Climategate DEVELOPING HARD!

CO2, CLIMATE FORCING AND CLIMATE MODELS
17 August 2009
Enough data has already been released to unequivocally prove scientific fraud. All of the
global temperature datasets that include the actual physical measurements of the global
temperature clearly demonstrate that there was a rapid rise in global temperature from
around 1910 to about 1942, followed by a slow drop in global temperature from 1942 to
1975, at which time the world reverted to warming which all global temperature datasets
clearly show ended after 1998, with a cooling trend that is still continuing.
Global emissions increased by just half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year during the global
warming of about half a degree C from 1910 to 1942. This equates to each gigatonne
increase in CO2 emissions causing a one degree C rise in global temperature
As a result of increased CO2 emissions from post-war industrialization, from 1942 to 1975
global emissions increase from under 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 1942 to over 20
billion tonnes of CO2 by 1975.
During the cooling that occurred from 1942 to 1975 the global emissions increase by 16
billion tonnes of CO2 per year and based on the previous warming this should have caused
16°C of global warming but instead there was nothing but cooling.
It was only 13 years after this global cooling with contemporaneous rapid increase in global
CO2 emissions that the climate models incorporated a forcing parameter that related global
warming to increases in CO2 concentration on the basis that this increase came from
humans.
Since these are supposed climate specialists, these modelers would be fully aware that the
globe cooled from 1942 to 1975 as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grew. The
relationship of the forcing parameter of the climate models of 5.35ln(C/C0) in which C0
represents the reference level and C represents the new level of CO2 concentration, clearly
shows that increases in CO2 concentration will produce an increase in temperature. This
did not happen over the entire period from 1942 to 1975 and therefore this parameter is
clearly not valid.
The modelers also related global warming directly to human sourced CO2 emissions, but
these were increasing dramatically as the global temperature dropped over these 33 years,
making this relationship completely contrary to physical observation.
Since physical data already existed that completely falsified the forcing parameter of the
climate models long before the models were run using this forcing parameter, and this had
to be known by the modelers, it is clearly an open and shut case of scientific fraud.
If the modelers were unaware that this physical data falsified their forcing parameter it is
still fraud because the modelers misrepresented their credentials as climate specialists.
Either way it is still fraud, and as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and global
emissions of CO2 both continue to increase while global temperatures continue to drop the
fraud becomes more and more obvious.
Norm Kalmanovitch
Calgary Canada

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at [link to arxiv.org]
This approved non-technical summary by Hans Schreuder, 24 June 2008
“The authors express their hope that in schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will
be taught correctly, not by using shock-tactic 'Al Gore' movies and not misinforming physics
students by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the
ionosphere and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves.”
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of
Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology,
essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump
driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the
atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature it is
taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this
paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles clarified.
By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and
the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 °C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero,
the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

First it does not matter what a "consensus" is, scientific or other wise. What matters is what is. In short what is the TRUTH.

For example in the 10th century the scientific consensus may have been that the earth was flat. Did it matter that EVERY single soul on this earth believed with his STRONGEST conviction that the earth was flat?

NO.

It does not matter now.

The simple fact is that since 2000 the earth has grown colder.

Are you kidding? Shell and British petroleum fund the Global Warming Hoax. And Al Gore has money invested in Occidental Petroleum. Look it up!

You are either truly stupid or a shill.

None of your tricks work on us anymore.

You know, with your spelling, grammar and command of vocabulary, you might not want to call people idiots.

As best I can tell

From about 1850 - 1950 the earth's temp dropped

From about 1950 - 2000 the earth's temp rose

From about 2000 - Now the earth's temp dropped

This is the basis for a 50 trillion dollar tax.

I got a better basis. Most whores have two legs. Many politicians are whore mongers. Whoring can be expensive. Just ask Tiger.

There's lots of money in clean fuels.

Of course the E-mails are selective.

Four conspirators

Write thousands of boring E-mails.

Then in comes a legal request for data

They write a few E-mails how to hide the data

They write a few E-mails destroy the data

They clear conspire to hide and destroy the data.

Only 10 E-mails out of thousands but those ten expose the fraud deception lies and conspiracy.

Selective yes

But GOOd Science, they expose, the scam

Well I'll give em that but I don't think they want to hear about chemtrails. With chemspray there is no potential harm; it is harm.

Still you would think the whistle blowers could have selectively included some of the best porn. Be nice to see a scientific, albeit fraudulently scientific, taste in porn.

In the past few days I have had an email exchange with a science teacher who has for a long time been a warmer. He started off very supercilious, but by the end he was reduced to saying things like "we're polluting the planet, we need to leave a better planet for our kids."

Og course that was not the debate we were having. We were talking about warming and cap and trade and Copenhagen. When he saw he was beat he changed the subject to pollution. I expect we'll see a lot of these warmer retards resort to that, as the warmer retard above has. Don't let them get away with it. They tried to lead the world down the wrong path and we should smear their faces in it.

Gargantuan Industry Of Climate Alarmism Exposed By ClimateGate

The London Guardian and other left leaning mainstream media outlets have pounced on Exxon’s small donations to such groups, reporting it as detestable corporate funding of “climate change denial”.

However, when it comes to the funding of AGW proponents, the figures are infinitely greater, many of the sources take their money directly from our pockets, and yet the Guardian and its ilk, conveniently, remain completely silent.

The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that (now former) CRU chief Phil Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.

$19 million alone came between the years 2000 and 2006.

[link to www.prisonplanet.com]

Introduction
Recently, there have been lots of discussions regarding the economic and political implications of
climate variability, in particular global warming as a measurable effect of an anthropogenic, i.e.
human-made, climate change. Many authors assume that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel
consumption represent a serious danger to the health of our planet, since they are supposed to
influence climate, in particular the average temperatures of the surface and lower atmosphere of
the Earth. However, carbon dioxide is a rare trace gas, a very small part of the atmosphere found
in concentrations less than 0.04 volume percent.
Among climatologists, in particular those affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
Change (IPCC), there is a “scientific consensus" that the relevant climate mechanism is an
atmospheric greenhouse effect, a mechanism heavily reliant on the presumption that radiative heat
transfer dominates over other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection,
condensation, et cetera. Supposedly to make things more precise, the IPCC introduced the notion
of radiative forcing, tied to an assumption of radiative equilibrium.
However, as countless examples in history have shown, “scientific consensus" bears no
resemblance whatsoever to scientific validity. “Consensus" is a political term, not a scientific one.
From the viewpoint of theoretical physics, a radiative approach to the atmosphere — using physical
laws such as Planck's and Stefan-Boltzmann's, which only have a limited range of validity —
definitely fails to intersect with atmospheric dynamics and must be questioned deeply.
In other words, applying cavity radiation formulas to the atmosphere is sheer nonsense.
Global climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps it 33°C warmer than it
would be without trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water
vapor and 20 percent to the 0.0385 volume percent of CO2. If CO2 exhibited such an extreme
effect, however, this would show up as a thermal conductivity anomaly even in an elementary
laboratory experiment. Carbon dioxide would manifest itself as a new kind of 'super-insulation,'
wildly violating the conventional heat-conductivity equation.
Such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed in CO2, of course.
The influence of CO2 on climate was discussed thoroughly in a number of publications that
appeared between 1909 and 1980, mainly in Germany. The most influential authors were Möller,
who also wrote a textbook on meteorology, and Manabe. It seems that the combined work of Möller
and Manabe has had a significant influence on the formulation of modern atmospheric CO2
greenhouse conjectures. In a very comprehensive report from the US Department of Energy (DOE),
which appeared in 1985, the atmospheric greenhouse hypothesis was cast into its final form and
became the cornerstone in all subsequent IPCC publications.
Of course, although the oversimplified picture drawn by IPCC climatology is physically incorrect,

You have 2 Federal Senators and 1 Representative in the House.

That is all you have.

Of course, although the oversimplified picture drawn by IPCC climatology is physically incorrect, a
thorough analysis might reveal some non-negligible influence of certain radiative effects (apart
from sunlight) on the weather and hence on its local averages, the climate, which could be dubbed
a CO2 greenhouse effect. But then, even if the effect is claimed to serve only as a genuine trigger
of a network of complex reactions, three key questions would remain:
1. Is there a fundamental CO2 greenhouse effect in physics?
2. If so, what is the fundamental physical principle behind this CO2 greenhouse effect?
3. Is it physically correct to regard radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism
controlling the weather, setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?
In the language of physics an effect is a not-necessarily evident but reproducible and measurable
phenomenon together with its theoretical explanation. Neither the warming mechanism in a glass
house nor the supposed anthropogenic warming is an "effect" in this sense of the definition:
• In the first case (a glass house) one encounters a straightforward phenomenon.
• The second case (the Earth's atmosphere) one cannot measure directly, rather, one can
only make heuristic calculations.
Explaining the warming mechanism in a real greenhouse is a standard problem in undergraduate
courses, in which optics, nuclear physics and classical radiation theory are dealt with.
The atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture that can be proved or disproved by
concrete engineering thermodynamics. Exactly this was done many years ago by an expert in this
field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical textbook on the subject. In 1972 he showed that
the radiative component of heat transfer by CO2, though relevant in combustion chamber
temperatures, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures.
CO2's influence on the Earth's climate is definitively immeasurable.

Witness_ does not have any credibility.

Witness_
Some "hack" that has quite probably changed some files and some unscrupulous hacker or perhaps government agency, say Saudi Arabia or similar oil producing country, and you're falling for it hook line and sinker!

Witness_
Bet all these believers don't admit that they were conned when this "hack" is exposed as a set-up!

Sadly Witness claims Science but then when his theory is clearly falsified he recants.

100,000 e-mails, it only takes one to prove the fraud.

The warming mechanism in real greenhouses
For years, the warming mechanism in real greenhouses, designated “the greenhouse effect", has
been commonly misused to explain the conjectured atmospheric greenhouse effect. In school
books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that
the mechanism observed within a glass house is similar to anthropogenic global warming.
Meanwhile, even mainstream climatologists admit that the warming mechanism in real glass houses
must be strictly distinguished from the claimed CO2 greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, one should
look at the classical glass house problem to recapitulate some fundamental principles of
thermodynamics and radiation theory. In our technical paper the relevant radiation dynamics of the
atmospheric system are elaborated on and distinguished from the glass house set-up.
In section 2.1.5 many pseudo-explanations in the context of climatology are falsified by just three
fundamental observations of mathematical physics.

The Sun and radiation
A larger portion of the incoming sunlight lies in the infrared range than in the visible range. Most
papers that cover the supposed greenhouse effect completely ignore this important fact.
Especially on a hot summer’s day, every car driver knows about the greenhouse effect. One does
not need to be an expert in physics to explain immediately why the car gets so hot inside: The Sun
has heated the car's interior. However, it is a bit harder to answer the question why it is cooler
outside the car, although there the Sun shines onto the ground without obstacles. Undergraduate
students with standard physical recipes at hand can easily “explain" this kind of a greenhouse
effect.
On a hot summer afternoon, temperature measurements inside and outside a car were performed
with a standard digital thermometer. These measurements are recommended to every climatologist
who believes in the CO2-greenhouse effect, because they show that the alleged effect has nothing
to do with trapped thermal radiation. Neither the infrared absorption nor reflection coefficient of
glass is relevant in this explanation of the real greenhouse effect, only the panes of glass hindering
the movement of air.
This text is a recommended reading for all global climatologists referring to the greenhouse effect:
It is not the “trapped" infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real
greenhouse - it is the suppression of air cooling.

The fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects
Depending on the particular school and the degree of popularization, the assumption that the
atmosphere is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared radiation supposedly leads to
• a warming of the Earth's surface and/or
• a warming of the lower atmosphere and/or
• a warming of a certain layer of the atmosphere and/or
• a slow-down of the natural cooling of the Earth's surface
•
and so forth.
Sir David King, former science advisor of the British government, stated that “global warming is a
greater threat to humanity than terrorism”. In countless contributions to newspapers and TV shows
in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continues to warn the public about the consequences of
rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet even today it is impossible to find a book on nonequilibrium
thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this presumed effect is derived from first
principles.
The main objective of our paper is not to draw the line between error and fraud, only to find out
whether the greenhouse effect appears or disappears within the frame of physics. Therefore, in
Section 3.3 several different variations of the atmospheric greenhouse hypotheses are examined
and disproved. The authors restrict themselves to statements that appeared after a publication by
Lee in the well-known Journal of Applied Meteorology 1973, see Ref. [109] and references therein.
Lee's 1973 paper is a milestone. In the beginning Lee writes:
The so-called radiation `greenhouse' effect is a misnomer. Ironically, while the concept is
useful in describing what occurs in the earth's atmosphere, it is invalid for crypto-climates
created when space is enclosed with glass, e.g. in greenhouses and solar energy
collectors. Specifically, elevated temperatures observed under glass cannot be traced to
the spectral absorptivity of glass. The misconception was demonstrated experimentally by
R. W. Wood more than 60 years ago and recently in an analytical manner by Businger.
Fleagle and Businger devoted a section of their text to the point, and suggested that
radiation trapping by the earth's atmosphere should be called `atmosphere effect' to
discourage use of the misnomer. In spite of the evidence, modern textbooks on
meteorology and climatology not only repeat the misnomer, but frequently support the
false notion that `heat-retaining behavior of the atmosphere is analogous to what
happens in a greenhouse' (Miller, 1966). The mistake obviously is subjective, based on
similarities of the atmosphere and glass, and on the `neatness' of the example in
teaching. The problem can be rectified through straightforward analysis, suitable for
classroom instruction.

Lee continues his analysis with a calculation based on radiative balance equations, which are
physically questionable. The same holds for a comment by Berry on Lee's work. Nevertheless, Lee's
paper is a milestone, marking the day after every serious scientist or science educator is no longer
allowed to compare the greenhouse with the atmosphere, even in the classroom, which Lee
explicitly refers to.
In section 3.3 of our paper, many different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture are
examined and disproved. In conclusion, the authors observe the following:
• that even today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not appear
- in any fundamental work on thermodynamics
- in any fundamental work on physical kinetics
- in any fundamental work on radiation theory
• that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different and,
partly, contradict each other.

I see I see.
There are a vast amount of eco nut case clean up people that come here to slam the ones trying to open up the evil can of worms otherwise known as the GLOBAL WARMING, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE agenda. Yes the agenda that is designed to remove more of your so called freedoms, and to help enslave us all the much more. To remove possesions as well. And to remove hobbies, especially if they involve something that burns the wonderful God given petroleum that yes even all the ECO supporters use and spew out their amount of so called pollution into the air with.
I see none of these eco nuts living with out modern conveniences. They seem to want commoners to give up lots but they the wealthy eco nuts will get more not less.

All this crap about man caused global warming is never questioned by ignorat ones, who's minds go no farther than a foot ball. Isn't it funny how they never want to talk about how the sun during some years back had major flares almost everyday, and even heated up the other planets of the solar system. But naaaaaaaaaaaaa that has to be ignored, why? Well that just don't fit the WE NEED TO CONTROL EVERYONE agenda. If man aint causing it then we can't invent a fix for the problem.

So you enviro supporters evedently never listen to the news or read the papers do you? Did you notice how just about everyday we get a barrage of Global warming this or climate change that. This is called conditioning. Your little brain is being conditioned to believe the LIE.
They even make movies to help in your conditioning. THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Boy did they ruin a good movie with the enviro nut case message.

Yes billions have been spent to twist science and to make us believe the LIE. Gosh I like how some claim the big oil companys are the ones that fund anti global warming information. That is far from the truth, those companys fully support the enviro nut case religions. Why? More control and more money, they would not loose a cent with a nice carbon tax. Why????? Learn from Boeing moving to South Carolina. And even their home state, the communist state of Washington. Here they live for free, no land or property taxes. Oh but if one of us doesn't pay we lose our home. Good ole south carolina gave Boeing lots of consessions, and probably the same deal they got here plus some. Any way same with the oil companys and carbon tax, you and I will pay and pay it.
In the end instead of wasting precious mind power on global warming and all those LIBERTY ROBBING agenda's.
Why not focus on liberty and true freedom and not just using freedom as a lip service word? Instead of all the large companys getting to exercise freedom from land taxes. Use that climate change energy to bring about our freedom from it as well.

Cooling warming. I don't have the college degree or expetise to read any data, so i won't say yeah or nay. I just sit back and watch cause we can't do diddly anyway. What I'm reasonable sure of, is that oil is a finite reasorce, and all the while the chinese are using more and more. Supply and demand will eventually cause a shift to alternate energy cause there is no way I nor most people can afford $5 plus gas a gallon and still be able to sustain a basic family life. Hmmm, ever wonder why Warren Buffet bought controll of the BNSF RR? That old man has a better handle on whats going on money wise than anyone I've seen post here. He's on to some thing that will take years to unfold.

Thread: LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON RELEASES THE DEFINITIVE REPORT ON CLIMATEGATE

Thread: ***Lord Monckton's Summary Of Climategate And It's Issues: Must Read!!***

Thanks for the comment guy! I was just making a point about how legislation at Copenhagen should focus on other pollution in addition to CO2 like the garbage patch. But i'm apparently a "warmer retard", not a marine biologist who has seen how sick the oceans are firsthand.

So what now, d-bag? If it turns out global warming isn't as bad as they've been saying, should we just dump all our trash straight into the river and shit in our drinking water? Screw planet earth right?

I am all for cleaning up the environment..but CO2 is not pollution.

So you dont understand simple facts

CO2 is not a pollutant

CO2 is not a Greenhouse gas

Man Made Global warming by CO2 is SCAM.

SO every single penny spent reducing CO2 is a waste, down the toilet, not available to spend on real issues such as garbage removal from the oceans.

Dimwit or shill, which is it?

This subject is really such a no-brainer that it is amazing that anyone, anywhere who is over the age of about 10 years old would ever fall for it.

First of all, the entire manmade global warming/"climate change" campaign has been, since day one, about politics and NOT about science, nature, the environment or anything else of the sort.

This is unfortunate because the study of climate should be strictly and wholly limited to science. It also should NOT be yet another issue that artificially divides the phony left wing of politics from the equally phony right wing of politics. But because it has become just that, it is now also the number one tool to be used for the sake of mass mind-programming.

Secondly, our Earth has seen every imaginable, conceivable type of climate in its history. At one point in time, some 600 million to roughly 1 billion years ago, the entire planet was covered in sheets of ice. At another point, some 400 to 500 million years after that, the entire globe was either a torrid desert, a steamy hot jungle or simmering ocean water.

Another example of this would be the Ice Ages, each of which lasted about 100,000 years. The in-between time ranges.. such as the one we are in now.. are known as "Interglacial Periods." The current climate of Earth is much warmer than has been the average for about the past 3 million years. No one precisely what drives these long term climate cycles but it is universally agreed that whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the activities of the human race. This too is absolutely obvious.

Even in the more recent term, the planet's climate has been a lot warmer than it is now at various times. One of these was roughly between about 2000 years ago and 4000 years ago. Another such time is now known as the "Medieval Warm Period and took place from about AD 800 to around AD 1400. This last era was followed immediately by a much colder time frame, now known as the "Little Ice Age" and many scientists believe we may still be in the process of coming out of that colder, intermediate term climate cycle.

So given all of this evidence.. and a whole lot more.. how could anyone possibly think that all of a sudden and since the beginning of the Industrial Age, we humans have become the "principal driver of climate?" That makes no sense whatsoever when one is not brainwashed into being ignorant of all of the above-mentioned facts and similar truisms.

But that is the problem, isn't it? So many people have been duped by those who know how to use the human emotional spectrum to their advantage in order to conduct a successful mass brainwashing campaign. And just to make sure that their con job remains successful, they have placed it squarely into the realm of political ideology, specifically on the political left. That way, anyone who wants to remain loyal to their chosen ideology feels compelled to support the concept of human-caused global warming, without even having a clue as to what this supposed global warming is, how it works or anything else.

Amazing, isn't it?

This is all you really need to know

The carbon trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.

According to a recent report, "the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme... The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe." (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)


Now, if you dont get it...................