John Doe

If you want to make your dreams come true, the first thing you have to do is wake up.

Mary Taylor

You can have anything you want if you are willing to give up everything you have.

C02 Science Between Reality and Imagination

Posted by

Carbon dioxide is 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 grim reality marked by a sharp gap 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 experiment will ever prove me wrong; one experiment can prove me wrong. The skeptical scientist prioritizes empirical support over verification. But he who practices it.” Climatology is marginalized as a “climate denier”, access is denied to forums and forbidden.

This also applies to publications with far-reaching consequences: a White man It is a global authority on carbon dioxide, and its 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% approval Among the scholars Scalability up to 99% Not only”prophecy Based on “Pal Review” excluding opponents.

group thinking

The science/alt consensus shows 97% consensus and does not support Einstein’s view. The first “awakening” of green thinking gives great importance to thinking that thinks alike, leading to group thinking Which confirms the tunnel vision, not scientific but political. Peer review is normal but has no scientific value to “friend review” (among friends). This is not fiction because two professors, co-authors of the IPCC AR6 in a Posta VRT Ter zik ​​states the following.

Joeri Rogelj: “195 countries have jointly examined the best scientific knowledge about climate change. The summary of this report has been endorsed by those 195 countries, making the IPCC’s report incredibly powerful and powerful to influence policy.

READ  The brain as we’ve never seen it before: The most detailed map of neural connections ever drawn has been published

Philippe Huybrechts Professor at VUB’ It took four years to work, 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.

One can count on such unprofessional statements from the professors. It is rather strange to call it the “gold standard”. Scientific discoveries are mainly due to stubborn lonely people, without them, for example, we still go to flat Earth with a stomach ulcer, and the theory of relativity was the cradle of the current unknown scientific explosion. It is clear that many of the perceptions of scientists and policy messages of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) take precedence over content.

Global Warming

Although Ray IPCC climate science in deep carbon dioxide crisis

  • a favour 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 appears in textbooks and courses. Satellites OLR (Out Infrared) provides diminishing radiation from the carbon dioxide spectrum. So it’s true that CO2 “stops heating”, but then it’s restricted to the “upper atmosphere”. Measurements show that this only occurs outside an atmosphere of -57°C (about 220°C). Carbon dioxide does not behave like greenhouse gases with a height of between zero and 10 km. Within the atmosphere, carbon dioxide radiation is absorbed and converted into heat.
  • Carbon dioxide becomes saturated with increasing concentrations, that is, the IR properties decrease with increasing carbon dioxide according to a logarithmic law, so that the climatic sensitivity of carbon dioxide – that is, the effect of temperature when the concentration is doubled – is constant, regardless of the nominal. the 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 Due to the increase in direct sunlight on the Earth’s surface, a phenomenon that is not important to the IPCC because in procedural terms it 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 that are widely separated to improve the final result. These patterns are random and are measured by a set of variables to adapt them to the past ( delay) 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 the formation of water vapor (a powerful greenhouse gas) that increases by 20 times, as a positive reaction factor for carbon dioxide, and this also makes Unstable weather patterns. occupation Climate modelers have raised the alarm For very high results just before COP 26.
READ  Italy: There is still room for growth

Models are essential in engineering sciences where errors are severely punished and their correctness is validated by performing model-like calculations manually. This is also possible for the climate. It’s surprisingly simple, but not implemented. Because mistakes made by climate scientists that can be devastating to society like DicarbonisazioneOn the contrary, as long as that is worrisome enough.

a little technology

The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is a simple manual calculation based on Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) law when the energy loss is known (called radiative forcing or RF) and provides more reliable results than models due to their simplicity.

The following table explains this. Assuming high IPCC values ​​and low Van den Beemt OLR values, the SB calculation is applied to double the CO concentration, which leads to 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 ECS value published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been included for reference.

the origin OLR temperature increase
ECS 300-400ppm
con/m² percentage percentage
IPCC 3,70 1,11 0.37
IPCC ECS 3,4 1,1
vdBeemt 0,21 0.065 0.02
Reference: Tera = 15 °C OLR Total 238 W/m²

Due to their simplicity, the manually calculated ECS values ​​are more reliable and three times smaller than isotropic OLR climate models and similar climate models providing temperatures 2.5 to 3 times higher than measurements This suggests that climate models are seriously wrong. Unnecessary and highly destructive climate models are unfortunately the starting point for COP26 concerns.

READ  Museumgrandtour itineraries stop at Rocca Priora and Rocca di Papa Saturday 11 May: Art and Science in Castelli Romani

Small and measurable effect

The overall temperature increase from CO2 from the Industrial Revolution is only responsible for a third of the IPCC’s very high assumptions, and if we limit ourselves to the anthropogenic part, the impact would be very small.

Costly decarbonization of the EU is unnecessary and unjustified because of its very small, but disastrous, impact on future prosperity. The past, when abundant and cheaper energy as a “lubricating” oil in society came in response to an untold problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *