The Global Warming Theory Doesn’t Fit the Reality

By guest author C. van Rijn MD

We are at a crucial point in history. Climate change is seen as the biggest threat humanity has ever known. The feeling of pending disaster, guilt about the climate and a need to do penance seems to be growing in all wealthy Christian countries, but is totally absent from others. The origin of the threat is global warming which is, according to the prevailing opinion, caused by the greenhouse gases. To prevent this alleged catastrophe, we have the intention of investing an enormous amount of money to reduce the use of fossil fuels. This investment will lead to a huge economic downturn, exacerbated by the loss of economic competitiveness with other countries which will not be burdened with this scheme. This will inevitably lead to the deterioration of the prosperity of the Western countries in all areas. So before these extreme expenses are made, it may be wise to look carefully at the scientific basis underlying the global warming phenomenon.

In this article we first consider all the misconceptions and deceit rampant in public debate on this the topic of the green house effect. We arrive at the conclusion that if you omit all lies and exaggerations, the scientific basis appears to be paper-thin. Second, we hope to point out why the European version of the green new deal will be a tragedy.

The past 600,000 years
The empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect over this period has consisted mainly of a chart that suggests a causal link between CO2 and temperature levels.

The fact that CO2 increases have always occurred a few hundred years after temperature rises means that the causality is reversed: a temperature rise causes a CO2-increase. Al Gore who used this graph in the movie “an inconvenient truth” was rightly condemned in an English court for misinterpreting this graph.¹⁾Al Gore’s CO2 Emissions Chart, YouTube 2013-04-28; Gore’s climate film has scientific errors – judge, The Guardian 2007-10-11.

The past 1000 years
The warming in this period is notorious because of the iconic hockey stick graph fabricated by hide-the-decline Michael Mann and prominently shown in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Rife with warped data, mixing data from tree-rings and thermometers, hiding the medieval warming and using poor statistics, it turned out the be a plain fraud. The author filed lawsuits against the accusations, but lost them all to his denouncers.(Mann vs. Ball, Mann vs Steyn).

The last 100 years
Homogenization is a procedure to calibrate and correct temperature data, for example, if a station is moved to another location.
In the Netherlands, the KNMI (a sort of local IPCC) said in a 2015 statement that global warming sparked more heatwaves. An attentive citizen, R. de Vos, however, showed that in the first half of the 20th century there was the same amount of heatwaves as in the present. Suddenly, the KNMI remembered they had moved a station in 1951 a few hundred meters and consequently used a form of homogenization. One year later because of this homogenization the temperature was changed downwards and 70% of the heatwaves before 1951 completely disappeared the history books. This strange phenomenon of changing the temperatures of the past downwards has happened in many countries, for example the US, Iceland and Australia.

This phenomenon is unlikely because of urbanization. The temperature in cities is 2-5° higher than outside. When a station is located in a city the average temperature rises when the city is growing (more then 90% of the stations in US are located in urban areas). So you would expect the present temperature adjusted downward by homogenization, not the past. This raises the suspicion this is all fabricated to make the warming threat seem more imminent.²⁾Anthony Watts at COP25: Climate Change and Data Manipulation, YouTube 2019-12-04; KNMI blijft Oost-Indisch doof voor “Het raadsel van de verdwenen hittegolven”, Climate Gate.nl.

The future
Why do we have so many models for predicting the temperature rather than one? Many countries have their own model. They all look like an intricate web of computer code lines, and they all diverge from the actual temperature in the troposphere. If the Russian model, were to be accepted with a very low CO2-sensitivity, then it shows pretty accurate results.

The IPCC
The IPCC, which was created by the UN to provide policymakers with background information, is just like all those models that lose contact with reality. In the previous 4th report they were 90% sure, in the 5th report they are claiming a 95% certainty that humans are the dominant cause behind global warming, and all this despite the aforementioned chart.
The IPCC exists because of the belief that global warming is a serious threat. The greater the threat, the greater the subsidy flow and their status. Initially, there were few scientists at the IPCC who thought they were allowed to practice real science and be able to express criticism. They were totally ignored and mostly, disillusioned, they left the IPCC. Their statements of despair and bewilderment are heartbreaking.³⁾Statements by IPCC experts vs the IPCC, The Manila Times 2019-10-26.

Sea level rise
Sea level rise is the only real potential climate threat for humans. The IPCC indicates with certainty that there was an alarming rise in sea level, 3.14 mm for the period of 1992-2015. This is based on the data from several satellites like Topex, Jason, Poseidon etc, operating since 1992.

Thorough scrutiny reveals what follows. First, there are scientists who draw different conclusions because of various adjustments applied to the satellite data, with most estimates ranging enormously from 2.4-3.4 mm per year. Second, more than 1200 tidal gauge measurements show on average no additional i.e. climate-induced increase. The sea level has been rising according to tidal gauge measurements steadily by 1.7 mm per year for over 100 years. To make a comparison: If you want to know whether you have a fever or not, which would rely on more on: a fancy new thermometer which shows different temperatures, or 1200 vintage thermometers, which show no fever at all? Maybe that’s why the IPCC remarkably, crawls back a little bit, and has shown a smaller and smaller sea level rise with each report.⁴⁾Relative Sea Level Trend, Tides and Currents; Zee, klimaatgek.

Glaciers
The mistake about glaciers which the IPCC has made gives insight into their biased methods. The IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. Despite a 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover, the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas. Georg Kaser, amongst others, an expert in tropical glaciology, had warned months before the report was published that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006. The IPCC printed this blunder anyway. ⁵⁾Anatomy of IPCC’s Mistake on Himalayan Glaciers and Year 2035, Yale Climate Connections 2010-02-04.

The Media
A lot of bogus science – no matter how foolish or contradictory – is uncritically quoted by the media. A 2011 overview of 30 studies cites titles that contradict each other. Here is a sample: Bird migrations longer, Bird migrations shorter, Bird migrations out of fashion; Boreal forest fires may increase, Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing; Chinese locusts swarm when warmer, Chinese locusts swarm when cooler; Columbia spotted frogs decline, Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world. This list goes on.⁶⁾NoTricksZone, notrickszone.com.

The latest climate myth trumpeted around is that the fires in Australia are caused by climate change. You will hardly find any nuance in the media. While the link with climate change is arguably negligible, see the discussion of meteorologist R. Spencer.⁷⁾Are Australia Bushfires Worsening from Human-Caused Climate Change? Roy Spencer PHd 2020-01-08.
We just mentioned a few examples. The number and severity of all failed predictions is enormous. All estimates for the polar bears, coral reefs, droughts, storms, climate refugees and other apocalyptic visions of the future have proved false. Mistakes made by the IPCC and other alarmists are always in favour of the global warming ideology, never against it. Where were the mainstream media to denounce all these failures? Most of them stayed awfully quiet.

The greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is quite complicated. We offer an explanation below for those who are interested. Many question marks still remain unanswered which makes clear that making a prediction for the temperature is absolutely impossible, especially for the far future. Consider some of the uncertainties in the theory.
– The estimates of the part of greenhouse gasses made by CO2 vary from 9 to 26%. Most of it is H2O, which in gas form has a warming effect and in the form of clouds produces a cooling effect.
– The estimates of the temperature increase even with a clear sky by doubling of CO2 range from 0.46- 1.46 Celsius.
– Because of feedback mechanisms, the IPCC says 1.1 to 6.4 °C will be added to the primary greenhouse effect.
– Yearly CO2 emissions have increased by a much faster rate than the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. There is still much uncertainty where all this CO2 goes to and what the earth’s absorption capacity of CO2 is.
– The current computers are not powerful enough. There are so many factors to be considered and calculations to be made that it is not yet possible; also they have to parameterize a lot of numbers.⁸⁾Debunking the “Simple Physics” Slogan About Climate Change, YouTube 2019-04-16.

– They use an average temperature, which is an incorrect way of parameterizing:. Radiation is calculated to the fourth power (T^4). So when there is a temperature difference between, say, day and night and between the poles and the equator, you must not use an average temperature of 15° C at the surface because this yields enormous miscalculations. ⁹⁾On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect, SpringerPlus 2014-12-10.

– We can measure what radiation is absorbed by CO2. We cannot measure the extent to which this is converted to a higher temperature. Perhaps the absorbed radiation is converted into kinetic, latent or potential energy. Perhaps the radiation just exits at a different wavelength in the atmosphere. Because we cannot measure this, the greenhouse theory remains a hypothesis. Therefore, there is still room for other assumptions, such as the air pressure hypothesis, the sunspot hypothesis or even the multimerization theory. They all do indicate that there are other options open for explaining the energy budget of the atmosphere and the current cause of warming.¹⁰⁾Ned Nikolov, Karl Zeller, Unified Theory of Climate; Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere” Papers 1-3, Global Warming Solved 2013-11-19; Force Majeure, The Sun’s Role in Climate Change, The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

What can we conclude from all this? Considering all the uncertainties we think it is impossible to reliably predict the future, so the IPCC should be more honest about the range of uncertainty. Furthermore: to err is human. The mistakes that are made by the IPCC and similar institutions are however always, always, in favour of the global warming theory.

If you are playing poker with someone who “by chance” draws aces all the time, you’d better consider playing with another partner. That’s why we also strongly recommend to create a second opinion institute besides the IPCC.

European Union
The EU has a new high-priest of climate, Frans Timmermans. He is planning to burn more than thousands of billions of euros to prevent global warming in his green new deal. Timmermans has proven himself completely biased and a scientific lightweight. He is not capable of weighing various scientific opinions well. Therefore, he is accompanied by D. Samsom. This smart green politician, however, formerly started to study nuclear physics because, as a Greenpeace fanatic, he was against nuclear power. Obviously, he was revolutionary-minded from an early age, not exactly a neutral person for this job. ¹¹⁾‘Overweldigend Bewijs’ (van het onbenul van staatssecretaris Timmermans), YouTube 2009-11-04.

The main goal for the green new deal is “to save lives in the future.” To estimate the number of lives that will be saved the following formula can be used:
N = WCs x CI x E x P1 – (P2 + (IA x P3))
N – number of lives saved;
WCs – % probability of the IPCC’s worst case scenario;
CI – % probability that China and India will join in time;
E – % probability that windmills and solar power will make a substantial difference in energy;
P1 – number of people that are in danger and too slow to escape sea level rise;
P2 – lives saved by harvest and crop growth caused by CO2;
IA – probability that the ice age is prevented by global warming;
P3 – number of people too slow to escape from the ice age.
Of course this formula is intended ironically, but it will be apparent that there are many factors that can play a role in the possible failure of the project. Furthermore, you should also compare the enormous investment to prevent global warming with other options. If the goal of saving lives is sincere, there might be better and cheaper options with a higher probability of success. For example, trying to find a cure for malaria which makes now 450.000 deaths every year, or prevent 390.000 deaths caused by dirty water every year. These options seem more plausible to bet your money on. There has never been made any comparison of various options in terms of a return of investment. So the EU is on the break of blindly starting a gigantic new project where common sense seems to have totally disappeared.
Let us finish with one question in the spirit of Gefira: Why is the fact rarely identified that when a person migrates from Africa to Europe his energy-use increases with a factor of 5. Shouldn’t we therefore stop all migration from low energy use to high energy use countries?

For the interested
The sun emits short-wave radiation, whereas the earth emits long-wave radiation. The cooler the surface or the atmosphere, the lower the energy intensity, and the greater the wavelength of radiation.

Radiation wavelength of the sun and of the earth
Greenhouse gases are generally permeable to incoming solar radiation but not for outgoing radiation. Molecules that consist of two atoms, such as nitrogen (n₂) and oxygen (O₂) are penetrable to thermal radiation. More complex molecules such as water vapor (H₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH4) are not, however, and take on heat radiation. These gases are therefore also called greenhouse gases. They absorb the radiation with the longer wavelengths transmitted by earth.

Absorption by CO2, H2O, O2, O3 and wavelength. (site klimaatgek)

Greenhouse gases are not a barrier to the heat emitted by the earth, but delay the transfer of energy from the earth into space. While this energy transfer can be slowed towards space, ultimately the heat will disappear in space.

Source: klimaatgek

The greenhouse effect describes the process in which heat radiating from the earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases, and then emitted in all directions. Because a portion is sent back to the earth, the surface temperature increases. The assumption is that the greenhouse effect creates an atmospheric temperature rise of about 33°C, at which the average temperature of the earth is not a -18° C, which should be expected, but 15°C. The expected -18°C is calculated by the heat and distance between the sun and the earth’s surface.

The calculation underlying the green house effect is shown in a IPCC picture. The figure demonstrates the earth’s average energy budget. The yellow arrow is the sunlight that reaches the earth’s surface and causes warming. Of the sunlight, 161 watt reaches the earth’s surface. This leaves the surface by evaporation (84W), sensible heat (20W) and radiation (56W). The radiated energy is partly absorbed by the atmospheric gases, and partly radiated back to the earth (the orange arrow pointing downwards) which leads to extra warming.

Figure 1: The energy budget of the earth. Info and picture based on Klimaatfeiten.nl.