Global Warming The Religion
The recent northern hemisphere deep freeze should be the last nail in the coffin of global warming. The climategate emails and the public learning more about the computer models being junk would convince anyone with an ounce of reason it is a hoax. Those disbelieving the evidence are not doing it from a scientific standpoint it is a religion to them.
Low temperature records have been made this winter all over the Northern Hemisphere. Record amounts of snowfall also. The global cooling is kicking in. Global temps have been declining since 2007.
Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia has been the driving force behind the Global Warming hoax. The e-mails showed how they adjusted temperatures, omitted previous warm eras like the Medieval Warming period. Temps in the 1930’s were lowered. The actual temperature data for recent decades was deleted, I wonder why?
The CRU stifled discussion by intimidating the peer review process of scientific publications. They were fighting freedom of information requests. Many of the e-mails showed unethical and even some illegal behavior.
The computer models have been shown to have fudge factors to obtain results they were seeking.The following is a summary of the conclusions of real scientists.
(Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner – “Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics”)
“5 Physicist’s Summary
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms \greenhouse effect” and \greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
b) with or without rotation,
c) with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identifed with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature’s fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.
6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind [perpetual motion machine]. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the average fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects : : : 93
9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will..fly.” (cf. Ref. .)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental differ from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions – by raising the computing power – are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butter fly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth. In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth”
At the recent Copenhagen Climate summit a question was asked of a woman in the street protesting for climate change action. She was asked ” The US Geological Survey through satellite data has found there has been no reduction of Northern polar and Antarctic ice in the last 10 years, does that change your views?” She stated ” That can’t be true” The questioner said ” It is actual data, have you been to either of the poles?” ” No, it can’t be true, it’s false”
She denied real data like other Global Warming fanatics do when faced with facts that dispute their claims. Global warming has become a religion to many not requiring proof. They fight those who believe it to be a hoax with tactics borrowed from the Inquisition. Intimidation, ridicule, and threats. They should do us a favor and do what the same crowd constantly does and separate the religion from the state.