Modern Climate Change Science

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/12/modern-climate-change-science/ 

 

My reply:

 [[Thus, thousands of scientists and billions of dollars later, we still have the same theoretical uncertainty about the impact of CO2 on climate. The one empirical estimate of ECS shown is about 1.5°C. Most such empirical estimates are less than 2°C and cluster around 1.5°C to 1.6°C (Lewis & Curry, 2018). Guy Callendar’s empirical estimate was 2°C (Callendar, 1938) and Arrhenius’ theoretical estimate (Arrhenius, 1908) was 4°C, so it can be said all the work and money spent since 1938 to attribute climate change to humans was wasted.]]

I could have saved them all that work and money. The true ECS is ZERO, zilch, nada. The scientists kept by the leftist-run U.N. IPCC are a government bondoggle clown show looking for a pony in the manure and regularly announcing a hoof clipping or tail hair, when they're just chasing unicorns.

For the umpteenth time, there is no physical way that atmospheric CO2 can melt an ice cube with its 15 micron radiation that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice.  Like most leftist witch hunts, there is no 'there' there. All along, the IPCC has based its entire CO2 AGW hoax on computer climate models that are no more than video games on government funding that aren't searching for the truth but are pure garbage in garbage out, regurgitating the results wired-in.

https://www.quora.com/Are-The-Global-warming-climate-change-theory-models-oversimplified-and-or-corrupted-by-data-that-is-not-accurately-representative-of-reality-the-main-reason-for-their-dismal-track-record-on-their-predictions-could/answer/TL-Winslow

The entire CO2 AGW edifice relies on the hoax that without atmospheric CO2's back radiation the Sun couldn't keep the Earth from freezing, which is supposed to prove the heating power of CO2 back radiation without further ado. How do they get that? They reduce the Earth to a flat disk 1/4 the surface area of the globe then reduce the Sun to 1/4 power, claiming that everything about Earth's climate can be derived from pure instantaneous but static radiation shining on a fixed static flat Earth, allowing long-term averages to be easily calculated but bearing no resemblance to reality.  As if the Sun doesn't shine only half of each day on most of the surface, and as if the Earth doesn't have a thick atmosphere that turns solar energy into work to power thermals, wind, and storms by acting as a Carnot heat engine, which doesn't work instantaneously like radiation and modifies all calculations with energy storage.  That's why they put out values for solar radiation and CO2 back radiation in watts per square meter for the whole disk, as if a flat Earth model has any physical validity whatever. They have literally turned Science back to the Flat Earth days. But like Galileo said, "But it still moves".

http://www.historyscoper.com/howmuchdoesthesuncontributetoglobalwarming.html

Using instantaneous radiation to/from a flat Earth makes it seem natural to use the Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 Law that gives the total power output of a surface keyed to the 4th power of temperature, and is derived from the more general Planck Radiation Law that gives a temperature to radiation via its peak power wavelength keyed to temperature.  Like all leftist bait-and-switches, using only T^4 for all calculations, one can probably prove that a block of dry ice in an unplugged microwave oven can cook a turkey, because total power freed from wavelength distribution makes dry ice as hot as a blowtorch.

How convenient for Marxists whose mentality is to make everybody equal, why not photons? They never mention that photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, so all photons aren't equal, and the longer the wavelength the weaker the photon and less able it is to override a molecule's kinetic energy and increase its temperature.

All these T^4 equations should be towed out to sea in a barge and sunk, and climate science refounded using the full Planck Radiation Law, where only wavelengths of 12.986 microns (-50C) down to 8.967 microns (+50C) (roughly 13 to 9 microns) are carrying the burden of shedding Earth's surface heat, and radiation of 15 microns wavelength (-80C) isn't even capable of interfering with it and is thus irrelevant to climate. Alas, to discriminate on the basis of wavelength makes it necessary to junk their precious S-B 5th grader calculations and confuse their Marxist social-racist justice minds. :)

It's sad that the scientists at the top must have known this all along and used the S-B Law purposely to fool their own students as well as the public, which is why the bastard pseudoscience or junk science field called climatology is a giant government boondoggle and should be defunded ASAP, while real physicists like moi and a few of the readers hired in their place. Fat chance under the global Marxist U.N. IPCC octopus that has infiltrated every human society, especially the scientific ones. I take it back. Top IPCC scientists like Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann are probably total physics flunkouts and can't even be trusted to understand anything about radiative physics. No wonder Joe Biden just chose him for his climate advisor :)

But cracks are showing. Lately I've seen the IPCC hoaxers deemphasize CO2 back radiation and shift focus to water vapor as an alternate "greenhouse gas". What a sick attempt to keep the money pouring in. First, humans have no control of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and they certainly don't need to shut down the fossil fuel industry because of it. Second, the only reason there's water vapor in the sky is that it has already cooled the surface via evaporation, taking a lot of solar heat energy with it, and no radiation it could supposedly emit could replace that lost heat, much less warm the surface more than the Sun originally did. Then there's the thermodynamic lapse rate of 9.8C/K (18.8F/mi.), which causes the water vapor to quickly grow frigid with height, so that when it drops precipitation it will cool the surface more than the Sun already did, and never warm it at all. That's why Jehovah covered the Earth in a water vapor layer so that Adam and Eve didn't need air conditioning. :)

Then there's water vapor's radiation problem. First, water vapor is a mixture of gas and liquid, and gas can't emit Planck distribution radiation, only liquids and solids. Water is a weakly polar molecule and can absorb and emit some radiation on a photon by photon basis, never a complete Planck power-wavelength curve that can raise the temperature of the Earth's surface,  but since it's embedded in liquid, the latter will likely catch all of it, and yes, water can emit Planck radiation.  But the Planck radiation power-wavelength curve makes frigid sky water or ice unable to raise the temperature of anything higher than itself, which might be 0C or lower, meaning no global warming would be possible. Only ground fog might be able to block convection and slow surface cooling, but never warm it higher than the Sun did, and that's weather not climate.

It's time to drop the very term greenhouse gas and refound climate science on sound physical principles without political aspirations to fool the world into redistributing its wealth for Marxist social-racial justice. If that causes brainwashed leftists to fear losing their warm fuzzy feelings, I don't care, because I seek truth, and it's not subject to politics.  Back to the lead paragraph, maybe all those billions wasted chasing unicorns was Marxist social justice, make-work projects for unemployable losers. :)

http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

https://www.quora.com/How-does-convection-in-Earth-s-interior-and-conduction-in-the-surface-affect-the-temperature-in-our-atmosphere/answer/TL-Winslow

https://www.quora.com/Disregarding-all-evidence-that-flows-from-the-logical-fallacy-of-correlation-implying-causality-what-evidence-is-there-that-atmospheric-CO2-is-causing-global-warming/answer/TL-Winslow

https://www.quora.com/When-scientific-evidence-of-climate-change-was-first-presented-what-was-the-initial-reason-many-politicians-decided-to-ignore-it-while-listening-to-scientific-evidence-on-other-issues/answer/TL-Winslow