Why is Climate Science Slow to Adopt the Standard Model of Physics?
Per the historically new standard model of physics, photons interact with electrons and neutrons. This understanding is more recent than the views of Arrhenius, whose early 20th-century papers are the basis of today’s discredited Greenhouse Gas theory, and the former are outside the scope of the expertise of most academics.
Because photons do transmit forces to electrons and neutrons, sunlight transmits force to the primary molecules of N2 and O2 that make up 99% of the atmosphere.
This occurs via Raleigh scattering and has not been adequately quantified until now (see here).
Photons, travelling at 900,000-times the velocity of atmospheric molecules, increase the velocity of nitrogen and oxygen, which is the basis of temperature, per the mainstream kinetic theory of gases.
This transfer of thermal energy via momentum is the way in which N2 and O2 store by far most of the thermal energy in the air (troposphere).
The 0.04% trace gases, formerly known by the “greenhouse gas” misnomer, do indeed store energy via increased vibrations, which energy, however, is only stored momentarily.
Anyone who wishes to argue with the standard model, and the nature of photons, is welcome to (that knowledge also may be advancing), otherwise, they are evading well-verified scientific understandings.
The scientific community has not yet processed the implications of the standard model on their theories of atmospheric thermal energy storage.
A More Likely Theory...
What is the Climate Science Journal?
We have a problem. Science, specifically climate science, has been corrupted for political reasons. The funding provided by governments sets the direction for most academic research, and governments often have politicized and faction-supported agendas.
“Since about 2014 or so, the public debate on climate change has become less ‘scientized’, with economics, social justice and raw politics taking center stage.
What is the effect of this corruption? Temperature data has been altered, irrationally justified, in order to conform to a “global warming” representation. The evidence shows the world has not been warming, so the data has been changed.
The scientific press has gone berserk. Not only have they altered the data, they denounce science itself:
“…the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate.”
Really? The only way to find out of sunspots or solar wind have a substantial impact on Earth’s climate? So the task of science is to give up trying to study alternative approaches and the impacts of potentially devastating solutions in advance? We are to go ahead and implement a drastic international program of change, even if it means destroying economies, infrastructure, lives and standards of living to “significantly reduce carbon emissions”, because we cannot tell otherwise?
Rubbish! We can tell in other ways, and that should be the task of rational, competent scientists. Many capable scientists are already showing that when fewer sunspots cause lower solar winds, more cosmic radiation enters the planet’s atmosphere, and that causes more precipitation, cooling the planet. And there are other ways to study the phenomena, and are finding that the Sun is the primary cause of Earth’s constantly-changing climate.
We cannot let humanity lose science–it is the foundation of all the technology and infrastructure that 7.5 billion people require to survive. When academics en masse abandon integrity, when it becomes stylish to be dishonest, then we put our world in peril.
Science is not a popularity contest. Just because a thousand people agree with an idea does not make it a sound idea. It is a question of accuracy of representation, and that thousand people can be less interested, biased, or unaware of competing knowledge.
Science needs lots of views, and competition among them with freedom of speech.
The Climate Science Journal is about restoring integrity to the study of climate change. Please consider supporting our project by buying one of the our books or eBooks, or making a donation.
Arctic Ice?Many news media have claimed that the ice in the Arctic is declining dramatically, which is simply false. The following charts are from the Danish government’s site, here. The above chart shows that although ice in the Arctic melts and breaks off from glaciers in the Spring and Summer to form icebergs, it returns again
Grand Solar Minimum?We are apparently witnessing a decline in global temperatures because of a Solar Minimum. The chart below shows sunspots, which have been maintained in accurate scientific record since the invention of the telescope. The above chart suggests the question: “Do sunspots provide us information that can help us ascertain the Sun’s changes that
Today’s mainstream press presents an emergency situation with climate, based upon claimed temperature rises. Is this claim factual? Below are links to some current news articles that challenge the global warming premise, showing the opposite, that temperatures are cooling. 12/2020: November Coldest in 71 Years, New Delhi, India 01/2020: Smashes All-Time Daily Snow Record, Newfoundland,
What About the CO2? CO2 SolubilityThe chart below shows the relationship between water temperature and CO2, showing how, when the ocean water gets warmer, CO2 is released to the atmosphere. The above chart explains that as the temperature of the ocean water increases, the solubility of CO2 (the amount of dissolved CO2 the water can retain) declines about 2.6% for
Additional Evidence Right Shift of Radiation SpectrumThe below graph shows how we can tell that momentum is being transferred to molecules, independent of their atomic structure, using a widely disseminated chart. The above chart explains how the momentum transfer to the velocity of molecules shifts the entire spectrum of solar radiation received by the Earth
Science is never “settled”. Knowledge is always subject to further discovery, re-evaluation, and falsification with new evidence or understandings. The “consensus” is never a substitute for evidence and/or better, more valid theory, because knowledge does not derive its epistemic stature from how many, or who, endorses it. An appeal to authority, whether of renown or
Why Support Science?
While leftists finance global-warming alarmism in an attempt to confiscate €25 trillion from the Paris Accord climate agreement, and use the always changing climate as an excuse to nationalize more of economies, who supports honest science challenging this pseudo-science?
Many people say talk to the oil companies. But most oil companies will not touch the global warming issue: because their interests lie in selling hydrocarbons, they appear to be biased no matter what they say. So they have invested generally in renewable energy, and it is no longer a primary issue to them which side wins, or what the future holds, as they are covered either way.
But what about science? Do you personally care whether scientific progress continues, and humans learn more about nature so that we can actually solve real problems? If you care about humanity, then you should care about science.
Again, science needs lots of views, and competition among them with freedom of speech. Please consider supporting our project by buying one of the our books or eBooks, or making a donation.
"You have found a promising approach to demonstrate successfully that the long suspected culprits of global warming, e.g. CO2, CH4, are actually not !"
Rutgers University, New Jersey
B.A. Cornell University, New York
"…seems to be path-breaking research in the domain. The paper reads nice and the science involved is analogous and clear. This paper is a hallmark and would benefit the advances in science, government planning as well as policy makers for the next course of action. I congratulate you for this great work and thank for giving me an opportunity to read it and enlighten myself."
PhD, Atmospheric Sci and Meteorology, IISc
M.Sc., Geophysics, ISC
BSc., (Hons) Physics, Delhi U
"An alarmist bias in Global Warming Research has corrupted the academic/scientific community"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Principal Research Scientist at UoA
Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
"I have studied your paper during the weekend and I am impressed by your brilliant analysis and convincing argumentation. This looks like a very original thought process and one that does deserve broad dissemination."
B.Sc. (Hons) Mech. Eng.
C.P. Eng. (Chartered Prof. Eng.)
Former Project Manager, CERN
The Climate Science Journal Allows Anonymous Reviews, and Paper Presentations
The use of pseudonyms has a long history in science and philosophy, as a means of evading retaliation by those who are threatened by the advance of human knowledge and understanding, including:
- Nicolaus Copernicus (who first put forward his theory of heliocentrism anonymously),
- Galileo (writing as Lothario Sarsio Sigensano),
- Isaac Newton (as Jehovah Sanctus Unus)
- John Locke (his Two Treatises on Government was published anonymously)
- Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (as Lewis Carroll) and
- François-Marie Arouet (as Voltaire)
Climate Science Journal