A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
—Albert Einstein
In 1912, amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered the “missing link” between ape and man, known as “The Piltdown Man.”
He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England. Dawson submitted the find to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of geology at the Natural History Museum. [bold, links added]
Smith Woodward made a reconstruction of skull fragments, and the archaeologists hypothesized that the find indicated evidence of a human ancestor living 500,000 years ago.
They announced their discovery at a Geological Society meeting in 1912. For the most part, their story was accepted as fact. However, subsequent chemical testing showed that the skull and jats actually came from two different species, a human and an ape.
The conclusion: Piltdown Man was an audacious fake and sophisticated scientific fraud. Forty-one years elapsed between the discovery of the “Piltdown Man” and the determination that it was a fraud.
In 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC).
In its seminal report in 1990, the U.N. IPCC stated that “at the then current rate of world emissions of CO2, the global mean temperature would likely increase by 1°C by 2025.”
This statement formed the basis for the hypothesis that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming resulted from the increased concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s lower atmosphere resulting from man-made activities.
Central to the hypothesis was that the temperature of the lower troposphere would increase as the concentration of CO2 in the troposphere increased.
Therefore, in its 1990 report, the U.N. IPCC established a direct linkage between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the lower troposphere.
The scientific method of inquiry has guided scientific research and investigation for over 400 years. In summary, the scientific method requires that a researcher observe a phenomenon, postulate a hypothesis for the cause of the phenomenon, and then conduct experiments or scientific investigations to falsify the hypothesis.
In adherence to the scientific method, a climate scientist who thinks that man has caused global warming should develop a complex hypothesis as follows:
- Global warming has occurred; that is, the temperature of the world’s oceans, landmass, and relevant atmosphere has risen during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.
- Man’s activities are responsible for the global warming that has occurred.
- The extent to which global warming has occurred, or is reasonably projected to occur in the future, will adversely affect life on Earth.
If any of the conjectures in the complex hypothesis above are found to be invalid, the complex hypothesis is determined to be falsified and either discarded or modified.
In 1978, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began to launch a series of satellites to polar-circumnavigate the globe using microwave-sounding technology to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere (first 8 km of the Earth’s atmosphere).
The results show that during the period 1979–1998, the average monthly temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere decreased approximately 0.3°C each year, while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 335 ppm to 370 ppm.
Sometime during the period 1979–1998, an unbiased climate scientist at the U.N. IPCC should have observed that the temperature of the troposphere had significantly cooled while the concentration of CO2 had increased, contradicting the fundamental precept of the global warming hypothesis.
A committee should have been assembled to verify the accuracy of the temperature and CO2 concentration data.
The man-made global warming hypothesis should have been declared falsified if the data were accurate. No such action occurred.
Until the advent of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, the Piltdown Man was the most remarkable scientific fraud in history. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has now assumed that title.
Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a new book titled Global Warming: The Great Deception: The Triumph of Dollars and Politics over Science and Why You Should Care. Published on Amazon.com on January 4, 2022.
Read more at American Thinker
Noting that back in the 1970’s the very same liberal rags Time and Newsweek was giving top coverage to Global Cooling and a New Ice Age was on the way and episode of In Search Of from 1978 was all about it and the cold snowy winters of 76/77 and Buffalo getting snowed in
December 22, 2008 Solar Activity Between 1250-1850 Linked To Temperature Changes In Siberia
An ice core drilled at the Belukha glacier in the Siberian Altai by a Swiss-Russian research team under the leadership of the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in 2001 has now provided new findings in climate research. Oxygen isotopes in the ice were used to reconstruct the temperatures in the Altai over the past 750 years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081219180532.htm
#2: “Man’s activities are responsible for the global warming that has occurred.” is invalidated. ‘Backradiation’ is a physical impossibility, energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient. Their claim that it does so demonstrably violates 2LoT, Stefan’s Law and the Principle of Entropy Maximization, to name just a few physical laws the climastrologists violate with their blather.
Study well the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Note that there are two forms of the S-B equation… one for idealized blackbody objects, and one for real-world graybody objects.
Of course, idealized blackbody objects are provable contradictions and impossibilities… they do not actually exist. They are idealizations.
But the climastrologists misuse the S-B equation by treating real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects by using q = σ T^4, and slapping emissivity onto that (sometimes): q = ε σ T^4.
This effectively calculates for emission to 0 K and thus inflates radiant exitance for all objects. The climastrologists must then carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That’s not how the S-B equation is meant to be used. You’ll note the S-B equation subtracts the cooler object TEMPERATE from the warmer object temperature… and temperature is a measure of energy density (not energy flow), equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
It is the differential in energy density (used in the S-B equation in the form of temperature, but one can just as easily calculate directly upon energy density), the energy density gradient, which determines warmer object radiant exitance.
All action requires an impetus. Thus, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to spontaneously flow, so too does energy require an impetus (energy density gradient) to spontaneously flow.
If there is no energy density gradient, no work can be done, no energy can flow. Hence ‘backradiation’ is fantasy ideation to push a scam. Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient without external energy doing work upon that system energy to push it up that gradient. That’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell.
Most people cannot think in terms of energy, energy density and energy density gradient. We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with. Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill), energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient.
So one tack to take is to ask people if water can ever spontaneously flow uphill. Of course they’ll say, “No, water cannot flow uphill on its own.”
Then show them dimensional analysis:
Force: [M1 L1 T-2]
Area: [M0 L2 T0]
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Pressure is the result of Force / Area. That Pressure Gradient is Pressure / Length. Remind them that water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient. Then introduce energy. Tell them that energy is much like water. It requires an impetus to flow, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow. In the case of energy, that impetus is an energy density gradient, which is analogous to (and in fact, literally is) a radiation pressure gradient.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
Volume: [M0 L3 T0]
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Energy Density is Energy / Volume, and Energy Density Gradient is Energy Density / Length.
Highlight the fact that Pressure and Energy Density have the same units.
Also highlight the fact that Pressure Gradient and Energy Density Gradient have the same units.
So we’re talking about the same concept as water only spontaneously flowing down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) when we talk of energy only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient. Energy density is pressure, an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
And since a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://i.imgur.com/kS20QG1.png
… ‘backradiation’ can do nothing to warm the surface because energy cannot spontaneously flow from lower to higher energy density, and thus CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam perpetrated to obtain multiple billions of dollars in funding for trough-grubbing line-toeing ‘scientists’ and to push a Marxist One World Government “Build Back Better” agenda.
Do remember that photons, each a quantum of energy, are considered the FORCE-CARRYING gauge bosons of the EM interaction.
Going back to dimensional analysis:
We start with Energy: Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] –
And we subtract Force: Force: [M1 L1 T-2] –
Over Distance: Distance: [M0 L1 T0] = [M0 L0 T0]
We are left with nothing on the ‘transmitting’ end… [M0 L0 T0]. In other words, that Energy is used to apply a Force over a Distance.
That Force applied over a Distance gives us (on the ‘receiving’ end):
Force: [M1 L1 T-2]
Length: [M0 L1 T0]
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
You’ll note that Energy and Work have the same units:
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
For those who want to put it in terms of Momentum:
Momentum: [M1 L1 T−1]
Velocity: [M0 L1 T-1]
Work: [M1 L2 T−2]
That means Work = Force * Length = Momentum * Velocity
There’s a reason for that. Free Energy is defined as that energy capable of performing work. This is reflected in the equation for Helmholtz Free Energy (represented here as a single object and its environment):
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy (J)
U = internal energy (J)
T = absolute temp (K)
S = system final entropy (J K-1)
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment (J)
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Of course, if we were talking about a system with only two objects with the same physical parameters and nothing else, we could represent the Helmholtz Free Energy as: F = U1 – U2
Which is better represented as internal energy over volume to get energy density (since internal energy is an extensive property), converting the calculation to that of an intensive property and thus allowing us to compare dissimilar-sized objects: F = U1/V1 – U2/V2
And that’s exactly what the S-B equation does. Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by the radiation constant (Stefan’s Constant).
∴ q = (ε c (eh – ec)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
One can see that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object because Free Energy is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
Yes it’s fraud. There’s a political line that says “never let a crisis go to waste” . What we have here is a crisis manufactured by socialists. They’re stacking a fraud on top of it by claiming that they have the solutions to the first fraud. Sensible observers of this scam are vilified, ostracized and slandered. We’ve blown trillion$ on renewables and the only tangible result I see is sabotage of our energy supply. Deliberate?
A complete fraud and lie right from the beginning. Climate kills one-tenth the number of people it did a century ago (Bjorn Lomborg). And the most frustrating part is that the complete opposite is true! Life on earth – all life – is completely made of little carbon sacks of water we call cells. That is fundamental biology. And we’ve known it for 100 years. That carbon all comes from 0.04% of the atmosphere CO2. Life was born in CO2 rich levels more than twenty times those of today. Now, there is barely enough CO2 left to sustain life, let alone justify the televised histrionics and irresponsible indoctrination of schoolchildren. Lying that they’ve only got ten years to live. With no evidence whatsoever! They repeat CO2 driven climate model projections of warming. Without the slightest clue that EVERY ONE OF THESE MODELS EXAGGERATES WARMING – compared to actual weather balloon and satellite temperatures. Because in our starvation level lows of CO2 (greenhouse growers have to add up to 1,600ppm more for optimum plant growth, bringing fertile CO2 levels to 0.16% of their atmosphere!). Fossil fuels recycle the two basic ingredients of life on earth – CO2 and H2O – when we use them to provide the energy that has made us the best fed, longest-living, most prosperous people that have ever lived! Making fossil fuels the ONLY GREEN ENERGY. Photosynthesis is the biological process that literally makes the environment green. Provides ALL of life’s energy (converted from sunlight to life’s long chain, high energy carbon bonds). Provides our atmosphere’s entire supply of breathable oxygen (before photosynthetic life, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere). And contrary to CO2 fear mongers, the two basic ingredients of life – CO2 and H2O – are the ingredients recyled when we use fossil fuels. Water is abundant. But CO2 is at starvation level lows! But television and far too many fear mongering grade school teachers are just not well educated enough to understand. As Fox’s Judge Jeanine Pirro would say “are they stupid”?! And our politicians are hell-bent on following them into an energy-poverty future. The same energy poverty that kills 300 times more people worldwide than climate does. So you tell me. Do we have a climate crisis? Or a challenge to educate the next generation with a vision of hope that is reality.
I firmly believe the only crisis we face is from elites, not the weather. It becomes extremely clear the whole “Climate Change Fiasco” is to create fear, panic and societal upheaval, just like the cold and and calculating elites want. Why would we have the attack on food production around the world when the major grain crops have been at spectacular highs if not to create starvation? All in the name of “saving” the planet pushed along by the mega rich who operate without conscience, Why are enormous tracts of farming land being bought by billionaire moguls? Why do they constantly preach “Climate Change” when their own lives are directly opposite? As usual, the picture is clear, money, control and power. Yes “Climate Change”” is the ultimate lie.
I agree that climate change is a lot of bullshit, it is the elite brainwashing us and the majority are hooked, line and sinker. The sheeple.