Hans von Storch Speaks Out On CRU, IPCC And Climate Science

Here is an outstanding interview given by Prof. Hans von Storch, one of Germany’s leading climate scientists, in an interview with Germany’s Handelsblatt
(Germany’s equivalent to the Wall Street Journal) yesterday. Although a warmist, Professor Hans von Storch, much to his credit, has always kept an open ear and mind to serious climate sceptics. Here are some paraphrased excerpts of yesterday’s HB interview.HB: Are today’s hot and cold extreme events a sign of global warming?

HvS: It’s important to keep weather separated from climate. The media have certainly been focussing more on the weather. And unfortunately there are plenty of activists who like to connect heat waves and storms with climate change. And then these activists wonder why sceptics do the same when there’s a cold winter, using it as evidence against warming. It’s intellectually low. The fact of the matter is that it is trending warmer.

HB: Who recommends the scientists for participation in the IPCC?

HvS: In Germany it’s the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety and the Ministry of Research and Science in Bonn.  Here one can apply to participate, and this is what I’ve done. I offered to be a part of WG2. That’s where most of the errors occurred and I’d like to help out this time around to prevent such errors from happening again. My name has been sent, along with 80 others, to the IPCC in Switzerland.

HB:  The IPCC has come under fire because it dramatised climate change. How can we prevent such errors and what should quality control look like?

HvS: We have to look very closely at the literature that is handed to us. We have to be very careful with grey literature. It has to meet the highest scientific standards. Under no circumstances can literature from interest groups like reinsurers, coal industry or environmental groups be accepted.

HB:  And what about the WWF’s Amazon Rainforest report?

HvS: One cannot claim that this was a neutral scientific report. The IPCC made that mistake, and it cannot be blamed on the WWF, who have legitimate interests.

HB:  Could there be a benefit in allowing studies from interest groups?

HvS: I would not agree to that. In WG2 it would not be necessary to include material from interest groups. There’s already enough scientific literature at hand.

HB: And what about critical opinions from the scientific community? In the wake of the hacked e-mails from the CRU, some scientists complained that their publications had been blocked.

HvS: Here we have to differentiate between 2 kinds of gate-keeping. In the case of the Climate Research Unit, it is alleged, or indeed it was attempted, to keep an article with a contrary opinion from being published. Thus it was possible to assure that some results would not flow into the IPCC report.

In the IPCC report itself, minority opinions also must be allowed to be shown. We have to determine just where there is consensus, and where there are contrary opinions. This has to be done scientifically, without any prejudice.

HB: A report for the political decision makers probably has to be summarised: But isn’t that walking on a tight rope between what is scientifically exact and what the politicians understand?

HvS: A summary by the scientists for the politicians is in my opinion, not necessary. The summary emphasis takes place at a later time when the decision makers wish to present the matter to their clientel. The politicians that I’ve been involved with know what climate research is about –and especially on questions of adaptation. Personally I’m quite impressed by their competence.

HB: Last fall after errors were found in the IPCC report and the disclosure of the CRU e-mails,  climate science skidded off track and came under heavy fire.. What does this branch of science need to do in order to regain respect?

HsV: There are two strategies – and I’m afraid not much is happening for the most part. It is simply being claimed that evil media outlets and the fossil fuel industry are behind the unjust discrediting of the science. But this assertion simply is not sustainable. In the past, climate science attempted to work too much with catastrophe reports. But that bubble blew last fall. As a result, trust suffered immeasurably.

We have to take a critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the rug. Some of the inquests – like in Great Britain – failed at this. They blew an opportunity to re-establish trust.

The second strategy us scientists have to consider is what role it is we wish to play. Are we supporters of a certain political process, or supporters of a certain brand of politics? I’m emphatically for the first, whereby we are the providers of special knowledge. We must not say that this is right, and that is wrong. This is not the competence of a climate scientist. We are merely experts in climate dynamics, and not specialists for competing political or ethical problems. Fundamentally a debate has to take place. That’s what climate scientists want, and that is what is expected from the public.

HB: Is there a danger that climate science falls on the wayside because the sceptics take up very popular slogans against the subject of anthropogenic climate change?

HsV: Many alarmists do the same– both sides don’t hold back much. We have to accept the challenges the sceptics present and step into the debate with them in order to win them over.

Many physicists, chemists, engineers or geologists have open questions about climate change which they view as unanswered. Here there is a considerable and legitimate potential at hand, which unfortunately is not addressed often enough. Instead, they sometimes get attacked and called sceptics, which only serves to aggravate them. It’s no way to build trust. We have to find a way back to a reasonable discussion.

HB: Do you have any hope that progress can be made with the next IPCC report with respect to climate protection, especially after the spectacular failure of Copenhagen?

HsV: I don’t expect that the next IPCC report will significantly improve the chances for a comprehensive climate protection program. The last report was already so emphatic that there is no way to top it. The concept that science tells politics what’s necessary has failed. We have to give up on the idea of making an agreement from top down for 150 countries, and that they will abide by it. Change has to come from the bottom.

 

Explore posts in the same categories: Climate Politics, IPCC, Scepticism

16 Comments on “Hans von Storch Speaks Out On CRU, IPCC And Climate Science”

  1. R. de Haan Says:

    The fact is it’s trending warmer?

    The fact is it’s trending cooler.

    Sonce the Minoan Warmt period, the warmest period after the last Ice Age, every following warmth period has been cooler.

    The Roman warmth period was cooler than the Minoan warmth period, the Medieval warmth period was cooler than the the Roman warmth period and our latest warming period was much cooler compared the Medieval warmth period.

    As global warming has stopped approx. 12 years ago and the latest warming was a response to the El Ninjo that turned into a vicious La Ninja this summer, the cooling trend will become more obvious and the number cookers of Global temperature data sets will make a deep fall.

    The upcoming winter will eradicate the entire AGW hoax.

    Reply: Choosing the start date is the trick used in climate science. The temperature has been rising since about 1680. Yet since 1000 it’s been dropping. -PG

  2. justinert Says:

    “We have to determine just where there is consensus, and where there are contrary opinions. This has to be done scientifically, without any prejudice.”

    How can a vote to determine the validity of a scientific theory/theories not be prejudicial? Even if we all just gave up the ghost and said: OK, there’s complete agreement, let’s do it (radical global decarbonisation under UN governance) would that validate the theory/theories?

    I just can’t believe a scientist would say that. Is this a translation issue? Feynman will be turning in his grave.

  3. DirkH Says:

    The next IPCC report will be just like the last; the propaganda material will be hidden better. The WWF studies will no more come from a WWF publication but they will channel the funding through some institute. They will learn and it will be more difficult to expose.

    I’m disappointed by von Storch’s decision to be part of that organisation.

  4. DL Says:

    The last report was already so emphatic that there is no way to top it.
    The IPCC will try to top it. No one is listining to them scream so they will try to scream louder.

  5. Kahuna Says:

    Please change the horendous color scheme on your website. I’m not sure I have seen anything this bad since the early days of PCs. This is unreadable.
    Reply: I thought it was kinda nice, better than what I had before. I’m open to suggestions. – PG

    • DirkH Says:

      Nothing wrong with the color scheme IMHO. Maybe tastes vary? Or your browser/computer has a hiccup? Black on white ain’t that unreadable. If it’s pink on green on your screen you might need to check the monitor cable.


  6. “The fact is it’s trending warmer”, no the calculated average of the yearly means is increasing. That does not mean it’s getting “warmer”. The fact is when you look at the full range of max and min temps in the years you will find that, in temperate zones, summer max temps have been dropping since 1900 (fewer heat waves), while the winters are less cold (fewer days in the really cold ranges). Hardley something to get alarmed and take action over.

  7. cleanwater Says:

    It has been proven that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This was done in 1909 by R.W.Wood and more recently by the people that know what is happening in the atmosphere -physicists. below are two sets of definitions that indicate why we have a problem. Definitions of the Climate Discussion
    What is Climate?
    Definition:A few thousand weather days end to end for a specific location.
    How many climates are there in the world?
    Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,thousands of different climates etc.
    What is weather?
    The atmospheric conditions where you are.
    Can mankind control the weather?
    We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.

    What is a Climatologist?
    There are two type: one is a temperature historian. There are many good ones that try with various scientific methods to determine what has happened in the past. The other type are people that look at the data or part of the data and they say that they can project what will happen in the future- these are FORTUNE TELLER- EVEN IF THEY ARE USING COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN NOT BE TESTED- THEY ARE THE FLAT SCREEN FORTUNE TELLERS. THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIST BECAUSE THEY CAN NOT PROVIDE TEST RESULTS OF THEIR EXPERIMENTS. HOW MANY OF US WILL BE HERE IN 50 OR 100 YEARS TO SAY THAT THEIR COMPUTER MODEL DID NOT WORK.
    When ever the computer models are tried to project for shorter periods of time they all have failed. Meteorologists that study weather is a specific region have trouble projecting even 5 to 10 days into the future with any degree of accuracy ,how the hell should we believe “Climatologist” who try to project for the whole world and the next 50 years.
    We know that there is no computer model or computer that has the capacity to handle the thousands of variables that effect the weather and as stated above “climate is thousands of weather days for a region” stacked together.
    No one that I’ve seen has attempted to show what effect the Moon has on the weather yet we know that it affect the tides and gravitational influences on Earth.
    It’s time to tell “climatologist” that project into the future to put there writing in the correct catagory – “Science fiction”
    Star Track is more believable than what garbage we are getting for Government funded( our money) “Climatologists”
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    ILE
    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
    http://ssrn.
    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    B. Klein an Environmental Engineer for 47 years.

  8. cleanwater Says:

    Just a little addition of the work by Dr. Heinz Theime
    Contribution to the discussion about Climate Change:
     
    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics 
    by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme 
     
    Deutsche Version siehe: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/index.htm
     
    The relationship between so-called greenhouse gases and atmospheric temperature is not yet well understood.  So far, climatologists have hardly participated in serious scientific discussion of the basic energetic mechanisms of the atmosphere.  Some of them, however, appear to be starting to realise that their greenhouse paradigm is fundamentally flawed, and already preparing to withdraw their theories about the climatic effects of CO2 and other trace gases.
    At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of limiting atmospheric warming.  But at the same time, they admit that the greenhouse effect – i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature – is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et al., see: http–www.dmg-ev.de-gesellschaft-aktivitaeten-pdf-treibhauseffekt.pdf ).  In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming.
    This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility.  The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.
    The greenhouse theory proposed by the climatological fraternity runs as follows:  Outgoing infra-red radiation from the earth’s surface is somehow re-radiated by molecules of CO2 (mainly) and also O3, NO2, CH4 in the atmosphere. This backradiation produces warming of the lower atmosphere.  To convince the public of the greenhouse effect, composites of temperature measurements since the 19th century are exhibited that show a certain warming.  Measurements of the CO2 content of the air also show a rise in recent decades (Note CO2).  Climatologists then claim that the CO2 rise has caused the temperature rise (see: http://earth.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html).
    A second source of misconceptions about the relation between temperature and the CO2 content of air arises from an erroneous explanation of conditions on the planet Venus.  The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface temperature is approximately 460oC (see also: http://www.uni-erlangen.de/docs/FAU/fakultaet/natIII/geol_appl/klima1.htm ).  What climatologists overlook is that atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is this colossal pressure that determines the temperature.
    Strict application of physical laws admits no possibility that tiny proportions of gases like CO2 in our atmosphere cause backradiation that could heat up the surface and the atmosphere near it:
    1. The troposphere cools as altitude increases: in dry air, at a rate of around 1oC per 100m; under typical atmospheric humidity, by around 0.7oC per 100m.  This cooling reflects the decrease of atmospheric pressure as altitude increases.  Higher is cooler, both by day and by night.
    2. Backradiation of the heat radiation outgoing from the earth’s surface would only be possible by reflection, similarly to the effect of aluminium foil under roof insulation.  But the CO2 share in our atmosphere cannot cause reflection in any way.  Within homogeneous gases and gas mixtures no reflections occur.  As is well known in optics, reflection and even refraction occur only at the boundaries of materials of different optical density, or at phase boundaries of a material or a material mixture (solid-liquid, liquid-gaseous, solid-gaseous).  Thus it occurs with suspended water drops or ice crystals, or at the boundary between surface water and air – but never within homogeneous materials, e.g. air, water, glass.

    3. If outgoing thermal radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed in the atmosphere, the absorbing air warms up, disturbing the existing vertical pattern of temperature, density and pressure, i.e. the initial state of the air layers.  It is well known that warmed air expands and, because it is then lighter than the non-warmed air around it, rises. The absorbed warmth is taken away by air mass exchange.  Just this occurs with near-surface air that is warmed by convection from earth’s surface, vegetation, buildings and so on.  For the same reason the windows of heated rooms are kept closed in winter – otherwise the warm air would escape.
    These facts are slowly but surely dawning on climatologists.  Grassl and others state (see above) that radiation absorbed by CO2-molecules will warm the atmosphere if no other reactions occur in the physical (in particular dynamic) processes in the earth/atmosphere system.  In these “idealised conditions”, they say the greenhouse effect would be inevitable.  Such “idealised conditions” must obviously include the proviso that air is stationary.  It is really quite absurd that even now something so obvious as that hot air rises is not properly taken into account by the climatological profession.  When air is heated up locally, it ascends and the warmth is removed.   It also expands with decreasing atmospheric pressure at higher altitude, and cools so that no remaining warming can be observed.  The warmth taken over by the absorbing air is transported toward the upper troposphere.  The greenhouse effect does not occur.
    The same process applies to individual CO2-molecules that absorb outgoing radiant heat from the earth’s surface or from lower layers of the troposphere.  These individual molecules remain at the same temperature as their surroundings.  Due to the high density of molecules in the troposphere, an immediate exchange of absorbed radiated energy takes place by convection with the surrounding molecules of air.  The CO2-molecules in the air are not isolated and therefore cannot reach a higher temperature than their environment.  If energy is absorbed, the molecules in the immediate vicinity will warm up.
    4. A prerequisite for any type of heat transfer is that the emitter is warmer than the absorber.  Heat transfer is determined by the ratio of the fourth powers of the temperatures of the emitting and the absorbing bodies.  Because temperature is uniform within minute volumes of gas in the air, and temperature decreases with increasing altitude, back transfer to near-surface air of radiation from higher CO2-molecules is impossible.  In fact, this is just as impossible as it is to use a cold heat radiator to heat up a warmer area.
    5. The energy discharge from the troposphere takes place at its upper boundary layer, at the transition of the atmosphere from its gaseous state to a state approaching a vacuum. Only in this zone do gases start to emit even small quantities of energy by radiation.  The other energy transfer mechanisms – thermal conduction and convection – which at denser pressure are far more efficient than radiation, no longer operate because of the low density of the atmosphere there.  But from the surface where man lives and up to 10 to 17km altitude (depending on geographical latitude), gases transfer the small quantities of energy they might acquire from absorbed radiation by convection and conduction – not by radiation.
    The climatologists derived the theoretical foundation of the greenhouse hypothesis from the concept of radiative equilibrium over the entire gas area of the atmosphere, right down to the earth’s surface.  But the fundamental premise of radiative equilibrium – a balance of incoming and outgoing radiation – is correct only as long as it is limited to the vacuum-like zone of the upper atmosphere.  In the lower regions of the atmosphere, the heat balance is essentially determined by thermal, i.e. thermodynamic equilibrium, which includes the thermodynamic characteristics of the components of the atmosphere as well as their changes in status.
    6. From the upper atmosphere down to earth’s surface, air pressure rises continuously.  The determinant of atmospheric pressure is the mass and the weight of that part of the atmosphere above the point in question.  And as pressure increases, so does temperature.  The rise in temperature is caused by the thermodynamic characteristics of the main components of the atmosphere, i.e. N2 and O2.  Everyone knows that compression causes gases to warm: the effect is noticeable even when inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no different.
    The relations between temperature, pressure and volume within the gas area of an atmosphere are determined by the following equations:
     
    General gas equitation                       p x v           =     R x T 
    Adiabatic change of state                  p x v           =     constant 
                                     or                 T x v -1        =     constant 
       =  relation of the specific thermal values cp to cv 

    Estimates of the effects of CO2 concentrations on air temperature are often – as mentioned before – derived from conditions on Venus.  If one assumed that the atmosphere of Venus was similar to that of the earth, rather than being 95% CO2, and that it still had a pressure of 90 bar, then the surface temperature would be about 660°C, i.e. about 200°C more than at present.  The difference arises from the somewhat smaller    value for triatomic as against biatomic gases (   Air: 1.4;     CO2: 1.3).
    Thus it would actually be somewhat colder on earth if our atmosphere consisted of CO2 rather than air.
    7. A special feature of our atmosphere is its water content.  Water occurs in three states. The solid and liquid forms (clouds) show radiation characteristics completely different from gases: they reflect radiation. Thus only water in its liquid or solid states shows qualities to some extent comparable to a greenhouse (i.e. mimicking, however locally, the effect of fixed and airtight glass or foil).  Naturally clouds do not prevent vertical air exchange.  Moreover condensation and solidification of the water in air releases substantial amounts of heat, which largely determines the temperature of the lower atmosphere.  By contrast, the heat transport and storage characteristics of trace gases like CO2 are negligible factors in determining air temperature.
    An interesting sidelight is that human life and most human activities add humidity to the lower atmosphere.  Examples include the spread and intensification of agriculture; irrigation; hydraulic engineering, i.e. dams and reservoirs; burning of fossil fuels; other water use by humans, e.g. in industrial production processes; as well respiration by humans and livestock.  It could therefore be assumed that the water content of the atmosphere has increased over the last 100 years.  And the resulting cloudier skies, especially at night, would lead to a measurable increase in near-surface air temperature.  But climatologists have largely neglected the possible influence on temperature of changes in the water content of the atmosphere.  
     
    Conclusion
    Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the fundamentals of physics.  Correct interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases.  Therefore it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere.
    The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components.  Higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere – at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to health – would endanger neither the climate nor mankind.  To avoid further misunderstanding, the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases should be avoided in describing the functioning of the atmosphere.  A more correct term would be atmosphere effect.  The operation of this effect is described in “The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” at http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm.)
    It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of CO2 in the air. 
     
    Note CO2: However, doubts about the estimation that the preindustrial CO2-level would have been at 0,028%, at present it is about 0,038%, arose in a recent publication: “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/00000002/art00006
    back
     
    The above article is an adapted translation of articles that appeared in the German periodicals Elektrizitätswirtschaft No. 20/1999 and Fusion No. 1/2000 
    For more on “Atmospheric Backradiation”, one of the presuppositions of the greenhouse theory, see http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/backrad.htm  
    Also available: “Does Man Influence Climate?” at http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm 
    And The Thermodynamic Atmosphäre Effect – stepwise explained – Using a set of technical models of planets with and without an atmosphere the reasons are explained for differences in surface temperature of the planet without an atmosphere compared with the temperature in the ground layer of atmosphere of the other planet.
    It is worth to know the speech of Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, at the UN Climate Change Conference 2007: http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=pnHwpGc13sXM 
    You can contact the author at heinz.thieme@gmx.net 
    The author is co-author and belongs to the initial signers of the Climate Declaration of Heiligenroth (Klimamanifest von Heiligenroth) http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html# 
    Page originally created 16.08.2000, English translation revised by S.Scott, July 2003, recent complement 20.01.2009
     
     

  9. pgosselin Says:

    It’s been good day – just smashed my previous daily record for visits to this blog. The gates are moving!
    Unfortunately the Glenmorangie will have to wait a day, though.

    • R. de Haan Says:

      You’re doing fine.
      Keep up the good work and if you can find the time spend some attention to the current Climate Meeting in Berlin.

      A call been made for the introduction of new taxes to create a climate fund (read world government) and our enslavement as a consequence.

      We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars here and consequently the establishment of a vicious corrupt elite dwarfing the rule of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol-pot put together.

      Their aim is to reduce the world population by destroying our civilizations.

      http://green-agenda.com


  10. Please change the horendous color scheme on your website. I’m not sure I have seen anything this bad since the early days of PCs. This is unreadable.

  11. cleanwater Says:

    Here is an experiment that I have performed : Please comment -IT is in four part >Part1
    I have indicated that there is an experiment that demonstrates that the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist. This experiment plus the mathematics of several hundred Ph. D. physicists and the non existent experiments “proving the ghge” should show that the Hypotheses is a fairy-tale.

    The Experiment that Failed and saved the World trillions.
    By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010

    The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases including Water/vapor/liquid/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body “temperature.
    How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy.
    This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect”
    as has been said the truth is in the detail therefore anyone that wants to get into more of the details,please join in. I will be adding more later.
    As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” lets start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor,solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag’s as CO2 ,Ch4,NO2 and others -this will deal first with the none H2O ,IRags.
    Critical features:
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
    4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed)
    5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
    6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
    7. Where does this lead?
    We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exist. Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day.(summer or winter). Has walked into a store with south facing window , its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or window in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating- this was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955.
    What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ”greenhouse gas effect exists.
    All the AGW point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models, the problem with “computer models” is that unless all the factors that effect the atmosphere are included into the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this is tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors. Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To data no one has come up with the “right model”
    continued

  12. cleanwater Says:

    Part 2
    Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some way of indicating if the concept may exist.
    To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today. In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “models” that are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events.

    As the amount of heating that is supposed to be is on the order of fractions of a degree per year- we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does not demonstrate the effect then the Concept does not exist. If the concept works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached.

    Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million( 1×10+6) . The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate.
    Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2,thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4 ,the effect should be 57500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
    As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.
    . Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.
    The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove. Now 100 % CO2 is available for several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, another is from a supplier of Dry ice. Do not use Alka Seltzer as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
    The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.

    How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that contained the IRags is glass containers then they measures the increase in temperature of the gas which had increased, they claimed this increase was do to the “ghg”effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was do to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. ( A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request). Another failure of these tests were their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating)
    The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen. If you want you can use larger ones to contain larger numbers of IRag molecules.
    continued

  13. cleanwater Says:

    Part 3
    Now lets discuss the experiment.
    1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags ,and one with dry air as a control.
    2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade.
    3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data.
    4. Take a large black mate board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it raises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5.
    5. Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially. Record the temperature.
    6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.

    Now lets repeat the Critical factors and note the result of my test to the critical factor.
    Critical features:
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer. The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface. The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the Bohr Model.
    4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed) As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
    5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
    6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
    Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1
    cost about $60.00. many other models available.

    continued

  14. cleanwater Says:

    Part 4
    I have thought about several refinements, but it would not change the bottom line that the “ghg effect” is a fairy-tale.

    I’m sure that the AGW’s will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.

    As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was place one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.

    Now lets talk about water( H2O/lvs):
    Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. Of course tomorrow it may be sunny and clear. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change. Now the “climate” has not changed for the last 300 years just as the Indians.
    Any way lets look a H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it ‘s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy( Heat of condensation), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
    This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” can not get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
    Now lets add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon , the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors ) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am when there is measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
    There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation have an effect on cloud formation,this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
    There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”

    The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
    Mann-made global warming is a hoax,because the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy -tale.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: