C02 science between reality and fiction

CO2 is once again the devil at birth at the UN FCCC COP26 conference in Glasgow. The slogan “Listen to science” resonates aloud. The question is: what science?

Climate science displays a dystopia characterized by a marked separation between real and alternative science due to a different view of validation, where there is no common ground. The interface also has a political and social dimension.

Einstein

Realistic climate science has strict rules of science and validation, powerfully interpreted by Einstein: “No amount of experiment can ever prove me right; a single experience can prove me wrong. Scientists are skeptics who favor experimental support over validation. But anyone who does this in climate science is marginalized as a “climate denier,” denied access to forums, and banned.

This also applies to publications with serious consequences: Prof White is a global CO2 authority, has published its theoretical contribution on CO2 absorption on PSI (the site: Principia Scientific International) because established publishers feared reprisals and refused to publish. Self-censorship of basic scientific publications is a fact. 97% consensus among scientists scaled up to 99% is nothing but a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy ‘ on the basis of a “pal review” excluding dissidents.

group thought

Alternative / Consensus Science displays 97% consensus and disagrees with Einstein’s point of view. The first “awakened” green thought places undue importance on the common mind, which leads to group thought which validates a tunnel vision, not a scientific vision but a political one. The “peer review” (between peers) is canonized, but it is scientifically worthless “peer review” (between friends). This is not fiction because two professors, co-authors of the IPCC AR6 in a VRT publication and Ter Zake state the following.

Joeri Rogelj: “195 countries together reviewed the best scientific knowledge on climate change. The summary of this report has been endorsed by these 195 countries, which makes the IPCC report incredibly powerful and powerful in influencing policy. ‘

Philippe Huybrechts professor at the VUB “It took four years to work, 234 authors wrote and together they read and evaluated 14,000 articles. This is where the IPCC derives its credibility. It is actually the gold standard in climate science.

Such unprofessional statements by professors can count. It is even ludicrous to call this the “gold standard”. Scientific breakthroughs are mainly due to stubborn loners. Without them, for example, we would still be walking on a flat Earth with stomach ulcers and the theory of relativity because the birthplace of the current scientific explosion was unknown. It is evident that for a large part of IPCC scientists, political perception and messages take precedence over content.

Greenhouse effect

Although Ray ignored the IPCC climate science in the deep CO2 crisis

• the well-known greenhouse effect in which heat / energy is sent via radiation from the earth’s surface through the atmosphere to the universe and half-reflected does not exist for CO2, despite showing in textbooks and courses . The satellites that the OLR (outgoing infrared radiation) give decreasing outgoing radiation for the CO2 spectrum. It is therefore correct that CO2 ‘stops the heat’, but then limited to ‘the upper atmosphere’. Measurements show that this only happens outside the atmosphere from -57 ° C (around 220 ° K). CO2 does not behave like a greenhouse gas between zero and> 10 km altitude. In the atmosphere, CO2 radiation is absorbed and converted into heat.
• CO2 saturates at increasing concentrations, i.e. its infrared properties decrease with increasing CO2 according to a logarithmic law, so that the climatic sensitivity of CO2 – i.e. the effect temperature when the concentration is doubled – is a constant, independent of its nominal value. For example, the influence of CO2 on temperature during the last ice age was 2.5 times stronger than today, and therefore negligible compared to other effects such as falling cloud density as a result of which the direct solar radiation on the surface of the earth increases, a phenomenon of no importance for the IPCC because, procedurally, it does not belong to human (anthropogenic) influence.
• Climate models that simulate the behavior of the Earth and the atmosphere are complex, poorly understood, and unreliable for two reasons. (1) Published values ​​are an average of widely separated individual results to improve the final result. These models are arbitrary and are scaled by a set of variables to fit the past ( retrospective) to predict the future, certainly no guarantee of quality and mathematical statistics. (2) The low sensitivity of CO2 due to saturation is overcompensated by the accumulation of water vapor (strong greenhouse gas) 20 times more present, as a positive feedback factor for CO2, which makes even the unstable climate models. At climate modellers have sounded the alarm for far too high results just before COP 26.

Indispensable in engineering sciences where errors are strongly penalized, the models, validated by manually performing calculations identical to the model. This is also possible for the climate. It’s surprisingly simple, but it’s not implemented. Because the mistakes made by climatologists, which can even be destructive for society such as decarbonization, are not punished, on the contrary, as long as they are sufficiently alarming.

A little technical

The influence of CO2 on temperature is a simple manual calculation based on Stefan Boltzman’s (SB) law when energy loss (called Radiative Forcing or RF) is known, and provides much more reliable results than models in because of its simplicity.

The table below shows this clearly. Assuming high IPCC values ​​and low van den Beemt OLR values, the SB calculation is applied for the doubling of the CO2 concentration, which gives the temperature increase which is also the climate sensitivity to CO2 from DHW. Since the industrial revolution, CO2 has gone from 300 to 400 ppmV, or 1/3 of the ECS trajectory. The anthropogenic part represents 3.7% of the annual CO2 production. The ECS value published by the IPCC is included for reference.

Due to their simplicity, manually calculated DHW values ​​are much more reliable and 3 times smaller than climate models at equal OLR, analogous climate models provide temperatures 2.5 to 3X higher than measurements which shows that the climate models are seriously flawed. The valueless and extremely harmful climate models are unfortunately the starting point of the alarmism of the COP26.

Small measurable effect

The total increase in temperature due to CO2 since the industrial revolution is only responsible for a third of the too high assumptions of the IPCC, and if we limit ourselves to the anthropogenic part, the effect turns out to be disproportionately small.

The EU’s costly decarbonization process is worthless and unjustifiable because of its immeasurable effect, but it is disastrous for future prosperity. The past of abundant and cheaper energy as society’s “lubricating oil” has vanished in response to an unmeasurable problem.