Related: Biden’s false climate promises
By Cap Allon – Electroverse
“The CO2 greenhouse effect of the Earth’s atmosphere is a pure fiction of people who like to use large computers, without physical bases.” — Gerhard Gerlich ph.D.
Over the years, scientific paper after scientific paper has contended the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory is wrong. However, those in control of the agenda selectively choose which papers/theories the public can hear about, and, in turn, which get swept under the rug.
One such paper the ill-informed street-sheep have likely never heard of is that published in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change” back in 2017–the “door-opener to a new paradigm,” former IPCC reviewer Nils-Axel Mörner is quoted as calling it (Mörner left the UN after realizing it was not truly interested in science).
“New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model” argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature — it concludes the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.
As reported by wnd.com, the prevailing theory on the earth’s temperature is that heat from the Sun enters the atmosphere, and then greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane, and water vapor trap part of that energy by preventing it from escaping back into space.
That theory, which underpins the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis and the climate models used by the United Nations, was first proposed and developed in the 19th century.
However, the experiments on which it was based involved glass boxes that retain heat by preventing the mixing of air inside the box with air outside the box — the experiment is not analogous to what occurs in the real atmosphere, which does not have “walls” or a “lid”.
The real mechanisms that control the temperature of the planet, according to the 2017 paper, are the Sun’s energy and the air pressure of the atmosphere. The so-called “greenhouse effect” is actually a function of the activity on our host star plus the atmospheric pressure resulting from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor.
The same applies to other celestial bodies, and to better understand the phenomena, the scientists behind the paper used three planets (Venus, Earth and Mars) as well as three natural satellites (the Moon of Earth, Titan of Saturn and Triton of Neptune). The celestial bodies were chosen based on three criteria: having a solid surface, representation of a broad range of environments, and the existence of reliable data on temperature, atmospheric composition, and air pressure.
“Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System,” the paper explains.
“This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth.”
The paper goes on to outline four possible explanations for those observations., and concludes that the most plausible was that air pressure is responsible for the greenhouse effect on a celestial body. In essence, what is commonly known as the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” is in fact a form of compression-heating caused by total air pressure–comparable to the compression in a diesel engine that ignites the fuel.
The paper’s authors break it down in layman’s terms:
“There are no greenhouse gases in reality–as in, gases that can cause warming. Humans cannot in principle affect the global climate through industrial emissions of CO2, methane, and other similar gases or via changes in land use. All observed climatic changes have natural causes that are completely outside of human control.
“The foundation of the greenhouse theory was born of an assumption, it was never shown experimentally, and our results show this is completely wrong. Our study blows the greenhouse theory completely out of the water.
“There is nothing left.”
The politicized climate projections used to forecast catastrophic warming and justify a wide range of “backward” policies are based on an untested theory. And as the authors point out: “We didn’t start with a theory, we started with the data, which is the opposite of how the greenhouse theory came about.”
The greenhouse theory is based on the assumption that a free convective atmosphere –an atmosphere with no “lid” on it– can trap heat. This was an assumption born out of a misinterpretation of experiments involving glass boxes in the early 19th century by Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician. Glass boxes get warmer inside when exposed to the Sun, not because they trap long-wave radiation, as thought by Fourier, but because they hamper the exchange of air between the inside of a box and the outside environment.
Next came Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist (ancestor of Greta Thunberg, no less) who assumed Fourier was correct and in 1896 created an equation to calculate the Earth’s temperature based on CO2 in the atmosphere. However, Arrhenius’s equation is both mathematically and physically wrong, yet this paper is still cited as “evidence” that the physics of the greenhouse effect have been well-known for over 100 years.
Unfortunately, scientific discovery has been hijacked.
Money talks, and it can now ask for whatever conclusion you want.
Perhaps this has always been the case, but over the past few decades things appear to have gotten murkier — the public, on the back of junk science, have been molded into mindless foot-soldiers fighting on behalf the far-left and their extreme socialist ambitions for the planet. The climate “fight” has zero to do with global warming or CO2 emissions, and instead has everything to do with a reshaping of the way we live, with a take-down of capitalism, and with the removal of free speech.
.. because it can’t be snow!