every part of human life and how Lewis’ predictions are essential for us today.Ellis Washington
Historically, the first half of the 20th century was defined by almost incessant wars and the rise of fascist dictators who in less than 50 years caused more genocide than the history of mankind up to 1900. Nevertheless, we were warned by three prophetic writers about the evil side of unbridled scientific and utopian technological progress: 1) G.K. Chesterton, “Eugenics and other evils”; 2) George Orwell, “1984″; and 3) C.S. Lewis’ “Abolition of Man.” C.S. Lewis possessed a passionate interest in the emergent power of scientism – the fascist technique of perverting the methods of science to define, manipulate and dominate every aspect of human existence.
Lewis wasn’t anti-science in the least. He never denied science; he actually studied it on a serious level and thus believed that science was a perfectly authentic discipline of knowledge. However, Lewis strongly disagreed with the politicization of science (ideology) and then using the false idol of scientism as a cudgel to smash religion, Christianity, capitalism, intelligent design and any philosophical worldview whose aims differed from true “science.” Echoing Darwin’s evolution atheism, this materialistic worldview demanded that all scientific knowledge be reduced to materialistic, blind, undirected causes.
What is "Post-Normal" Science?
Wikipedia shows that the curious term used by Mike Hulme, who argues Global Warming can only be met by something called "post-normal" science has a history of use in the environmental movement since the late 1980s and early 90s. I have interspersed the Wikipedia entry describing the term with my own commentary.
Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for contemporary conditions. The typical case is when "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent". In such circumstances, we have an inversion of the traditional distinction between hard, objective scientific facts, and soft subjective values. Now we have value-driven policy decisions that are 'hard' in various ways, for which the scientific inputs are irremediably 'soft'.
How are the values that drive these policy decisions derived? From whence do they come? And if their provenance does not derive from scientific fact, who chooses the appropriate values which should drive policy?
We can understand 'Post-Normal Science' by means of a diagram, where the axes are 'systems uncertainties' and 'decision stakes'. When both are low, we have 'applied science', the routine puzzle-solving like the 'normal science' described by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. When either is medium, we have 'professional consultancy' for which the examples are the surgeon or the senior engineer. Although their work is based on science, they must always cope with uncertainties, and their mistakes can be costly or lethal. It had once been believed that environmental and general policy problems could be managed at this level, but the great issues of global warming and diverse forms of pollution show that framing and implementing policies must frequently be done before all the facts are in. Thus many problems occur in the high-stakes, high-uncertainty region of the diagram, a condition referred to as 'post-normal.'
But wait. Weren't we told that Global Warming was established scientific fact? That the world's experts agreed on its existence? If so how can Global Warming be in the "high-stakes, high-uncertainty region" where post-normal and not normal science rules? In this special Twilight Zone where all the rules are suspended? The only way it can inhabit this region is if there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with it; in other words if "Global Warming" were only a theory and very iffy one at that.
Earth Surface Cooled from 1982 to 2006 According to Satellite Data
As is now generally known, there has been no warming of the Earth's surface since 1998 at least. Prior to that time, we were informed that there had been a rapid warming of the Earth's surface and that it was caused by increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere due to man using fossil fuels.
The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Report still insisted that for 25 years the Earth had been warming. A newly published study using satellite temperature sensing specifically for detecting the Earth's surface temperature and minimizing that of the atmosphere above the surface, shows that the Earth's surface, contrary to reports, actually cooled from 1982 to 2006!
The paper is entitled Meteosat Derived Planetary Temperature Trend 1982-2006 by Andries Rosema, Steven Foppes, and Joost van der Woerd and was published in Energy & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 3 & 4 2013. They were very surprised to find the cooling trend they reported. Earlier satellite data analyses, originated by investigators at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, used microwave sensors to infer the temperature from microwave emissions from oxygen molecules.
Microwaves of different energies originated from various layers of the atmosphere. One set of data originated from an altitude of about 17 km. Another at an altitude of about 3 - 4 km. Then by looking at data taken at oblique angles of incidence, they inferred a temperature from an altitude of about 0.8 km. However, none of this data actually the Earth's surface temperature. Initially, this data on the lower atmosphere had shown a small cooling effect, but after many corrections were applied, the data yielded an increase of temperature of about 0.1 C/decade in the troposphere. The troposphere is the bottom about 10 to 11 km of the atmosphere and its temperature is not at all necessarily in direct proportion to the surface temperature. Indeed, increased cloud cover, water vapor, and CO2 in the atmosphere may cause an increase in the troposphere temperature even as it cools the surface temperature.
Report Indicates IPCC Ignore Facts and Failed Predictions To Claim Better Results
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) never followed the scientific method. They inferred the hypothesis that an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activities would inevitably cause a rise in global temperature. They set out to prove this when they should have tried to disprove it in what Popper calls “falsification.” Over at least the last 15 years global temperature has leveled and declined while CO2 levels continue to increase. What is actually happening is in contradiction to their hypothesis and essentially impossible according to the conclusion in their 2007 Report.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
Despite this on 16 Aug Reuters news agency reported:
“Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.”
They’re talking about a change in the next Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or Assessment Report 5. (AR5). It is significant because it is an increase from the 2007 Fourth Report (FAR) when they were >90 % certain.
If accurate, this claim is made in the face of evidence that their hypothesis is wrong. Perhaps it is explained by the recent comment by a leading member of the IPCC. He effectively said, failed proof of the hypothesis doesn’t matter because,
“Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.”
The Earth's Center is Hot
Scientists have determined the temperature near the Earth's centre to be 6000 degrees Celsius, 1000 degrees hotter than in a previous experiment run 20 years ago.
This item of news in Science and various newspapers seems not to have attracted a great deal of notice. And yet it is surely of the most profound significance. This means that the centre of the Earth is equal in heat to the corona of the Sun.
Our Anthropogenic Global Warmists have for more than a decade now preached that Carbon Dioxide is the enemy; that emissions of Carbon Dioxide must be cut at all costs. According to them it is these emissions in the atmosphere that are causing dangerous global warming and climate change. Even some Sceptic scientists generally agree that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more warming will result, although such results may be trifling.
It is on the basis of this so-called settled science that Ed Davey and his predecessor, Chris Huhne, proceed. Anyone who questions this is a ‘denier’. Well, Mr Davey, count me in – I am an absolute denier. I deny utterly and forthwith that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can in any way cause – and cause is the operative word - Global Warming.
Spotlight on Number Crunching the Climate Controversy
Ross McLeod firstname.lastname@example.org
I have written articles recently (here and here) which have caused considerable controversy. This despite the fact that I provided reputable references based on sound accepted science.
I then presented an analysis of the results of my experiment. This is real data and my analysis was again based on recognised sound science, principally the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. And of course even more controversy followed quickly.Spotlight Again on Junk Science
I want to leave that aside to later in this article where I will offer a defence of my experiment. Right now I want to again discuss how to sum radiative fluxes with a very simple analysis with a view to proving the assertion that Q + Q = 2Q is completely wrong.
In my experiment I used two 150 Watt spotlights to heat a thermometer. Leaving aside the controversy of the supposed paradox some find in my experiment simply consider the following.
The ambient air temperature is 18 degrees C. The thermometer reads 18 degrees C and is in thermal equilibrium with the air temperature. It does not matter how the thermometer is heated by the air – conduction or radiation or a combination of both.
The simple fact is it is at 18 degrees C or 291 Kelvin.
How Climatologists Botch Earth Radiative Flux Numbers
Man-made global warming alarm relies entirely on the 'science' of the so-called greenhouse gas theory. Independent climate analyst Ross McLeod explains herein why calculations used by climatologists in the 'theory' are wrong. As such it can be shown that the entire concept of carbon dioxide as a driver of earth's climate is discredited and should be abandoned.
McLeod and scientists at Principia Scientific International (PSI) have recently been asking greenhouse gas effect (GHE) defenders: How do you sum discrete radiative fluxes?
This straightforward seven-word question is the basis of this article. The answers provided by GHE supporters are very telling and expose a worrying inability among climatologists to perform accurate higher order thermodynamics equations.
Before we start let us explain to lay readers that, in regards to the climate, radiative flux is the amount of power radiated through a given area. It is a measure of how much energy enters and leaves our planet after it is received from our sun. Therefore, knowing how much solar energy enters and leaves earth's atmosphere is key to ultimately understanding climate change.
Geoengineering is Destroying the Ozone Layer
So, How Bad Can It Get? Just when it seemed the negative news surrounding global geoengineering could not get any worse, it absolutely can and is.
We have known for some time that the UV levels were getting rapidly worse due to the ongoing atmospheric spraying. Anyone that is even slightly awake and aware has noticed that the sun feels incredibly intense on the skin. Most varieties of plant life are showing at least some signs of stress in most areas. In many regions, whole forests are in steep decline. And its getting worse by the day.
Although extreme drought and toxic rains (due in large part to the heavy metal fallout from geoengineering) are taking their toll, recent metering of UV levels in Northern California indicate that there is an element in this die off that is far worse than we had realized, an incomprehensibly high level of UV radiation.
The Danger of Excessive Vaccination During Brain Development
In 1976, children received 10 vaccines before attending school. Today they will receive over 36 injections. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control assured parents that it was safe to not only give these vaccines, but that they could be given at one time with complete safety.
Is this true? Or are we being lied to on a grand scale?
The medical establishment has created a set of terms, which they use constantly to boost their egos and firm up their authority as the unique holders of medical wisdom–the mantra is “evidence-based medicine”, as if everything outside their anointing touch is bogus and suspect. A careful examination of many of the accepted treatments reveals that most have little or no scientific “evidence-based” data to support it.
One often repeated study found that almost 80 percent of medical practice had no scientific backing.
This is not to say that medical practice should be purely based on pure and applied science, as understood in the fields of physics and chemistry. Medicine, as pointed out by many of the great men of medicine, is an art. For a discussion on the proper role of medicine I refer the reader to my paper titled –Regimentation in Medicine and the Death of Creativity – on my website (www.russellblaylockmd.com).
Peak Oil Website Shuts Down
a main Internet proponent of the Peak Oil myth – The Oil Drum – is shutting its doors.
Science Under Assault