There are now several different models trying to explain or calculate the Greenhouse effect. None of them are perfect. The best models are too complex and not even understood by some top scientists who have failed to spot the importance of pressure. Others like the “standard” model are so dumbed down as to be laughable. And clearly my own model (hereafter called Haseler’s lapse rate model) is no better because although physically much much more realistic than most models, it is clearly too difficult for many to understand.
So without going into detail, I thought I would try to describe the differences and the pros and cons of each model.

Layer-by-layer Numerical Model

The best model of the atmosphere is a detailed layer by layer model of the atmosphere whereby for each layer, for every frequency, for all molecules types, the net incomings and outgoing IR energy and heat flow from convection, etc. Continue reading →

First, as so many have so many times said, the so called “Greenhouse effect” is completely different in physics to a real greenhouse. Instead as I outlined in my last post, the effect stems from the lapse rate: that the earth AS SEEN FROM SPACE must emit radiation equivalent to a black body at 255C (the temperature at which incoming and outgoing radiation balances at our distance from the sun).
The reason for the higher temperature at the surface, is because there is a drop in temperature with height due to the lapse rate, and this means the planet’s surface will be warmer. Yes, there is radiation trapping, yes greenhouse gases have a marginal effect on the average height (and therefore temperature) of the earth as seen from space (or to reverse, the temperature of the surface must change to bring the temperature as seen from space back to the stable blackbody temperature). However, the radiation trapping is important, only in that it drives the lapse rate. However, I jump the gun. So what are the key requirements for the Greenhouse effect:

An Atmosphere with Pressure

The first requirement is that the planet must have an atmosphere. The reason for this, is that there is no temperature profile through the atmosphere without an atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases OR IR emitters like Clouds

The next requirement is that the atmosphere, which will have a thermal gradient due to the lapse rate, must emit radiation from within the atmosphere from either IR interactive molecules like water vapour, CO2, etc. or from liquid droplets in clouds.

That there must be heating to drive convection

Whilst the lapse rate explain the thermal gradient, it is not possible for heat to be emitted from the atmosphere without simply cooling the atmosphere, unless  unless there is a heat flow from lower down in the atmosphere. In other words, there must be an excess of heat in the lower atmosphere, that drives convective currents to take that heat to higher up where it will be emitted.
This is where the “Mickey mouse” explanation that we hear so often about global warming is partly right. The scale of the greenhouse effect is almost entirely due to the lapse rate. In that regard, the “heat trapping” concept is completely unhelpful. However, unless there were heat trapping: radiant energy is absorbed at the surface and cannot escape via IR, then there would be no energy source to drive the convective currents which stabilise the temperature gradient in the atmosphere DESPITE massive cooling as IR is emitted from out of the top of the atmosphere.

We all knew that the climate fraudsters were tampering with the data from individual stations. That has been well documented, and it was clear that what we could see was just the tip of the ice-berg.
However, despite the eco-nutters tampering with individual stations and those at NASA “retiring” any that inconveniently weren’t warming as they wanted, they still could not turn the cooling into warming and so they couldn’t help confirming what has been euphemistically called the “pause” in global warming (a term I started using on Wikipedia as the least likely to be immediately deleted – by what turned out to be almost certainly the same eco-zealots fabricating the data in the first place).
The problem was that there just wasn’t enough warming stations left as they systematically removed any that had cooled. So, eventually they hit on the scam of taking the sea buoy temperatures – not as actual temperatures, but as a fractional change in temperature so small as to be noise, which they then massively scaled up and then adding into the actual global temperature to produce the biggest load of codswallop.
Put simple, the “global temperatures” from the likes of NASA no longer tell us anything about global temperature. So, for the last few years, the bench mark for global temperatures as been the temperature from the satellites. Not only because it is so obvious when someone tampers with it, but mostly because it is technically superior.
To put it very simply: it measures the temperature over a region of the earth, and that is a direct averaging, which is independent of height (so very little problem if the height changes – contrary to the non-science we keep getting from the climate cretins).
But, I knew it would be just a matter of time before they found a way to tamper with the satellite temperature, and today that confirmation came. Compare the RSS (one of the satellite metrics) on the following two graphs:

The End of the World?

Fortunately not. We still have UAH which remains a credible source, but they will now be under incredible pressure to start showing warming. And it will be increasingly difficult to explain to those who have not been following the climate frauds why out of all the made up data, there is one and only one metric which remains credible (which just happens to show no warming).
So, you might think I’d be down in the dumps about this latest “success” for the forces of anti-science. But I’m not.
Because, just as I’m sick to the back teeth of climate data which no longer in any sense reflects what is happening to actual global temperatures, so all other decent researches will have the same loathing for the politically meddling and dishonesty which now infests almost all temperature metrics.
And that is what will eventually bring this scam crashing down: the fact that it is impossible to compare the temperature data in a paper a few years ago with the same temperature data now.  By now it will be a running joke in the subject that the data can’t be trusted. Of course many will try to spin it positively “yet another one over on the sceptics”. But there are always some people trying to do serious science even in a mickey mouse subject like this. And can you imagine trying to use data where you can’t compare work even a few years old because the basic key temperature data IN THE PAST keeps changing.
Imagine writing a paper: “in 2005 we showed a correlation of X1, but when we published in 2007 but THE SAME CORRELATION had to be changed to X2,  however, in the later research in 2013, the SAME CORRELATION is X3, and today when comparing SAME “data” a figure of X4 must be used. Of course, they can’t write the truth and will try to hide it. But they will treat it as a joke, in turn their colleagues will treat it as a joke, and all the academics will be treating the subject as a joke.
And when you get this kind of culture developing in a subject – soon people start making up data that doesn’t need to be made up. They assert things that cannot be asserted because they just cannot be bothered to do the work to process the data (which keeps changing anyway). And when they discoverer that no one cares whether the data is made up … they will just keep doing it. That kind of culture is ruinous to a subject, it saps moral, it puts off decent people from joining and any decent people will want out.
And that is when a subject is destroyed … not when external people think it is worthless … but when those in the subject know it is a joke.

Everyone who is anyone in Climate knows that NASA gave up with producing a global temperature figure when the pause had gone on long enough to be a total embarrassment to these huff and puff merchants.
Instead they started producing a metric which you can’t call “global temperature”, as that can only be achieved by a simple average of comparable temperatures. Instead they did something akin to converting everything to an energy figure, then adding in a whole lot of codswallop, fish foe, and other very smelly entrails, and then reconverted that vile concoction back to a “temperature”.
The approach they chose was simple: if the metric you have isn’t doing what you want, find some other metric that is and add it in. In this case the convenient bullshit came from ocean buoys measurements which happened to be warming. And sure – you can always find something in the climate going your way for a few years to boost the warming figures, but the problem is that almost all of them are part of some form of cycle, such that sooner or later what you gain as they warm, you more than lose as they go into the cooling phase.
And then … if you take a change so small that it cannot be measured and scale it up massively to get warming … it hardly takes any cooling at all to more than reverse the process. And as the laws of chance tell us … sooner or later shit happens.
Of course, we’re not going to see the shit hitting the fan. Because as soon as they get any cooling – they will retire the worst offending buoys as they did the land based stations so that they only have warming buoys. And unlike land based stations where retiring stations was pretty easy to spot, an ocean buoy is pretty easy to let “go missing”. So all this fraudulent meddling is easily hidden.
So we will never see any of the gnashing of teeth as those in NASA and NOAA desperately try to conjure warming out of cold sea water. However, we will all know it is there. And with the record colds that are starting to show in the US as we head towards a La Nina year, NASA & their loathsome ilk are almost certainly having a:

Terrible Christmas and a Rotten New Year

 

The lapse rate or average change in temperature is about 6.5C/km which means we have to change altitude by a mere 15m per 0.1C change. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that whilst Father Christmas comes down many chimneys – which happen to be about 7.5m tall, there is no mention of him ever climbing up.
Thus there must be a net gain in global temperature which we can work out as follows:
There are 7billion people on earth. Assuming 3.5/household, that is 2billion households. Or the increasing in temperature experienced by father Christmas (who doesn’t climb out of the chimney) is

2,000,000,000 x 0.1 /2 = 100,000,000C

Happy Christmas

For nearly 20 years the idiots pushing the politicised climate scam have asserted that “the science is settled” and denied any other possible cause to climate change other than CO2.
That only works as a propaganda tool if there isn’t another climate driver. Today I read that Svensmark has finally got his proof of a link between cloud formation and cosmic rays published.

“Scientists at the Technical University of Denmark have discovered what they call a game changing result in understanding how cosmic rays from supernovae – exploding stars – can influence Earth’s cloud cover and thereby climate by being mediated by the Sun. The new findings are published in the journal Nature Communications.
…
The principle is that cosmic rays – high-energy particles that traverse the galaxy from supernovae – knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions – electrically positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere. The ions help aerosols – clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules – to form and become stable against evaporation – a process is called nucleation.”

It is now undeniable that cosmic rays are partly responsible for climate change.
That in turn means it is even more likely the 1970-2000 warming was caused by a similar change in condensation nuclear from air born pollution – which like cosmic ray clouds, act to depress the temperature. But this time the main change that we noticed was the rapid removal of cooling-causing pollution when the clean air acts came in in the 1970s with the associated REGIONAL change in temperature a few days upwind of areas of economic activity like the US and Europe.
Now, it might be reasonable to ask why I’m not trying to publish this finding. The reason is that I’ve seen how many years upon years upon years it has taken for those like Svensmark to get what is in reality a fairly simple and pretty obvious link, past the climate stazi. So you will understand I have far better things to do with my life than spend the next decade trying to publish a paper just to show the totally obvious link between 1970-2000 reduction in pollution and the 1970-2000 rise in global temperature.
Happy Xmas
 

For those sceptics like me who’ve seen the evidence and followed the appalling behaviour of climate nutter academics, there has been no doubt that those like NASA are little more than environmental activists pretending to be scientists in order to use their pretended science to push the US and others toward a pure eco-nutter goal.
However, if you’re not a scientist, have not had time to follow the debate, and/or get all your news from those like the BBC who have pushed a relentless tirade of climate nutter output, even the most level headed pro-science politician might find it a little difficult to just take us sceptics at our word and do the right thing.
I can appreciate the problems for a sane level headed politician who doubts what he’s being told by the mass army of eco-nutters in academia and places like NASA. But equally I might be appalled if they didn’t follow the advice of academic scientists in other areas.
However, it seems Trump has found a way through this impasse:

President Trump has privately said he supports a public debate to challenge mainstream climate science, according to administration officials. But there’s infighting about how it should occur — if at all. The president has told U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during several conversations that he supports Pruitt’s plan for a “red-team, blue-team” debate aimed at challenging the prevailing scientific consensus about humans’ impact on climate change, a senior administration official told E&E News. Another administration official said that “there is support for the initiative at the highest levels.” —ClimateWire, 11 December 2017

This of course, is the last thing the climate nutters want. Because they know full well that after 20years of the satellites showing no real warming, they do not have the evidence to back up their nuttery, and the only argument they have is “we’re climate ‘scientists’ do what we tell you”.
But now they are damned if they do, and damned if they do not. If they do debate, they will lose and they will lose in the most highprofile manner. If they don’t debate, Trump has called them out and they have shown they have nothing to offer except denier insults and he will wipe the floor with them.

Nearly two decades after I first highlighted the fact that there is no evidence that the Britons were Celts, it seems that British archaeologists and historians have finally accepted this fact. However, you can be forgiven for not having heard it.

Indeed, I only heard the news by chance at 2pm this morning – not by way of any grandiose press release – but in a snippet I heard by pure fluke in a BBC program on “Invasions”. Call me a sceptic but putting this out in  in a program that you’ve got to be a serious historical nerd to watch, when the Irish border and Brexit is filling all the newspapers must be a good way to get out this news with the least possible furore. A good year to bury bad news?

What does this all mean?

The simple fact, is that we Britons (who have for generations been taught that we used to be a Celtic race until the Anglo Saxon invasion and supposed genocide of the former “Celtic” peoples of Britain) were never Celts anyway. And that is about all it means.
Instead the term “Celt” rightly belongs to a tribal grouping of just one part of the nation of Gauls in France. And we have this on no lesser authority than Caesar himself: the conqueror of the Gauls.
However, just because you change the name of a football team doesn’t change the team, nor any of the basic stats. And likewise, just because generations of historians and archaeologists have been using the wrong tribal name to describe us Britons, hardly anything now changes about our history.
The Welsh (formerly thought to be the remnants of Celts in Britain) are still Welsh. They still have a distinct language and culture. They are still linguistically related to the Cornish, Bretons and Cumbrians. Welsh and Gaelic as languages are still more similar than for example Welsh and German, so they can be considered a different language group. In one sense, it is nothing more than a name change, a rebranding of our identity: We were never Celts – just plain ancient Britons.
But in another sense it is perhaps the most momentous change in British history we’ve seen in many generations. And … you’ve got to wonder how such a glaringly obvious mistake came to be relied on by so many generations of academics.
The answer is simple: such a fundamental thing wasn’t something anyone was researching. The matter was settled hundreds of years ago, and unless it was for awkward people like me – who don’t rely on research grants to decide what we resarch, there would have been no need to re-examine the matter.

A good year to bury bad news?

I can’t help wondering whether the timing of this news is entirely coincidental. In archaeological terms it’s simply a name change. But on the basis of a long held belief that the Scots and Irish are “Celtic” a whole generation of politicians, artists, writers & even footballers and created a “Celtic” identity that is now without foundation. I can’t see them being too pleased.
Just now, the papers are obsessed by Brexit and particularly the Irish ones are totally focussed on the issue of the Irish-Northern Ireland border. It is indeed a good year to bury the Celtic myth.

Background

Why was I looking at the Celts nearly two decades ago? The answer was that I was not. I had no interest in the Celts. Instead I was interested in the development of early Christianity in Britain and I was getting extremely confused with references to the “Celtic Church”.
The problem was that evidence now shows that Christianity has been present in Britain from a very early period but in England. It was therefore quite clear that there must have been a church in Roman Britain – the part that wasn’t “Celtic” and there is no(?) evidence for any “Celtic” church at this period. I just couldn’t understand whether this “Celtic church” was the same as the one in Roman Britain or whether there may have been two different churches.
And in trying to understand whether there were two early churches, I found I had to understand what was and wasn’t meant by “Celtic”. And so as I traced back the evidence on the British “Celts” and I repeatedly found no evidential foundation for what was being said. Indeed, I then started reading all the available Roman texts to find out what they were saying about the Celts. And none of them referred to Celts in Britain. None of it pointed to the Celts being in Britain.
After thoroughly checking, I eventually raised the subject on the Britarch forum, and got nothing but howls of incredulity from every reply. However, when did that ever stop me?
And that is the story so far, but it will not be the end of the matter. In nearly two decades of quiet research, do you really think I have not developed my ideas further?