RealClimate logo


The Crank Shaft

Filed under: — group @ 11 March 2019

This is a thread for collecting the oddball theories, tinfoil hat level conspiracies and other climate-related nonsense in the comments that would otherwise derail substantive discussion. Keeping them all in one spot might be of interest to future researchers.

21 Responses to “The Crank Shaft”

  1. 1
    bob says:

    The skeptical sciences links do not prove anything: what is the proof of greenhouse theory according to them ?

    The moon is colder at night than during the day and warmer than the earth during the day.

    So they do not even notice that the atmosphere is actually cooling the Earth and not warming it, and making it warmer at night than the moon, not because of greenhouse gases, but because it has an atmosphere created by gravity, retaining the warmth at night by blocking conduction and advection into space, contrary to the moon which has no atmosphere and no or very little conduction taking place.

    It is the same argument they have that the following one: “Without greenhouse gases, the temperature of the Earth would be -18°C and not 15°C”…

    That is an experimental evidence…?

    Ha ha ha… And how do they measure the temperature of the Earth in the first place ?

    I’m telling you: this is not an experimental evidence, it is a theoretical non sense.

    They indeed consider that the Earth has the same radiative absorption than a black hole and thus is a perfect black body… and so they apply the blackbody formulas to calculate the temperature of the Earth from the emissivity coming from the sun…

    And they find -18°C… But it is physical non-sense. The Earth is not a black hole and blackbody formulas can not apply for its absorption and thus can not apply in order to find its temperature from the solar emissivity.

    So the whole greenhouse theory is just physical non sense, a pure myth without any valid justification, even theoretically.

  2. 2
    bob says:

    Isn’t it very ironic that the GIEC, Nobel Prize of Peace, does not see that it is war that caused the warming plateau in 1935-1945, with all the bombings and so forth…?

    And the peak in 1945 is due to Hirochima and Nagasaki. Then, the cooling of -0,3°C comes just after the end of war when the heat caused by the bombings dissipated…

    …before the “Great Warming” associated with the industrialiaztion of nuclear power plants, increased global deforesttation and the numerous atomic bombings trials all over the world.

    For example, between 1960 -1996, 200 atomic bombings were made just by France. How many at word scale ?

    The GIEC should have better deserved the Nobel Prize of Litterature for his fictional masterpiece of “radiative forcing”… !

  3. 3
    bob says:

    Not only do climate scientists in a mission, those who are teleguided by an ideal and not by reason, build a radiative budget that has no theoretical foundation, based on a mixture of satellites data and models data, but they do not even see that the global mean temperature predicted by their radiative budget is totally crank !

    If you look at it closely, and it is quite odd, the global mean temperature, according to their budget, would be near the ebullition point, somewhere like 90°C… and they do not even notice it, so blind that they are in their faith of 1) thermal transfer caused by trace gases (never been measured anywhere in the world in a lab), 2) their blackhole-like Earth absorptive equilibrium and 3) their ideal of science as a mission to save the planet from CO2.

    No wonder that with a global mean temperature of 90°C+, some desoxygenation should take place at the surface of the ocean in their model. Ha Ha Ha.

    They are litteraly cooking ocean fishes in the IPCC reports.

    Here what happens when people confound radiation and heat, and build a (litterally) obscurantist view of light-matter interaction like Fourier did with his “obscure heat” theory at the origin of the radiative greenhouse theory.

    Herschel has been clear enough nonetheless by pointing out the dangers of that confusion in several articles published in 1800.

    The “magnifying glass effect” of a prism, like the one of solar boxes should not be confounded with a “radiant” or “obscure” heat. No such magnifying glass effect concentrating radiation on a point exist in the atmosphere, which is gently diffusing the light, thus the blue color of the sky.

  4. 4
    bob says:

    Climate scientists did not learn physics in school.

    Otherwise they would know that infrared energy obeys to the inverse square law.

    In physics lessons, real scientists learn to trace on paper the linear relationship between an infrared source and a thermopile, which is proportional to the distance between them.

    Just several centimeters are sufficient to show a significant decrease in thermal transfer between an infrared source and a thermopile.

    Thus, it is real non sense to think that infrared radiation bouncing back from atmosphère to the ground is able to warm the surface.

  5. 5
    bob says:

    Now, I’m goint to tell you what climate scientists really believe without even knowing it…

    They believe that the troposphere has a convergent effect on the infrared radiation emitted by the ground, which, at the manner of a laser beam, selectively focus on some traces molecules, like CO2, warming the atmosphere as a consequence… Ha Ha Ha Ha

    I call it the “climatic conscious laser beam” theory. Because infrared energy, moved by some intelligent intents, consciously and selectively concentrate on some traces molecules, therefore causing a heat transfer in the air, like mini nuke quakes.

    Imagine the red laser beams from the TIE interceptors in Star Wars, but just sending their energy to trace molecules: Pew Pew Pew Pew….

    Or imagine it like an army of millions of tiny convergent mirrors on the ground selectively converging many many infrared red beams like the Death Star, just to trace molecules, with the devil intent to warm the atmosphere: Tchiieeewwwwwwwww

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inl8EzmAopE

    This is what the GIEC believes, implicitely… right ? Otherwise I do not see how infrared energy could warm the atmosphere. Ha Ha Ha

  6. 6
    bob says:

    It is not by chance that, historically, “cold war” is name cold.

    People who did the war (and not the politicians who send people do the war) know that bombings are warming the climate.

    But paradoxically, it is when the “cold war” began that the war on environment took the relay: deforestation, agrochimy and nuclear industry boomed and were even more efficient at warming the climate than the war between human beings.

    But those are things that the believers in “obscure heat” do not seem to be able to understand.

  7. 7
    bob says:

    This new post is the one in which the reader learns that conduction is the preferential way of dissipating its energy for matter.

    And if there is no possibility of conduction, like in space for example, then matter dissipates its energy through radiation.

    How is that ?

    Well it is simple: heat transfer is the result of an electric process in matter (Peltier Effect). And in the empty space, there is no possibility of such transfer, thus the electric process “radiates” instead, in the form of electromagnetic energy.

    So matter will first transmit its energy through conduction, or through convection and advection into gazes.

    So it is the energetic pressure that conditions how much the matter will radiate. And if there is too much pressure, the matter may even explode !

    But no worry, with infrared energy, no risk that the air explode, as it can not even produce normal convection or advection: it is not enough energetic to produce any heat transfer and it is instantly reemitted without causing any heat in the atmosphere: it is totally neutral.

  8. 8
    bob says:

    What climate scientists don’t tell you, because they don’t know and only stay at the surface of their beliefs, at the very supercial level of real scientific investigation is that:

    A “significant” heat transfer, which is associated with an electric process, can only occur when two molecules of gases collide… and it also depends on the difference of electric potential between the two molecules, thus of the electric field of those molecules.

    It is the “deformation” of the electric fields of the molecules, forming a new electric field, when they collide, that produce an electric effect causing heat transfer.

    Thus, two molecules of same charge colliding are just going to repel each other without any heat transfer.

    When there is a difference in electric potential, the collision between the two molecules is equivalent to a conduction between the two molecules, and the heat transfer is proportional to the difference in their electric potential.

    So we are here speaking of very insignificant heat transfers caused by so-called GHG, at the volume of the atmosphere. The first (and way beyond) ways of heat transfer in the atmosphere are convection and advection mechanisms which are derived from sol/air conduction and their variations, and other forms of heat like volcanos, atomic and conventional bombings, nuclear power plants, combustion engines and barbecues.

    As the thermal equilibrium of such microscopic entities (the reorganization of the electric field of the molecules of gases), is instantaneous, they, as blackbodies, should reemit instantly without any heat transfer (no time for waiting the next collision with another molecule) the low energetic infrared energy they receive from their environment.

    So there is no significant conduction, no significant heat transfer induced by infrared energy absorbed by so-called GHG in the atmosphere.

  9. 9
    bob says:

    The “Bohr Hole” is a better name than the “ghost photon” theory… for the idea that photons pass through the molecules, when they do not have the exact same energy than the ones of the atomic orbitals…

    Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hi Hi

  10. 10
    bob says:

    In fact, according to the “Bohr Hole” theory, photons that are absorbed by molecules are reemitted, yes, but in another universe of the great multiverse, like for black holes, or even in another location in the same universe.

    It is what explains the non locality of quantum mechanics.

    When you heat sufficiently those molecules, it opens up one such tunnel, and they can emit at the same energy, but the energy that is emitted comes from another place in the universe or even from another universe.

  11. 11
    bob says:

    Real physics from RW Wood as cited by Niels Bohr in 1913:

    “Now in Wood’s experiments the pressure was not very low, and the states corresponding to high values for teta could therefore not appear ; yet in the absorption spectrum about 50 lines were detected. In the experiments in question we consequently observe an absorption of radiation which is not accompanied by a complete transition between two different stationary states. According to the present theory we must assume that this absorption is followed by an emission of energy during which the systems pass back to tile original stationary state. If there are no collisions between the different systems this energy will be emitted as a radiation of the same frequency as that absorbed, and there will be no true absorption but only a scattering of the original radiation ; a true absorption will not occur unless the energy in question is transformed by collisions into kinetic energy of free particles.”

    Ho Ho Ho Ha Ha Ha Hi Hi

  12. 12
    bob says:

    I repeat what Bohr said:

    “a true absorption will not occur unless the energy in question is transformed by collisions into kinetic energy of free particles.”

    “and there will be no true absorption but only a scattering of the original radiation”

    Consequence: As the pressure in the atmosphere is very low, so there are very little collisions. Thus there is no significant transformation of radiative energy into kinetic energy or “true absorption” leading to thermal transfers.

    Whatever is the path one takes to observe the phenomenas, kinetic, electric, quantic and so on, the GHG theory is wrong, inherently, irrevocably wrong.

  13. 13

    I would call you to read my papers as they open new frontiers in both climate science and solar physics. Most people here wouldn’t like the idea that the sun is the only one responsible for climate variability but this is a proven fact. My papers are available at ResearchGate and have yet received very favorable comments by highly esteemed scientists from usa, russia, bulgaria etc

  14. 14
    EWM says:

    It appears that you may have bigger worries on the way. Confirmed! – Geomagnetic reversals can trigger glaciation https://www.iceagenow.info/confirmed-geomagnetic-reversals-can-trigger-glaciation/

  15. 15
    Dan Pangburn says:

    A simple assessment that shows that CO2 has nothing to do with climate is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

  16. 16

    As I have shown in my papers the solar irradiance AND solar wind determine the temperatures in earth. People usually forget to look at solar wind when they look at the sun. They only take into account the solar activity and solar irradiance. As I have shown the solar wind is decisive. It manipulates the geomagnetic field and cloud covering. Temperatures oscillate according to the sun. By adding the AMO index oscillation (that counts for internal system variability) to the two solar constituents, we get an extremely accurate temperature projection. GCMs can’t project any accurate temperature variation. As soon as AMO turns negative we shall experience a strong cooling.

  17. 17
    Zoe Phin says:

    Yes, please explain why my math gets the right answer:

    https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/01/17/precipitable-water-as-temperature-proxy/

    And GISTEMP, NOAA NCEI, ERA5, JRA55, Berkeley Earth and Cowtan & Way, RSS TLT doesn’t.

  18. 18
    MA Rodger says:

    Zoe Phin @30,
    Up-thread @11, you assert that the global surface temperature records have all failed to take account of the distribution by latitude of the incomplete global coverage through early parts of their records, this assertion supported by an analysis of your own invention which you link to.
    Having looked at your analysis I asked @22 “whether you would like your incredibly stupid mistake explained to you” and you reply “Yes, please explain why my math gets the right answer,” this bold statement encouraged by the Total Precipitable Water (TPW) reanalysis NCEP-NCAR (R1) which covers 1948-to-date and thus relies on early radiosonde data of doubtful accuracy. [NCEP-NCAR (R2) doesn’t attempt to cover years before 1979.]
    To address this use of early humidity data as support for your error-filled analysis, do note the NCEP-NCAR data provides the humidity for different altitudes through the atmosphere. If, as you do, wish to use such data as a proxy for surface temperature, it would be another “incredibly stupid mistake” to latch onto TPW data when the reanalysis data shows the surface humidity record trends to be greatly different from the TPW trends you are relying on. (For instance, see here – usually 2 clicks to ‘download your attachment’)

    Let me now address the nonsense within your analysis linked above. (I haven’t looked at your ‘elevation’ adjustments but these are trivial within the overall analysis.)

    ☻ You have been informed on your own comment thread that your entire analysis is crazy as you treat temperature anomolies as though they were absolute temperatures so any incomplete coverage cannot impact the global average as you suggest. (Your response was “Your comment makes no sense “) Yet the gross error extends well beyond such incompetence.

    ☻ From the distributiuon of incomplete coverage, you calculate the average latitude of coverage for the different years of the Berkeley Earth temperature data. So, for instance, in 1925 you calculate global coverage to be 95.0% and the average latitude of that coverage to be 3.764ºN. This itself constitutes a gross error. If there were 95% coverage and all of that missing data were down at the South Pole where its absence would shift the average latitude the most (and where almost all of it would be through this period), how can this shift the average latitude to 3.764ºN? Do the maths!!

    ☻ But the real howler is the method you use to correct a surface record of averaged absolute temperature (which, of course, BEST is not) for any incomplete coverage.
    You reason that, as the average temperature at the two tropics is lower than the average temperature on the equator, this constitutes a temperatutre gradient towards the tropics of -0.133ºC per degree of latitude. (This is presumably from SST data as such a gradient becomes obviously nonsensical using Land & Ocean data.) So at 3.764ºN, that difference from the equator would be -0.500695ºC. This being the average latitude of the coveage, you decide to the BEST global average requires adjusting for such a bias, increasing the global averages throughth early 1900s. Thus, you find that back in the early 1900s the BEST record underestimates global temperatures. The early 1900s were thus warmer than BEST set out, warmer to the point that they rival today’s ‘scorchyissimo’ temperatures.
    But your method here is monumentally stupid. Why would the average absolute temperature from incomplete coverage be ever adjusted by the temperature difference between the equator to its latitudinal average?
    Imagine this ‘incomplete coverage’ were restricted to the Antarctic continent (not an unreasonable first approximation for the early 1900s), a continent with an average temperature of -35ºC, way below the global average of say +14ºC. As Antarctica is roughly 3% of the globe by area, ignoring Antarctica would result in a measure average absolute temperature of +14×0.97 – 35×0.03 = +12.5ºC. Such an adjusted value is thus reduced not increased. If BEST were an absolute temperature analysis, adjusting for incomplete coverage would add to the warming through the 1900s and certainly not reduce it, as your monumentallly crazy analysis suggests.

    So well done you!! The level of error within your analysis is truly spectacular.

  19. 19
    Zoe Phin says:

    MA Rodger,
    The precipitable water level is for the whole column of air. It’s not for some layers, like near the surface. The whole column.

    It’s completely erroneous for you to look at a layer. The water vapor can freely move up and down.

    The question is how much kinetic energy is needed to evaporate surface water to create the amount of water vapor we see in the WHOLE vertical column.

    You don’t want to trust the early radiosonde data, but for temperature, you accept every reconstruction of thermometers that you like. What hypocrisy. I can’t stand people like you.

    “If there were 95% coverage and all of that missing data were down at the South Pole where its absence would shift the average latitude the most (and where almost all of it would be through this period), how can this shift the average latitude to 3.764ºN? Do the maths!!”

    No, silly, when you take an average you are essentially saying that the whole world acts like it does at 3.764N latitude.

    If you included south pole data, the whole world average would act like equator latitude.

    I don’t need to use south pole anomalies, only tropical ones. The weight of surface area of the rest of the world is already embedded, and I only need to adjust for the differential from the average latitude.

  20. 20
    Zoe Phin says:

    MA Rodger,

    “, a continent with an average temperature of -35ºC, way below the global average of say +14ºC. As Antarctica is roughly 3% of the globe by area, ignoring Antarctica would result in a measure average absolute temperature of +14×0.97 – 35×0.03 = +12.5ºC. Such an adjusted value is thus reduced not increased. If BEST were an absolute temperature analysis, adjusting for incomplete coverage would add to the warming through the 1900s and certainly not reduce it, as your monumentallly crazy analysis suggests.”

    Completely wrong. Scientists using a democratic area-weighted average of non-missing grid cells, are treating the missing data as if it was 0 kelvin. Using -35C boosts the average, it doesn’t reduce it, as you claim.

    It boosts the average as if whole earth was at equator instead of 3.7N.

    Why do you think I essentially got the same global temperature index when I democratically averaged only the 16635 persistent grids? (28%)

    Look this isn’t rocket science.

    Imagine that until yesterday we only had data for above 70 latitude, and today we finally have whole earth coverage.

    The anomaly index would see a HUGE spike. Few scientists would take this democratic averaging seriously, but if it happens slowly over time …

  21. 21
    Zoe Phin says:

    MA Rodger,
    The reason a latitude average can be 3.7N, is because there is more data available there, such as the COLD arctic.

    If you already have a cold bias, why would you add the cold of the antarctic?

    And you don’t even have that data to add.

    The adjustment accounts for over-representation of the arctic.

    Hence we need to warm the data.