New German Study Exposes Climate Science’s Greatest Flaws

By John O’Sullivan

Hard-hitting new German historical study uncovers fundamental flaws woven into the infant science of climatology. UN man-made global warming researchers misapply radiation laws, contradicting their use by all other branches of science.

German environmentalist and climate analyst, Dr. Matthias Kleespies, researching for a new historical paper on the history of the greenhouse gas theory, stumbled upon shocking evidence that discredits a long-standing assumption among climatologists.

Dr. Kleespies publishes his groundbreaking revelations about the conventional narrative of the history and provenance of so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ science with the independent science think-tank, Principia Scientific International (PSI) after extensive peer-review by a burgeoning raft of maverick PhD science bloggers. In his paper Dr. Kleespies uncovers how an unphysical concept known as “back” or “downwelling” radiation became the cornerstone of  “manmade, or anthropogenic, climate change.’

In his “A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?” (Principia Scientific International, Nov. 2011), Dr. Kleespies found that, “This theory is so extraordinary because there is NO OTHER field in science where any such mechanism like “back” or “downwelling” radiation is permitted.”

Applying fresh eyes to how this infant science came into being, Kleespies, an expert in sustainable technology, reviewed the mainstream standard texts and found that they confirm, en masse, a skewed rational of physics.

The physics employed by climatologists “ultimately leads to a perpetual motion machine heating up the atmosphere to a level higher than the temperature originally gained by the external heat source, the sun,” says Kleespies.

Incredulously, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) supposedly cooks our planet by nothing more than the repeated reflection of its own heat bouncing around within the gases of our atmosphere.

Kleespies poses the question: Why do so many government scientists working in climate research make an exception to permit the possibility of this perpetual motion machine of additional surface heating when other scientists wouldn’t?

The answer to the above questions is simply stunning: the real source of their scientific beliefs is a radiation theory set up by a Swiss scientist over 220 years ago named Prevost (1791).

Dr. Kleespies found that:

“ When talking with any scientist believing in “back” or “downwelling” radiation you will almost always here something like this: ‘Quantum physics tells us that statistically there are more photons flowing from the warmer body to the cooler body than the other way around but that does not mean that there are NO photons – statistically – moving from the cooler to the warmer body. Only the NET FLOW is decisive.’”

The flaw, says Kleespies, is that climatologists will then have us believe that “the net flow, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, of course is only from hot to cold.”

But because such proponents “argue that – statistically – there are some photons moving from cold to warm, i. e., from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface” the rate of cooling of the earth is smaller than it would be WITHOUT the somewhat colder body, i.e., the atmosphere.

Intellectual Misappropriation of Planck’s Law

As Kleespies paper shows, those scientists have no facts to bolster this reasoning yet they “think the source of their belief was the “undisputed” Planck theory of radiation, known as ‘Planck´s law.’”

As we know, Planck’s Law led science to develop ideas about quantum physics; and as quantum physics is regarded the “crown of modern physics” Planck’s radiation law, by tying their belief in “back” or “downwelling” radiation to Planck’s ideas necessarily gives theirs the gloss of appearing to be correct and indisputable.

However, Kleespies asks us to look at the history of radiation science and to strip away all that is not experimentally provable and which relies merely on statistical “quantum” mechanics, and then we you find something else.

The provenance of very basis of the belief in “back” or “downwelling” radiation is nothing more plausible than Prevost´s idea, based on an “igneous fluid”, of particles being freely exchanged between two radiating bodies.

But the really bad news, says Kleespies, is “Prevost didn´t know anything about thermodynamics, so he´s not to blame for his theory. But today´s scientists should know better yet basically stick to Prevost´s ideas anyway.”

The beauty of this historical re-examination by Kleespies is that he identifies something other researchers failed to spot: climatologists don’t know that it is Prevost´s “igneous fluid” ideas they are perpetuating;” those ideas formed before modern science truly existed.

Kleespies advises that we are thus as unwise to rely on Prevost, as we are to rely on Arrhenius, the “father of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.” After all, it was Arrhenius who also told us that the ‘luminiferous aether’ was real, too!

Checklist of Climatology’s Historical Dysfunction

Kleespies sagely advises readers to take no one’s word for it, not even his, when we review, “A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?” Indeed, with apparently so much propaganda pervading modern government science we really do need to check all the facts for ourselves.

In summary the Kleespies study covers 11 key issues as follows:

  • How Prevost developed his idea;
  • How Prevost was not undisputed within the historic scientific community;
  • How the scientific debate on whether light and radiation is based on particles or waves is still not ended;
  • Why Arrhenius´ “greenhouse theory” was based on flawed data and his belief in the idea of luminiferous aether;
  • The fact Arrhenius, in contrast to today´s alarmists, believed  man-made global warming would be BENEFICIAL for mankind;
  • How Arrhenius was refuted by Wood already in 1909;
  • How Planck created his radiation law in an “act of despair”
  • That Einstein was never really satisfied with quantum physics;
  • That Planck´s radiation law is NOT undisputed;
  • In contrast to Planck´s and also Einstein´s conviction, both blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect CAN BE explained by a wave model available since 2010;
  • The new wave model developed to explain blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect does not allow any transport of heat from cold to warm and thus strongly contradicts any “back” or “downwelling” radiation as alleged source of AGW.

The Kleespies paper is a compelling addition to the other recent papers published by Principia Scientific International (PSI). This new independent think tank is gaining momentum in offering robust scientific refutations of the traditional greenhouse gas effect; as such it is firmly ensconced as a leader of a new paradigm shift in our understanding of climate.

Source: Dr. Kleespies, M., “A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?” (Nov. 2011), Principia Scientific International, principia-scientific.org.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Editor

One response to “New German Study Exposes Climate Science’s Greatest Flaws