When a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Dr John Clauser, labels the claims about greenhouse gases warming the Earth as “pseudoscience” and describes them as “a dangerous corruption of science,” I urge you to take notice. He further stated that “the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation,” and remarked that climate science has “metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.”
Similarly, Professor Harold (Hal) Lewis, a distinguished physicist, called such claims “the biggest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud” he had encountered in his lifetime. Another German physicist expressed outrage upon discovering that much of what the IPCC and the media presented was “sheer nonsense,” unsupported by scientific facts or measurements. The late Dr Tim Ball, author of Human Caused Global Warming - The Biggest Deception in History, often cited this scientist.
Over a decade ago, Swedish Professor Claes Johnson, a brilliant scientist, authored a 115-page document explaining why radiation from cooler atmospheric molecules cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface, thus debunking the notion that such radiation warms the Earth.
Physics, not climatology, governs radiation and energy transfer. Physicists like those mentioned above, and I, possess a deeper understanding of atmospheric physics than many climatologists, who often rely on flawed interpretations. For example, a textbook written by Raymond Pierrehumbert often promoted a concept of “Radiative Forcing,” misleading generations of students.
Consider this: water vapor, the primary “greenhouse gas,” constitutes an average of 0.25% of the atmosphere, reaching up to 4% in humid regions. Carbon dioxide averages 0.04%, and methane a mere 0.0002%. Together, these gases account for less than 0.3% of the atmosphere.
Now, in Earth’s atmosphere, only greenhouse gases can absorb and emit radiation. The remaining 99.7% (primarily nitrogen and oxygen) do not contribute to this process.
When examining climatology “Energy Budget” diagrams, such as those published by NASA, we see figures representing absorption and emission attributed to the atmosphere as a whole, alongside distinct values for greenhouse gases.
A closer analysis of the diagram reveals that incoming solar radiation is approximately 340 watts per square meter. Of this, about 100 watts per square meter is reflected back into space, reflection being a process quite distinct from absorption and emission. This leaves a net influx of roughly 240 watts per square meter, which serves as the primary source of new energy, since contributions from beneath the surface are negligible in comparison.
Despite this, the diagram suggests that the atmosphere somehow generates additional energy, delivering not only the remaining 163 watts per square meter of solar radiation to the surface but also over 340 watts per square meter from greenhouse gases (excluding water vapor), which make up less than 0.05% of the atmosphere.
John Clauser, Nobel Prize in Physics, Berkeley.
Richard S. Lindzen, Harvard and MIT, Atmospheric physics
Both so-called “climate change deniers”!
It’s hard to get papers that go against “climate change” published in leading scientific journals. Is this good science? No!
