Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - PetterT

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
The Rational Climate eBook by P. Poyet, 2020
Fantastisk grundig gratis (!) eBook.  Utrolig at en person alene har skrevet dette.
Har bare så vidt begynt å skumme igjennom.  Mye går over min kunnskap om diffligningernetc.
Skikkelig utfordring.
Advarsel:  Langlesing  8)
https://www.academia.edu/44710422/The_Rational_Climate_e_Book

Fra konklusjon (etter grundig dokumentasjon i boken):
Let's summarize a bit where we stand:
As far as Physics is concerned:
• Arrhenius calculations were wrong and his conjecture is flawed: CO2 only plays a marginal role in the climate
system ;
• Anthropic CO2 is a tiny 6% of the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration as most of the total increase has come
from a natural process, i.e. the out-gassing of the oceans due to a natural increase of the global temperature
since the end of LIA ; the residency time in the atmosphere of each CO2 molecule is less than six years414;
• Because of a very obvious reason, i.e. Henry's law, CO2 follows T and not the other way round, effect cannot
precede cause, therefore the AGW theory is based on an erroneous causation ;
• Temperature results essentially from the gravitation lapse rate ;
• 99.9618% of the CO2 ever present in the atmosphere has been removed by various natural processes (mainly
weathering) over geological times and stored in one form or another; longer term the lack of CO2 is the risk;
• Atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is greatly exaggerated and the role of water vapor vastly underestimated ;
• The Greenhouse effect is the only phenomenon in Physics (absorption of IR radiations by some gases) that is so
badly defined and intentionally kept confusing ;
• Water and water vapor, the main player, is dismissed as it resists modeling and entails that climate cannot be
forecast beyond what the state of the art in meteorology is already struggling to achieve, i.e. 15 days.
As far as other sciences are concerned (e.g. Astronomy, Geology, etc.):
• Past climates, at all timescales, show that the climate has always changed for natural causes;
• Solar and orbital variations are among the main causes that drive the climate;
• Sea Level changes measured since 1907 show no acceleration (1mm y-1), half of it being originated by steric
effects415 and are greatly exaggerated by selectively picking starting and ending dates at a hollow and a top of a
temporal local sinusoidal wave and used as a politically sensitive argument to strike minds and threaten people
into submission to the AGW theory ;
• Natural climatic oscillations ENSO (El Niño - La Niña), AMO, NAO, PDO are much more relevant to climate than
CO2 concentration ;
• Glaciers have been receding since the end of the LIA and long before anthropic emission became significant
and no acceleration is noticeable. Arctic and Antarctic, considered jointly, are stable. The North-West Passage,
a good proxy for Arctic sea-ice extent, was open to shipping in 1945, and Amundsen passed through in a sailing
vessel in 1903;
• Extreme events remain within known boundaries;
• The acidification of the oceans is a myth;
• Major volcanic eruptions can be disruptive but are dismissed;
• The biosphere benefits of the little plus that a small increase of CO2 brings and the risk is a lack of CO2 as it is
the gas of life, nothing less!
Climate models are deluding as they give a false impression of established science based on irrefutable computer
calculations, but:
• Climate Models have even failed to account for recent past observations;
• They are tinkered with to try to fit non-scientific objectives ;
• They use data which are adjusted, or tampered with;
• They have little or no validity, beyond the 15 days meteorological forecast horizon, as they are just fit for
political objectives.
Policies that will result from the dogma will be deceitful and will destroy western economies and our ways of living with
no reasons:
• Many people aim benefit surreptitiously from these coercive policies for their personal gains whilst claiming
the “general good of the population” as their motivation;
• Prophets of doom have been making false claims for decades. They bank on the emotional response of the
people to propagate their misguided prophecies that have never come about in reality;
• Deceitful political messages have ignored factual information and deceived people intentionally;
• Thought police have been more active than ever in treating non-conforming scientists as political opponents,
discouraging and/or even silencing them with threats.
You want more political ecology, go on, but do not come back later saying that you have not been warned! Eco-fascism,
as all previous forms of fascisms have demonstrated416 starts with the enactment of a “state of emergency”417, and then
will run its course crushing people for their own sake...
NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.


2
Jordens "eneribudsjett", aka Kiehl/Trenberth energibudsjettet adoptert av IPCC, hvor jorden er gjort flat og solen kald har mange feil, og nå er det påvist at også emisiviteten som er brukt i beregningene er feil:

Plenty Of Physics Flaws Accumulate Into A Huge GHE Hoax: The Dark Secret Behind Surface Emissivity
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/27/plenty-of-physics-flaws-accumulate-into-a-huge-ghe-hoax-the-dark-secret-behind-surface-emissivity/

Kiehl/Trenberth fake science
All this may sound rather complicated and in the end there is still this sour taste of uncertainty. We know for sure however, that surface emissivity, especially with regard to water, is significantly lower than 1. With an emissivity of 0.94 a surface at 288°K emits 367W/m2, not 390. This alone shoves off 23W/m2 from the GHE at least and exposes the infamous “Kiehl, Trenberth diagram”, where they claim 390W/m2 of surface emission (396W/m2 in later editions), as fake science. That’s it!

GHE only 10°K
In other words, if there was no atmosphere, just the surface as it is (excluding any dynamic changes, ceteris paribus), the surface of Earth would take on the temperature of 278.7K. If we allow for N = 1.27, thus the little asymmetry between the curves, the temperature would drop straight by 0.7°K to 278°K . Without an atmosphere, Earth would be 10°K colder.
Or, alternatively spoken, the GHE is 10°K in size!

3
Viktige klimatema / Jordvarmens betydning
« on: 23.03.2020, 20:45:13 »
Vi har tidligere blitt gjort oppmerksom på Zoe Phin av stjakobs her:
What global warming?
http://klimadebatt.com/forum/index.php?topic=1138.msg11700#msg11700

Zoe har mye interessant på bloggen sin https://phzoe.com/author/phzoe/, ikke minst hvilken betydning jordvarmen kan ha:

Measuring Geothermal – A Revolutionary Hypothesis
https://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

It appears that everyone in geophysics already knows the truth. It’s only climate “scientists” who think greenhouse gases raise temperature, and without them the surface would be ~-18°C. Nope, without GHGs or even the Sun, it would be at least 0°C.

Innertier fra Zoe, midt i flat-jord-kald-sol-diagrammet til IPCC, Kiehl&Trenberth, m.fl.
"Tilbakestråling" som er dobbelt så sterk som solen er feil, feil, feil.
"It is dead, but it won't lie down"

5
Ny forskning / 2019 observasjoner og forskning
« on: 03.01.2020, 18:01:28 »
2019 Science Refutes Climate Alarm On Every Front… Shrinking Deserts, Growing Islands, Crumbling Consensus, Weaker Storms, Cooler Arctic Etc. Etc. Etc.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/31/2019-science-refutes-climate-alarm-on-every-front-shrinking-deserts-growing-islands-crumbling-consensus-weaker-storms-cooler-arctic-etc-etc-etc/

65 viktige tema/artikler som tilbakeviser at det er klimakrise i denne link.


6
Viktige klimatema / Klimajuss
« on: 21.12.2019, 16:45:03 »
Vi har en "addvokat" her på forumet.  Det kan by på anledning til å få noen (gratis?  8) ) juridiske betraktninger. 

Det som opptar meg nå er:

Nederlands høyesterett gir regjeringen ordre til radikale CO2-kutt
https://www.document.no/2019/12/21/nederlands-hoyesterett-gir-regjeringen-ordre-til-radikale-co2-kutt/

Det står ingenting om begrunnelsen for dommen, men kan politikerne selv ha skylden ved å lovfeste at den livsviktige plantenæringen CO2 er skadelig og skal reduseres? Da må retten dømmes etter rettens bokstav. Ris til egen bak?
Hva er begrunnelsen og lovanvendelse?

Ellers kan det komme opp mange saker.  Vi har hatt Mann vs Ball, Mann vs Steyn pågår, Peter Ridd vs universitetet han ble sparket fra etc.

7
Generelt / Follow the money
« on: 15.12.2019, 11:53:27 »
Striden på IPCC COP25 er hvem skal betale hvor mye til hvem for en innbilt ikke-eksisterende menneskeskapt klimakrise.

Her er litt info, spesielt om Al Gore som har kjøpt strandeiendom i California etter å ha spådd 20 fot havstigning.  Antar han fikk prisavslag.  Obama også på østkysten av USA (Marthas Wineyard).

Stoking Big Climate Business
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/12/14/stoking-big-climate-business/ 


8
Skråblikk / Sahara forsvinner. Klimakrise.
« on: 14.07.2019, 22:04:18 »
Sahara må reddes fra å forsvinne.  Kamelene er truet.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/14/warmists-red-faced-as-satellite-image-analyses-show-globe-has-greened-markedly-over-past-4-decades/

Sahara shrinks by over 700,000 sq. km.
In 2018, Venter et al. recorded an eight percent increase in timber vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa over the last three decades using satellite imagery.
According to Wikipedia, the Sahara covers an area of around 9.2 million square kilometers. Eight percent of this corresponds to more than 700,000 square kilometers. This is an area almost as large as Germany and France together!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8

9
Viktige klimatema / Tilbakestråling, - eller ikke
« on: 30.06.2019, 22:36:23 »
Tilbakestråling av energi fra en atmosfære med drivhusgasser (IR-aktive gasser som H2O, CO2, CH4,++) er fundamentet i påstanden om at mer CO2 i luften fra forbrenning av fossil energi skal føre til global oppvarming og katastrofale klimaendringer.

Tilbakestrålingsmekanismen er beskrevet i FNs klimapanel IPCC rapport AR5 fig. 2.11, og har en tilbakestrålingsmekanisme som er over dobbelt så sterk som solens innstråling til jordoverflaten.
Denne mekanismen er godtatt av klimaforskere som prof. James Hansen, Kiehl & Trenberth, dr. Roy W. Spencer, prof. em. dr. Richard Lindzen m.fl.  Spencer og Lindzen hevder imidlertid at det er for lite menneskeskapt CO2 i luften til at global temperatur og klima påvirkes (neglisjerbart).
Mange andre forskere og fagpersoner har tilbakevist denne tilbakestrålingsmekanismen som både ufysisk og i strid med termodynamiske lover (f.eks. prof. Claes Johnson).

Den fundamentale feil med tilbakestrålingsmodellen er at man tar en energistrøm fra solen i løpet av 1 - ett - sekund og fordeler den over hele jorden samtidig, mens det egentlig bare er halve jorden som treffes.  Regnskapet for stråling er oppgitt i W/m^2 som er energi J pr. sekund s og kvadratmeter m^2.  Dermed har man brettet ut jorden til en flat flate og redusert solinnstrålingen med en faktor på 4 fordi arealet av en kule er 4 ganger snittet av kulen (4 x pi x r^2).  Når man reduserer solinnstrålingen i løpet av et sekund pr. m^2 på denne måten får man et energiunderskudd når det gjelder å forklare temperaturen på jorden, og det jukser man til med ufysisk tilbakestråling.  Det hjelper ikke å gange med 24 timer (24x60x60s) fordi solen skinner på bare halve jorden for enhver tidsenhet.

En som har skjønt dette og satt opp et annet energibudsjett er
Kevin Kilty: Earth As A Solar Collector
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/12/earth-as-a-solar-collector/ 
Dette energibudsjettet med energi inn på halve jorden og energi ut fra hele jorden til enhver tid virker å være mer realistisk enn IPCC sitt "energibudsjett" hvor de midler energi inn over hele jorden og da må finne opp en tilbakestrålingsmekanisme.  Kilty finner ut at effektiv emissivitet fra jorden gjennom atmosfæren må justeres til 0,61 for at hans budsjett skal stemme med global temperatur på 288 K.  Atmosfærens effekt er altså det samme som å redusere emissiviteten. 
"6. Conclusion
The simple model of Earth as a solar collector shows conclusively that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere lower the effective emissivity of the Earth, which in turn raises the mean temperature of the surface in order to achieve energy balance." 
Kilty viser til Spencer, men jeg kan ikke skjønne annet enn at de to har forskjellige modeller; Kilty lar solen skinne på halve jorden i ett sekund, mens Spencer fordeler solinnstrålingen på hele jorden i det sekundet. Spencer trenger derfor mer "tilbakestråling" (større drivhuseffekt) for å få riktig global temperatur.

Astrofysiker Joseph Postma har også slaktet flat-jord-kald-sol "energibudsjettet" f.eks. her:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/06/06/real-time-physics-debunks-climate-theory/  
Postma fordeler også solinnstrålingen over halve jorden. 

Philip Mulholland and Stephen Wilde tar også utgangspunkt i at jorden har en side med dag (sollys) og en med natt i artikkelen
Return to Earth
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/27/return-to-earth/ 
Soloppvarming skaper konveksjon som også fører til adiabatiske prosesser med avkjøling av stigende ekspanderende luft og motsatt oppvarming av synkende luft under kompresjon.
Mulholland & Wilde viser at tilbakestrålings-forklaringen til Kiehl & Trenberth er fullstendig feil, og avslutter:
"We are able to quantify the degree of adiabatic lit surface energy partition in favour of the air by using the process of inverse modelling, a standard geoscience mathematical technique.  The issue of atmospheric opacity then becomes a passive process, and the purported atmospheric action of greenhouse heating by back-radiation can be discounted.  We believe that our modelling work presented here should lead to a fundamental reassessment of the atmospheric processes relating to energy partition, retention and flow within the Earth’s climate system." 

Dette burde legge CO2-hysteriet død, men for mange økonomiske og politiske tungvektere har solgt seg til den religionen, så hysteriet vil desverre fortsette.

10
Modeller eller observasjoner / Modeller er ubrukelige
« on: 09.06.2019, 11:33:01 »
New Study Shows Climate Models Not Even Close To Be Useful For Policymaking. “Precipitation Remains The Achilles’ Heel “
https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/08/new-study-shows-climate-models-not-even-close-to-be-useful-for-policymaking-precipitation-remains-the-achilles-heel/

Noen sitater:
It turns out that both GCMs and RCMs appear still limited to provide practical estimates of the world climates even for present climate conditions. The modeling of precipitation remains the Achilles’ heel of models and thus of multidimensional indices, which are very sensitive to this variable. The conclusion is that model outputs at regional scale need to be taken with extreme caution without venturing into informing policies presenting potentially large societal impacts. 

11
Generelt / Brev til statsminister
« on: 14.03.2019, 09:23:08 »
BREV TIL DEN DANSKE STATSMINISTER fra prof. em. Johannes Krüger. Medlem av Klimarealistenes vitenskapelige råd.
MÅ LESES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lignende brev vil bli sendt til norske og svenske regjeringer også. Fantastisk god oppsummering.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yxp521fhxn7294i/Brev%20til%20den%20danske%20statsminister.pdf?dl=0&fbclid=IwAR23Pjnd0xXcHNqTDB4NGfh9SCzn27e6frgwShC07BQCmBkfVj_lV7Yg328

12
Generelt / Vitenskapens sørgelige utvikling
« on: 08.01.2019, 22:21:24 »
Aliens Cause Global Warming

Micheal Crichton describes the fundamental political problem of climate change: it is a religion promoted by nutcases who dismiss facts, logic, and science that contradicts their environmental belief. I have taken the liberty to bold some of his sentences to make his message more clear. â?? Ed

by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

My topic today sounds
humorous but unfortunately, I am serious.
I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global
warming. Or to speak
more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief
in global warming.

En skikkelig avsløring av "fake science"
Se mer her:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-authors/michael-crichton/aliens-cause-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR2WhrdEoPBJ101sNwDi1nXPT6LC09lh9CND9htfmemsaIIyH7elRrIz4w4

13
ALLE gasser absorberer og emitterer IR stråling

Claim: Real-World Spectral Measurements Show The â??Greenhouse Theory Is Wrongâ?? â?? ALL Gases Are GHGs
http://notrickszone.com/2018/11/12/real-world-spectral-measurements-show-the-greenhouse-theory-is-wrong-all-gases-are-ghgs/

Enda en spiker i klimakista:

Macdonald, 2018
Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory

Abstract: 
â??Greenhouse theoryâ??s premise, nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation, presents a paradox; it contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics â?? where all matter above absolute 0° Kelvin radiates IR photons.  It was hypothesized these gases do radiate at quantum mechanics predicted spectra, and these spectra are observed by IR spectroscopyâ??s complement instrument, Raman spectroscopy; and N2 spectra can be demonstrated to absorb IR radiation by experiment, and application o the N2-CO2 laser.  It was found the gases do possess quantum predicted emission spectra at 2338 cm−¹ and 1156 cm−¹ respectively, both well within the IR range of the EMS, and are only observed â?? and their temperatures accurately measured â?? by Raman spectrometers.  Raman spectrometers measure, more accurately, the Keeling curve, and have application with meteorological Lidars and planetary atmospheric analysis.  The N2-CO2 Laser showed â?? contrary to current greenhouse theory â?? N2 absorbs electrons or (IR) photons at its â?? metastable â??long-lastingâ?? â?? spectra mode.  It was argued atmospheric CO2, as a law, is heated by the same mechanism as the N2-CO2 laser: nitrogen (first) and the entire atmosphere absorbs IR radiation directly from the Sun, just as it heats water on the ocean surface.  With these findings, greenhouse theory is wrong â?? all gases are GHGs [greenhouse gases] â?? and needs review.â?

14
Andre emner enn klima / Lysets hastighet
« on: 23.10.2018, 10:18:44 »
Lysets hastighet, c, på 300 000 km/s er antatt å være høyeste oppnåelige hastighet, - inntil nå.
Mer energirik elektromagnetisk stråling enn synlig lys (UV, X-rays etc.) har vist seg å ha vesentlig høyere hastighet.
Det kan forklare hvorfor Lucky Luke kan trekke raskere enn skyggen sin og treffe den med f.eks. gamma strÃ¥ler  ;D

Se:
Revolutionary breakthrough in modern physics
https://principia-scientific.org/revolutionary-breakthrough-in-modern-physics/

Summary
Albert Einsteinâ??s equation E = mc2 in his Special Theory of Relativity, 1905 is of no avail in determining velocity of any elementary particle or radiation. Moreover, Einsteinâ??s assertion that nothing goes faster than light, which did not allow scientists to accept superluminal velocities as real for over a century, proved wrong in his article. Purely due to Einsteinâ??s assertion, neutrinos going faster than light from OPERA experiment was not accepted as a discovery by luminaries, despite no substantial evidence for the denial. Immediately in 2011, the author commented in the journal Nature saying neutrinos go faster than light by virtue of high energies and explained by a newly proposed equation E = V2. In this article, it is termed Padmanabha Raoâ??s equation. Based on this equation, the current article provides four definite evidences unfolding that the velocity of an elementary particle such as an electron having mass, a neutrino with negligibly small mass or of an electromagnetic radiation with zero mass depends upon its energy or wavelength. In brief, each wavelength or energy has a specific velocity. What I claim is true, much of the modern physics is to be reviewed.

Conclusion
The author reports a revolutionary breakthrough is modern physics, as the velocity of an E.M. radiation or an elementary particle such as electron or neutrino depends upon its energy, according to the Padmanabha Raoâ??s equation E = V2. As per the new definition, any particle or radiation with the energy or wavelength exceeding that of the violet light go at superluminal velocities. Therefore, electrons that cause Cherenkov light also go at superluminal velocities. In 2013, this equation played the key role in my discovery of X-rays and Bharat Radiation (12.87 to 31 nm) going at superluminal velocities based on the measurements of solar spectra made by Woods et al. Conclusively, UV, EUV, beta particles, gamma rays, X-rays, and neutrinos all go at superluminal velocities.



15
Aktører og hendelser / Komiske ALIas Emeritus
« on: 03.07.2018, 21:11:15 »
Komiske ALIas Emiritus må være en av de mest hyklerske personer jeg har opplevd.
Han ser ikke bjelken i sitt eget øye, men pÃ¥peker flisen i andres.  Forsøker Ã¥ mobbe Joanne Nova med utsagnet "klimaslufsa" for Ã¥ samle inn litt penger Ã¥ drive opplysningsvirksomhet for, mens klimahysterikerne har sugerør i statskassene i mange klimareligiøse land. Emeritus-tosken mener det i tillegg er umoralsk Ã¥ be om litt støtte, men overser "fakegate" og "climategate 1 & 2". Se:

BINBS Professor Slams The â??Ethically Questionable Persuasion Tacticsâ?? Of The â??Believersâ?? Who Market AGW
http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/02/oslo-professor-the-deceptive-tactics-used-by-agw-believers-mark-an-epic-marketing-failure/
In a new paper published in the Journal of Social Marketing, Dr. Erik L. Olson spotlights the â??Fakegateâ? scandal as a salient example of the unethical and deceptive practices used by those who promote dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) â?? aâ??difficult-to-sellâ? cause. It is suggested that the ethically questionable tactics employed by AGW â??marketersâ? (i.e., falsely hyping â??the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threatsâ?) have failed and should be resisted.

Han var så dum at han røpet sin egen identitet i et innlegg, men likevel ville han ha innlegget slettet.
Man blir jo litt nysgjerrig pÃ¥ en slik kverulantisk mobber (som pÃ¥ Carbomontanus aka Kullberg) sÃ¥ jeg googlet vedkommende og det jeg fant var ikke særlig flatterende.  Fyren burde skjemmes, men har Ã¥penbart ikke skamvett.  Det er ett av kriteriene for Ã¥ være psykopat. Selv er jeg blitt fjerndiagnostisert av Emeritus for Ã¥ ha tourettes og blitt truet med Ã¥ bli spist.  NÃ¥ mener han at jeg er en idiot som har betalt $2500 for Ã¥ bli "Platinum Member" i JoNovas fond. 
Akk ja, - mot dumheten kjemper gudene forgjeves.

Pages: [1] 2 3