Thursday, May 17, 2018

Case against the Science of Climate Change by Michael Ioffe.

Excellent work here provided you are listening.  I have covered much of this but it is enough to understand that millions of scientists are all relying on a mere three ideas and that these hardly stand up at all.

The worst is that CO2 is as powerful as imagined when the hard geological evidence says exactly the opposite.

It has all collapsed but it also will take years to sift out these claims from the literature.

1/1/2016 AT 7:50 AM Chicago Time -About 169,000,000 results (0.37 seconds); 

(9/21/2017, 10:19 AM) during 0.67 second -194 million results. And if you think that these millions provide real millions of new ideas, you are wrong. All provided information repeat only three main ideas.

Idea #1

Al Gore in 1980th was a Chairman of Senate Committee, where under influence  from James Hansen - scientist from NASA, name greenhouse gasses as reason  for global warming. He wrote book: Earth in the Balance, 1992.

As young and very ambitious politician, he not only successfully learn  lessons from his teacher, but even gave to all scientists advices in form of slogans:

- Debates are over!
- Science is clear?
- If 97% of scientists believe that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change, opinion of others do not deserve equal attention.

Even more, when member of the same Committee – Richard Lindzen start to write articles against these idiotism’s, all other members tried to stop him by claiming, that he received grants for his scientific jobs from very bad coal and oil companies.

I read many of articles by Richard Lindzen, in many cases I disagree with him, but I till now under impression that he is a very honest scientist, which really believe in his statements despite of sources of his grants.

After that I studied articles and books of James Hansen and other scientists, which support theory that greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change – Heidi Cullen, Andrew Dessler and many others.

In different variations they repeat the same mistakes, that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change.


Reading about John Tyndall we could find that he was the first, who put the different gasses in the closed tubes and studied how they absorb different  infrared radiation. His main reports of the 1860s were republished as a  450-page collection in 1872 under the title Contributions to Molecular  Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat.

By the late 1890s, American scientist Samuel Pierpont Langley had attempted  to determine the surface temperature of the Moon by measuring infrared  radiation leaving the Moon and reaching the Earth. The angle of the Moon in  the sky when a scientist took a measurement determined how much CO2 and  water vapor the Moon's radiation had to pass through to reach the Earth's surface, resulting in weaker measurements when the Moon was low in the sky. 

This result was unsurprising given that scientists had known about infrared radiation absorption for decades. A Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, used Langley's observations ofncreased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a low angle, encountering more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2. He realized that the cooler atmosphere would hold less water vapor (another greenhouse gas) and calculated the additional cooling effect. He also realized the cooling  would increase snow and ice cover at high latitudes, making the planet reflect more sunlight and thus further cool down, as James Croll had  hypothesized. Overall Arrhenius calculated that cutting CO2 in half would  suffice to produce an ice age. He further calculated that a doubling of  atmospheric CO2 would give a total warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

Please, reread previous sentences about John Tyndall, Samuel Pierpont Langley, James Croll, and Svante Arrhenius.

John Tyndall, let recognize it clearly, studying absorption of different gasses, put them in closed tube.

Samuel Pierpont Langley made his measurement of infrared radiation leaving the Moon and reaching the Earth in atmosphere with real amount of water vapor and carbon dioxide in time of measurement.

Svante Arrhenius, used Langley's observations of increased infrared absorption where Moon rays pass through the atmosphere at a higher and a lower angles, encountering less or more carbon dioxide (CO2), to estimate an atmospheric cooling effect from a future decrease of CO2.

They did not pay attention on behavior of different greenhouse gasses in real atmosphere. NOT ONE OF THEM!

At the same time, ideas of Svante Arrhenius became a dogma for today theory about greenhouse effect.

The majority of the scientists of climate change after Arrhenius claim that the greenhouse gasses are responsible for today changes in the climate: the greenhouse gasses are trapping the infrared radiations from the earth surface and increase an average temperature on the earth. It could help melting ice on the mounts of Greenland, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Antarctica, which in result will increase a level of oceans and influence needs for relocation of more than 500 million of people on the earth. The majority of the scientists insist that the mankind activities increase an amount of carbon dioxide on the earth and we must stop it as soon as possible. We must use not a fossil fuel but energy from the wind mills and solar cells. Because Al Gore is a Democrat his mistakes (in which he really believe) support all so called Democratic forces on the Earth; especially after drama of election of President of the USA in year of 2000, when only one vote in Supreme Court decide with result 5:4 that Bush – a Republican will be a President.

Looking how science of climate change help to Democrat’s agenda, of course, Republicans create their own science of climate change (maybe scientists, which disagree with Al Gore turn to Republicans).

Idea #2

Some of their opponents (supported by majority of Republicans) also promote that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change but claim that not human activities, but an eruption of the volcanoes and other natural sources of greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change.

Idea #3

The SCIENTISTS FROM Heartland Institute oppose the greenhouse gasses theories [please, read book: [Craig Idso and Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: (200 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change NIPCC), Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2009]. In Chapter 5. Solar Variability and Climate Cycles they provide alternative theory of climate change: "variation in the sun's output and magnetic fields, mediated by cosmic ray fluxes and changes in global clouds cover play a larger role in regulating the earth's temperature, precipitation, droughts, monsoons, and other climate features, than any past or expected human activities, including projected increases in GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions." Page 207. "…electrons released to the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays act as catalysts that significantly accelerate the formation of ultra-small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules that constitute the building blocks of clouds condensation nuclei." Page 208.

SCIENTISTS FROM Heartland Institute (also supported by Republican Party), the same as majority of scientists ignore changes on continents, which created by human activities. IN A DRYER AIR OVER ALL CONTINENTS additional electrons couldn't create more "condensation nuclei".

Response of the earth on any sun activities in our times will be different than in medieval times.

If millions of authors are repeating the same, why the smart and intelligent readers must doubt in their wisdom?

Of course, only the idiots can be against millions, especially if the famous scientists, political activists, members of Governments in the world 

- billions people around the globe support main ideas.

Let do not afraid to be among of these idiots and reevaluate: What is a real in the science of climate change, and what is a simple political noise?

“The "greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere is named by analogy to greenhouses, which become warmer in sunlight. The explanation given in most sources for the warmer temperature in an actual greenhouse is that incident solar radiation in the visible, long-wavelength ultraviolet and short-wavelength infrared range of the spectrum passes through the glass roof and walls and is absorbed by the floor, soil, and contents, which become warmer and re-emit the energy as longer-wavelength infrared radiation. Glass and other materials used for greenhouse walls do not transmit infrared radiation, so the infrared cannot escape via radiative transfer. As the structure is not open to the atmosphere, heat also cannot escape via convection, so the temperature inside the greenhouse rises.”

Please, look how correct explanation for closed greenhouse effect in real greenhouse is converted to real atmosphere with a huge mistake:

“The greenhouse effect, due to infrared-opaque "greenhouse gases" including carbon dioxide and methane instead of glass, also affects Earth as a whole; there is no convective cooling because no significant amount of air escapes from Earth.”

IF CONVECTIVE FORCES LIFT GASSES to upper troposphere photons of infrared radiation are going to the space there easy than from ocean (land) level with their kinetic, latent and trapped infrared radiation energy. The photons, not air will go to the space, cooling the earth atmosphere. 

The convective forces only help lift energy of all gasses together closer to space, where photons are easy going to space and help cooling the atmosphere. Clouds are the best confirmation for these statements.

Imagine if the Earth will be without any continents and only one equally deep ocean. In a scenario such as this, a climate would be more stable than one we live in now. Only the continents are bringing the huge changes in instabilities of the climate because of differences in evaporation from unit areas: for example, three times bigger than in oceans in Brazil rain forest, or almost no evaporation in deserts.

These continents help to creates huge transportation of heat from the equator to poles because of:

- The convection forces and directions of winds, which they create.

-The ocean's streams. For example the Gulfstream create a huge influence in climate of Europe.

- Emission to space energy from different places of earth with different reflection abilities and temperatures according to Stephan/Boltzmann law…

We have the weather seasons.

During 365 and ¼ days weather is changing from a cold winter to a hot summer and back.

Climate is also always changing but during ~110,000 of years, with ~20,000 of the years of global warming and ~90,000 of the years of global cooling.

We need to ask the questions not about ‘are the weather and climate changing?’

Of course, they are changing every second.

We need to ask:

- Is it possible for mankind activities influence the inevitable changes in weather and climate?

A cold and a hot weather, the same as the global warming and the global cooling could be equally bad for people.

Could the mankind activities influence as the weather as the climate to help people in the best way to be ready for any realities and little bit change them for the significant advantages?

In the millions of Articles we have repeating mainly only few ideas. IT IS easy to see THAT ALL OF THESE SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG:

The earth is a lucky planet with two types of the greenhouse gasses:

1. Which are lighter than nitrogen and oxygen - methane, water vapor.

2. Which are heavier than nitrogen and oxygen - carbon dioxide, nitrogenous oxide, ozone and many others even heavier greenhouse gasses. Please, compare their molecular weight: methane - CH4=16, water vapor - H2O=18, nitrogen - N2=28, oxygen - O2=32, carbon dioxide - CO2=44, nitrogenous oxide - N2O=44, ozone - O3=48...

The molecular weights of gasses are playing the crucial role in nature:

1. A smoke from a chimney of power plant in not windy condition is going up 

~ 500 meters after that is a horizontal, despite a temperature in an oven 
~1,000 degrees C. It is cooling with height and, as it full mostly with molecules of heavy gasses, forces of a buoyancy can't lift it.

2. At the same time, the billions of molecules of water vapor are making any parcel of air lighter, than other parcels with lesser numbers of molecules of water vapor, and forces of the buoyancy are lifting it up. 

When with a height air in a parcel is cooling, part of a water vapor condensed, released energy, which heats air in this parcel and recreates the convection forces. Step by step all molecules of all gases in this parcel together with their kinetic, latent and trapped infrared radiation energy are coming to upper troposphere, where energy is going to space easy, than from ocean (land) level.

The properties of water:

- Transport huge amount of energy from an ocean (land) level to the upper troposphere and helps cool the atmosphere, despite water vapor is a greenhouse gas. (Methane is doing the same.)

- These properties cover 1/3 of the earth by clouds, which reflect to space direct sun radiation.

- Properties of water cover all Antarctica, most of Arctic, most of the mounts on the earth, and huge territories in the winter time by ice and snow. These ice and snow also reflect to space huge energy of direct sun radiation.

If changes of temperatures in different part of earth will depend on greenhouse gasses, WHY THESE CHANGES ARE SO DIFFERENT (IN 38 TIMES) in South hemisphere and Arctic?

How after understanding roles of these properties of water we can agree with Al Gore and scientists, which he and some Republicans support, about specific role of greenhouse gasses on the earth; about their claim that water vapor and methane even more powerful greenhouse gasses, than carbon dioxide? Are in South Hemisphere less water vapor, than in North Hemisphere?

It impossible for normal mind to understand, but millions of articles in Google, written by fooled by science writers keeping fool billions on the Earth, fooling not only ordinary people, but elites of all states and their governments. These governments spent and spending billions of dollar to save people from wrong evaluated danger of GREENHOUSE GASSES, without any scientific realities.

At the same time they ignore real reasons, knowing and using which we can not only save billions of dollars, but create very profitable directions in economy, which will really help solve problems with weather and climate with a huge profit.

The real reasons for climate change during industrial revolution are:

1. A population of the earth in 1800 was 1 billion, today more than 7.3 billion. To feed the growing population mankind activities created around the world 4,000,000,000 acres of fields of potato, corn, wheat, etc. (area ~ equal of two areas of the USA). These fields were created instead of the former forests and the virgin steppes. It reduces evaporation of water from a soil over all continents with arable land, reduces the humidity in the air and the probabilities of rains – a real cooling mechanism in the nature.

2. As we use mostly a fossil fuel for our energy needs, a black carbon and a dust from it cover a fresh snow, which reduces a reflection back to the space of the direct sun radiation.

You can read more in book: -Case against the Science of Climate Change by 

Michael Ioffe.


Michael Ioffe |

No comments: