Throughout the history of science, there have been disagreements among scientists as regards the accuracy of the research produced in various fields. Much of that disagreement resulted from the inability of the scientific community to verify or refute the claims of the scientists who conducted that research, using experimentation or other objective investigative means. Examples of such matters include black holes, gravitational waves and the gravitational red shifting of light predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, as well as Alfred Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics. Each of these phenomena were later verified by scientific observations.
Interestingly, many of the scientists who faced initial rejection of their published research later received the Nobel Prize for their work, including Enrico Fermi’s paper on the weak interaction of sub-atomic particles in 1933. Initially, Fermi’s paper was determined to be “too remote from reality to be of interest to the reader” and rejected for publication by Nature. Fermi later won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938 for his theory. In 1953, the famous physicist Murray Gell-Mann had his paper on the classification of elementary particles rejected; he later won the Nobel for his work in 1969. In 1964, Peter Higgs had his first paper on the Higgs boson rejected by “Physics Letters”, a journal edited by CERN, the organization that later verified the existence of the Higgs boson in 2012 in experiments involving the Large Hadron Collider. Higgs won the Nobel in 2013 for his theory. Einstein was never nominated for a Nobel Prize for his development of the Special (1905) and General Theories of Relativity (1915). The Nobel committee at that time was dominated by experimentalists. Rather, he won the 1921 Nobel for his work on the photoelectric effect. It seems that the best means of evaluating scientific research is often after the seminal research is published and a cumulative body of work in the field is assembled to judge that work in retrospect.
The field of climate research is especially prone to disagreement about the fundamental science employed in the research because it has been corrupted by politicians and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (“IPCC”) to obtain a desired outcome for political and financial purposes. As a result, a level of bias has been introduced into many of the scientific investigations that render the results invalid. The researchers begin with the assumption that global warming has occurred, and that man is the cause. Such a bias obviously casts a doubt over the results. An additional problem is that these climate scientists have departed from the first principles of science, ab initio, that govern the relevant fields of investigation: thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, spectroscopy and atmospheric physics. They have made unfounded assumptions involving certain aspects of the science involved in investigating the hypothesis and have incorporated flawed, unproven theory in others. Finally, they have engaged in speculative predictions about the effect of global warming that have no basis in scientific investigations.
For over four centuries, the scientific method of inquiry has guided legitimate scientific research. It requires a procedure which demands careful observation by the researcher of phenomena, which is devoid of bias; the development of a hypothesis which is subject to falsification; an adherence to methodological rigor and objectivity in experimentation or other investigations; and the amendment or rejection of the hypothesis as required. The pseudoscience as practiced by the IPCC and certain climate scientists does not adhere to the scientific method.
There is somewhat of a unique phenomenon that has developed within the scientific community comprised of some of the proponents of the fraudulent global warming hypothesis: the effort to engage in ad hominem attacks against those who question or refute the hypothesis. There are numerous organizations and websites dedicated to criticizing and attempting to discredit the research of those scientists who oppose the hypothesis (deniers) instead of challenging the scientific facts, methodology or rationale that they employ in their research.
In the research that follows, I have included those scientific researchers who adhere to the scientific method and the first principles of the relevant scientific fields, ab initio. I believe that their investigations can stand up to challenges of methodology and integrity. That is not to say that their research has not been challenged by the proponents of the global warming hypothesis. As is often the case, the more legitimate the research and its findings, the greater the attack from opponents.
About the Author:
“Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative con- cept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 con- centration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
In this research paper, Dr. Hermann Harde conducts fundamental physics research using spectroscopy and radiation heat transfer calculations to determine the effect of a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere on global warming. In the paper, he notes that factors that affect such calculations, include cloud cover, changes in humidity (concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere) and the fact that the absorption band for LWIR photons for water vapor in the applicable wavelengths overlaps the CO2 and CH4 bands, substantially reducing the effect of CO2 and CH4 on the Earth’s temperature. Finally, Harde notes that the results of the research calculate that the warming effect of doubling CO2 concentration is one-seventh of that predicted by the UN IPCC models. This research is by far the most comprehensive and scholarly approach to the subject using first principles of science that exists in the field today.
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular line shape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 𝐶𝑆 = 0.7∘ C (temperature increase at doubled CO2 ) and a solar sensitivity of 𝑆𝑆 = 0.17∘ C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
About the Author:
Dr. Clark is a retired engineer with over 30 years of experience in new product and process development with an emphasis on optical and spectroscopic measurements in adverse environments. He has successfully integrated complex laser diagnostics into large scale hypersonic and high-energy laser test facilities. He has also developed LED and fiber optic illumination systems and sensors for a wide range of applications. His spectroscopic experience extends from 200 nm to 200 cm-1 including work with circular and linearly polarized light. He has eight United States patents and thirteen technical publications. He received his M.A. in chemistry from Oxford University and his Ph.D. in chemical physics from Sussex University, U.K., in 1976. He started his own research on climate change in 2007. His particular interest is time dependent or dynamic surface energy transfer, and the calculation of surface temperatures from first principles. He has published several technical articles on climate change including, “A Null Hypothesis for CO2” and a book entitled, The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Average Paradox: Ventura Photonics Monograph VPM 001.
The paper was published in the journal “Energy& Environment” in 2010. I came upon this research paper early in my investigations of scientific research related to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. It was the first research that I had read that employed the first principles of the relevant sciences of thermodynamics and spectroscopy to analyze the hypothesis that an increase in concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere caused global warming. In science, a null hypothesis is the proposition that a certain condition or event (in this case increased concentration of CO2 causes global warming) is invalid in that there is no demonstrable evidence (statistical analysis or experimentation) to prove the claim. Said another way, it is research that specifically refutes an existing hypothesis. After I read this paper, I contacted the author and began an almost five year friendship. Subsequently, I read all his research papers as well as his book titled “The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox.” As those who have read my book know, Dr. Roy Clark wrote the “Foreword” to my book and served as my science advisor.
In this paper, Dr. Clark establishes several important facts about the subject. First, that the value of the downwelling heat flux from CO2 emissions of LWIR in the 15 micron wavelength (primary absorption and emission wavelength of CO2) is only 1.7 W.m−2. This is a de minims amount (0.2%) of heat as compared to the value of solar irradiance on a clear’s summer day at equatorial latitudes of 1000 W.m−2 It is quickly dissipated at the Earth’s surface and has no effect on the temperature. Second, and perhaps of more importance, is the fact that spectrographic analysis demonstrates that water is almost completely opaque to LWIR radiation. The LWIR absorption/ emission depth is 100 microns, about the diameter of a human hair. Therefore, LWIR emissions from CO2 in the atmosphere can have no effect on the temperature of the world’s oceans which cover 71% of the Earth’s surface!
Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
Dr. Clark was my science advisor in conjunction with the writing of my book titled “Global Warming The Great Deception.” He has been investigating the subject of anthropogenic global warming since 2007 and has conducted extensive research and published on the subject since that time. The document below contains Dr. Clark’s analysis of nine papers which were published over the years that are related to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. He explains in great detail, using his own research to analyze each paper, how the climate fraud evolved over time. Dr. Clark’s analysis is, without a doubt, the most comprehensive, scholarly and technically accurate review of how and why the climate fraud has been perpetuated from the beginning. It is a tour de force of scientific analysis on the subject of global warming.
About the Author:
Boris M. Smirnov obtained his Master of Science in Theoretical Nuclear Physics in 1962. In 1964 he received his Doctorate in Physics, and in 1968 he became Professor of Physics. In 1972 he was appointed Head of Laboratory at Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy (Moscow). From 1982 to 1986 he was Head of Laboratory at the Institute of Thermophysics (Novosibirsk). From 1986 he is working at the Joint Institute for High Temperatures (Moscow) as Head of Laboratory, Head of Department and Principal Scientist. His research focuses on theory of atoms, molecules, clusters, plasma and chemical physics. He has authored 55 books and 500 papers. His latest books are: Fundamentals of Ionized Gases. Basic Topics of Plasma Physics (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2011); Nanoclusters and Microparticles in Gases and Vapors (De Gruyter, Berlin, 2012); Theory of Gas Discharge Plasma (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2014); and Microphysics of Atmospheric Phenomena (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2016).
This paper was published by Dr. Smirnov in the Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Volume 51, Issue 21, article id. 214004 (2018). I cited this research by Dr. Smirnov in my book because he is an internationally recognized authority on radiative heat transfer analysis. The paper provides a very detailed analysis of the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on the downwelling LWIR heat flux. In my opinion, Dr. Smirnov came to three important conclusions in his work. First, he noted that an excited CO2 molecule that had absorbed a 15 micron wavelength photon in the lower troposphere transferred that heat energy through the process of molecular collision to a nearby molecule, not through re-radiating the photon down to the Earth’s surface, as many UN IPCC scientists claim. The mean collision time is 10 e-9 seconds (one-billionth of a second) in the lower troposphere vs. a mean time of one second for spontaneous emission. Second, Dr. Smirnov determined that the subsequent downwelling heat flux from an increase in concentration of 100 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere approximated 1.5 W. m-2, which value closely agreed with both Clark and Harde’s findings. Finally, Dr. Smirnov noted that “the contemporary injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”
The peculiarities of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 molecules in air due to vibration-rotation radiative transitions are analyzed. The absorption coefficient due to atmospheric carbon dioxide and other atmospheric components is constructed within the framework of the standard atmosphere model, on the basis of classical molecular spectroscopy and the regular model for the spectroscopy absorption band. The radiative flux from the atmosphere toward the Earth is represented as that of a blackbody, and the radiative temperature for emission at a given frequency is determined with accounting for the local thermodynamic equilibrium, a small gradient of the tropospheric temperature and a high optical thickness of the troposphere for infrared radiation. The absorption band model with an absorption coefficient averaged over the frequency and line-by-line model are used for evaluating the radiative flux from the atmosphere to the Earth which values are nearby for these models and are equal and are equal W m−2 for the contemporary concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules and J↓ =(64±3) J′ ↓ =(70 ±2) W m−2 at its doubled value. The absorption band model is not suitable to calculate the radiative flux change at doubling of carbon dioxide concentration because averaging over oscillations decreases the range where the atmospheric optical thickness is of the order of one, and just this range determines this change. The linebyline method gives the change of the global temperature (0.4 ± 0.1) K as a result of doubling the carbon dioxide concentration. The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now. m-2 for the contemporary concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules and W. m-2 at its doubled value. The absorption band model is not suitable to calculate the radiative flux change at doubling of carbon dioxide concentration because averaging over oscillations decreases the range where the atmospheric optical thickness is of the order of one, and just this range determines this change. PDF LINK
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen,*
- Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7, Canada.
- Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
- Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
In my book titled “Global Warming The Great Deception”, I address the concept of an average temperature of the Earth. In addition, I have written several op-ed articles addressing the same issue. I always chuckle to myself when some politician like Al Gore, John Kerry or a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (UN IPCC) makes the statement: “We must keep the increase in the average temperature of the Earth to 1.5C or less! If not, the Earth will face thermal destruction!”The concept of an average tempareure of the Earth is an abstraction; it is a figment of the climate scientists’ imagination conjured up in an effort to attempt to prove a fraudulent hypothesis. The Earth is never in thermal equilibrium, the temperature is different at every point in time and space. In this research paper published in the “journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics” in 2007, the authors make two very basic points about eh concept of an average temperature of the Earth. First, “an average of temperature data sampled from a non-equilibrium
field is not a temperature.” Second, “it hardly needs stating that the Earth does not have just one temperature. It is not in global thermodynamic equilibrium – neither within itself nor with its surroundings.”The scientific definition of temperature is that it is a proxy for the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a given system. An effort to average such a measurement is nonsensical and meaningless.
Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range for such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both ‘‘warming’’ and ‘‘cooling’’ simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.
About the Author:
Dr. William Happer
William Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long- term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science as part of the George H.W.Bush administration. Dr. Happer received a B.S. in Physics from the University of North Carolina, Chappell Hill, and a M.S. and PhD from Princeton University.
Dr. William Happer has been one of the most outspoken critics of the fraudulent global warming hypothesis. One year after President Trump
appointed Happer as a science advisor to his administration, he resigned. This is what the publication “Science” had to say about Dr. Happer’s decision to resign from his appointment: “When William Happer realized this summer that his plan to question climate science had been shut down by the White House, he knew he’d stick to his promise: to serve exactly one year in President Donald Trump’s administration and then leave. Happer’s original idea to review climate research involved a team of scientists who would critique government science reports and play up the areas of uncertainty. It would be centered on attacking the National Climate Assessment and potentially be used to mount a challenge to the endangerment finding, the scientific underpinning of federal climate policy, according to several associates of Happer.
And though Trump was keenly interested in Happer’s ideas, they ignited opposition among White House advisers who viewed the plan to openly attack climate research as a risk to Trump’s prospects for reelection. That led Happer, an unflinching opponent of climate science and an accomplished physicist, to leave his post as a director on the National Security Council. His last day is 13 September, 2019.” This fact highlights the problem with accredited scientists who question the rectitude of climate research. Happer, is without doubt, a highly qualified and credentialed physicist and expert in atomic physics and spectroscopy’s. However, when your ideas are too radical even for a President of Donald Trump’s demeanor, you know you face an uphill climb.
The following publication is not a research paper per se, but a “Briefing Paper” that Happer wrote for the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”, which describes itself as follows: “The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs
and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.” Its Academic Advisory Council is comprised of prominent scientists from around the world who oppose the fraudulent global warming hypothesis.
In this paper, Happer refutes virtually every aspect of the claims of proponents of the fraudulent global warming hypothesis. It is written in non-scientific terms that make it easy for the layman to understand. The reader should note, in particular, Happer’s comments about the current state of the peer review process for many scientific publications. Regardless of the quality of the research, it is difficult if not impossible for a scientist to get past the peer review process to publish research that questions the “consensus “ about anthropogenic global warming.
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases
“The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are,even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet.
This contemporary “climate crusade” has much in common with the medieval crusades Mackay describes, with true believers, opportunists,
cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types, and even children’s crusades.”