Interview of Denis Rancourt by Jamarl Thomas

Democrats & Republicans Use Identity Politics As Cover For Economic Devastation...

Geo-Economics and Geo-Politics Drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalization and Social Engineering: Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as State doctrines

“Geo-Economics and Geo-Politics Drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalization and Social Engineering: Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as State doctrines”,

by Denis G. Rancourt,

Ontario Civil Liberties Association, OCLA Report 2019-1, April 2019.

LINK TO REPORT:
http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/OCLA_Report_2019-1.pdf

Can't leave scientists alone with science

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD


(This article was first published on my climate blog.)


If the generalized global warming fever and "climate change" hysteria has taught societal observers anything it is that you cannot leave scientists alone with science.

The scientific enterprise is embedded, and scientists are manufactured service intellectuals.

Two outcomes are possible.

In the first extreme scenario, those scientists that are mainly responsible to recruit young minds and to fabricate the illusion of research freedom are given freedom within the framework of professional advancement based solely on peer-reviewed publication output. The result is irrelevant gibberish, as any institutional analyst would predict.

In the other end-point scenario, research funding is tied to professional advancement and is determined by government agencies and corporate interests. The outcome is again precisely as would be predicted: the research output exactly satisfies the contractual conditions.

This is true whether one is patenting a genetically modified organism, or approving a new "non-addictive" pain medication, or developing a next-generation delivery system for nuclear warheads.

The on-going episode of global warming "science" has illustrated a structural flaw in this otherwise functioning state-science system: If scientists are given career-enhancing supra-national political instruments to create exaggerated relevance of their work in driving a globalist agenda, then they will take the opportunity and run.

Such runaway irrelevance is already known to occur on its own within a career-centered science network (the so-called Gold Effect). [1]. With the climate scare example, we see that the phenomenon is highly amplified when there is a strong corporate or institutional and propaganda-supported driver.

Usually, societal observers and ordinary citizens would not notice. In this case however, the shrill alarmism that has been generated, propagated by the mainstream media, and condoned by the science establishment, is stratospheric. The independent-thinking blogger can detect the tenuous nature of the claims of everything from imminent human species extinction to continental flooding to engulfing forest fires to unprecedented mega-storms to war-causing droughts, and so on. [2].

You can't leave scientists alone with science. Thankfully, in this case, the propaganda runaway has caused the insanity to be palpable, influential domestic forces are not buying in, and a large segment of the middle-class is not swallowing it; species extinction or no species extinction, bumblebee migration or no bumblebee migration.

The heroes in this story -- in this unique and historic example where a large segment of society has correctly perceived a widespread profiteering construct -- are the bloggers and vloggers, the domestic industrial interests that resist finance globalization, the USA political networks that reject global governance, and, of course, the exceptional scientists that refused to compromise intellectual integrity and publicly said so.

All of this, in circumstances where the relevant planetary physics is straightforward, if anybody cared. [3].


Endnotes

[1] See the description of the Gold Effect in:  Rancourt, D.G., Cancer arises from stress-induced breakdown of tissue homeostasis, Research Gate (December 2015), 25 pages. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1304.7129

[2] My critical review of the global-warming "science" of forest fires may be one of the best illustrations of how bad the science is, as I document the "runaway" recorded in the scientific literature: Rancourt, D.G., Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2, Research Gate (May 2016), 18 pages. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087

[3] Rancourt, D.G., Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect, my climate blog (June 2011), http://climateguy.blogspot.ca/2011/06/radiation-physics-constraints-on-global.html

Denis Rancourt's articles and interviews on climate are listed HERE.
Links to all my articles are HERE.

Africa and USA global dominance

AFRICA ::: The US-global elite is losing Africa to China and BRICS. The increasing backlash will include more propaganda pressure to commit more US-led efforts to bring more "democracy" and "human rights" to the continent, including saving women, preventing environmental destruction, fighting terrorism, and managing against global warming... all the usual propaganda scams to justify massive CIA, NGO, and military presence -- for local regime control to the benefit of globalist finance and corporate (extraction) interests.

(See an example of the said propaganda here: “U.S. cutbacks undermine efforts to keep Africa’s population in check”, Globe and Mail, April 17, 2017. Too easy to be critical of this one as solely racist, rather than as tentative propaganda in the service of USA globalism, IMO.)

Who is Daniel J. Levitin?

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD


Who is Daniel J. Levitin, and why is he saying false things about me?

Mr. Levitin is a university professor, a psychologist, and the author of the 2016 book "Weaponized Lies: How to Think Critically in the Post-truth Era".

Wikipedia states the following about Mr. Levitin's book: "His interest in writing the guide [was] to help people develop techniques to distinguish factual information from that which may be distorted, out-of-date, unscientific or in error".

Therefore, Mr. Levitin presents a goal of wanting to be factual and accurate, and of not misleading.

In an article he penned on April 4, 2017, entitled "It’s time to stop letting so-called “experts” comment on subjects they know nothing about", Mr. Levitin had this to say about me:

Scientists like myself are partly to blame here. When one of our own goes on TV or in front of the press and starts making false claims, we don’t stand up and denounce them. We figure it’s not our personal problem. But it is. In this age of overwhelming untruth, pseudo-expertise is a problem that has to become every individual’s responsibility.

Nowhere is this more clear than among the climate-change deniers—almost entirely pseudo-experts—who contradict ample scientific evidence and lend support to devastating public policies. The list of leading climate-change deniers includes Denis Rancourt, who holds a PhD in physics and is an expert in magnetic field theory; Freeman Dyson, another physicist; Harrison Schmitt, a geologist; and Myron Ebell, who has a master’s in political theory and no advanced research degree. What about the people who hold PhD’s in—you know—climate science? Among this group, according to a number of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, 97% agree or more that climate change is real and man-made.

Thus, Mr. Levitin makes false statements and misleads by omission, as follows.

I will mostly leave aside Mr. Levitin's device of casting scientific questioning of CO2-alarmism as "climate-change denial" because that is simply wrong for an intellectual alleging to be concerned with truth. Everyone agrees that there are transitions beween different regional and global climate regimes in the history of our planet. Here is proof that I certainly do: "Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2".

Mr. Levitin states that I am "an expert in magnetic field theory" (sic). I know what a "magnetic field" is. I know what a "theory" is. But I don't know what "magnetic field theory" is. There are "field theories" in several areas of physics, but "magnetic" is not one of them. If it is, then I don't know about it, so I could not possibly be an expert in it as asserted by Mr. Levitin.

If Mr. Levitin had taken the care to examine my public Google Scholar page, he would have immediately noticed that my most cited paper is in an area of theoretical spectroscopy, which is evidence of my ability to understand resonant scattering of infrared radiation from so-called greenhouse gases. He would have noticed that my second most cited paper is in environmental science "Nanogoethite is the dominant reactive oxyhydroxide phase in lake and marine sediments", in which I was the research director. And he would have noticed that many of my most cited papers are in environmental science, including carbon cycling in sediments and soils, related to aquatic sediments, soil evolution, environmental bacterial reactions, hydrothermal fluid input into sea water, and so on.

Alas, Mr. Levitin did not see or chose not to mention any of that, but instead characterizes me as a "physicist" (solely on the basis of my 1984 PhD) in the fictitious area of "magnetic field theory". In contrast, Mr. Levitin characterizes himself on his website as a "scientist, musician, author and record producer", quite a universal man despite having obtained his PhD in one specialized field.

I think that Mr. Levitin was trying to make the incorrect point that I am not qualified to comment about climate, and that I should not be a "leading climate-change denier". Well, the only way to establish whether I am qualified to comment about climate is to examine the substance and scientific value of my actual work about climate.

But wait. Is Mr. Levitin qualified to judge my calculations about the physics of radiation balance applied to the planet earth? Did Mr. Levitin dismiss my calculations on the basis that they were made public and discussed openly with leading climate scientists rather than published in a scientific journal: "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect"?

If Mr. Levitin dismisses scientific work by an appeal to authority (of scientific journals), or by an appeal to majority view (his quoting of the "97% consensus"), is that not in opposition to his book about the need for independent thought?

An equally interesting question, which Mr. Levitin might consider pondering moving forward, is "How many in the alleged '97%' understand and can practice the physics of planetary radiation balance?" Although, my evidence is anecdotal, I would confidently assert "not many".

More importantly, Mr. Levitin misleads his readers by omission. He concentrates on climate "deniers" that he incorrectly implies are not qualified to comment, but he leaves out any mention of the many "deniers" who are well-established formally-trained climate scientists. Here are examples of a few from many he could have mentioned:

• Judith Curry (Georgia Institute of Technology)
• Richard Lindzen (MIT)
• Hendrik Tennekes (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute)
• Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics)
• Craig D. Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
• Roger A. Pielke Jr. (University of Colorado Boulder)
• Yuri Izrael (Russian Academy of Sciences; a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001-2008)

I would suggest to Mr. Levitin that he reset his ability to seek and communicate truth. If he has some time, he could practice by analyzing the arguments recently (March 29, 2017) presented to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:



Denis Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science, and writes social theory articles. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism, and a regular contributor to Dissident Voice. His articles and interviews about the science and politics of climate linked here.

Beware Anti-“Pseudo-Science” Agitation

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

I was asked to write this short article to be published in the January newsletter of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS): see SAFS Newsletter, Number 75, January 2017, pages 8-10.  A longer version of the article, with references, will be published in a 2017 SAFS conference proceeding.


If we accept an operational definition of “pseudo-science” as whatever any critic of so-called “pseudo-science” probably means, then vehement criticisms of the said “pseudo-sciences” are generally made for one of four reasons:

1. To invalidate unworthy ideas, as part of the normal course of science itself — a classic example is the 1989 case of “cold fusion” and its fallout, in the field of condensed matter physics and chemistry
2. To celebrate and maintain the middle-class belief that modern society is based on scientific knowledge; to fight against idolatry in the realm of ideas; to participate in improving public discourse and consciousness
3. To provide false legitimacy for problematic areas of establishment science that survive owing to systemic financial and professional interests — the preeminent example being establishment medicine (see below)
4. To attack a legitimate criticism of a dominant scientific position (collateral attack by appeal to authority or “consensus”, using denigration)

Thus, the full array of motives for engaging in the sport of “pseudo-science” bashing spans a spectrum from good scientific practice to ordinary social behaviour in structured society to support for organized fraud to outright base competition that is incompatible with the science ideal. Here, I outline the last three reasons, as follows. A longer version of this article, with references, will be published elsewhere.

Popular support for establishment science as state religion

Given the epidemic lack of understanding of science concepts, it is not surprizing that there is a wide array of beliefs that are at odds with the school lessons about science, including: astrology, “intelligent design”, “free energy”, “orgone”, “creation biology”, and homeopathy.

Realistically, virtually all citizens are entirely unable to critically evaluate what we take as being scientific truth, regarding public policy and regulatory questions. Thus, “public education” means state propaganda. We are reduced to “scientists have concluded” or “there is a scientific consensus that” and so on.

Systemically, from an operational perspective, establishment science is a state religion. It is not anchored in empirical evidence that can be evaluated by the non-expert individual using reason and intellectual discernment. It frames and supports the established order. It provides legitimacy to government programs. It purports to appease our deepest quests for meaning, and supplies a creationist mythology (cosmology, string theory, and so on). Its high priests are venerated and occupy top ranks in the class hierarchy.

Ordinary well-educated citizens have invested in many beliefs delivered by establishment science, and have integrated these beliefs into their personal identities. It is therefore natural that middle-class and professional-class individuals have a learned and reflexive impulse to attack “pseudo-science”. These attacks can be individual or can coalesce via the animal behavioural collective phenomenon known as mobbing.

Legitimacy for problematic areas of establishment science

A stunning example is the organized barrage of criticism and legislation against “alternative medicine” that is largely benign and harmless, intended to imply that establishment medicine — said to be scientifically sound — is the only trustworthy system for repairing individual health.

The problem here is that establishment medicine is anything but shaped by objectively evaluated empirical evidence, and anything but scientifically sound. The eminent medical researcher Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis has demonstrated that “most published research findings are false”.

In North America, between 6% and 8% of citizens will be killed by medical errors of all types. In just one area of establishment medicine, Professor Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche has come to the point of flatly concluding that long term use of psychiatric drugs cause more harm than good. In his words, based on a decade of research: “Psychiatric drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world, as I show below. Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal. ... Overstated benefits and understated deaths ...”

Attacking legitimate criticisms of establishment positions

Climate science has major domestic and geopolitical implications. It is routine to attack critics as immoral or crazy, and for influential actors and groups to seek legal instruments of intimidation and enforcement. The Wikipedia list of “pseudo-sciences” includes “climate change denial”.

This is a remarkable inclusion because several high-profile establishment climate scientists expressly reject the so-called “consensus”, including: Judy Curry (Georgia Institute of Technology), Richard Lindzen (MIT), Hendrik Tennekes (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute), Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), Craig D. Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change), and many others. Furthermore, detailed studies contradict claims that industrial-era CO2 has had a causal effect on climate and extreme-weather events.

Conclusion

Agitation against “pseudo-science” has two illegitimate interrelated societal mechanisms: Institutionally, it is propaganda (by word and by action) intended to legitimize and impose establishment science. Individually, it serves to preserve the identity-tied personal investment in belief of the teachings of establishment science.

For those of us who cling to the ideal of the university, a review of anti-“pseudo-science” agitation should lead us to support a strict meaning of academic freedom, which does not admit institutional suppression or containment of any chosen research direction and expression. We must trust that actual freedoms of research and expression lead to the best that society can be, through the discourse that arises, whatever that discourse will be.


Denis Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and writes social theory articles. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism, and a regular contributor to Dissident Voice.

Climate stupidity and human survival

By Denis G. Rancourt

This article accompanies a 2-hour public lecture I gave at the University of Ottawa on March 27, 2015, entitled "The science and geopolitics of climate change": VIDEO-LINK-Part-1, VIDEO-LINK-Part-2. The physics calculations of Earth's radiation balance described in Part-1 of the talk are from this paper: Rancourt, D.G., "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect", archive.org (3 December 2011). Links to my articles and interviews about climate are HERE.

The human animal has an instinct to identify potential dangers and to warn others. It is a built-in survival mechanism of any animal that lives in a group. And it is a strong and constant activity, re-enforced by environmental stressors.

This plays out on several time scales, from the immediate in the case of a potential physical assault, to the weekly in checking the weather forecast, to seasonal in preparing for winter, to life-long in planning for inevitable aging, to leaving good things for our grandchildren...

It is in our fiber to look ahead and to plan ahead, especially in the face of foreseeable or detected dangers.

The whole process can spin out of control when the danger is difficult to perceive yet could be lethal. Think of baboons who are on the lookout for a stalking lion. The slightest shadow movement can make them scream and run for the trees. It's a tense and highly volatile situation.

At this stage in our evolution we are faced with a pathological extension of our collective survival reflex, which is entirely fabricated by our high priests (government funded scientists and talking heads).

If these high priests were not here to tell us that the atmospheric concentration of the minor constituent CO2 is increasing, and that "global mean surface temperature" has increased by some 0.5 C in the last 100 years, then we would never know about these imperceptible causes of our certain eventual collective death as a species.

The priests explain that our certain extinction will occur from a rising sea level and changing regional climates. That these changes will cause mass migrations, ecosystem collapses, agricultural failures, famines, and disease. They also inform us that those who will suffer most are the most vulnerable inhabitants of the planet, as though this were a new feature of the effects of natural disasters.

Therefore, they urge, we must tax carbon emissions, apply cap and trade, and create a global carbon economy to limit CO2 in the atmosphere. And who better to coordinate it all than the World Bank, IMF, and such, given their stellar records in managing equitable development on this little rock. (Or is that economic enforcement of US regime supremacy?)

Forgive me for saying, but this all sounds rather nutso to me.

Nothing could be more like a religion than this crazy movement. We are expected to accept that an essential and growth-limiting plant nutrient (CO2: [1]) is a toxic pollutant, that the world will be destroyed because of our collective and intrinsic wickedness of emitting CO2, via floods no less.   

Take a deep breath (exhale if you dare) and allow me to state a few facts that might help put things into perspective.

The planet has been teeming with life for billions of years.

During that time, the global mean temperature has almost always been some 10 C higher than in the present geologic anomaly [2], in a manner uncorrelated with CO2 concentration [3]. That is the history of this same planet that we live on. During that time, the CO2 concentration has typically been 10 times higher than today's value, and it has rarely been as low as modern values, nor has it ever been lower than modern values.

There is no reason to believe that humans would not fare well on an Earth that is 10 C warmer, never mind 1 or 2 C. Land value would increase in the polar regions, and there would be intense reforestation and forest densification of the equatorial regions, with little possibility for controlling growth where it is hot and humid.

From what we know of our planet and the history of its biosphere, warming is not going to kill us off any time soon. None of the known mass extinctions (a relative term) in Earth's history can be reliably attributed to "sustained warming", whereas ice ages that have occurred recently (during human presence on the planet, in the last 1 M years) are expected to correspond to periods of decreased planetary life density, but saw mammals and human populations completely adapt. Basically, neither warming or cooling can kill us by any know mechanism ever observed. If anything, the opposite of "killer warmth" is observed on today's Earth, where both human populations and living biomass are concentrated near equatorial latitudes:

Therefore, we still have much time left to achieve human extinction by much more direct means than warming (or cooling) of any kind. We also have a lot of time and occasions to practice accommodating mass migrations caused by our wars and economic violence, in order to prepare for the "climate migrations".

Somehow there seems to be more public-opinion, political, and lobbying effort in implementing and developing the instruments of a global carbon economy than in developing the instruments to prevent wars of aggression, to cope with the consequences of natural disasters, to stop displacing and dispossessing local inhabitants, to enforce the Geneva Conventions, to stop the wholesale destruction of entire nations (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran...?), to respect international law, ... not to mention reparations to the survivors of recent slavery, genocide, dispossession, and crass exploitation.

Rather than widespread vehement and actuated insistence on democratic control of local resources and institutions, based on individual realities on the ground, instead we have a sizable yet ineffective population of vocal do-gooders enthralled in spasmodic incantations against atmospheric CO2 emissions, as part of a Gaia-inspired religion perverted by the Christian concept of original sin; all of which de facto supports the carbon globalization schemes engineered by the US regime to attempt to constrain their emerging competitors and extort a development tax.

When has "globalization" ever been about justice, or about anything other than economic predation? When have good-will global efforts ever had any significant positive impact? [4]

Why pollute local struggles and liberation of the individual with tenuous claims about imperceptible dangers? And why put so much energy into insisting that the danger from CO2 is real? This seems like a classic example of seeking an overarching religious belief "solution" to real local problems that one cannot or will not confront.

"Climate justice" needs to be "justice". The comfortable-middle-class fetish for carbon co-opts the analysis, defuses the thrust for defending identity-tied interests, and sends legitimate demands straight into the atmosphere. Or, at best, it is simply irrelevant to real struggles.

In the main population, if all the fanatics that are screaming that the sky is falling would scream to stop the war machine that occupies every corner of the globe, then we could start moving away from the real manufactured disasters that wash over the planet continuously, which don't require satellite spectrometers to detect.

Instead of asking whether we can detect warming, whether intense weather events are actually more frequent, whether species extinction rates can reliably be measured, and so on, why not address the obvious: Humans are exploiting and terrorizing other humans, human conditions are constantly being attacked, and natural habitat is being destroyed for corporate benefit by eliminating local sovereignty.

Why turn to sanitized and intractable up-in-the-air questions when injustice and actual destruction is all around us? And why oh why pretend that humans can manage global carbon fluxes, manage the radiation balance of the planet, and control climate?

It's a planet!

If we are going to have a global religion, why not believe that justice leads to both short-term and long-term safety? Not justice that is planned and given to us, but justice that we acquire through struggle and liberation.

On the other hand if you must be irrelevant and must have your carbon fetish, then at least put it into a planetary perspective [5]:

• The present (2010) rate of fossil fuel burning (0.8 x 10^13 kg-C/y) is 8% of global primary production (GPP)
• The latter plant growth (GPP) uses only 0.07% of solar light striking the planet
• Thus, fossil fuel burning represents 8% of 0.07% = 0.006% of solar energy rate of input (the sun is a sun and the Earth is a planet...)
• The CO2 production from the burning of fossil fuel is approximately equal to that from human and domestic animal breathing
• The combined biomass of humans and domestic animals is 0.04% of Earth's living biomass
• Ants have transformed the planet's surface and its ecology far more than have humans
• The total amount of fossil fuel burned to date (historically to 2010) by humans is 3.7 x 10^14 kg-C, less than half of the carbon contained in the atmosphere as a minor constituent gas
• Dissolved CO2 in the oceans is 50 times more than the total amount in the atmosphere
• Living and dead biomass-carbon (in soils, sediments, plant-cover, etc.) is probably much greater than carbon as CO2 in air and water
• Thus, the total post-industrial fossil fuel burned to date represents less than 1% of the planet's global bio-available and exchangeable carbon, not to mention geological sources
• As such, atmospheric CO2 is readily exchanged with and buffered by compartments of labile carbon that are much larger than the atmosphere, via flux mechanisms that science is barely beginning to understand (e.g., [1])

Endnotes

[1] Keenan et al., "Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise", Nature 499, 324-327 (18 July 2013); Donohue et al., "Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments", Geophysical Research Letters 40(12), 3031-3035 (28 June 2013).

[2] Wikipedia article, "Geologic temperature record", accessed May, 2015, see "Overall view". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

[3] Rothman, D.H., "Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years", Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 99(7), 4167-4171, (2 April 2002). http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

[4] Rancourt, D.G., "Some big lies of science", Activist Teacher (8 June 2010). http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html

[5] Rancourt, D.G., "Is the burning of fossil fuel a significant planetary activity?", Activist Teacher (21 August 2010). http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2010/08/is-burning-of-fossil-fuel-significant.html ; Rancourt, D.G., "CO2 emission from fossil fuel burning is not more than from breathing", Activist Teacher (22 August 2010). http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2010/08/co2-emission-from-fossil-fuel-burning.html


Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, including in the area of environmental science, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. 

Climate science is a "Zombie science"

By Denis G. Rancourt

Dr. Bruce G. Charlton recently (2012) wrote an informed and polemical book entitled "Not even trying... The Corruption of real science". In this book, Dr. Charlton defines what he calls "Zombie science".

I submit that Dr. Charlton's definition of a "Zombie science" eminently applies to today's climate science. I predict that today's climate science enterprise will, in some future, be universally adopted as a textbook example of Zombie science by historians of science, who will emerge in a next generation of honest academics.

Here is the definition of Zombie science given in the on-line version of Dr. Charlton's book:

When a branch of science based on incoherent, false or phoney theories is serving a useful but non-scientific purpose it may be kept-going by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose non-scientific interests it serves.

For example, if a branch of pseudo-science based on a phoney theory is nonetheless valuable for political purposes (e.g. to justify a government intervention such as a new tax) or for marketing purposes (to provide the rationale for a marketing campaign) then real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves.

Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like real science.

But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds.

*
Real science is coherent – and testable (testing being a matter of checking coherence with the result of past and future observations).

Real science finds its use, and gets its validation, from common sense evaluation and being deployed in technology.

Real science is validated (contingently) insofar as it leads to precise predictions that later come true; and leads to new ways of solving pressing problems and making useful changes in the world.

But zombie science is not coherent, therefore cannot be tested; its predications are vague or in fact retrospective summaries rather than predictions.

*
In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda; trading on the prestige which real science used-to have and which zombie science falsely claims for itself.

Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses rhetorical attempts to shape opinion.

Furthermore, most zombie sciences are supported by moral imperatives – to doubt the zombie science is therefore labelled as wicked, reckless, a tool of sinister and destructive forces.

To challenge zombie science is not merely to attack the livelihoods of zombie scientists (which, considering their consensus-based power, is itself dangerous) – but opens the attacker to being labelled a luddite, demagogue, anti-science, a denialist!

For all its incoherence and scientific worthlessness, zombie science therefore often comes across in the sound bite world of the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which in actuality is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.

In contrast to objective reality, the warmist spin is spectacular.

Climate science is overwhelmingly supported by the establishment and by global finance which is hard at work installing a  multi-trillion-dollar carbon economy for its profit and to assist in extortion via a development tax against any regime that insists on economic independence. The public opinion battle appears to have been largely won. Valiant resistance is tolerated as a quaint demonstration of freedom of expression in the US. All other civil and societal sectors are aligned, by virtue of the mega-snow-job that equates ecological destruction with CO2 gas (a growth limiting plant nutrient), as opposed to its actual causes. (The cause of ecological destruction is ecological destruction!)

It is glaringly obvious that carbon "logic" is a major emerging instrument of global control and fortified exploitation that, like US dollar standing in the purchase of strategic resources, will be backed with military might. Yet, "deniers", including dedicated top scientists, are targeted as pure evil, being paid by destructive interests.

The holy apparatus of "peer review" is advanced as a truth detection instrument, where it is objectively known to be an establishment opinion imposition structure, which was rejected as such by none other than Albert Einstein, and which did not exist when science made virtually all of its greatest advances.

The climate models are opaque and not testable, and when the "predictions" from these models fail dramatically, multiple clouds of spin erupt from both the modellers and those who generated the "measurements". Most historic climatologists are intimidated into sheepish silence. Government scientists mostly tow the line. Official politically contrived reports (IPCC, etc.) fall over themselves to declare a CO2 crisis, year after year.

By contrast, simple and rigorous physics calculations conclusively show that other factors are orders of magnitude more important than CO2 in determining mean global surface temperature. The "other factors" (land use, water management) are made subservient to the CO2 gospel. 

I mean, it should be thoroughly embarrassing to all professional climate scientists. How can they be so silent?

And there are armies of opportunists. The ecologists cite imperceptible global warming rather than denounce direct habitat destruction, which would put them into harsh conflict with immediate "economic interests". Green energy and environmental remediation (carbon storage, etc.) charlatans are only too happy to accept funding for bogus and unsustainable technologies. And on and on.

When global finance has a project that aligns with global geopolitical interests, present First World civil society and all professional employees are, in turn, easily aligned. At least for now, dissidents will continue to be mobbed by hoards of zombies.

***

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He practiced various areas of science (environmental geochemistry, soil science, spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, materials science) which were funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. His articles and views about climate science include: LINK.

Wrongheadedness of scientific consensus fetishism in climate politics

By Denis G. Rancourt


It pains me to have to write this. It would pain me more to let it go without some kind of a fight.

In this post, I pick up a recent "blowhard" peer-reviewed experts' article [1] published by a most prestigious publisher and show that its two presumed-established starting assumptions -- that global warming is directly perceivable in increasing extreme weather events, and that there is a scientific consensus on global warming -- are at best groundless, and wrong, if the evidence matters at all.


Consider a recent article published in Nature Climate Change, entitled "The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming" [1]. The authors of the paper lament:

Moreover, despite widespread agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is occurring only two-thirds (66%) of Americans adults correctly understand that 'global warming is happening', and nearly half of these are only 'somewhat sure' (42%) or 'not at all sure' (5%) of their answer; moreover, only a third believe that they or their families will be harmed.

The authors go on to tentatively explain this US phenomenon as:

Current theories of cognitive science suggest that learning about abstractions requires analytical information processing, which involves cognitive effort-- a scarce commodity, which people expend sparingly.

Given the degree of certainty that these authors possess in complex areas that my own feeble (and scientifically trained) mind has difficulty evaluating, I decided to look up their main supporting references. After all, the reviewers at the Nature publications are no slouches when it comes to insisting that one cite the most reliable sources.

For their introductory statement:

Climate change is affecting every region by increasing the frequency and/or intensity of heat waves, droughts, precipitation, floods, hurricanes, and forest fires, and through impacts on ecosystems and species, including human health.

our authors cite Karl et al. [2], which is the 2009 Report of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The latter Report is a large collaborative efforts to review the relevant published articles in order to draw conclusions (sound familiar?). This Report's 2nd key "finding" is:

Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.

In making this finding, the 2009 Report prominently relies on Kunkel et al. [3]. My survey of the data presented by Kunkel et al. shows me that the data itself is highly uncertain in two regards:

1. It has broad statistical distributions, having widths that are greater than any theoretical (i.e. regression fitted) trends, and 
2. It is subject to large systematic and uncontrolled uncertainties arising from the historical changes in measurement coverage (number of stations, geographical coverage, local climate effects, and so on), and methods.

Indeed, the chapter by Kunkel et al. is full of objective disclaimers such as:

• "However, the heat waves of the 1930s remain the most severe in the United States historical record back to 1895."; 
• "There is less confidence in data prior to about 1950."; 
• "The data used to examine changes in the frequency and severity of tornadoes and severe thunder storms are inadequate to make definitive statements about actual changes."; and so on.

So we see how the definitive statement of our authors [1] that "Climate change is affecting every region by..." is anchored in some rather complex and tenuous real data buried several levels deep into government-funded review reports. The lead authors making the said claim work for a "Centre for Climate Change Communication". What do you expect them to say? And do they have the expertize to critically appreciate measured field data and statistical uncertainty theory? (I do.)

Our authors' [1] underlying assumption (in opposing 'personal experience' and 'belief') that global warming can be seen and experienced is, well, ludicrous. My own contribution to this public debate is illustrated in this media video: [4].


"Widespread agreement among climate scientists"

Next, I examine our authors' [1] claim that there is "widespread agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is occurring", by examining their source: Anderegg et al. [5].

I have been critical of the scientific bandwagon artifact in global warming publications since my February 2007 essay "Global Warming: Truth or Dare?" [6][7]. The renowned late historian of science and technology David F. Noble provided a historical perspective on the "peer review" process and on the funding of science professionals, as an antidote to the excesses of "this new orthodoxy [which] is an exaggerated reverence for science" [8].

Furthermore, the said scientific bandwagon artifact has been formally described as the "Gold Effect" and is thus a well known phenomenon in the sociology of modern science [9]:

The Gold Effect is the phenomenon in which a scientific (often medical) idea is developed to the status of an accepted position within a professional body or association by the social process itself of scientific conferences, committees, and consensus building, despite not being supported by conclusive evidence. The effect was described by Professor T. Gold in 1979.^[1] The effect was reviewed by Drs. Petr Skrabanek and James McCormick in their book Follies and Fallacies in Medicine.^[2] The Gold Effect is used to analyze errors in public health policy and practice, such as the widespread use of cholesterol screening in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.^[3]

In their book, Skrabanek and McCormick describe the Gold Effect as: "At the beginning a few people arrive at a state of near belief in some idea. A meeting is held to discuss the pros and cons of the idea. More people favouring the idea than those disinterested will be present. A representative committee will be nominated to prepare a collective volume to propagate and foster interest in the idea. The totality of resulting articles based on the idea will appear to show an increasing consensus. A specialised journal will be launched. Only orthodox or near orthodox articles will pass the referees and the editor."

Thus, in the light of what is known about the sociology and funding of the modern science enterprise, and in the light of the gargantuan financial interests at play in global warming politics [10], it is difficult to view the work of Anderegg et al. [5] as anything else other than either remarkably naive or remarkably crass. Let's see...

First, Anderegg et al. acknowledge, based on their own data, that there is not a scientific consensus on the the IPCC primary conclusion that "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming of the Earth's average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century".

Second, they view this absence of a scientific consensus as a problem in need of a solution [5]:

Because the time line of decision-making is often more rapid than scientific consensus, examining the landscape of expert opinion can greatly inform such decision-making.

And their "solution" is to give little weight to the voices of scientists with which the majority of scientists do not agree (using their particular ad hoc "credibility" criterion) [5]:

This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.

Who are these "contrarians"? Anderegg et al. [5] consider that, based on their study of 1,372 researchers, the "contrarians" are climate scientists who have published at least 20 scientific articles in climate science. Anderegg et al. find that their "contrarians" have typically each published between 20 and 250 articles about climate science.

But Anderegg et al. [5] find that the "contrarians" comprise only 1 researcher of the top 50 climate researchers, and only 3 researchers of the top 100 climate researchers. Here Anderegg et al. rank researchers according to the number of climate publications, and they ascribe number of climate publications (listed by Google Scholar) as equivalent to "expertise".

Are the top researchers those who have published the most papers? How many papers did Albert Einstein publish? (Very few.) Several researchers studied by Anderegg et al. published as many as 300-900 papers. These are astronomical numbers of publications that can only arise when one is head of a large and well-funded research group in which the group director puts his/her name on every paper. By comparison, consider that a modern Ph.D. program typically leads to only 3-5 substantive papers authored by the Ph.D. candidate. One does not publish 900 peer-reviewed papers by expressing "contrarian" interpretations, in a world where, by definition, most reviewers are not "contrarians".

More realistically, although not stressed in their article [5], Anderegg et al. show in their Figure 1 that 63 of their 270 climate scientists that published between 20 and 50 climate papers were "contrarians". That is, 23% of climate scientists who published 20-50 climate papers were "contrarians". Clearly not a consensus. In science, such a proportion of "contrarians" is more correctly qualified as an active and hotly debated field. Only government-funded review panels (made up of the government-funded "top" scientists) would have one believe differently.

How can we evaluate the "credibilities" of the "contrarians"? Anderegg et al. [5] argue that they "have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE [convinced by the evidence] and UE [unconvinced by the evidence] groups", and that credibility is reliably measured by number of climate papers and number of times climate papers are cited by other scientists.

Anderegg et al. [5] find (their Figure 2) that the top 50 "contrarians" (UE) have only between 20 and 250 papers each (with one exception at 650 papers), whereas the 50 top warmists (CE) have between 300 and 900 papers each. To me this simply means that the most highly funded climate researchers all advance that they are convinced by the evidence that "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming of the Earth's average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century". This impeccable correlation between apparent degree of funding and interpretation of the evidence would merit some research. Never mind...

Anderegg et al. [5] go on to explain that citation number further confirms that the "contrarians" have low credibility, however the actual data of Anderegg et al. show, instead, and again, an active and hotly debated field: The single most cited paper for each of the "contrarians" is cited an average of 105 times, compared to 172 times for the warmists. When one considers that there are fewer "contrarians" and that they are apparently less well funded, one has to be somewhat impressed that their papers are cited so frequently. One can justifiably argue that their citation numbers constitute evidence, in the demographic and economic circumstances, that their papers are scientifically "better".


Conclusion

The good news is that the common sense of the American people is alive and well. It is remarkable that in an "advanced democracy" the population does not entirely fall prey to the science of service "experts", fed to it by most of the establishment. Americans excel at self-defense against manipulative intellectualism.

Those, like our authors Myers et al. [1], who follow Anderegg et al. [5] in suggesting that scientists be ignored and that "the debate is over", based on the larger publication numbers of those scientists expressing the dominant view, are calling for a return to the dark ages. Science is not an exercise of representative democracy. Although polluted by politics, and led by money, science, in principle, is a search for truth that only works if there are "contrarians", and if those "contrarians" have a voice and an influence.

Yes, "contrarians" can be incompetent attention seekers, but they are also talented and principled scientists. Warmists can be scientifically mediocre funding seekers, and they can also be simply wrong.

Personally, I am baffled that any trained scientist with some knowledge of field measurements (i.e., measurements in the field), Earth systems, and statistical analysis could be "convinced by the evidence" that "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming of the Earth's average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century". Especially in the further light of recent analyses of the failures of all climate models regarding the "non-warming" of the last 20 years [11]. This week's hot air from the IPCC changes none of this.

Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He practiced several areas of science which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals and many social commentary essays. Several of his papers are highly cited in environmental science (link). His self-published 2011 paper "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect" has been downloaded more than 1000 times (link).

References

[1] Myers, T.A. et al., The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change, 2 December 2012, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1754. http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~huardda/articles/nclimate1754.pdf

[2] Karl, T. R., Melillo, J. M. & Peterson, T. C. (eds) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009). http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf

[3] Kunkel, K.E., P.D. Bromirski, H.E. Brooks, T. Cavazos, A.V. Douglas, D.R. Easterling, K.A. Emanuel, P.Ya. Groisman, G.J. Holland, T.R. Knutson, J.P. Kossin, P.D. Komar, D.H. Levinson, and R.L. Smith, 2008: Observed changes in weather and climate extremes. In: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands [Karl, T.R., G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC, pp. 35-80. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-Chapter2.pdf

[4] Peter Lavelle (host), Cross Talk: Franken-Climate, Russia Today, 2 November 2012. http://youtu.be/mf1a94SyNmg

[5] Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J. & Schneider, S. H. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12107-12109 (2010). http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

[6] Rancourt, D.G., Global Warming: Truth or Dare?, Activist Teacher, 27 February 2007. http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

[7] Rancourt, D.G., Some Big Lies of Science, Activist Teacher, 8 June 2010. http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html

[8] Noble, David F., Regression on the Left, Climate Guy, 30 May 2007. http://climateguy.blogspot.ca/2007/05/regression-on-left.html

[9] Wikipedia. Gold Effect. 27 September 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Effect

[10] Noble, David F., The Corporate Climate Coop, Activist Teacher, 1 May 2007. http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

[11] Fyfe, J.C. et al., Overestimated globalwarming over the past 20 years, Nature Climate Change, vol. 3, September 2013, pages 767-769. http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

Denis Rancourt's physics paper about planetary warming has been downloaded more than 1000 times

Denis Rancourt's radiation physics paper of 2011 has been download in its free-access pdf form more than 1000 times from the non-profit site archive.org:

Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect

This paper is arguably the clearest and most accessible, yet rigorous, paper to describe the fundamental physics (radiation balance) of Earth's surface temperature phenomenon. It corrects textbook errors about interpretation, and obtains the actual mean surface temperature from first principles, using only known physical constants.

It may be the most downloaded physics paper about the Earth's surface temperature.

One physicist web commentator said:

Have you seen DGR in action ?

A recent post on ICECAP is a real winner: Jun 05, 2011 Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect By Denis G. Rancourt, Former physics professor, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Follow the link to a 22 page article which is a tour de force of simple physics demonstrration. DGR's presentation puts me in mind of Pauling or Feynman lectures in my Caltech days. At least cruise over the hard stuff and savor the commentary. This guy is a keeper prof who got sideways with authority at U of Ottawa and was canned. My kinda guy!!!

Hunter Paalman
Walnut Creek, CA

Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball on the politics and professional ethics of global warming agitation

On July 12, 2012, CHUO 89.1 FM (Ottawa) The Train's Denis Rancourt interviewed Professor Dr. Tim Ball, climatologist, about climate science and the politics of global warming. Fascinating history of the climatology profession... Dr. Ball is being sued for defamation in regard to his criticisms of other climate professionals. The lawsuits are on-going and Dr. Ball is committed to getting to the truth and justice.

This is a remarkable interview where you can hear what it is like to respect the memory of decades of acquired scientific knowledge, as opposed to re-defining reality for careerist goals.

 LINK TO RADIO INTERVIEW

Activist Teacher authors most downloaded free-access scientific article about planetary warming physics

This article has now been downloaded 500 times.

It is the most downloaded free-access (open-source) scientific article about planetary warming physics.

One reviewer said:

"Follow the link to a 22 page article which is a tour de force of simple physics demonstrration. [Denis Rancourt's] presentation puts me in mind of Pauling or Feynman lectures in my Caltech days. At least cruise over the hard stuff and savor the commentary. This guy is a keeper prof who got sideways with authority at U of Ottawa and was canned. My kinda guy!!!"

Hunter Paalman
Walnut Creek, CA

It was first posted on Climate Guy (link) on June 3, 2011, and is available in full pdf version at archive.org here:

Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect

(And direct link to PDF file HERE.)

Abstract – I describe the basic physics of planetary radiation balance and surface temperature, using the simplest model possible that is sufficiently realistic for correct evaluations of predicted surface temperature response sensitivities to the key Earth parameters. The model is constrained by satellite absolute integrated intensity and spectroscopic measurements and the known longwave absorption cross section of CO2 gas. I show the predicted Earth temperature for zero atmospheric resonant absorption of longwave radiation (no greenhouse effect in the otherwise identical atmosphere) to be –46 C, not –19 C as often wrongly stated. Also, the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all atmospheric processes (not just greenhouse forcing), without changing anything else (except to add the removed atmosphere) is +18 C, not the incorrect textbook value of +33 C. The double-layer atmosphere model with no free parameters provides: (a) a mean Earth surface temperature of +17 C, (b) a post-industrial warming due only to CO2 increase of δT = 0.4 C, (c) a temperature increase from doubling the present CO2 concentration alone (to 780 ppmv CO2; without water vapour feedback) equal to δT = 1.4 C, and (d) surface temperature response sensitivities that are approximately two orders of magnitude greater for solar irradiance and for planetary shortwave albedo and longwave emissivity than for the atmospheric greenhouse effect from CO2. All the model predictions robustly follow from the straightforward underlying assumptions without any need for elaborate global circulation models. The same longwave optical saturation that provides such a large radiative warming of the planet surface also ensures that the warming effect from increasing CO2 concentration is minimal. I conclude with suggested implications regarding warming alarmism, errors by sceptics, research funding, and scientific ignorance regarding climate feedbacks.

Changes to the June 3, 2011, article: Small clarifications were added and several typos were corrected in the December 3, 2011, pdf version.

A detailed peer-review of the article is available HERE.

Denis Rancourt's latest analysis of global warming physics posted to Climate Guy

Last month physicist Denis G. Rancourt embarked on an examination of the radiation physics behind "global warming" and called for peer review of his work: HERE, HERE, HERE.

All this has lead to his most recent report posted on Climate Guy on June 3, 2011:

Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect

This is a careful exposé of the basic physics underlying the dominant climate science narrative regarding so-called global warming. It is written in such a way that any student of science can follow the physics without needing to rely on authority or faith for any part of the argument.

The physical model and its predictions show that CO2 fetish warming alarmism is not justified by the relevant radiation physics informed by modern satelite spectroscopic measurements.

Radiation physics constraints on global warming

[Fig.1 from Trenberth et al. 2009 : reference-[1]]

[This article was first published on this Activist Teacher blog, on May 9, 2011. Reviews from peers are invited (e.g.). The University of Ottawa tried to stop this research: LINK. The article is available as a PDF file HERE.]

PEER CRITICISMS ARE POSTED HERE.

A SIGNIFICANTLY REVISED VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE, FOLLOWING PEER CRITICISM, IS POSTED HERE, HERE, HERE(blog).

FURTHER PEER CRITICISM OF THE REVISED VERSION IS HERE.

BUT THE BEST AND THIRD VERSION (WITH MANY ADDITIONS and CHANGES) IS THIS ONE.

By Denis G. Rancourt

Abstract – I describe the basic physics of planetary radiation balance and surface temperature, in the simplest and most robust terms possible that capture the essential ingredients of planetary greenhouse warming. I show that the often repeated textbook and scientific report view that the Earth’s surface temperature would be –19C (degrees Celsius) in the absence of a planetary greenhouse effect (a 33C greenhouse effect difference) is wrong; and that an accepted calculation of the “longwave radiative forcing” by atmospheric greenhouse gases is also wrong. Our simple radiation-balance model – using only (i) the satellite-measured absolute longwave Earth emission, (ii) a present mean global surface temperature of 14C, (iii) the satellite-measured fraction of longwave absorbance due to CO2, (iv) a satellite-measured global mean surface albedo of 0.30, (v) the season-average solar constant and (vi) Kirchoff’s Law – predicts: (a) a total longwave emission atmospheric mean transmittance of {te} = 0.89, (b) a zero-greenhouse-effect Earth mean surface temperature of To = 5.5C, (c) a global mean surface emission intensity of 269 W/m2, (d) a post-industrial warming due only to CO2 increase of ΔTind = 0.56C, (e) a temperature increase from doubling the present CO2 concentration alone (without water vapour feedback) equal to ΔTdbl = 2.0C. Earth’s radiative balance determining its surface temperature is shown to be one order of magnitude more sensitive to solar irradiance and to planetary albedo/emissivity than to all atmospheric greenhouse effects combined. All the model predictions robustly follow from the starting assumptions without any need for elaborate global circulation models. A recent critique of the dominant climate change science narrative is evaluated in the light of our model.

Simplest model with essential features

The concepts of radiation physics are easy to explain but difficult to understand. Here we show that even the most fundamental concepts of albedo and emissivity have not been completely appreciated by most seasoned scientific writers addressing the phenomenon of a planetary greenhouse effect.

Let us start by building the simplest possible model of planetary radiation balance, realistic enough to capture the essential global average features.

We take the planet to be a perfect sphere with a smooth and homogeneous surface and to have a thin (compared to the planet radius) and homogeneous atmosphere. The planet is uniformly irradiated by a distant sun.

The incident intensity (in Watts per square-meter, W/m2) of “shortwave” radiation (largely visible light) from the sun at the planet is the so-called solar constant, Is, where for Earth Is = 1366 W/m2 (having a real seasonal variation in magnitude from 1412 to 1321 W/m2, or 6.7% of its average value).

Different parts of the planet’s surface receive different intensities of incident shortwave radiation. This is because the surfaces at different latitudes receive the incident rays at different angles and because half of the planet’s surface is shielded from all incident rays (only one hemisphere is exposed to the sun at any given time).

Rather than deal with the latter complexity of non-uniform irradiation, instead we take the entire planet’s surface to be uniformly irradiated with an intensity equal to the corresponding average solar constant. The correct average solar constant is {Is} = (1/4)Is = 341.5 W/m2, as is well known and easy to calculate. [Throughout the present article "{A}" means "the average of A", usually a global spacial and time average.]

In our model, therefore, every part of the planet’s surface is identical in terms of the radiation balance conditions. Each part of the planet’s surface represents what is happening on average, in terms of radiation balance, and of the planet properties which we will take to be the Earth’s average properties.

Of all the incident shortwave solar radiation that strikes the planet a fraction is reflected back into outer space without being absorbed by any part of the planet (surface or atmosphere). This fraction (from zero to one) of the incident shortwave solar radiation energy that is reflected out from the planet is called the planet’s albedo. Put simply: Albedo = Solar-Out/Solar-In.

The reflected outgoing shortwave radiation need not have the same spectral distribution (radiation intensity versus radiation frequency or wavelength) as the incoming incident solar shortwave radiation because the amount of absorption/reflection can be (and generally is) dependent on wavelength. The albedo is the net energy fraction that is reflected.

Modern satellite spectroscopic measurements can quantify the solar constant and the amount of out-reflected shortwave radiation, can resolve these radiations from longwave thermal radiation, and can measure continuously in orbit to obtain planet-wide averages.

Satellite measurements allow us to conclude that the average Earth albedo is {a} = 0.30 [1]. Arguably-more-direct and reliable Earth-based so-called “Earthshine observation” measurements give {a} = 0.297(5) where, using scientific error notation, the latter means 0.297 ± 0.005 [2]. There are daily changes in Earth’s albedo (from large scale weather changes) of ~5% and seasonal variations of ~15% (from snow and ice cover, vegetation, and weather and cloud cover) [2].

The source of heat on the planet is taken to be the planet’s surface that absorbs shortwave solar radiation. The physical absorption process transforms the electromagnetic energy of the incident solar radiation into heat energy (vibrational energy of the surface’s molecules).

Any opaque body at any temperature above 0 K (i.e., having vibrating rather than motionless molecules) in turn emits electromagnetic radiation. The latter so-called “thermal” or “black-body” radiation has characteristics that depend of the body’s (emitting) surface temperature. For the temperatures of interest the surface thermal radiation is shortwave (or infra-red) radiation.

The intensity Ie (in W/m2) of the emitted thermal (shortwave) electromagnetic radiation coming from the surface of an opaque body is given by the Stefan–Boltzmann law:

Ie = ε σ T^4 ... (eq.1)

where T is the temperature of the emitting surface in K, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant σ = 5.6704 10^-8 W/m2K4, and ε is the “emissivity” of the emitting surface. "T^4" means T to the power 4 and “10^-8” means times 10 to the power minus-eight, giving 0.000000056704 W/m2K4 for σ.

The emissivity has a dimensionless value between zero and one. It is the fractional energy emission from the surface compared to the surface’s emission if it were an ideal black body emitter. ε = 1 for an ideal black body surface and ε = 0 for an ideally reflective surface (i.e., a surface having an albedo of exactly 1).

The global average emissivity, {ε}, of Earth’s surface is virtually impossible to measure. It can at best be reasonably estimated or deduced from relevant physical principles. This is a central difficulty in calculating Earth’s radiative behaviour.

Before we address the latter difficulty regarding {ε}, let us next describe how the planet’s mean surface temperature is established.

If the net radiant energy into the planet is larger than the net radiant energy escaping from the planet then the net received energy will heat the planet and increase its temperature. Likewise, if the net radiant energy out from the planet is larger than the net energy into the planet then the net loss of energy of the planet will cause the planet to loose heat and decrease its temperature.

Therefore, in a “steady state” situation, after a certain planetary response time following any change affecting radiation balance, the temperature of the planet’s surface will stabilize at some value corresponding to the rate of energy-in being equal to the rate of energy-out and there will be “radiation balance” at a stable surface temperature.

The net energy-in is the incident solar radiation minus the albedo loss. The net energy-out is the portion of all the shortwave emission energy that manages to escape the planet into outer space. By setting in = out we can solve for the resulting radiation-balancing planet surface temperature.

The corresponding radiation balance equation, therefore, is:

{Is}(1 – {a}) = {te} {ε} σ T^4 ... (eq.2)

where {te} is the fractional transmittance (having a dimensionless value between zero and one) of the total emitted shortwave radiation energy.

In other words, {te} is the planetary average transmission coefficient for escape of the emitted shortwave radiation through the atmosphere and into outer space. In the absence of all greenhouse effects {te} = 1. For a completely infrared-opaque atmosphere {te} = 0.

Solving for the planet surface temperature (in K), eq.2 gives:

T = [ (1 – {a}){Is} / {te}{ε}σ ]^(1/4) ... (eq.3)

Eq.3 is the central result for the steady state surface temperature in our simplest possible radiation balance model.


Evaluating needed parameter {te}{ε}

Note that {te}, like {ε}, is virtually impossible to measure. It is usually only (incorrectly, see below) estimated using model assumptions (e.g., [1]: Fig.1). Note also, that for infrared-opaque atmospheres, as {te} approaches a value of zero the resulting temperature tends to an infinite value (things get very hot).

On the other hand, the average net outgoing shortwave intensity, {te}{Ie}, is accurately measured by satellite [1]. It is {te}{Ie} = 238.5 W/m2 [1]. Since the global average surface temperature is accepted to be accurately known [3], it is therefore possible to calculate the value of the product quantity {te}{ε} for Earth as:

{te}{ε} = {te}{Ie} / σ T^4 ... (eq.4)

by using T = 287.15 K, since the reported mean surface temperature is 14.0C [3].

This, to our knowledge, gives the first accurate evaluation of {te}{ε} for the current Earth as {te}{ε} = 0.62.

[Note that all such products of average physical parameters assume statistical independence of the parameters, or that the inter-parameter correlations do not affect the averaging – that is, we assume {te ε}={te}{ε} and so on.]

As a self-consistency verification, using the latter value of {te}{ε} in eq.3 indeed gives a mean surface temperature of 14.0C, as expected since satellite measurements confirm the near equality (1 – {a}){Is} = {te}{Ie} relating energy-in and energy-out [1].

Having determined the Earth value of {te}{ε}, one might be tempted to use the determined value in eq.3 and explore the impact of variations in {a}. This would be a grave error however because {ε} and {a} are highly anti-correlated parameters. For all Earth surface materials, a low value of albedo corresponds to a high value of ε and vice versa (Kirchoff’s Law).


Earth temperature with zero greenhouse effect, To

Next, we calculate the Earth’s mean surface temperature in the absence of all greenhouse effects, when {te} = 1. We take “To” to be the symbol for the latter zero-greenhouse-effect surface temperature. In order to use eq.3 for this purpose it is necessary to know the Earth value of {ε} itself.

Possibly because {ε} cannot be measured and is not known, virtually all researchers and authors have incorrectly used {ε} = 1. That is, they have assumed that the Earth’s surface is an ideal black body emitter.

Using the latter assumption for {ε} and with {te} = 1 eq.3 gives To = 254.8 K or minus (–) 18.3C. Compared to the accepted actual mean global surface temperature of 14.0C this would imply a total global greenhouse effect warming on Earth of 32.3C – corresponding to the repeatedly stated textbook value of 33C of greenhouse effect warming [4]. I also taught this value in my university physics courses and repeated it in my 2007 critique of global warming [5]. Wikipedia is no exception [6]. American Geophysical Union (AGU) press releases typically announce [7]:

“Overall, the greenhouse effect warms the planet by about 33 °C, turning it from a frigid ice-covered ball with a global average temperature of about -17 °C, to the climate we have today. Heat-absorbing components contribute directly to that warmth by intercepting and absorbing energy passing through the atmosphere as electromagnetic waves.”

In describing the “physical science basis” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 “Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report” (incorrectly, see below) put it this way [8]:

“The energy that is not refl ected back to space is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This amount is approximately 240 Watts per square metre (W m–2). To balance the incoming energy, the Earth itself must radiate, on average, the same amount of energy back to space. The Earth does this by emitting outgoing longwave radiation. Everything on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously. That is the heat energy one feels radiating out from a fi re; the warmer an object, the more heat energy it radiates. To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around –19°C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14°C). Instead, the necessary –19°C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface.

The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect.”

The scientists at RealClimate.org also use this 33C number in their interpretations [9]:

“Since we are looking at the whole of the present-day greenhouse effect (around 33 C), it is not surprising that the radiative forcings are very large compared to those calculated for the changes in the forcing. The factor of ~2 greater importance for water vapour compared to CO2 is consistent with the first calculation.”

Virtually all mainstream science and teaching has accepted and parrots this idea that the planetary greenhouse effect on Earth causes a warming of approximately 33C. In addition, research scientists use it ({ε} = 1) in their peer-reviewed published calculations about Earth global processes [1].

But in fact, the evaluation of a 33 degree warming is in serious error. It is not physically reasonable to assume the true value of Earth’s average emissivity {ε} to be equal to 1. Indeed, it is physically impossible from usual known radiative processes for any opaque body to have a surface albedo (reflectivity) as high as 0.30 yet have an emissivity of 1. An ideal black body has a reflectivity of zero.

This is not an elusive point in radiation physics. Emissivity has been studied since before the development of quantum mechanics and there exists a first-empirically-established relation between reflectivity (albedo) and emissivity. It is known as Kirchoff’s Law of radiation physics. Basically, it says that the larger the reflectivity the smaller the emissivity, in approximate linear relation to each other.

As an equation, in this context, Kirchoff’s Law is:

1 – {a} = {ε}. ... (eq.5)

It is a violation of Kirchoff’s Law to admit {a} = 0.30 yet use {ε} = 1 in calculating the Earth’s surface temperature, irrespective of the assumed amount of greenhouse effect.

Thus, this fiction which has become an ingrained part of the planetary greenhouse effect scientific folklore is wrong.

Instead, correctly using eq.5 with eq.3 and {te} = 1 gives the much higher Earth surface temperature of To = 278.6 K or 5.5C for an earth subjected to a complete absence of any planetary greenhouse effects. This was previously emphasized by Hertzberg and Stott in 1994 [10].

Therefore, the total warming from the entire greenhouse effect on Earth is realistically approximately 8 to 9C, not 33C. And even without a greenhouse effect the Earth does not become a solid ball of ice. Kirchoff’s Law implies that at relatively constant solar intensity, “ice ages” can only be transient states induced by sudden and large-magnitude changes in planetary properties but they are not stable.


Further consequences of Kirchoff’s Law

Recognizing Kirchoff’s Law also means that the proportion of long-term habitable planets must be re-evaluated up, for those scientific hobbyist interested in such questions.

Back on Earth, Kirchoff’s Law (eq.5) allows one to simplify eq.3 as:

T = [ {Is} / {te}σ ]^(1/4) ... (eq.6)

where, as above, “^(1/4)” means “to the power ¼”. Here, it becomes clear that the dominant long-term steady state parameters determining mean surface temperature are the average solar intensity at Earth (or average solar constant) {Is} and the net mean longwave atmospheric transmittance {te}, largely irrespective of surface property changes (i.e., changes in {a} and {ε}).

In other words, if the reflectance (albedo) is high then the emissivity is low in just such a way as to produce the same global mean surface temperature that produces a global radiation balance. That is, less incoming shortwave solar radiation is absorbed and less outgoing longwave surface emission radiation is produced, for the same mean surface temperature.


Evaluating longwave atmospheric transmission, {te}

Given the pivotal role of eq.6 in determining the steady-state mean surface temperature, it becomes important to properly evaluate {te}. This has not been done correctly in the past, again largely due to a lack of appreciation of Kirchoff’s Law. I show below that {te} has been vastly underestimated. As a result, 1 – {te}, the so-called
“longwave radiative forcing” (arising from all greenhouse effects on the planet), has been vastly overestimated.

Arguably the best way to determine {te} using constraints from measured quantities is as follows. Use eq.2 with Kirchoff’s Law (eq.5), the measured average surface temperature (14.0C [3]) and solve for {te}:

{te} = {Is} / σ T^4 . ... (eq.7)

This gives {te} = 0.89.

Alternatively (and equivalently), {te} can be calculated from its definition of longwave energy out (escaping the planet) divided by longwave emission energy from the surface. The longwave energy out is measured by satellite to be 239 W/m2 [1] whereas the longwave emission energy from the surface is calculated from eq.1 with the average emissivity from Kirchoff’s Law (eq.5 and measured {a}) and the measured average surface temperature (14.0C [3]). Given observed [1] global radiation balance (in = out), the same result is obtained: {te} = 0.89.

These considerations, to our knowledge, give the first accurate evaluation of {te} for the current Earth: {te} = 0.89. This value is significantly larger than the accepted value in the scientific literature (e.g., [1][11]). The accepted value arises as follows [1][11]: One uses {ε} = 1 (as an arbitrary choice and in violation of Kirchoff’s Law) and the measured mean surface temperature (14.0C [3]) with eq.1 to obtain a surface emission intensity of {Ie} = 396 W/m2 [1]. By comparison with the satellite-measured outgoing longwave radiation intensity (239 W/m2 [1]) one has {te} = 239/396 = 0.60, a vastly underestimated value.

The latter incorrect value of {te} = 0.60 in turn implies a value of the so-called “longwave radiative forcing” (1 – {te}) of 1 – 0.60 = 0.40 (40%) instead of the correct value of 1 – 0.89 = 0.11 (11%).

This means that the accepted magnitude of the longwave radiative forcing for Earth from all greenhouse effects in the atmosphere is an overestimate by a factor of ~4 (360%).

Corroboration of our value of {te} = 0.89 (rather than 0.60) is contained in the satellite data itself. For example, consider Fig.1 of reference [11] (reproduced below). This figure is for “global cloudy conditions” and shows both the satellite-measured spectrum of longwave radiation escaping to outer space (red curve) and the incorrect assumed model surface emission spectrum (using 14C and {ε} = 1) (smooth blue curve). The integrated fractional surface area between the two spectral curves (red and blue) is indeed ~0.4 but this is wrong. One sees that the blue curve is artificially uniformly much higher than the correct smooth envelope curve that would match the red curve in the non-scattering parts of the spectrum. The correct envelope curve would result from using {ε} = 1 – 0.3 = 0.7 (for global average conditions, cloudy and clear sky) and the corresponding integrated fractional surface area between the red spectral curve and the correct envelope (surface emission) curve would be ~0.1.

The psychological bias from the long-standing “33 degree” error and its underlying assumptions appears to be so strong that even the obvious satellite-measured emission spectra are systematically misinterpreted rather than taken at face value: There is a well defined spectral envelope curve in the measurement (red curve) which is disregarded in favour of an incorrect model curve (blue curve) that violates Kirchoff’s Law.

Here it is important to note one of several likely reasons that scientists have fooled themselves to this extent. One can measure the longwave scattering transmittance (or cross section) of a greenhouse effect gas (e.g., CO2, H2O) in the laboratory. However, virtually all such measurements evaluate the loss of transmitted intensity in the incident beam direction, thereby quantifying the amount of longwave radiation (incident on the gas sample) that is not scattered away from the incident beam direction. The error in using this measured total scattering cross section when reasoning with the atmosphere is that much (most) of the scattered (and multiply scattered) radiation will actually escape to outer space and therefore must be counted as part of the atmosphere’s net transmittance {te}.

In other words, one cannot, as has too often been done, calculate atmospheric scattering transmittance from collimated-beam laboratory measurements of scattering cross sections without calculating the escape probabilities for the atmosphere of all the scattered and multiply scattered radiation.


Refining the model

Having corrected longstanding and pervasive errors in the radiation balance physics for Earth, we now have a robust model (eq.6) that can be used predicatively. Here {te} directly arises from all contributions from greenhouse effect gases, clouds, etc., and any solar input variations (whether due to solar activity or Earth’s orbit) are modeled by {Is}. In particular, this allows robust sensitivity analyses.

The model (eq.6) can also be further refined by replacing {Is} with [(1 – {a}) / {ε}]{Is} (to reproduce eq.3) in order to consider possible deviations from Kirchoff’s Law, where the ratio [(1 – {a}) / {ε}] (let us call it the “Kirchoff ratio”) would not be exactly equal to 1.

The model could also be refined to include correlations between surface and atmosphere properties in doing the global time (day, season) and planet surface averages, as mentioned above.

The latter two improvements (Kirchoff-deviation and correlations) are expected to produce only small changes in the predictions from the model.

Given the straightforward nature of the model (eq.6) following directly from the most fundamental considerations of radiation physics, those who argue [12][13][14][15] that the more complex circumstances of a real (and thermodynamically active) atmosphere and a real non-uniform and non-smooth surface are such that no net global greenhouse effect warming of the planet surface can result have the burden of the proof in that they must explain in simple physical terms how no warming (whether measurable or not [5][16]) would occur despite the prediction of eq.6.


Further predictions from the model

Next, let us examine some immediate predictions of the model. In order to facilitate these calculations and also to make them more transparent we express {te} as 1 minus its deviation from 1. We denote the magnitude of the deviation as δ and write:

{te} ≡ 1 – δ ... (eq.8)

Eq.8 defines δ and δ = 0.11 for the present Earth atmosphere.

Since δ is small compared to 1, eq.8 allows eq.6 to be written (approximately) as:

T = To [ 1 + (δ/4) ] ... (eq.9)

where To, as defined above, is the correct Earth’s mean surface temperature in the absence of all greenhouse effects, To = 278.6 K.

In this way, any assumed changes in {te}, due to changes in concentrations of greenhouse effect gases for example, can be modelled as changes in the parameter δ which has a linear impact on (mean global) surface temperature T.

For example, let us use eq.9 to calculate the warming due to the total post-industrial increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration. In fact, for practical reasons (related to the polynomial expansion approximation used in deriving eq.9 from eq.6), it is more accurate to calculate the cooling that would result from turning the present CO2 atmospheric concentration (390 ppmv) back to the pre-industrial value (280 ppmv).

The corresponding change Δδ in the value of δ is given by:

Δδ = δp Fco2 Cpre ... (eq.10)

where δp is the present value of δ arising from all present Earth greenhouse effects, Fco2 is the present fraction (from 0 to 1) of all greenhouse effects that arise from CO2, and Cpre is the fractional change in CO2 concentration in going from the present value to the pre-industrial value.

As shown above, δp = 0.11. Also Cpre = [(280 ppmv – 390 ppmv) / 390 ppmv], corresponding to a 28% decrease. Finally, we need Fco2. It can most reliably be obtained from satellite spectral measurements. This was done in [11] but using the incorrect assumed surface emissivity {ε} = 1. This error systematically overestimates the surface emission spectrum, thereby producing a systematically overestimated “longwave radiative forcing” “spectrum”. But since the overestimate is at all wavelengths, we can expect that the fractional contributions for the different greenhouse effect gases, reported by [11], will be approximately correct. Therefore, Fco2 ~ 0.26 (for clear sky conditions).

This gives a net present to pre-industrial change in Earth surface temperature from changing the CO2 alone while leaving all other parameters constant as:

ΔTind = To Δδ/4 = To (δp Fco2 Cpre)/4 = – 0.56 K ... (eq.11)

Therefore, the predicted pre-industrial to present warming from the increase in CO2 alone is approximately 0.56C.

Similarly, we calculate the effect of doubling the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 (without changing anything else) using Δδ = δp Fco2 Cx2 where Cx2 is the fractional change in doubling the CO2, Cx2 = [(780 ppmv – 390 ppmv) / 390 ppmv] = 1. This gives a predicted warming ΔTdbl = 2.0 K (or 2.0C).

And so on. It is immediate to calculate the warming effect of positive or negative so-called water vapour feedback simply by applying the assumed multiplicative factor to the modelled change in CO2 concentration.

We note that our simple and correct model for global radiation balance gives all the same predictions as the state of the art global circulation models (GCMs). This suggests that the complexities of surface-wise inhomogeneities, altitude-wise atmospheric inhomogeneities, and atmospheric circulation are not relevant to the global mean radiation balance and resulting mean temperatures, as the above simple physics suggests.

One therefore should question the role of these models which are ill-suited to answering questions of global radiation balance. More could be gained from improving satellite data and interpretation and from studying radiation balance parameters on regional scales.


Sensitivity analysis of the model

Finally, let us consider the simple-model-calculated sensitivities regarding mean global surface temperature for different model parameters applied to the present Earth.

Since the solar constant itself varies by 6.7% of its mean value over the course of the seasons, let 6.7% variations be our standard of variation. The results are as follows:

• 6.7% change in {Is} causes ΔT = 4.7 K
• 6.7% change in the Kirchoff ratio ((1 – {a})/{ε}) causes ΔT = 4.7 K
• 6.7% change in ALL total greenhouse effects causes ΔT = 0.51 K

The radiation balance steady state temperature of Earth’s surface is an order of magnitude more sensitive to changes in solar constant and Kirchoff ratio than to changes in all sources of planetary greenhouse effects taken together.

It stands to reason, therefore, if reason matters and if we are concerned about the global mean surface temperature, that more research funding should go into studying solar variations and regional/planetary albedo/emissivity relations than trying to deduce the relatively subtle effects of “longwave radiative forcing”. After all, large scale human land use changes can have dramatic effects on both surface radiative properties and colloidal atmospheric particle pollution concentrations and depositions.

Likewise, land use practices should be subject to much more scrutiny, if radiation warming is our concern, than CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere.

I have extensively argued from both the social science and climate science perspectives that global warming should not be our concern regarding environmental destruction and social injustice [5].


Relevance to the dominant climate science narrative

Recently, I critically reviewed the dominant narrative of climate science on several of its central points [17]: That the post-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration increase is directly a result of fossil fuel burning production of CO2, that the post-industrial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes a greenhouse warming, that a measurable global mean surface warming has occurred in the post-industrial period, and that anthropogenic global warming radiative forcing drives “climate chaos” and produces extreme weather events.

The considerations of the present model are not inconsistent with the critical review of reference [17].

The global inter-carbon-pool flux dynamics of exchanges with the atmosphere and the factors affecting these inter-compartment fluxes remain the dominant determinants of the resulting atmospheric CO2 concentration value [17] (and references therein).

There remains a vehement debate among atmospheric physicists on the question of whether or not a planetary greenhouse effect can occur on a real planet having a greenhouse effect gas bearing atmosphere [12][13][14][15][17]. However, as mentioned above, the simplicity and robustness of the model developed in the present paper imply that scientists claiming a complete absence of a planetary greenhouse effect mechanism should have the onus to provide a simple physical explanation regarding the strict absence of a planetary greenhouse effect in models of the radiation balance with a realistic atmosphere.

The physical-measurement and mathematical-statistics difficulties in obtaining a mean global surface temperature and in estimating the uncertainty error in this mean global surface temperature remain [5][16][17].

The reality of a post-industrial increase in extreme weather events remains undemonstrated and highly contested by climatologists and the physical mechanism whereby “climate chaos” would result from extra-CO2 “greenhouse radiative forcing” is at the level of a tenuous theoretical fantasy [17].

I hope that the present paper will help to clarify concepts regarding Earth’s planetary radiation balance in relation to global mean surface temperature.


References

[1] “Earth’s global energy budget” by K.E. Trenberth, J.T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, March 2009, 311-323, and references therein.

[2] “Earthshine observations of the Earth’s reflectance” by P.R. Goode et al. Geophysical Research Letters, 2001, v.28, 1671-1674.

[3] “Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years” by P.D. Jones et al. Reviews of Geophysics, 1999, v.37, 173-199.

[4] “Physics: Concepts and connections” by A. Hobson, Prentice Hall, 1999.

[5] “Global Warming: Truth or dare?” by D.G. Rancourt, Activist Teacher blog, February 2007.

[6] “Greenhouse effect”, Wikipedia article, accessed on April 26, 2011.

[7] “Taking measure of the greenhouse effect” AGU Release No. 10–33. October 14, 2010.

[8] Le Treut, H., R. Somerville, U. Cubasch, Y. Ding, C. Mauritzen, A. Mokssit, T. Peterson and M. Prather (plus 26 other contributing authors and two review editors), 2007: “Historical Overview of Climate Change.” In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

[9] “Water vapour: feedback or forcing?” by G.A. Schmidt, RealClimate.org, 2004. (And other articles on the site.)

[10] M. Hertzberg and J.B. Stott. "Greenhouse warming of the atmosphere: Constraints on its magnitude". Twenty-Fifth International Symposium on Combustion; Work-in-Progress Poster. 1994.

[11] “Earth’s annual global mean energy budget” by J.T. Kiehl and K.E. Trenberth. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, February 1997, v.78, 197-208, and references therein.

[12] "Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner; International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) pages 275-364.

[13] "Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect" by Arthur P. Smith; arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]

[14] "Comments on the "Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect" by Arthur P. Smith" by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, and Michael Zelger; arXiv:0904.2767v3 [physics.ao-ph]

[15] "Reply to 'Comment on 'Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Chistopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 24, No. 10 (2010) pages 1333–1359.

[16] Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen. “Does a Global Temperature Exist?” Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Feb 2007, Vol.32, No.1, pages 1-27.
http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001

[17] “On the gargantuan lie of climate change science” by Denis G. Rancourt, March 2011, Activist Teacher blog.


Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science (including physics and environmental science) which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals and several social commentary essays. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009. His dismissal case court hearings are presently on-going and will extend into 2012.