Friday, May 31, 2013
I have submitted the following comment to the Real Science site, where Steven Goddard uses Charles Darwin to make a point about long-term and extreme "climate change", and someone made the point that Darwin considered climate to be local, not global:
I wish I could get people to realize this; it is the reason why all the supposedly learned discourse, by those with "climate" theories (including the "consensus"), about the effects of details in the atmosphere--such as water vapor, clouds, "greenhouse gases", etc.--is irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature, as definitively demonstrated by my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. The global mean surface temperature is stable, so everyone is fundamentally deluded by thinking it must change because "climate changes". Only local conditions change, in my view, molded as it is by the definitive Venus/Earth evidence. The stable "global climate" (the global mean surface temperature, as given in the Standard Atmosphere) is maintained simply by the tropospheric vertical temperature lapse rate, due to the governing hydrostatic condition of the massive atmosphere itself, and by the fact that the troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar (IR) radiation, not from the surface of the Earth--heat from the surface drives the WEATHER, while heat from the Sun alone drives the global mean temperature.
But Darwin was wrong about undirected evolution, by "natural selection" of random mutations. --see here, here, and here.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Many critics of the current, false, climate consensus (on "global warming", or "climate change") like to point to plate tectonics (or continental drift) as an example of a once-heretical idea that overcame the former consensus to become the central idea of all the earth sciences today. Steven Goddard has made the latest such posting, and the following is my response, based upon my own, much more "heretical" research findings:
The bottom line is, truth is where you find it, not where everyone else is looking for it. Reality is what it is, not what you would like it to be. And the truth is, the older generations of geologists--geophysicists especially--had good reason to reject continental drift: They could see no physically acceptable cause for it. And it turns out Wegener only started a revolution whose real depth and breadth only my work now encompasses. (That is why I started a blog in 2009, as one more experiment in getting recognition of a new-yet-ancient paradigm, a new frame, particularly for the earth and life sciences.) See
The True Origin of Continental Drift
The Earth's surface was, in fact, deliberately reformed, to a great design:
Challenge to Earth Scientists
The whole solar system was reformed, and reoriented (and witnessed by men on Earth, and incorporated in what are dismissed today as the earliest myths, of men worldwide):
Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the Design, and Man
And there has even been independent confirmation of the Earth design (follow the "Independent Confirmation" link here).
Why is there still continental movement? I don't know (yet--and I see no reason to hurry to explain that). I only know the reason the continents moved in the past, to their present positions and orientations (and shapes): They were deliberately moved, to a great design, the mere shattered remembrance of which has guided, even dictated, the intellectual voyage of mankind on Earth ever since.
The words, "be not quick to judge", come to mind here, and so I pass them along to you as well.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Dr. Roy Spencer, another in the Church of The Lukewarm Greenhouse Effect, tells deniers of that effect to "put up or shut up", to which I have responded:
After all this time, everyone still clings to their own pet statement of a "greenhouse effect", when the only valid statement--promulgated to the public for over 20 years -- is "an increase in global mean surface temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide".
But a simple comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, shows that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant (there is no ADDED temperature on Venus due to its much higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and in fact a constant that is PRECISELY explained by Venus's smaller distance from the Sun, and nothing else (except within Venus's cloud layer, between about 650 and 200 mb pressure, where the Venus temp. is about 5K LOWER--in other words, a minor ADDITIVE effect within the clouds themselves--than that calculated, simply, from the Standard Atmosphere model here on Earth and the ratio of solar distances of the two planets).
"Lukewarmers" like Spencer and Watts are stymied by their unswerving belief in the radiative transfer theory. My Venus/Earth demonstration of the absolute absence of a greenhouse effect--as I define it, and as it is sold to the public--implies the radiative transfer theory is also wrong, physically; but I am not about arguing theories, and I don't feel any need to put forward a better one to replace theirs. I only insist that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is the definitive evidence that denies their theory. Contrary to Spencer's insistence heretofore, the onus is on defenders of the consensus greenhouse theory to demonstrate quantitatively, that the observed Venus/Earth constant temperature ratio--needing nothing but the ratio of their solar distances to explain--arises naturally from their theories. I have already demanded you put up or shut up, many times over the last two and a half years. Instead, you go on about how you "observe" the greenhouse effect (but not the one that counts), without confronting the definitive evidence that denies that effect's existence (specifically, in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth). How lukewarmers can fight against the alarmists, and often give evidence that the global warming "greenhouse effect" must be very small, nevertheless are dogmatically set against admitting that effect is zero, is all that separates you from the "Slayers", in the end. (And no, I am not one of them; they like to say carbon dioxide is a coolant, but my Venus/Earth comparison says that is no more correct than that it is a heater. It is a "heat lubricant", whose increase only speeds up heat transfer--by radiation--within the atmosphere, without changing either the lapse rate or the surface mean temperature; it neither traps nor slows down heat).