Carbon dioxide is once again the devil at birth at UN FCCC COP26 in Glasgow. The slogan “Listen to the Science” rings out loud. Question: What science?
Climatology presents a dystopian reality marked by a sharp divide between real and alternative science due to a different viewpoint on validation, in which there is no common ground. The facade also has a political and social dimension.
Realistic climatology has strict rules for science and validation, which Einstein vigorously interpreted: “No amount of experiment can ever prove me; a single experiment can prove me wrong. A skeptical scientist prioritizes empirical support over verification. But anyone who practices it.” In climatology he is marginalized as a “climate denier”, denied access to forums and banned.
This also applies to publications with far-reaching consequences: a White man is a global carbon dioxide authority, whose theoretical contribution has been published in carbon dioxide absorption on PSI (website: Principia Scientific International) because well-known publishers fear reprisals and refuse to publish. Self-censorship of basic scientific publications is a reality. 97% consensus Among the scholars scaling up to 99% not only”prophecy’ Based on ‘Pal Review’ by excluding opponents.
Alternative science/consensus shows a 97% consensus and does not endorse Einstein’s view. Early green thought “wake up” places excessive importance on like-minded thinking, resulting in group thinking Which confirms the tunnel vision, not a scientific vision but a political one. Peer review (among peers) is brick-and-mortar but has no scientific value to “buddy review” (among friends). This is not fiction because two professors, co-authors of IPCC AR6 in a VRT Post ter zik state the following.
Joeri Rogelj: “195 countries together looked at the best scientific knowledge on climate change. The summary of this report was approved by those 195 countries, making the IPCC report incredibly powerful and powerful to influence policy.
Philippe Huybrechts Professor at VUB’ It took four years to work on, wrote 234 authors and together they read and evaluated 14,000 articles. This is where the IPCC gets its credibility. It is actually the gold standard in climatology.
Such unprofessional statements from professors can be relied upon. It is even strange to call this the “gold standard”. Scientific discoveries are due mainly to lonely, stubborn people. Without it, for example, we would still be roaming flat Earth with stomach ulcers, and the theory of relativity as the cradle of the current scientific explosion is unknown. It is clear that for much of the scientists’ perception and policy messages of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they take precedence over content.
- known Global Warming Where heat/energy is sent by radiation from the Earth’s surface through the atmosphere to the universe and half of it is reflected back there is no carbon dioxide, although it is shown in textbooks and courses. Satellites OLR (Outgoing Infrared) gives a decreasing outgoing radiation of the carbon dioxide spectrum. So it is true that CO2 “turns off the heat”, but is then confined to the “upper atmosphere”. Measurements show that this only occurs outside the atmosphere of -57 °C (about 220 °C). Carbon dioxide does not behave as a greenhouse gas between zero and 10 km in height. Within the atmosphere, carbon dioxide radiation is absorbed and converted into heat.
- Carbon dioxide saturates with increasing concentrations, i.e., its infrared properties decrease with increasing carbon dioxide according to a logarithmic law, so that the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide – that is, the effect of temperature when the concentration is doubled – is constant, regardless of its nominal value. For example, the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature during the last ice age was 2.5 times stronger than it is today, and therefore negligible compared to other effects such as The density of the falling clouds As a result of increased direct sunlight on the Earth’s surface, a phenomenon that is not important for the IPCC because in procedural terms this does not belong to anthropogenic (anthropogenic) influence.
- Climate models that simulate the behavior of the Earth and the atmosphere are complex, poorly understood, and unreliable for two reasons. (1) The published values are the average of the individual results separated widely to improve the final result. These models are random and are measured through a set of variables to fit them with the past ( Lateness) to predict the future, certainly no guarantee of quality and sports statistics. (2) The low sensitivity to carbon dioxide due to saturation is compensated by building in water vapor (a powerful greenhouse gas) of which there is 20 times more, as a positive reaction agent for carbon dioxide, and this makes even Unstable weather patterns. employment Climate modelers sounded the alarm For very high results just before COP 26.
Models are essential in engineering sciences where errors are severely punished, and their correctness is validated by performing similar calculations to the model manually. This is also possible for the climate. It’s surprisingly simple, but it’s not done. Because mistakes made by climate scientists, which can be devastating to society like decarbonisatieOn the contrary, as long as it is alarming enough.
a little tech
The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is a simple manual calculation based on Stefan-Boltzmann’s law (SB) when the energy loss is known (called the radiative forcing or RF), and provides more reliable results than models due to their simplicity.
The table below illustrates this. Assuming high IPCC values and low van den Beemt OLR values, the SB calculation is applied to double the CO concentration, this results in an increase in temperature which is also the climate sensitivity of ECS CO2. Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 has increased from 300 to 400 ppm, 1/3 of the ECS pathway. The anthropogenic portion accounts for 3.7% of the annual carbon dioxide production. The IPCC published ECS value has been included for reference.
|the origin||OLR||temperature increase|
|Reference:||Earth = 15°C Total OLR 238 W/m²|
Because of their simplicity, manually calculated ECS values are more reliable and three times lower than climate models for an isotropic OLR, and similar climate models provide temperatures 2.5 to 3X higher than measurements This indicates that climate models are seriously wrong. Worthless and highly harmful climate models are unfortunately the starting point for concern about COP26.
Small, measurable effect
The overall increase in CO2-induced temperature since the Industrial Revolution is only responsible for a third of the very high assumptions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and if we limit ourselves to the anthropogenic part, the impact turns out to be immeasurably small.
Expensive decarbonization in the EU is worthless and unjustified because of its very small impact, but it is disastrous for future prosperity. The past when plentiful and cheaper energy was marked as “lube” oil in society is gone in response to an immeasurable problem.
“Coffee buff. Twitter fanatic. Tv practitioner. Social media advocate. Pop culture ninja.”