Monthly Archives: October 2012

Industry Radiation Experts Nail it: Greenhouse Gas Theory Debunked

Millions of hours of commercial tests have scorched the cornerstone of global warming science: the disputed greenhouse gas effect. Hidden in plain sight for years has sat irrefutable evidence from heating manufacturers to prove that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Is this a big deal? You bet. It means that only in the fantasy world of climatologists’ computer models can man-made global warming still exist. Below Carl Brehmer is first to go public with this compelling new analysis. Read more below.

Typical Industrial Infrared Heater ( F J Evans Engineering Co)

Typical Industrial Infrared Heater ( F J Evans Engineering Co)

(Guest Post by Carl Brehmer)

“If the colder object is warmed, then this reduces the flow of heat from the hotter body. If the Atmosphere is warmed, it reduces the flow of heat from the Ocean.”

This is Newton’s Law of Cooling, which states “The rate of heat loss of a body is proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its surroundings.”

 It is the law of physics that defines heat flow between two bodies of matter in physical contact, i.e., the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface/ocean. This is the equation:

T2 = T0 + (T1 – T0) * e(-k * Δt)
where:
T2: Final Temperature
T1: Initial Temperature
T0: Constant Temperature of the surroundings
Δt: Time difference of T2 and T1
k: Constant to be found

(Finding k–the constant–requires further calculations none of which have anything to do with IR radiation, net, total or otherwise.)

The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis attempts to define the heat flow between the Earth’s surface/ocean and the atmosphere using the Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law and accompanying formulae, which requires something that is absent. The radiating surfaces of the two bodies of matter need to be separated from one another, ideally by a vacuum. The bottom “surface” of the atmosphere, if you will, is in direct contact with the surface/ocean which makes Newton’s Law of Cooling the operative law.

Is it not axiomatic in science that you cannot get the right answer if you use the wrong formula? You wouldn’t for example, attempt to figure out the volume of a sphere by using the formula that calculates how fast it would fall 10 feet in a vacuum.

That then leaves us with the question of whether or not one can heat air with IR radiation. If so than this would affect the rate of heat transfer from the ground to the atmosphere via Newton’s Law of Cooling.

Rather than speculating on this question let’s take a look at what both scientific experimentation and what millions of hours of residential IR heating has shown. First we will look at the work of John Tyndall, a 19th century physicist, who did some extensive laboratory testing on the ability of various gases to block the transmission of Infrared radiation, which he called “calorific rays.” He tested gases at concentrations of 80,000 ppm, which for carbon dioxide is about 200 times the current atmospheric concentration. Even at that high level Tyndall concluded:

 “Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.” [2]

 He also noted that at atmospheric concentrations carbon dioxide had no affect on the temperature of the air regardless of how much IR radiation was passed through it. He said:

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

In spite of these observations Svante August Arrhenius (1859 – 1927) thirty years later speculated that carbon dioxide actually increases the temperature of the ground (not via Newton’s Law of Cooling but rather through the Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law.)

To test Arrhenius’ hypothesis in 1900 a Swedish physicist Knut Ångström (1857 – 1910) performed an experiment and published his findings in a paper entitled “On The Importance Of Water Vapor And Carbon Dioxide In The Absorption Of The Atmosphere.”
Ångström’s experiment was to fill a tube with the amount of carbon dioxide that would be present in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and then running infrared radiation through it. He first doubled and then halved that amount and repeated the test, which demonstrated virtually no temperature change between these differing amounts of carbon dioxide.

These experimental observations have since been confirmed through millions of hours of the commercial application of infrared heating. Here is what a few retailers of infrared heaters assert:
“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.”
“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.”
“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.”
[1]

So, what we have is both experimental data and real world commercial application data that demonstrates IR radiation does not heat air. Why? Because it has been known since the 19th century that gases that absorb IR radiation also emit IR radiation. John Tyndall also said:

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

So, increasing the concentration of IR emissive gases in the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. The Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law does define the atmosphere’s thermal relationship to outer space and part of that formula is the inclusion of an emissivity number. It has long been known that a higher emissivity number allows matter to emit the same amount of IR radiation at a lower temperature. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis for some reason suggests that increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere by adding GHGs to it will have the opposite affect and require the atmosphere to become warmer in order to emit the same amount of IR radiation out into space.

Can you not understand why some people might be skeptical of a scientific hypothesis that 1) uses the wrong law of physics to define the thermal relationship that exists between the atmosphere and the earth’s surface/ocean and 2) then reverses the Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law in its definition of the atmosphere’s thermal relationship to outer space?

[1] http://www.infraredheaters.com/basic.html (accessed online: October 22, 2012)

[2] TYNDALL J., Fragments of Science: A Series of Detached Essays, Addresses and Reviews,’ (1879), http://www.gutenberg.org (accessed online: October 22, 2012)

16 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Now Australians Take Up Challenge in Debating Dodgy Greenhouse Gas Physics

Leading Aussie skeptic blogger, Jo Nova, is currently holding the second compelling debate about the validity of disputed numbers woven into the cornerstone of global warming science: the so-called greenhouse gas effect theory (GHE).

Will Jo Nova Shine Some Light on the Greenhouse Gas Debate?

Will Jo Nova Shine Some Light on the Greenhouse Gas Debate?

Now that even the U.S. presidential contest is a “global warming free zone”  it is becoming clear that not just the political, but the scientific edifice of this international scam is collapsing. The biggest remaining obstacle is vested interest scientists who are either incapable or refuse to examine a very simple element of the GHE: the supposed “33 degrees” of measured warming that makes our planet “warmer than it would otherwise be.”

In a spirit of refreshing openness, Jo Nova has recently been leading the way on this matter. In September she hosted the superb paper by Dr Jinan Cao that questioned the applicability of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the formation of the “33 degrees” number.

Now Nova’s blog is running a welcome critique of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ the book that first propelled discussion of the GHE center-stage. Already the comments are lively. Sadly there exists an element that prefers name-calling over civilized debate and my co-authors and colleagues who support the  book are being labeled “dunderheads,” “cranks,” and “deniers.” Ok, so let’s do simple analysis even a dunderhead can fathom. Take, for instance, the claimed “33 degrees” of so-called greenhouse gas warming cited as “fact” proving the “theory.”

Contrary to popular myth this “33 degrees” is not observed, empirical fact at all. The book’s authors and converts to our science say it is the product of a botched equation by NASA’s Dr. James E. Hansen from the 1980’s. Currently, my article on this is doing the rounds.

Dr. Pierre Latour earlier this year proved that Hansen’s “33 degrees” is the result of a fatal mixing of a scalar temperature value with a vector temperature value (not permitted in either math or physics).  That no one questioned this till we ‘Slayers’ did suggests it is perhaps among the most successful elements of the GHE fraud. Pointedly, it duped two top skeptic climatologists, Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer, among other leading skeptics, who never questioned its validity and when challenged opted to play “follow my leader.”

It appears Lindzen first swallowed the bogus “33 degrees” number at least since March 1990, as proven by his paper ‘Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming’ AMS, Vol 71. In September 2010 on his blog Spencer admitted he merely followed Lindzen’s lead. But Spencer went further and actually asserted (crassly) that  Hansen’s  “33 degrees” number offers a “real-world observed radiative-convective equilibrium.”

But both Spencer and Lindzen are shown, since March 2012, to have circled the wagons obstinately avoiding the issue. Despite our urging neither will apply due diligence to verify the providence of the number. But if they had looked more closely at the “33 degrees” from the outset they would have seen that the first value Hansen used to obtain it is a 3-D measure (a vector) of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth back into outer space (255K). Hansen then put that alongside a 2-D measure (288K), which is an average of surface weather stations (a scalar). That’s how Hansen and government climate science “got” it’s 33 degrees greenhouse gas effect.

But anyone trained in higher math or physics knows this is not a permissible procedure as it’s the equivalent of adding apples to oranges. Earlier this year Latour and others on our team had a good-natured, but vigorous private email discussion with Lindzen, Spencer and other leading lights. Despite our insistence neither would address the matter. In fact, despite engaging with us on other issues they obstinately pretended we never raised the “33 degrees” problem even though we referred them to our articles on it. Nonetheless, Spencer thereafter blogged an attack piece against me; is this the real measure of a “leading skeptic scientist?” Not only that, it seems Fred Singer was then recruited and he, too, joined the name-calling fraternity labeling us “deniers.”

In his attack piece Singer laments, “One can show them  [the ‘Slayers’] data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. [My emphasis]

Contemplate closely the emphasis on the vague “clearly impinge” as it seems even Fred is having doubts here because he balks at asserting any actual energy is being transferred.  He then writes, “But their minds are closed to any such evidence.” Oh, come on, Fred.  Does “clearly impinge” mean you are claiming carbon dioxide adds/delays  heat  loss or not? This is why Fred, Roy and Dick need to come out and be less mealy-mouthed.

As such we are regrettably forced to conclude that leading skeptic climatologists are disinclined to own up to their gaffe probably because they have decades invested in this junk science – quite simply it’s too shaming for them. Indeed, if Spencer, Lindzen and Singer were true skeptics they would meet us in open debate and resolve this “33 degrees” issue once and for all.

But because the better part of a year has elapsed and they won’t man up, I’ve now emailed Jo to ask she show some leadership on this Down Under. I await her reply and hope she will host an open debate on our readily proved/disproved contention. Be assured, if the “33 degrees” number is proven bogus there is nothing left of substance (ie. as measured in our atmosphere) to sustain this collapsing “theory.”

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

EU Commission U-Turn on Greenhouse Gas Limiting Policies

After the debacle of the banking collapse and while the Eurozone edges closer to the precipice of total meltdown, EU bosses have finally seen the light: “Europe must re-industrialize for the 21st Century.” So says European Commissioner Antonio Tajani. On Wednesday the EU Commissioner announces an initiative that will boldly “reverse the declining role of industry” on the continent.  This policy U-turn undoubtedly conflicts with stated environmental goals.  But more pointedly, this presents a great opportunity for political leaders take a new look at the disputed science at the heart of so much eco-friendliness.

Like a breath of fresh air Die Welt today, with it’s story ‘EU plans to re-industrialization of the continent’ (October 9, 2012), reveals that EU technocrats are gearing up to re-invent Europe’s once great manufacturing sector. Suddenly we are in the midst of a sea change in political thinking at the top of the EU.

Günther Hermann Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy

Günther Hermann Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy

EU Technocrats Declare: “Europe Must Re-Industrialize!”

Tomorrow (October 10, 2012) Commissioner Tajani is to announce a target to raise the share of industrial enterprises as a proportion EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) “to 20 percent by 2020.” Tajani wants to set in train a strategy for a “strong industrial base vital to a prosperous and economically successful Europe.” Accepting the plight of the current global economy Tajani conceded, “the investment outlook is bleak.” The EU is now calling for Europeans to back a continent-wide “third industrial revolution.”

European Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger is even more strident than Tajani. He is calling for a complete overhaul of environmental policy that he insists is beset with “negligence.” Taking a swipe at pro-green Angela Merkel he declared, “the number of do-gooders in the Euro Parliament should not remain as high.” He bemoaned that “We are in the midst of [a] de-industrialization” process that has put too much faith in the growth of the financial sector run by people who are “half my age and twice as clever” but are fast becoming unemployed. ThyssenKrupp boss Heinrich Hiesinger also waded in appearing to endorse this new tone by declaring, “Future generations expect from us jobs,” and not just a cleaner environment. Hiesinger points to the high cost of climate change regulations and foresees further job losses due to CO2 limits, especially with the big knock-on effect of higher energy prices.

Hard-pressed taxpayers will say, “about time!” But the biggest obstacle to Tajani and Oettinger’s new vision is that Europe has nailed its colors to the green mast of lower greenhouse gas emissions. Unless they can find a compelling reason to backslide on  carbon dioxide (CO2) limits they will be accused of treachery and cowardice by many- especially on the green left.

 Greenhouse Gas Science Shown to be Full of Holes

But the green energy sector has failed to deliver on its promises for affordable and reliable energy to compensate. Now the European Commission can seize on a way to square the moral and scientific circle to avoid ridicule by finally acknowledging there does exist great uncertainty about the role of CO2 in our climate. Part of the “negligence” Oettinger pinpointed is certainly within the science, itself. Incredibly, there are no less than 63 competing “theories” about the actual mechanics of CO2 and “greenhouse gases” taught at leading universities, many of which are mutually contradictory. The flaws are recognized by many including leading German scientists  that Oettinger could speak to. They can enlighten him that contrary to media hype this has never been “settled science.”

Ever more independent researchers are finding flaws that climatologists decline to address or even acknowledge. Tajani and Oettinger will thus see that the guiding principle of performing due diligence may free them from exclusively relying on government-funded climatologists whose careers are invested in promoting the man-made global warming narrative. Not least among those pinpointing such “negligence” are the 50+ experts at Principia Scientific International (PSI). Only this week a new article based on their findings proves that 33 degrees of  atmospheric warming allegedly due to trace gases like CO2 is simply the product of a bungled equation. With that kind of “science” underpinning policy its no wonder so many wrong turns have been taken. Let’s hope Tajani and Oettinger will now seize the opportunity to talk to fresh thinkers like those at PSI.

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Greenhouse Gas Warming Number of 33 Degrees is a Fatal Error

A mathematical joke asks, “What do you get when you cross a mountain-climber with a mosquito?” Answer: “Nothing: you can’t cross a scalar with a vector.”

Non-mathematically minded readers may not get the ‘joke’ until later in this article. But when you do, you may feel it’s the most expensive ‘joke’ told, and it’s being played on you and me.

If you’ve ever followed the heated debate about man-made global warming you will know the cornerstone of that science is the so-called “greenhouse gas effect” (GHE). It is purported that rising human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), one of those so-called GHE gases, is dangerously adding to climate change. The chosen  remedy of western governments: we must all pay more taxes, cut back our industrial emissions and invest in various questionable alternative energy schemes to avert a planetary crisis.

To this end many a (government) climatologist or Greenpeace activist will regale you  with the glib assertion that the GHE makes our planet  “33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.” But where does this “33 degrees” number come from and is it scientifically valid? Contrary to media hype this number is not “an observation” it is the product of a 30-year-old calculation from a team of researchers led by NASA’s Dr. James E. Hansen. It is a ubiquitous claim that the number “proves” the GHE is real. [1,2]

Comparative Temperature Scales Depicting ’33 Degrees’ GHE Warming

Putting the Numbers into Context

This thermometer illustration depicts the numbers in degrees Celsius and Fahrenheit. But it is easier to follow this article’s analysis if we instead apply the Kelvin temperatures (in purple) The lower value (minus 18°C) thus becomes 255°K  and this is what Hansen raised by 33 degrees to 288°K (15°C).

Now you may be thinking as you let out a yawn,“Oh boy, he’s about to spout math.” But before your finger presses ‘delete’ consider this: what you are about to read has enormous ramifications for our industrialized society and serious implications for you and your family’s personal tax liabilities for decades to come. If it can be demonstrated that Hansen’s “33 degrees” is the product of a bungled calculation then, at minimum, this puts the onus back on climatologists to explain the errors and re-think their “theory” before our economies are exposed to deeper economic travails.

Two Different Number Concepts: One Bungled Meaning

Our story begins in 1981 when Dr. Hansen led a team of researchers who wanted to pin down some simple and iconic numbers. Their quest was to prove to the wider scientific community that carbon dioxide and certain other very efficient infrared absorbing (and emitting) gases make Earth’s atmosphere warmer than it would otherwise be. Lamentably, these scientists chose to ignore the superb energy emitting qualities of these gases.

No rigorous scientific testing  was involved –  the numbers were obtained from  known values. Firstly, Hansen’s team took a measure of average temperatures at the ground (a scalar) and, secondly, they chose a temperature for infrared radiation as it passes out of the top of the atmosphere, (a vector). Both these two numbers are reasonable in themselves. However, in both mathematics and physics vectors and scalars each describe quantities and each is very distinct from the other being differently obtained and proving separate values. A scalar operates in one dimension, a vector in three dimensions.

Now this is where the ‘joke’ comes into play and we need to remember the old saying: “You can’t mix apples with oranges.” Hansen’s team took the 288°K scalar number  (the ‘apple’) with a one-dimensional basis and put it alongside the 255°K vector number (the ‘orange’), the product of a flow field in three dimensions.“So what?” you may say. Well, remember what was stated at the top of this article? Hansen had *forgotten* that “you can’t cross a scalar with a vector.” Again, please remember this is an axiomatic principle from Physics 101: “vector and scalar quantities cannot be added together.”

Any high school student, never mind a physicist or climate scientist, can do this disproof of the “33 degrees” number once you understand the rules.  So let’s recap starting with an illustrative comparable equation:

The 255°K Number (the ‘orange’)

James Hansen’s ‘orange’ is a measure of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth back into outer space. This he has at 255°K  (that’s  ok in and of itself). This a vector number, a product of  a dynamic process – the sampling of the outward flow of radiation. It has direction and is indisputably a 3-D value. Because of this it is not measured with an ordinary thermometer but with a pyrometer or spectrometer. It is not a measure of the heat of the air, but of the electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) itself, exiting from the top of the atmosphere (TOA).

 The 288°K  Number (the ‘apple’)

Hansen stated the average thermal temperature at Earth’s surface is 288°K (that’s also ok in and of itself).This is a scalar value number – an average from a set of static temperature readings from weather station thermometers on the ground. It serves as a measure of the heat of the air at our planet’s surface.

The ’33 Degrees ‘ Number (‘Hansen’s fudge’)

The ’33 degrees’ or ‘Hansen’s fudge’ has no validity in mathematics or physics because it is the product of  mixing two incompatible metrics: a scalar with a vector. But Hansen  used his fudged number to fool fellow climatologists, who in turn misled policymakers and taxpayers, too. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) propagate the “33 Degrees” fraud with their 2007 Report. [3]

Only when researchers at Principia Scientific International (PSI) put this “33 degrees” number under the microscope was the error exposed. PSI discussed this problem with several top climatologists and pointed out the errors. But while those climatologists engaged in polite discussion with us they acted unconcerned; as if they understood the message but had a blind spot to the significance of what was being told to them.

You may readily discern the difference between these phenomena yourself if you were stood on a cold, clear winter’s day on a snow capped mountain. On the one hand you may evince a thermometer close by showing a reading of the dry air at -10°C (263°K); naturally you’d shiver with the cold. But place yourself in the radiation of the sunlit sky at 50°C (323°K) and instantly you feel warm despite both temperatures existing within close proximity and time.

Dr. Pierre Latour’s brilliant article, That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect focused on this issue in January 2012.  [4] Speaking with me last week Dr. Latour added, “We see an intense sunbeam vector with a high radiation temperature that is so powerful at noon you cannot look up at it, but the less intense radiation vectors from clouds, blue sky and green grass are easy to look at because their radiating intensity (temperature) is less. You can detect the different radiation vectors all around you, pointing at you from every direction. So too Earth radiates to space in all directions, day and night. While a laser shines an energy vector in one direction.”

Latour, along with a further 50+ experts at PSI  argues that our atmosphere reduces the intensity (temperature) of solar radiation through it by reflecting some, scattering some, absorbing and re-emitting some, and transmitting the rest to the surface. The thinner the atmosphere, the more intense the solar radiation transmitted through it, impinging on the surface. Dr. Latour adds, “That is why you can look at a sunset vector through a thicker atmosphere. And why the surface cools under the shadow of a cloud. One could properly say atmospheres cool planet surfaces rather than heating them.”

PSI researchers like Latour are no lightweights in this debate as Roy Spencer learned to his cost. Dr. Latour is renowned in the field of thermodynamics having worked on the NASA Apollo space mission before embarking on a stellar career as a chemical process control systems engineer to the international oil and chemical process  industry. Professor Spencer on his blog  addresses the “33 degrees” number and admits he first “became aware of its significance” from reading Professor Richard Lindzen’s 1990 paper, ‘Some Coolness Regarding Global Warming.’  So persuaded is Spencer of it’s validity that he goes on to claim the Hansen junk number offers a ” real-world observed “radiative-convective equilibrium” case.” Thus, both Lindzen and Spencer are completely fooled by Hansen.

Latour and his colleagues are proving to be the more adept numbers analysts. They say a better explanation of our atmosphere’s temperature gradient is adiabatic pressure rather than any supposed GHE – this fact also applies to most planetary bodies in our solar system.  So now it’s demonstrated  the “33 degrees” claim is bogus what other hard and fast numbers exist to prove the GHE? Well, none actually. All climatologists have left are hand waving assertions that “greenhouse gases” trap or delay the exit of energy from the atmosphere. Some even claim energy gets “back radiated” adding additional heat to the system. But no tests, no observations, no experiments in our atmosphere have adduced any verifiable numbers for those claims. It is all a matter of unproven belief.

Other thermodynamics experts are also hard at work dismantling the GHE. One recent debunk comes from Dr. Jinan Cao. Cao  showed Hansen also misapplied the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. [5] Meanwhile, PSI researchers, Joseph  E.Postma and Carl Brehmer are soon to add to such compelling work by publishing more damning evidence disproving the GHE.

Politicized Science Perpetuates a Cover Up

Despite all the above climatologists promoting this chimera stubbornly choose to turn a blind eye. Why is that? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the fact that  many millions in research grants and jobs for the boys are still riding on this “settled science?” Or, like Lindzen and Spencer, they’re simply too  embarrassed to concede they were taken in by Hansen’s sham.

Instead, the diehards dismiss Latour and  other PSI researchers as “cranks” claiming the GHE has 150 years of “solid science” backing it. But much of that is from the likes of Arrhenius, Fourier and Tyndall who are often misquoted. Pointedly, these Victorian theorists founded their beliefs on the discredited notion of “luminiferous aether” – which is exposed in a short history of radiation by Dr. Matthias Kleespies.  [6]

To sum up, Principia Scientific International has uncovered a monumental scientific error that no government authority is prepared to address. You may conclude that a clique of charlatans concocted a bogus equation to justify universal “carbon taxes.” Climatologists are not true to the scientific method if they decline to acknowledge these errors. Readers may judge this to be a willful omission to come clean for the sake of prestige and financial rewards. But the price the rest of us pay is enormous. Since 2008 in the UK alone an additional “carbon tax” burden of £18 billion is levied each and every year – all thanks to the Climate Change Act. But that could all be stopped tomorrow if a little common sense and humility was applied.

As it stands, hard-pressed taxpayers now possess a simple and valid scientific argument to say “no more” to greenhouse gas taxes. Instead, these unjustifiable levies should be scrapped and the money invested more wisely elsewhere in public utilities or simply left in taxpayer’s pocket to be used in the fight to resurrect a stagnant global economy.

Unperturbed, the 71-one-year old Hansen still sits in his exalted position as of Head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies shamelessly promoting his misguided and politicized global warming agenda. Readers may wish to follow my lead and send an email to Dr. Hansen to politely inquire why he thinks his scalar/vector blunder is ok.

————-

[1] Hansen, J, Johnson D, Lacis A, Lebedeff S, Lee P, Rind D & Russell G, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Science, Vol 213, n 4511, pp 957 – 966, August 28, 1981.

[2] Hansen, J, Fung I, Lacis A, Rind D, Lebedeff S, Ruedy R & Russell G, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 93, n D8, pg 9341 – 9364, August 20, 1988.

[3].“Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science”FAQ 1.1p. 97, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007: “To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around −19 °C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14 °C). Instead, the necessary −19 °C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface.”

[4] “That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect,”(January, 2012), www.slayingtheskydragon.com, (accessed online: October 6, 2012).

[5] Cao, J, “Common Errors in the Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation,” www.joannenova.com, (accessed online: October 4, 2012).

[6] Kleespies, M, “A Short History of Radiation Theories-What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming?””(November, 2011), www.principia-scientific.org (accessed online: October 5, 2012).

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Coolant Carbon Dioxide Our Planet’s Future for Mass Refrigeration

In the theoretical world of climatologists carbon dioxide is a warming gas with a supposed logarithmic effect. But in the real world of industrial cooling manufacturers are increasingly preferring to use carbon dioxide as a refrigerant.

Surely if carbon dioxide works as a coolant in industry don’t the same principles apply on our open atmosphere? It sure does according to the 2011 ground-breaking experiments of Professor Nasif Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico. [1.]

But before we dismantle the climatism myth that carbon dioxide has a logarithmic heating impact let’s consider the proven cooling properties of this amazing trace gas. A leading industry expert, Dick Topping Director of Appliance Research (TIAX, LLC) writes: “The use of CO2 as a refrigerant dates back more than a century, but it fell out of favor in the air-conditioning and refrigeration industry with the development of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the 1930s. Shortly thereafter, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) such as HCFC-22 were developed, and HCFC-22 eventually became the primary refrigerant for stationary air-conditioning systems. However, when concerns about the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer emerged in the 1970s, national and international agreements were enacted to phase out CFCs and HCFCs.” [2.]

Industry Experts: CO2 is ‘Green Refrigerant’

The irony in Topping’s next section is sublime. The industry expert goes on to tell his readers that the phasing out of CFC’s is “leading many researchers and manufacturers to reconsider “natural” refrigerants such as CO2, hydrocarbons, and ammonia, because these substances have negligible direct global-warming impact and ozone-depletion potential.

Topping then advises that because CO2 is “not subject to venting restrictions” we should “expect to see systems that accommodate the unique characteristics of CO2 as a ‘green’ refrigerant in the years ahead.” So is CO2 a warming or a cooling gas? Other industry experts agree with Topping. Linde, a world leader in the field, also calls CO2 a “High quality natural refrigerant.” [3.]

While in Japan, Sanyo developed that country’s first commercially-viable CO2 refrigerant in 2009 which they say will “greatly contribute to the prevention of global warming.” Sanyo declare that if freezers and refrigerators were switched to a “CO2 refrigeration system, the CO2 emission reduction effect would be about 50 percent.” [4.]

Even carbon-hating Wikipedia concedes that CO2 is “a natural refrigerant.” While in the nuclear industry the advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) and the Magnox reactor, both use carbon dioxide as the coolant. But hold on a cotton-picking minute. It turns out ordinary plain Jane air is also a natural coolant – what ever happened to the UN’s notion that “our atmosphere keeps our planet warmer than it would otherwise be”? [5.]

Wikipedia can’t seem to figure out the glaring contradiction in it’s message when, on the one hand, it declares, The simplest, and most popular refrigerant is water.” Then almost in the next breath states “the vast majority of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor in the air.”

So now let’s examine the myth of logarithmic heating by CO2. Many climatologists, working on a theoretical basis with computer models, have endlessly told us that CO2 has a logarithmic heating effect based on observations of light-absorbing media. But does it? Well, no. Firstly, proponents of this idea miss the fact that the Earth is observed to emit all of the radiant energy it receives.

Climate researcher, Alan Siddons has astutely pointed out the problem here. “As you see, the more absorbing slabs you add the closer you approach extinction, i.e., no light getting through at all.”

The effect of several slabs together, then, will look like this:

Logarithmic Progression Defies Observed Reality

Siddons suggests climate scientists look again at their assumptions about logarithmic progression particularly when they use such graphs to declare, “See? IR-absorbing gases cause surface heating in just the same way. The first few parts per million have the strongest thermal impact, while higher concentrations produce an ever-diminishing effect.”

Crucially, proponents of the logarithmic progression idea miss the fact that the Earth is observed to emit all of the radiant energy it receives. As Siddons points out, “there’s no evidence of an extinction process in the first place!“

Furthermore, the logarithmic heating model relies on a false comparison, for one must assume that when a medium absorbs visible light HEATING results, hence the emission of infrared. In other words, a wavelength conversion is involved, such that what goes missing in the visible portion will be found in the infrared. But when a medium specifically absorbs infrared and EMITS infrared, where is the conversion, how is the wavelength of interest being extinguished?

Indeed, if IR-absorbing gases actually DID extinguish infrared, this could only mean that they don’t EMIT infrared, in which case they’d be HEAT SINKS for the Earth’s radiation rather than the heat sources they’re presumed to be. A greenhouse gas would thus mimic a “black hole”: infrared light would fall into it and no infrared light would escape.

In conclusion Siddons and his research colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) are asking climate scientists to take on board the demonstrable physical evidence provided by the applied science of industry and the experimental evidence of Professor Nahle. Siddons sums it up aptly, “if greenhouse gases absorb but do not emit, then they can’t be regarded as radiative heating agents for anything. On the other hand, if greenhouse gases do emit what they absorb, then they can’t be said to “trap” radiation.”

When such cold, hard facts are addressed it seems ridiculous to try to fashion a pattern of back-radiated surface heating of our planet from the rules of light absorption (the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect’). This is especially so since the very mechanism for such heating doesn’t exist and the above real world facts show CO2 is proven to operate only as a coolant.

————————-

[1.] Nahle, N. S., Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands (2011), Scientific Research Division, Biology Cabinet Mexico.

[2.] Topping R., Carbon Dioxide Refrigerant Makes a Comeback (2004) Appliancemagazine.com (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

[3.] R744 Refrigerant Grade CO2, www.linde-gas.com (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

[4.] Sanyo Develops Japan’s First Co2 Refrigerant Direct Expansion Type Refrigeration System, www.gea-consulting.com (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

[5.] The Causes of Climate Change, United Nations, www.un.org (accessed online: September 24, 2012)

40 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

British Business Leaders Fiddle as Green Economy Collapses

In a week when official watchdogs recommend tighter controls to help avert further UK banking fraud a key spokesman for the nation’s “renewables” sector goes the other way demanding regulations cuts. Isn’t that a green light to more corporate fraud?

John Cridland, Head of the CBI, Is he telling the truth about Big Green?

John Cridland, Head of the CBI, Is he telling the truth about Big Green?

Adair Turner, Head of the UK’s Financial Services Authority, (FSA) last week (September 28, 2012) called for tougher laws  and more regulation to prevent a repeat of the 2008 banking crash. The government’s Business Secretary,Vince Cable concurs. But John Cridland, Head of the Confederation of  British  Industry (CBI), disagrees. He is on the campaign trail pleading for deregulation for Big Green to salvage what analysts admit is a dying EU sector. In this article we examine just how off-beam the CBI has become on this controversial issue.

This Autumn CBI head honcho John Cridland is on the party political conference  circuit desperately banging the drum for Big Green with his vision of a new deregulated “intellectual infrastructure.” Since July Cridland has been touting the CBI’s new Colour of Growth  report as “the best solution for a greener economy.” In his latest speech to the Liberal Democrat conference Cridland pleads a special case for the UK’s green sector; he’s cock-sure they can be trusted not to defraud the system as did their banker cousins in the City of London and Wall Street.
.
But we must remember that Cridland’s CBI has long been regarded as the smarter-suited twin brother of the Labour Party. Known for endlessly chasing cushy government contracts the CBI is once again seeking tax “benefits” and jobs for the boys. At it’s core Cridland’s mission is to get Prime Minister Cameron’s government to permit fewer, not more banking regulations. Cridland’s justification: “The so-called “choice” between going green or going for growth is a false one.” But the CBI frontman is already conceding that for his vision to succeed, “bills will go up, but that’s how investment works.”

Cridland’s hope is that Britain’s Coalition government will provide the new Green Investment Bank (GIB) exemptions from the FSA’s proposal for increased accountability. Since 2010 GIB has been designated by government to be the banking mechanism by which it intends to drive down “carbon emissions” by 2050. But events in the wider world economy seem to be rendering GIB a lame duck destined to never get off the ground.

Anyone astutely following recent history will know that green investors are no less criminally corrupt. The global carbon trading market in Europe has collapsed due to widespread fraud costing taxpayers billions; while the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was closed in November 2010 after similar irregularities. European Commission spokeswoman Maria Kokkonen admits that half of all EU nations are vulnerable to this kind of white-collar crime.

Only a fool or a charlatan refuses to see that another economy-wrecking bankster-style Ponzi scheme is right here in Cridland’s making. Britons know all about the grotesque price already inflicted on them for bailing out corrupt big banks. Will they welcome Cridland’s latest flight into financial folly? The wider UK economy already bears a massive green burden thanks to the ludicrous Climate Change Act (2008). Because of the Act the profligate “green economy” already sucks £18 billion a year off the teat of taxpayers.

Global Solar Power Industry in Crisis

Cridland now wants government to forge a new “intellectual infrastructure” to take Britain deeper into the Age of Stupid on an oxymoronic “decarbonisation” program – all at a time when the rest of the world is bailing out. Only last week the global solar panel industry was labeled a dead man walking. It was announced that the world’s largest solar panel maker, China’s Suntech Power Holdings Inc. is being delisted by the New York Stock Exchange – it’s share price crashing from $90 in 2008 to less than $1 today. Sharp Corp. (6753)  is also pulling out of solar with job losses predicted at over 10,000.

Electric Car Market Sparked Out

But what about the CBI’s beloved electric car industry? Cridland insists Nissan’s Sunderland plant building the new ‘Leaf’ model is a great investment that will “reduce the carbon footprint” – but does it have any real future? No, according to hybridCARS website the Nissan Leaf’s range per battery charge has dropped from the advertised 100 miles to as low as 44 miles. While the rest of the electric car market is falling deeper into crisis. Tesla Motors  has lost $660 million in the last 14 quarters, while bailed out General Motors has only sold 925  Chevy Volts to private buyers since launch in 2010.

Apart from higher prices and lower consumer demand the electric car market is also beset with technical problems. Of no small concern are the lithium-ion batteries electric cars rely on. These are the very same kind we use in our notebook computers and mobile (cell) telephones. Firstly, lithium does not occur freely in nature but in compounds. So, if we are going to discuss finite resources then placing “peak lithium” in context with “peak oil” makes switching to electric cars is dumber than staying with gasoline. But consumers are becoming keenly aware of other impracticalities, too.

Apart from their woefully short range – the lithium batteries that power  electric cars notoriously degrade and perform poorly. In a year they can lose 10 to 20 percent of their already pitiful 25-mile range and General Motors admits that to replace a car’s batteries will cost between $8,000 to $9,000. Moreover, the production and disposal of these batteries on a large scale is an extremely polluting process. So much for the CBI’s  waffle about “sustainability” and caring for the environment! Perhaps Cridland should revise his next speech to reflect these topical developments? Only last week (September 24, 2012) Toyota was credited as the mass manufacturer that finally killed the electric car industry.Their reason? “No demand.” And Germany announces  abandonment of its electric car targets.

Carbon Capture and Storage Looks Buried

But apart from ineptitude on the business side, even with basic science the CBI has gotten this all wrong, too. It is axiomatic that the carbon cycle  alone invalidates Cridland’s obsession with “carbon capture and storage” (Page 26). It appears the CBI doesn’t even understand that CO2 is comprised of two atoms of oxygen for every one atom of carbon. So, yes, that’s mostly good, clean oxygen these jokers want to bury underground.

Not for CBI concern is the 2010 Report of the U.S. Government Accountability Office that admitted the very process of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is technically unfeasible – even if it were vigorously pursued it could take at least another 15 years to crack [1]. While a detailed study by Stanford University showed that such a pipedream, even if achieved, would be “25 to 1,000 times more polluting.” [2]

Wind Farms Fall Foul of International Laws

But worse for the CBI not only are it’s business and science brains all askew it seems it has no legal acumen either. In a sensational recent decision (May 2012)  the EU is being compelled to address the UN’s Aarhus Convention concerning wind turbine sprawl. It appears that EU governments may have unlawfully permitted the construction of wind farms without adequate consultation. In particular, evidence presented showed Britain may have abused the Convention by circumventing public discussion on whether wind turbines are either “sustainable” or cost-effective. As  Mark Duchamp, Executive Director of EPAW opined, “To spend so much money, a positive has to be proven – It hasn’t.” But the worse news this winter for UK households is that the cost of energy bills may double thanks to soaring wind farm subsidies.

Booming Shale Gas Puts “Renewables” to Shame

And now we must turn to the “frakking”revolution of shale gas acquisition – a development that is currently transforming the American energy scene. Drilling  cheap shale gas has brought American consumers energy joy as fuel bills are being cut by about a third. But incredibly, the“frakking” potential for Britain due to its own shale gas deposits in North West Lancashire is far, far greater. This is because Britain is in the enviable position of possessing very, very high quality reserves that make their US counterparts look tiny by comparison. One company, Cuadrilla – with no government subsidy – has license to tap a Lancashire shale field that is 4,000 feet thick and holding 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Geologists predict there may be more than 1,000 trillion cubic feet yet untapped. With potential already to create 5,600 UK jobs this is where the CBI should be clamoring for investment.

Briton’s Shocking and Growing £18 Billion Annual Green Subsidy

But the ludicrous Climate Change Act (2008) may stymie this great dash for gas. Green lobbyists are already hard at work hoping to apply the Act to help deny this tremendous bounty to consumers. This insane law already condemns voters and businesses to pay an extra £18 billion per annum until 2050 on crippling climate taxes – money that could have been better invested elsewhere.

In this Age of Stupid even Britain’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills admits soaring green-energy charges “will make British industry uncompetitive compared with other leading countries by the end of the decade.”  But Britain’s dumb politicians don’t even know it.

Global Political Climate Cools on Climate Change

Now let’s remind ourselves what underpins the CBI’s obsession with a “greener economy”- the dubious science of man-made global warming. Yet there’s been no upward trend in global temperatures in 14 years.  No wonder there is so little international political will to tax the people further in a bumptious attempt to “cool the climate” still further. Even the scientists heading this Chicken Little enterprise are backtracking on their “catastrophic” prophecies.

Yet so willfully ignorant is Cridland’s shabby Colour of Growth that it boldly declares “progress” was made at the Durban Climate Conference towards a “low carbon” global treaty (Page 19). Obviously no one sent the CBI the Greenpeace memo. But the long-term outlook appears even worse for the greens because world leaders are about to let the UN’s Kyoto Protocol, the CO2 emissions-limiting treaty, die this year. No wonder Canada voted in a Prime Minister who is a “climate change denier.”

“Low Carbon:” that Unscientific Oxymoron

You may already find Cridland is not just willfully ignorant about the political sea change –  but  he has no idea on the science, either. In each and every one of his presentations our “Age of Stupid” frontman spouts the pseudo-scientific “low carbon” oxymoron. “Low carbon” has no basis  in reason because carbon is nature’s essential building block – if you diminish carbon you diminish life. Cridland and his carbon capture fantasists should consult with horticulturists. They would soon enlighten the deluded and myopic that carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant” – it is an essential component of photosynthesis. Moreover, it is routinely pumped into greenhouses in concentrations of 1,000 ppm (parts per million) or higher despite a misguided clique of influential climatologists making absurdly unsupportable claims that concentrations above 350 ppm are “dangerous.”

So, if in Cridland’s world CO2 is a “pollutant”- why is it routinely added to our food and beverages? Well, for one thing, according to the Canadian government “Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness.” [3] And just imagine how flat your beer or soda would be without it!

Going Green Fails the “99 Percent”

Nonetheless, the CBI’s eco-propagandist insists going green will “create jobs, drive up investment and increase real wealth.” But that’s not true. If Cridland was honest he would admit that last year leading consultancy, Verso Economics, found that for every green job created in the UK, 3.7 existing jobs are lost. The more we look the more we see the “low carbon society” in Cridland’s vision is less about the 99 percent and more about pandering to the whims of the moneyed elite who invest in these  Ponzi schemes.

The financially hard-pressed among us understand what this “low carbon” lunacy actually means at the sharp end:  high cost, low employment, misery and self-denial. Cridland even has the cahones to call “fiscally neutral” his proposal to penalize homeowners by moving them in the Stamp Duty band if they don’t spend more on upgrades to comply with the Energy Act (Page 20). This is what he really means when he asserts, “it is clear that the market for green goods and services will continue to expand…” (Page 11).

Another Banking Fraud in the Making

Today no one doubts that more, not less regulation is what’s need. Cridland’s call to roll back the “regulatory landscape” is an ominous echo of those similarly misguided voices that brought about the repeal of key banking laws in the 1990’s (e.g. Glass-Steagall Act). If further public unrest in Britain of the kind seen in nations like Greece, Spain and Italy is to be averted then Cridland’s proposals must be resisted.

The CBI must remove those green-tinted spectacles and abandon demands for more government (taxpayer-funded) Big Green subsidies. In a shifting political and economic backdrop “going green” is impractical. Cridland’s environmentalist vision is faith-based, expensive, premised on junk science and without public support. Today Britian says “no” to those ailing green industries teetering on the brink of collapse. Just look at the ”Occupy” movement  – a barometer of public discontent and widely regarded as the spearhead of progressive “Liberalism” – never once has it called for reductions in CO2. In Greece, to avert a fresh energy crisis and more riots, plans are afoot to raise taxes on “renewables” as en masse consumers are refusing to pay their bills and Greek solar energy operators face going under.

Time and again the opinion polls confirm the story: demands for lower energy bills now, real jobs not fake green ones will revive the economy rather than pipe dream notions of saving the planet. Cridland and his green-colored capitalist cronies must toe the line with banking reform and learn the lesson that deregulation encourages more fraud, waste and corruption; or they will be condemned as self-serving and mendacious chancers looking to expose taxpayers to more calamitous risk.

—————–

[1]  “US GAO says coal plants need better data, technology to cut CO2″ Platt’s, July 16, 2010.

[2] “Wind, water, and sun beats out biofuel, nuclear, and coal?,” R&D, December 11, 2008. (The abstract of the paper by Jacobsen published in Energy and Environmental Science in 2009 is available here.

[3] T.J Blom; W.A. Straver; F.J. et al., Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses, (December 2002) Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses (accessed online: September 27, 2012).

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized