Scottish Sceptic

We are constantly being told that the Greenhouse effect is due to a radiative process. I want to show simply that it is not. Instead as per Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller I want to show that from first principles it can be shown to be pressure related.
To do this I simply take the pressure curve for an atmosphere:

p = p₀ (1 – L.h/T₀) ^ (g.M/R₀.L)

Where
p = pressure at height h (pa)
p₀ = pressure at surface (pa)
L = Lapse rate (=g/C_p) (J/(kg.K)
h = height (m)
T₀ = Temperature at surface (k)
g = gravity (m/S²)
M = Molar mass of dry air (0.0289644 kg/mol)
R₀. = Universal gas constant (8.31447 J/(mol.k)

Then all we do is to turn this around and express it in terms of the pressure and height of the tropopause (0.1bar or 10,000pa as per Robinson & Catling: “Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency”)

T₀  = L.h_trop/{1- (P_trop/p₀)^(R₀.L/g.M)} Continue reading →

After trying & failing to reproduce the results in the paper “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model” by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller in which they argue that global temperature is purely a function of solar intensity and atmospheric pressure, I worked out some simplifications that would allow me to apply the standard greenhouse effect.
The key was the paper by Robinson & Catling: “Common 0.1 bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency” in which they point out that most planets seem to have their tropopause at a pressure of 0.1bar.
Continue reading →

If you haven’t done the survey you still can here.
First, thanks for those who completed the survey – whilst the the numbers are low with about 10 people having answered the survey, as I have to process them by hand, I’m not too fussed as they are already indicative and the effort is low.
The results are as follows:
1. How much did global temperatures change from approximately 1900 to the 2000
The “average” here is 0.6C – which is a little lower than the IPCC estimate.
Continue reading →

[WATU 5]

The first item on the list has got to be Brussel sprouts – as there’s bound to be a rush – because any celebrating of leaving Brussels has got to involve sprouts in some way.
Next is Champagne  – but as that is just pretentious plonk dressed up it’ll be something like an Australian sparkling wine.
I think it should involve some type of bird – mainly so that I can stuff it. So, in retrospect, it’s a pity Turkey didn’t get into the EU in time or it would be the obvious choice. It could be a “swan song” for the EU – but that may be difficult. Out for a duck … that’ll do. What do I stuff it with? Possibly some kind of raspberry concoction? Perhaps Raspberry? No, I think some Oatmeal, leek and apple stuffing. (Scotland, Wales & England) And as sauce … we have the delightful sounding “Guinness gravy”  (N.Ireland) … although the Guinness may never reach the table.
I hate EU adverts – they are just like the EU – they’re the ones that are dubbed are always condescending and ALWAYS some brand I don’t want. So, in reference to them I’ll get British Bacon to put on the duck (in reference to the “Danish” advertising campaign).
In reference to the Euro – and the failing countries of Portugal Ireland Greece & Spain – Pigs in blankets!
For starch … French Fries … no way!! It’ll be that quintessential ancient British custom of chopping things up and frying them in grease … chips.
And  for pudding … it’s got to be rhubarb in reference to all the EU red tape. …. indeed how do we serve it

… as rhubarb crumble!

Some alternatives:

• New Zealand Lamb
• Pancakes with maple syrup
• Curry from Indian
• Hongkong: chinese
• Beef Jerky from S.Africa
• Nigerian Spam

Of course, with the British empire once covering much of the globe, the world is our Oyster in terms of how we celebrate our independence and reuniting with the rest of the world outside the EU.

I’ve come across evidence that could be interpreted as showing that there is some kind of mechanism in the atmosphere that compensates for changes in greenhouse gas composition so that changes in CO2 levels would be insignificant. This is in no sense finished work, but is instead a very brief outline to make others aware of this potential. Continue reading →

Summary

Can I see anything except global greening that’s due to CO2? I can honestly say No. And anyone who says they can see any change due to CO2 is crackers. In contrast, I am now reasonably confident that Environmental Action in the 1970s was the major cause of post 1970s warming and that the preceding increase in pollution may well explain the global cooling scare.

Intro

See also: previous article that lists all other articles in this series
If I were an alien looking down on earth, the only noticeable change that I could detect as a result of rising CO2 would be a greening of the planet which leading to increased harvests has been undoubtedly a good thing. Continue reading →

One of the great debates amongst sceptics these days is whether Donald Trump can unilaterally withdraw from the climate “treaty” … because without ratification it’s not binding on the next president.
However, as always we “do it by the book” sceptics have missed the obvious. He will just ignore this non-binding treaty. As the Toronto Sun puts it

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will never admit it, the 2015 Paris climate treaty Canada signed with great fanfare died last week.
It died because of the release of U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget plan.
While Trump has to get it through the U.S. Congress, which means parts of it are unlikely to survive, his clear intention to gut U.S. climate change policy by dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency spells the death knell for the Paris treaty.
Trump is proposing deeper cuts to the EPA than any other government agency, reducing its $8.2 billion budget by 31%, laying off 19% of its 15,000 staff and cutting 50 programs.
…

As the leader of the developed world, America’s participation in the Paris treaty was vital to the United Nations’ Paris treaty.That’s why the UN abandoned its previous commitment to binding emission reduction targets in Paris, to get the U.S., then under Obama, on board.
A treaty with binding targets would have required Obama to get the deal approved by the U.S. Senate, impossible given its Republican majority.
At Obama’s behest, the Paris treaty was designed so he could introduce his Climate Action Plan through EPA regulations, rather than legislation. (Toronton Sun)

In other words, third rate “science”, was being used to justify political action which Obama was going to force upon the US population with no consent, bypassing congress and the senate and using presidential executive orders.
But because Obama’s actions had no constitutional backing nor any backing from any binding treaty signed by the Congress and Senate all Trump has to do is to instruct the EPA to ignore those presidential orders and the Paris agreement is dead.
In the past I’ve likened the climate issue to a war. The sceptics have now taken almost all the high ground, and now the main alarmist weapon of the “Paris Treaty” has been effectively removed from the battle. The last remaining battle is for the end of “fake science” and the return of honesty, integrity and reproducibility.