'IPCC Violates basic laws of physics'.

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”December 26, 2009 · 174 commentsguest article by John O’Sullivan.

For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology – that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi. Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
(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 degrees Celsius 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.This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.

Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website.

Piers Corbyn Challenges PM for debate.

Here Piers Corbyn, a scientist and climatologist who really does predict weather well in advance, explains how the climate change scam was done, why it was done, and then tells us what we should do now. One thing he wants is to challenge Gordon Brown for open debate instead of calling people silly names.

He confirms what I have been saying for many months here, within ABD, and in the Press that the economics of the climate change scam will ruin and kill people and be an attack on our western way of life. It used to be called Communism.

Do watch Corbyn here: http://tinyurl.com/ye6tl9a

When groups invoke 'the children & grandchildren' as they do against drivers, they did about 'stopping the bomb', the Ozone Layer and now 'saving the planet', then for me it is the lowest form of politics. It tells me that rational debate is off the agenda and usually at the expense of the welfare of the very children that they claim to care about. I wrote to Bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee, about Ken Livingstone's lies to London and asked if he likes his flock lied to from sheer profit motives? So far he has not responded.

Maybe Bishop John has been misled by the latest Meteorological Office ruse of announcing the last ten years as the hottest on record. Given that records have only been kept for 150 years and during that time we have, thankfully, been steadily climbing out of the Little Ice Age, then it is to be expected but it remains that 'hot', as it may have been, the warming had already stopped about ten years ago too and there has even been a drop in global temperature recently. So this is another case of a dishonest sleight of hand to hide that there has been no warming since 1998 proving Nicholas Stern's predictions wrong.

Dear Bishop Jackie,

I know you are an honest man and a man of the people. You may be interested in my comments to Ken Livingstone who lied to the people of London on Saturday. (Idiots don't get where he did). How ungodly to believe that mankind can choose how the planet was meant to be when for 99% of its life it has been hostile to mankind. How ungodly to talk of “saving a planet” when in due time it will return to a hostile state, unfit for humans and eventually be consumed by the Sun. So do you enjoy your people being misled like this?

There are two fraudulent industries which, because of your trusting nature, you support. Both cost lives, affect your people’s welfare and both are making fortunes from flawed statistics and lies — the Climate Change Industry and the Road Safety Industry. Please read the lies that Livingstone told London as the people of Lincolnshire are being told them too, at www.notoecotown.com

Regards, Keith Peat.

See the Ken Livingstone letter under: Warming nonsense tag.

Livingstone lies to London

Dear Mr Livingstone. I listened to your comments on climate change today, 5/12 and what you told London was either blatant propaganda and untrue or you are genuinely oblivious to the facts of the matter. Either way Londoners were being misled.

1) There is no 'denial', as you imply, that climate changes and you know full well the debate is only whether or not mankind and in particular, CO2 is the cause. Fact is, if it were not for massive climate change, mankind would not be here at all. For 99% of the planet's life it has been far too hostile for us and will return to that no matter what we do. Question: Who says the planet, how we like it, is its natural or moderate state and how it is supposed to be?

2)You said you know no recognised or eminent scientists who disagree with AGW/ACC. What about the 30,000 signatories of the Oregon Petition, 9000 Phds? Isn't London entitled to hear about them? Oh of course you don't think so because you think it is OK for people like UEA/CRU, to continue to refuse to disclose its science measurements that tend to disprove ACC from people too; especially other scientists. And no this was not a one off email as you told London, it was a series from several CRU people all reacting to fair applications for answers, eventually via FOI, for their methods and a conspiracy (there is no other word) to deny access by destroying the information and indeed emails too. Some were about how to avoid FOI as well. I have read them all and they should be read in the context of the questions being asked of them chronologically. Now do tell London about that if you are really a straight chap.

2) Lawson et al. He doesn't need to be a scientist to read science. Scientists write papers for people like me and Lord Blaby to read. He does and so do I. But why not tell London that Nicholas Stern, one of the prime movers of ACC, is an economists, not a scientist either and that none of those were scientists who wrote the IPCC summary which is being referred to and caused even IPCC scientists to object to it. But, unlike Lawson, these are telling the rest of us to take the hair shirt but resent any queries about it.

3) Floods: Throughout living history there have been floods and major weather events. London has always had loads of rain. The old American image is of a foggy rainy London. All that has changed is that modern media gets every smattering of news to us instantly instead of a 2 minute newsreel clip in black and white a week later.

But it is what is at stake here that is crucial. If the claim is wrong, how many people will we kill from the economic costs of this nonsense for no good reason? The pretense is that taking action will not cost anything so we should do it. Throwing away untold billions into the Climate Change Industry will mean less hospitals, medicine, A&E, heat, warmth and so people will die for certain if all this is nonsense. Our Grandkids will struggle to eat and keep warm. Is that what you want? So our side says there are too many faults in these model based theories to start killing people yet. When the authors,(CRU) refuse point blank to produce their evidence and conspire to bury it and wipe it out, as they have done, then yes that should be a worry to 'a man of the people' like you shouldn't it?

And CO2, a natural life giving gas which at 380 ppm is still at the low end? The planet was at its most vibrant and lushest when it was at about 1500 ppm.
Keith Peat

Wind: The real cost.

£250BN: THE REAL COST OF WIND POWER Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:36:15 The-real-cost-of-wind-power Sunday Express November 15,2009 £250BN:

THE REAL COST OF WIND POWER A report has exposed the true costs of wind generated electricity By Eugene Henderson THE Government's renewable energy strategy is in tatters after a report exposing the true costs of generating electricity by wind power.

An internal document from the National Grid, seen by the Sunday Express, says wind turbine energy will at times cost over 3,000 per cent more than conventional power. (that's 30 TIMES1 Industry experts say over-reliance on wind power could mean fuel poverty for consumers, as older power plants reach the end of their working lives while Britain's new generation of nuclear stations is still a long way off completion. Some experts claim the cost of upgrading the nation's electricity grid so it is possible to use all the renewable energy could be £250billion or 10 times the Government's estimates.

The revelations will make uncomfortable reading for Gordon Brown and his team, who have pinned much of their hopes of meeting carbon emission targets on wind power.

Professor Ian Fells, Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, said: "For a long time I have thought that the wind power bubble would burst. I think that's starting to happen. "Ed Miliband tells people that to oppose wind farms is morally indefensible, but as more people start to realise the reality of what wind power actually offers, that will change."

The National Grid document, Accessing Renewable Energy, deals with the issue of "balancing the grid" to get the right amount of power from different sources across the UK so that it can maintain a supply to customers. It says wind power could cost "£300 £800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at £23 per MWH".

With generating capacity from wind "increasing rapidly", the document says the company is presented with "a range of challenges" in managing output. It talks clearly of the "need to curtail wind" because "conventional power is more economic".

A National Grid spokeswoman said the formula for working out the figures was "very complex". She said no one had actually paid such a high price for wind power and that the figures related to possible costs on the futures market. But an energy industry insider said: "These facts make for interesting, if not worrying reading.

"When they have too much power the Grid bids to shut down operators, but you can't just switch a big power station off and then hope the wind blows. By the same measure, if the wind doesn't blow you can't simply start up a power station at the flick of a switch. It will cost. "What they are saying is that wind farms will be producing power which will not be used, and it's the taxpayer who'll be footing the bill. It's a double whammy because consumers are already paying extra on their fuel bills to fund renewable energy." (If it were "not being used" what happens to it? This is nonsense - energy does not simply disappear down a drain or into thin air. If it IS generated and not used where wanted, it must and will be dissipated in other ways - normally as heat - unless it can be stored, which of course it cannot sensibly be. Surely what happens is that the wind farm simply does not generate the power in the first place? We still pay the fixed costs of course)

Under the Renewables Obligation, an incentive scheme to generate more green electricity, six per cent of everyone's electricity bill is paid to the Government to fund research. This week Lloyds and RBS said they were involved in a loans scheme offering £700million to onshore windfarm firms, which will be matched by the European Investment Bank. The power industry watchdog Ofgem says electricity prices could rise by 60 per cent by 2012, leaving many in fuel poverty.

Prof Fells said that while wind turbines provide such a small amount of power about two per cent of the country's energy needs few customers notice the extra on their bills. "Last year subsidies paid out on wind and landfill gas was £1billion. By 2020 that figure will be £30billion. That could subsidise six nuclear power stations. And they operate all the time and don't rely on what the weather is doing."

The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "Wind is at the heart of our renewable energy strategy and it will stay there. A more realistic comparison of conventional and wind power would be £23 MWH compared to £30 or £80 MWH. "The figure of £250billion to upgrade the grid is also not a figure we recognise. It's estimated the cost to deliver our 2020 target is an additional £4.7billion with an additional £15billion needed for offshore grid connections."

Tax Laundered Money Go Round.

The Nottingham Declaration whereby no matter who we vote in, in this case the Conservatives, they are hamstrung and tied to a liberal green policy based on very faulty computer modelling of climate predictions, already being disproved, since the planet is not doing what the model said it would.

The Declaration not only makes elections a farce because no council has autonomy in decisions but by a sequence of clever money laundering, up through Salix Ltd, The Carbon Trust and on to the Government, the councils are then bribed, with taxpayers money, to spend local money on madcap green policies which will cost the poor unfortunates even more money. By a Hans Christian Anderson myth that mankind can change climate and destroy the planet, only politicians could imagine that amount of power being vested in mere mortals and then expect them to pay for it too.

This control freakery government is using our own money so that even Conservative councils follow their expensive pied piper to a liberal induced penury. But in this instance, he who pays doesn’t get to call the tune. Why not just pay our councils grants directly and without strings so that they can act unfettered as the electorate imagined it elected them to do?

So before we get to the next election, can the ELDC leaders please let me know exactly what they are doing about this undemocratic and costly money laundering?

A track record of climate models.

COOLING, WARMING AND THE TRACK RECORD OF CLIMATE MODELS
Norm Kalmanovitch

The pollution resulting from the rapid uncontrolled post war industrial expansion spawned two environmentalist movements. One group primarily composed of physical scientists and engineers set about to directly address the pollution problems by developing facilities and legislative controls that have to date virtually eliminated industrial contamination of soil, water and air. A second group primarily composed of activists with little or no physical science background did nothing but protest against industry without ever having addressed a single environmental problem for which they created a solution. While the physical scientists and engineers worked quietly with industry solving the environmental problems, the ideology driven environmentalist activists, used dramatic alarmist rhetoric to gain media control and have become a dominant political force capable of forcing their self serving ideologies on the general public with impunity.The Earth entered a cooling phase in 1942, and by 1970 the environmentalists found a way to blame this cooling on industrial expansion. The concept was that particulate matter from fossil fuel usage was blocking energy from the sun giving this cooling effect. This concept was incorporated as a parameter in the crude climate models of the time, and the predictions from models run by James Hansen in 1971 projected fifty years of further cooling from the increased use of fossil fuels. Only four years later, and in spite of the continued increase in fossil fuel usage global cooling came to an end, proving that the models did not have a proper physical basis for relating fossil fuel usage to global cooling. By 1988, after 13 years of global warming the ideological environmentalists developed a new tact for blaming fossil fuels. The British Government had embarked on a political campaign to promote their nuclear industry and attack the powerful coal unions by creating alarmist scenarios of "runaway global warming" resulting from CO2 produced by coal and other fossil fuels. This was entirely political in nature with absolutely no scientific backing, but it did make the perfect weapon for the environmentalists to promote their anti energy (and anti humanity) ideology. All that was needed was some scientific justification. As was done in 1971, climate models which were now far more sophisticated provided the science backing. Instead of blaming fossil fuels for blocking incoming solar radiation, the models removed this parameter and replaced it with a newly contrived parameter that now related global warming to the effect of fossil fuel sourced CO2 on the outgoing thermal radiation from the Earth. This model also produced by James Hansen, projected warming for the next century because of the fossil fuel CO2 emissions that were increasing at a continued accelerated rate. As with the 1971 model, the 1988 model was proven to be false when global warming ended after
1998 even as CO2 emissions continued to rise at unprecedented rates. To make matters worse since 2002, the Earth has been cooling making all of the projections clearly in the wrong direction. By even the most basic standards of ethical science, models that first predict cooling from fossil fuel usage that are discredited just four years later when warming occurs with increased usage, and then predict warming from fossil fuel usage and are again discredited ten years later as cooling reoccurs with increased usage, would be declared absolutely invalid; but when ideology is involved science protocol is totally abandoned. As a result of the alarmist predictions of the 1988 climate models of Hansen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed under the auspices of the United Nations. This body was given a science mandate to investigate the possibility of human effects on climate to determine if the projections of Hansen were valid. The true nature of the IPCC was not that of a science based body, but that of a political body to give scientific legitimacy to false alarmist predictions in order to meet a political self serving environmentalist agenda. Since its inception, the IPCC has used its position of authority to promote its agenda to the detriment of science and even more importantly to the detriment of the global population. From 1997 to 1998 the average global temperature increased by over half a degree C and from 1998 to 1999 the average global temperature fell by over half a degree C. This was due to an extraordinary el Nino and has nothing to do with either the greenhouse effect or CO2 emissions (CO2 emissions increased from 24.0gt/y in 1997 to 24.2gt/y in 1998 to 24.4gt/y in 1999). An honest scientific body would have made some sort of statement to this effect, but the IPCC in their 2001 Third Assessment Report and particularly in their Summary for Policy Makers for this report not only made no mention of the fact that from 1998 to 1999 the Earth cooled more than it had ever cooled during the entire global temperature record, but emphatically stated that from 1997 to 1998 the Earth had warmed more than it ever had. This is an absolute violation of science ethics because the policy makers were purposely misinformed with alarmist rhetoric. This same 2001 report also stated that the observed global warming for the past century which they stated was attributable to CO2 emissions was measured at
0.60°C + 0.20°C. This is only 0.006°C per year making the el Nino temperature spike over eighty times greater than what the IPCC stated was attributable to CO2 emissions, so it is clear that this was stated for the purpose of politically motivated alarmism and not to properly convey information in a scientifically justified manner. The 2001 IPCC report also included the infamous MBH98 Hockey Stick temperature proxy which used physical temperature measurement data up to and including 1998 which gave the alarmist impression of twice the 20th century warming because 1999 was not included. The Hockey Stick graph became the pivotal evidence that convinced governments around the world to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, that has resulted in such detrimental effects to the global population and global economy. In this regard the el Nino temperature spike of 1998 may be considered the most significant climate event in recent history, and when one considers the hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people starving because of Kyoto biofuel initiatives that has literally taken their food away and made it into â Kyoto friendly fuel, this el Nino might also be considered the most tragic climate event as well. Through diligence and hard work physical scientists were able to correct most of the environmental problems that had been created through industrialization, but there is no scientific effort capable of undoing the damage caused to the global population by the ideological environmentalists. This issue is now out of the hands of the scientists and the only salvation for the global population is the media who must readopt their lost journalistic integrity and expose the true nature of this global fraud. Norm Kalmanovitch Calgary Canada PS This link to a 1999 article is very enlightening http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba299.pdf%22%3ehttp:/www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba299.pdf