When I started to get interested in the physics of climate science I was driven by a need to understand why our planet`s temperature is determined by a minute fraction of gas. which was portrayed as more powerful than the sun`s heat. I found it unreasonable, like many others, that a trace gas in a low density gas volume could be so powerful that it could cause catastrophe.

I used to be a liberal person, I had a long period of hippie-lifestyle behind me. I can admit that I was aggressive about the absolute necessity of regulating human behaviour towards a more nature friendly way of life, way before it was the mainstream consensus. I didn´t believe in technological solutions with green energy, I was convinced civilization should be torn down.  I was alarmist long before most people.

I am today a realist in a paranoid world where everyone thinks that the greatest threat is dry ice in cold air, more so than Islamists leaning on texts filled with first millenia violence, anti-semitism which makes Hitler look like a pink my little pony.

Until a few years ago, I agreed that our priority was to make sure our habitat is saved from emissions of co2 and the inevitable burning hell it will cause.

But studying physics on a basic level 15 years ago got in the way. I started to read about the mechanisms behind it all. Because I couldn´t get a grip on how it related to my vague memories of heat transfer and radiation. Perfect, I thought, I had been looking for a reason to invest some time into refreshing my knowledge about physics. I love physics, it´s the closest to truth I have gotten in my life. It is the only thing I experienced as bullshit-proof, and I was sad about the fact that I had lost almost all of it. I was pretty good at math and applying it to reality once, although only on a basic level. Nothing has satisfied me like math and physics, and how it describes reality with clarity. The definition of climate science is lack of clarity.

I started searching in the literature for the foundations of the explanation of climate centered around co2. First I looked at the gradient in the atmosphere and immediately I realized that it is all wrong. I admit that I knew so little about the atmosphere that when reading that the mean temperature is -18C in the troposphere, it was news to me. At that moment I knew that someone had made a (deliberate?) mistake, someone is really stupid. A cold fluid can´t increase the temperature of its own heat source. A child knows that, because they have nerves that tell them about hot and cold from birth. But apparently climate scientist have some problems with understanding this. Or I had missed something. To make sure, I started searching the literature for studies on co2 in controlled environments. There is no lack of such studies and I read as much as I could manage in about one years time. Studies on jet engines, furnaces, ovens, fires burning in open air and other engineering-stuff where data is presented from observations in reality. From descriptions of simplified greenhouse physics of heat, via detailed descriptions of heat transfer in industrial settings where fuel is burned in an enclosure. Swinging mood was caused when going through the psychological torture of reading some papers written by defect greenhouse-brains, then experiencing bliss when reading papers by extremely careful scientists like Hottel. I read all the way through a century of successfully applied thermodynamics. ending up with the well known experiments made by Tyndall. I wish I had made notes, it would have been a nice paper with a bible of references.

The background for it all is what we hear from climate science, that the solid mass of our planet that consist of a very thin shell that we call crust, which surrounds a massive glowing ball with temperatures in the range from 6000K to a very small fraction of it´s mass which is about 300K and located at the outer edge, is mainly heated by a fraction of the surrounding -18C gas.

It is claimed that a low density volume of gas, which is the coldest part of the system by far, is the cause of the solid surface of the glowing ball to have a temperature above what the heat source, a star, and the glowing interior that is 99% of the planets mass, can accomplish by themselves without that -18C volume of water vapor, co2 and other gases.

It is claimed that the cold air, heated by the 33 degrees warmer surface crust, is heating it´s own heat source.

Nowhere in the literature, in theory or experimental data, can there be found a single sentence, any observation, data or calculation which gives support for the claim that adding co2 or air to a heat source will cause an increase in emissive power of the heat source. Nowhere outside of the greenhouse theory and climate theory, does it exist any observation or theory  which supports the claim that heating a cold gas with constant and limited heat flow will cause an increasing temperature of the heat source, or an increasing density of the heat flow. It is a mystery how a theory and a global alarm about future catastrophic events, is aggressively spread and forced upon governments through deals about restrictions and regulations in our use of fossile energy, and not a single person within politics or science has bothered to even take a look a the foundation of it all. Which is that the layer of cold fluid surrounding a glowing planet heated by a 6000K star, is a cause of increasing temperature. Hottel didn´t say it, Boltzmann would probably kick you in the nuts if he heard you say it, not a single textbook on physics say it, if it is not a separate description of the greenhouse or climate science.

This is… the biggest deception in human history. It doesn´t matter if its intentional or if stupidity is at work,  the people promoting it needs to be put in front of a court of law. They need to be held responsible for lying to an entire world, or for being extremely stupid and incompetent.

Annonser