Wednesday, 27 February 2019

The Massive flaw in the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory

AKA: Why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not refuted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis

Climate consensus scientists tell us that carbon dioxide (CO2) warms the surface significantly. Their theory derives directly from a hypothesis first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. 123 years ago. That is the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory, GHGE. Modern 'climate consensus' scientists have done no real-world, quantitative, studies on this in 31 years of promoting their GHGE as "settled science". More surprisingly, it seems there have been no studies on this since 1900; 119 years ago. In 1900, Knut Ångström, found no surface warming from CO2 when he tried to verify Svante Arrhenius's hypothesis that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the surface by about 4.8K. I think climate consensus scientists must be very incurious people for 'scientists', and very ignorant to talk about CO2 warming the surface without good proof. What is their issue, never doing basic science to validate their hypothesis?

  • Do they lack skill? Easy, just commision an experimental physicist whom they trust.
  • Is it an impossible experiment? No. Knut Ångström did it 119 years ago, and modern physicists have proposed how best to do it today.
  • Do they lack funds? Unlikely, given the billions in annual funding that climate science has been getting for decades.

What do they do with the money, and why are they so incurious for scientists?

Why the conventional, climate consensys, GHGE hypothesis is wrong:

  • Molecular electrons have different energy levels.
  • These energy levels are quantized. That is to say, exist at distinct, precise, energy levels. Much like photons have a distinct energy packet.
  • Cold molecules have electrons at low energy levels.
  • IR (& EMR) is absorbed by molecules to promote electrons to higher levels
  • Conversely: when a molecule cools, its electrons will demote from higher to lower levels. Often by emitting an IR photon
  • But cold IR (low energy) is only absorbed by electrons at low energy levels
  • Electrons are 'promoted' in order. First the low energy levels are used, then the higher levels.
  • Electrons don't absorb IR associated with lower energy levels when they are already at a higher level.
  • Because an electron needs an, ever higher, quantum of energy to gain the next level.
  • The electron needs that energy all-at-once. Hence the term 'quantum'; meaning a single IR photon delivers the energy.
  • The electron does not get its energy, to gain promotion, from many photons of low energy IR. It does not store this energy associated with an IR photon while remaining at the energy level it's at.
  • Warm molecules do not have electrons at low energy levels
  • CO2 IR emissions emit IR at a modal temperature = 253K, -62K significantly below average earth surface temperature. [awaiting precise correction]

    (modal = blue mode line)
  • So IR emitted by CO2 can only promote electrons from low energy levels to slightly higher levels.
  • But a warm surface has very few electrons at those low energy levels. They've already been promoted. That's why it's warmer!
  • So, in general, IR from CO2 'does not warm the surface'. Nearly all the cold LWIR from CO2 can't find surface electrons 'cold' enough to be promoted.
  • A few CO2 IR photons may be absorbed by the surface. Generally the higher energy photons from the left side of the mode.
  • But the vast majority IR photons from CO2 can't find a suitable electron (in surface molecules) at a low enough energy level
  • Warmer air can still warm the surface by conduction. But that is very slow. In general, air is only warmer than the surface at night. So only warms the surface by a little at night
  • CO2 still 'traps heat'. It absorbs some IR leaving the ground to warm the air.
  • But ~99% of that energy absorbed by the air is never coming back to warm the surface.

In general, the Greenhouse gas effect theory of CO2 causing dangerous man-made warming is false. Many scientists concluded the GHGE due to more CO2 is about 10% of the warming claimed by the IPCC climate consensus. The consensus is wrong.

PS: By the term 'molecules', I'm not just referring to covalent molecules but all 3 kinds of bonding: covalent, ionic and metallic.

Monday, 4 February 2019

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

From the Independent. Almost 20 years ago. Their famous and now censored article. It seems they got tired of people taking the piss out of them. They pulled it off their website. The wayback machine still has it.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.