There is no empirical evidence of man-made global warming whatsoever. There has never been and there never will be. Yes, there is a theory and plenty of scientists have an ‘opinion’ on the matter. But opinion is not science. A great number of apparatchiks also ‘believe’ that that the globe is getting hotter and hotter and indeed only today I read in the BBC Science section that we are near to reaching that famous tipping point. But belief is not science either.
Of course, the globe warms every day and cools every night. The weather likewise changes every day and the seasons are rotating all the time. The temperature is different in different places all over the globe ‚Äì watch the Meteo on EuroNews or watch CNN or the BBC. They all show magnificently the different and ever-changing temperatures throughout the world. That is empirical. Those temperatures are taken by thermometers at some five feet above the ground.
So when I say there is no such entity as a world temperature I am taken to task and shown magnificent graphs. But the world does not have one temperature, but an ever-changing flux of different temperatures at different levels. These graphs are based on an ‘average’ of temperatures taken at five feet above the ground based on ‘anomalies’. Do you want to know what an anomaly is? It is what it says ‚Äì it is an anomaly. It is skullduggery. It is a means massaging world temperatures so that the common man is scared rigid into believing the end of the world is nigh and the ice caps will disappear forever.
So there is a cobbled sort of average, but there is no one global temperature since as CNN and all the other channels tell us there are numerous and ever-changing temperatures at surface levels. And this does not take into account the warm air rising up and cooling as it rises through the Troposphere, the Stratosphere, the Mesosphere and finally the Thermosphere. There is flux and if there is flux, there is not and cannot be a global temperature ‚Äì that would be a contradiction in terms. It is all phony ‚Äì not science at all. Just jiggery-pokery.
It is not impossible that sea ice will melt and ocean levels may rise ‚Äì that would be a matter of great Nature. But the fact is that it has not happened. Yes, I understand there has been a sea level rise ‚Äì about the thickness of a sheet of a quarto paper. But if it did rise up it would not be because of man and least of all because of Carbon Dioxide. The warmists have it as an article of faith that the Sun is constant. How can they say such a thing and call themselves scientists? Even a simpleton knows that there are solar flares and solar storms and sunspots as big as planet Earth. How long are these scientists going to get away with it? I will tell you ‚Äì as long as they are funded.
There are gigantic forces at work and they are Cosmic. Yes, there are cosmic forces, of which the two nearest to us are the Moon and the Sun. Actually, we already know a fair bit about these forces, about the effect of the Moon on the tides and how the surface of the Earth is actually lifted. When you realize also that the Sun is some 3,600 times larger than the Earth, radiating away with a temperature estimated at 6,500¬∫C at its corona and then you compare that with the propaganda of the warmists about a trace gas then you realize there is one great con – the biggest hoax that has ever been committed against all of mankind.
What really warms the air? – for surely, the air does get warm. That is experiential. As David Attenborough stood in the middle of the Sahara he commented that the temperature of the sand was some 70¬∫C and the air immediately above was 40¬∫C. Hello! Is there some connection? Yes, there is indeed. There are just three means of transferring heat ‚Äì conduction, convection, and radiation. One does not have to be a famous physicist to know and to observe these laws of physics. So the hot sands of the Sahara heated the air above by conduction. Could it have been by radiation? Answer No. Since oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to radiation, we know that the answer must be conduction.
Nor does one need to be a professor to know that it is impossible to trap heat, which is what the warmists base much of their theory upon ‚Äì the greenhouses effect. Of course, once cannot trap heat since heat is defined as the transfer of kinetic energy between one system and another. You cannot trap a ‘transfer’ ‚Äì just try it.
The whole warmist theory is based on infrared radiation. According to this theory the radiation from the Sun passes through the 99 percent of the atmosphere composed of Nitrogen and Oxygen, as they are transparent to radiation. As radiation encounters mass, heat is produced. The sands got hot. But how did the air get hot, as Attenborough remarked? The only feasible answer is conduction, touching. The idea that radiation from the Earth warms the atmosphere is not feasible, since we know that it could only warm at most 1 percent or 0.04 percent in the case of carbon dioxide. The idea that these molecules then warm the rest of the atmosphere is risible.
Can we check this for ourselves? Easily. I have a grandson of three years old. In his cottage is a black wood-burning stove. When it is not burning a child can touch that stove. When it is burning it will radiate into the room. However, should one touch that stove there will be an immediate and indeed painful transfer. That is conduction.
The air is heated by conduction. As Hans Schreuder writes in one essay in my book, Sun heats Earth and Earth heats Atmosphere – in that order. The warmists maintain that a low-grade infrared from the Earth warms the carbon dioxide in the air. They base this on experiments that show that greenhouse gases absorb infrared and emit every which way. They are correct. But the totality of all greenhouse gases is but 1 percent of the atmosphere and as for carbon dioxide, it is but 0.04 percent. So these gases may indeed get warmed and may indeed emit their warmth, but they are so puny that their net effect is negligible. Besides which they do not add that all molecules without exception absorb infrared!
It is very easy to observe that a black cloud of frozen water vapor passing between the Sun and us on a hot day immediately produces cooling. Furthermore, as heat is carried away upwards toward outer space by convection, carbon dioxide has a special role in radiating away what is still left, above absolute zero. So we can see that the contention of Hans Schreuder in his essay in my book ‘Climate for the Layman’ that greenhouse gases cool the Earth is correct. This is precisely contrary to the supposed greenhouse effect.
So I repeat there is no such entity as man-made global warming, or anthropogenic global warming or AGW for short. It is a scam ‚Äì a money making scam. It is a complete hoax. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant but is essential as a food for green plants. The real pollutants contained in smoke and exhausts are the particulate matters. That is what science has needed to concentrate on.
So we can see that the warming of the atmosphere is caused primarily by conduction, not by radiation, which is a small bit part player. Hot air rises and as it rises it cools, by convection. And as it goes on rising until it attempts to reach absolute zero, we can conclude likewise that the atmosphere does not and cannot heat the Earth, but the surfaces of the Earth heat the atmosphere.
There is an illusion that the atmosphere keeps us humans warm since on a hot day the warm air inhibits heat loss and on a cold day accelerates heat loss. In the UK we are much subject to winds. If the winds blow from the North the temperature falls, while if huge columns of air are blown our way from the Sahara we will get mild warm air even in winter.
The winds also affect the ocean currents, which push south and north from the equator. So the Arctic, which is water based, periodically melts and freezes ‚Äì that is nothing new. The warmists make much of the melt but barely mention the freeze. Why should they? It is the warming that makes their bread and butter.
The climate is always changing. Granted, the warmists say, but it has never changed so fast. When I hear this I am tempted to say something blasphemous. When the Mediterranean rushed through the Bosphorus and tumbled into the lake formed by the Danube and submerged all those towns and settlements, was that not fast? In fact, those warmists show an ignorance of ancient history ‚Äì they forget the earth-shaking events that caused the death of the dinosaurs and the mammoths. The idea that change is taking place faster today is both fanciful and unsubstantiated.
Finally, I see that one of my critics states bluntly that the greenhouse effect is real. That is simply an opinion. Don’t tell me that it is the hottest year ever, since that proposition is more than suspect. Where is the evidence? To state that the greenhouse effect is real is simply unscientific. More than that it is utterly absurd. It presupposes that there is a rigid structure in the sky, which prevents the escape of warm gases. Only charlatans and fools could believe such a thing.