NASA added the ‘x-factor’ into their man-made global warming equations and wrongly doubled the greenhouse gas effect. It’s due to vectors, says new research.
Independent analysts who recently examined NASA’s Earth’s energy budget numbers have found climatologists working for the U.S. space agency have not been applying the mathematical rules applicable to vectors in their greenhouse gas equations, at least since 1997.
The monumentally embarrassing oversight multiplied the heating properties of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by an extra factor of two: the so-called hidden ‘x-factor.’ Whether the error was intentional or accidental may never be proved. One NASA climate expert quit over the global warming controversy.
New Angle on the Climate Controversy
Recently I reported how retired scientist, Alan Siddons uncovered the hidden error from an admission made by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt on his ‘Real Climate’ website in my article, ‘NASA Charged in New Climate Data Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus.’
Further research since then has identified that climate scientists failed to apply rules governing calculations about forces in motion i.e. vectors. Climate analyst, Siddons discovered that Schmidt inadvertently revealed that he and his small yet elite clique of climate colleagues were wrongly double counting the warming effect of CO2.
Is Vector Calculus so Vexatious?
Vector calculus (or vector analysis) is the branch of mathematics that deals with natural forces acting in three dimensions and, for climate science, should describe the movement of gases from one point to another.
Untrained in higher mathematics, climatologists had done this by way of multiplying by a factor of two the warming impact of carbon dioxide because they claim it radiates energy in Earth’s atmosphere twice by way of an ‘up and down’ effect termed ‘back radiation.’ This ‘up and down’ factor was then added into the overall Earth energy budget. Thereby all climate scientists, taking the equation on trust, wrongly concluded that human emissions of carbon dioxide were far more significant to climate change than they are.
Siddons had already exposed what appears another sinister secret of NASA. Thanks to more smart detective work by Siddons we see the omission to apply the laws on vectoring.
In this instance, what vector calculus requires is that any three-dimensional forces that run parallel but in opposition (i.e. the ‘up and down’ effect of back radiation), must be equated to zero because they cancel each other out. Thus when correctly rated to zero greenhouse gases add no value to Earth’s energy budget.
‘Poor Mathematical Skills’ says British Climategate Inquiry
Mathematical incompetence within climate science was declared a contributory factor by an official investigation into the Climategate scandal. The Oxburgh Inquiry found proof of numerous such statistical errors but stopped short of accusing climate scientists of intentional fraud.
Oxburgh noted, “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”
Bring in Qualified Mathematics Experts, says Inquiry
The report recommended that researchers should consult with qualified mathematicians so that monumental blunders like these may be averted in future. Taxpayers worldwide may therefore have wasted more than $50 billion in ill-conceived projects to limit human greenhouse gas emissions.
For further insight into how off beam climate scientists were, independent climate analyst Gary Novak, a long-time climate researcher with a science masters degree, explains in his study ‘Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect:’
"Approximately one sixth of re-radiated energy would go into outer space, one sixth toward the surface of the earth and two thirds into the surrounding atmosphere. The logic is that there are six equal sides involved, not that there are three areas to emit into. Then the atmosphere absorbs half of the radiation going toward the earth reducing it to one twelfth.”
Not surprisingly, waves of international climate experts are turning their backs on the discredited greenhouse theory. So, as Novak shows, even if the ‘up and down’ back radiation effect were plausible under vector rules, NASA should never have doubled the numbers but divided them by twelve.
Novak, G., ‘Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect,’nov47.com (accessed online June 9, 2010).
Siddons, A., Hertzberg Ph.D, M., & Schreuder, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’(May 2010).
‘Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit,’ Oxburgh et al. (April 12, 2010), University of East Anglia, UK.
Thieme. H., ‘On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation,’ realplanet.eu (accessed online June 9, 2010).