An Assessment of the National Climate Review Reveals a Heavy Use of Pseudoscience
Its all over the news as mainstream news media makes it front page coverage ensuring that YOU see it using images such as this one from the Washington Post with flames everywhere implying the world is burning up. Such is the propaganda that Goebells himself was impressed with back in the 1930s. And propaganda it is. I skipped lightly over the main publication and went straight to the meat and potatoes of it, for the vegetarians that would be the legumes and grains of it called, "The Climate Science Supplement" as this is supposed to be supporting their claims in the National Climate Review.
In the first chapter, it says,
"The projections described in this appendix are based, to the extent possible, on the CMIP5 model simulations."
Let's talk about these CMIP model simulations. Models are often used in science and are only as good as the data put into them. Models are used to see if one is looking in the right direction and this is determined by a model's ability to predict future trends. The failure of a model to predict successfully is a sign that it is a failed model and should not be relied on. In the case of CMIP modelling, it has failed horrendously at predicting climate trends, therefore, it has been FALSIFIED, yet here it is still being used to make more claims. This is pseudoscience.
CMIP models have been so far off the mark one must ask, why is it still being touted as a reliable model? Inaccurate by 90-300% this model hasn't even come close to predicting observed patterns. Yet, in the NATIONAL CLIMATE REVIEW, it states,
"Many independent lines of evidence demonstrate that the world is warming and that human activity is the primary cause."
So far, the first alleged "independent line of evidence" has a spurious track record of failure and as such should not be considered reliable for making future predictions or basing government policy on.
What do they say next?
They then go on and talk about humans burning of fossil fuels adding to the atmospheric Co2 concentrations producing the so-called runaway Greenhouse Effect. The only problem is, once again, the claims of their models(maths) do not match observations. Present levels of atmospheric Co2 is well above 400PPM while Global Mean temperature according to the University of Alabama Huntsville has dropped in the last two years from being just over 0.8* C above baseline to now being 0.22* C above baseline, which pretty much offsets or negates all the alleged global warming of the 20thC.
What makes the claim in this image in the CLIMATE SCIENCE SUPPLEMENT spurious is that physicists do not agree with the way climatologists use their maths and have so far kept quiet out of fear of possible recriminations. In this paper Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis the author, Douglas Cotton, reveals the misuse of the 'Stefan-Boltzmann Law' for Blackbody Radiation. Earth is not a Blackbody and to treat it as such is erroneous. As a side note, there is also good reason to question the validity of this Law as Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille has published a refutation of it. See his playlist of videos discussing Blackbody Radiation.
Back to the issue at hand. In his paper, physicist Douglas Cotton explains,
"The Earth's surface is not a blackbody because it loses thermal energy by other processes in addition to radiation. These other processes make it harder for the solar radiation to achieve blackbody temperature because there are limited hours in the day. A black asphalt surface with the sun directly overhead reaches a temperature that is probably as hot as the solar radiation could achieve. However, the Earth is not covered with black asphalt and about 70% of its surface is water into which solar radiation penetrates several meters."
He further states,
"What climatologists now put forward was an astonishing idea (not at all supported by the laws of physics) that radiation from the cold atmosphere somehow caused heat into the surface."
This directly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics as heat CANNOT transfer from a cooler object to a warmer object. Heat transfers from hot objects to cold objects and stops when an equilibrium between the two extremes is achieved.
Above you see NASA's energy budget. Being absorbed by the ground is a 168 watts of solar radiation, but, blackbody radiation being radiated back is near twice that amount at 324. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law allows us to calculate that the actual amount of blackbody radiation would be half of what IPCC Climatologists claim.
Physicist and author, Douglas Cotton,
"However, not only is the blackbody radiation overstated, but the whole conjecture that we could just add solar flux and back radiation flux, then deduct the thermal and evaporative cooling to get a net figure to insert into the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations is totally fictitious physics."
Wow! Totally fictitious physics. Therefore this too is pseudoscience by the IPCC climatologists.
They then go on and talk about manmade Co2 and other greenhouse gases making all kinds of claims but offering no supportive evidence or methodology explaining how they came to these conclusions. There is no denying that atmospheric Co2 concentrations have increased in the past century, but what is of question is why has it increased. Volstock icecores reveal that atmospheric Co2 fluctuations follow fluctuations in temperature. When the oceans warm they release more Co2 and when they cool they absorb more Co2.
The above image shows the temperature-Co2 correlation to be driven by temperature and not by Co2. And as I said earlier, in the last two years atmospheric Co2 concentrations have risen to 410PPM yet Global Mean Temperature in the last two years has dropped 0.6* C.
The above image reveals temperature and Co2 concentrations from 1997 to 2015. Co2 concentrations rise relatively evenly while temperature fluctuates up and down. If there is a correlation between the two we should see the temperature variations on a similar grade that Co2 is, but we do not because this correlation is also pseudoscience.
They also state,
"*One type of halocarbon, long-lived chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), was used extensively in refrigeration, air conditioning, and for various manufacturing purposes. However, in addition to being powerful heat-trapping gases, they are also responsible for depleting stratospheric ozone. *"
This is a ridiculous claim that was used to ban CFCs because DuPont's patent on CFC's was running out. It never was explained how a molecule heavier than air, such as CFCs, could rise into the stratosphere and then gather at the South Pole. The reason is there is no mechanism. Holes in the ozone layer occur due to a lack of UV during solar minima. UV breaks oxygen molecules apart and then takes the oxygen atoms and attaches it to other oxygen molecules forming ozone. This claim of CFCs was pseudoscience used for a corporate agenda.
Believe it or not, that was just the introduction and chapter one and so far I would say that it has relied heavily on pseudoscience for their argument.
This was supposed to be the Science Supplement but so far it has been dominated with repeated claims about manmade climate change/global warming. Often they make references to "independent resources", but every one of those independent resources likely received funding from an IPCC approved source. Many truly independent researchers have been refused funding simply because their research did not support the IPCC narrative. How independet were these so called independent researchers if their funding was backed by the IPCC.
Their insistence that the globe is warming contradicts the UAH dataset which is satellite sourced and is a measurement of the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere using their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch. It is a measure of temperature in the Troposphere.
As for the temperature dataset preferred by climatologists, there was this audit recently released which shows some rather suspicious anomalies throwing the whole dataset in dispute. DATAGATE As well, Tony Heller has done a wonderful job showing how NASA injects above average temperatures into locales that have no groundbased thermometers. Is the Global Temperature record Credible?
What I get out of this assessment is that it uses pseudoscience and non-credible temperature data sources to make wild claims that have no bearing on what is being observed. This is clearly agenda driven and should not be considered worth one's time and energy to worry about. The real existential threat is global cooling due to a Grand Solar Minimum that will likely cause another Little Ice Age, as well as, continue to cause crop losses resulting in a pootential global famine within ten years.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO ENSURE YOUR FOOD SECURITY?
Thanks for reading. If you would like to see more posts like this, please feel free to follow me. Leave an interesting comment or question and I shall follow you.
Analysed, compiled and written by Freddie Thornton
PEACE
@daemon-nice