(https://)Climate Change (IPCC)3, there is a “scientific consensus” [22], that the relevant mechanismis the atmospheric greenhouse effect, a mechanism heavily relying on the assumption thatradiative heat transfer clearly dominates over the other forms of heat transfer such as thermalconductivity, convection, condensation et cetera [23–30].In all past IPCC reports and other such scientific summaries the following point evocatedin Ref. [24], p. 5, is central to the discussion:“One of the most important factors is the greenhouse effect; a simplified ex-planation of which is as follows. Short-wave solar radiation can pass through theclear atmosphere relatively unimpeded. But long-wave terrestrial radiation emit-ted by the warm surface of the Earth is partially absorbed and then re-emittedby a number of trace gases in the cooler atmosphere above. Since, on average,the outgoing long-wave radiation balances the incoming solar radiation, both theatmosphere and the surface will be warmer than they would be without the green-house gases . . . The greenhouse effect is real; it is a well understood effect, basedon established scientific principles.”To make things more precise, supposedly, the notion of radiative forcing was introduced bythe IPCC and related to the assumption of radiative equilibrium. In Ref. [27], pp. 7-6, onefinds the statement:“A change in average net radiation at the top of the troposphere (known as thetropopause), because of a change in either solar or infrared radiation, is defined forthe purpose of this report as a radiative forcing. A radiative forcing perturbs thebalance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Over time climate responds tothe perturbation to re-establish the radiative balance. A positive radiative forcingtends on average to warm the surface; a negative radiative forcing on average tendsto cool the surface. As defined here, the incoming solar radiation is not considereda radiative forcing, but a change in the amount of incoming solar radiation wouldbe a radiative forcing . . . For example, an increase in atmospheric CO2concentra-tion leads to a reduction in outgoing infrared radiation and a positive radiativeforcing.”However, in general “scientific consensus” is not related whatsoever to scientific truth ascountless examples in history have shown. “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific3The IPCC was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WHO) and the United
https://gettr.com/post/p2cypthe001
Empoisonner l'eau suffit , pas besoin d'aller Chercher des explications , dans "le Ciel" qui Sont là Pour DISCRÉDITER ,car absolument fausses.( Et "initiées par CEUX qui ont intérêt à continuer à NOUS EMPOISONNER, massivement et discrètement)et PAS qu'avec l'eau !( beaucoup de médicaments en contiennent et aussi , ce qui EST fabriqué avec de L'EAU : effet cumulatif non pris en compte ,( par l'HHS) .
les.autres propagent ,par non connaissances de phénomènes physiques SIMPLES .( LES ÉTATS DE L'EAU ) en altitude , Une analogie,expérience de la "chambre à bulle de Glaser"
@Bridge????patriots
14 days ago
Pinned by @Bridge????patriots
3.2 Scientific error versus scientific fraud
Recently, the German climatologist Graßl emphasized that errors in science are unavoidable,
even in climate research [116]. And the IPCC weights most of its official statements with a
kind of a “probability measure” [2]. So it seems that, even in the mainstream discussion on
the supposed anthropogenic global warming, there is room left for scientific errors and their
corrections.
However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis
is not based on an error, but clearly is a kind of a scientific fraud.
Five examples:
• As early as 1990 the Australian movie entitled “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” showed
that the case for the greenhouse effect rests on four pillars [117]:
36 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
1. the factual evidence, i.e. the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global
warming has been observed and is exceptional;
2. the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes;
3. the predictions of climate models that claim that a doubling of CO2 leads to a
predictable global warming;
4. the underlined physics.
In the movie these four pillars were dismantled bringing the building down. The speaker
states:
“In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, Professor Ellsaesser of
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major US research establishment in
California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or
no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the
surface to cool.”
The reader is referred to Ellsaesser’s original work [118].
• Two books by the popular German meteorologist and sociologist Wolfgang Th¨une, entitled The Greenhouse Swindle (In German, 1998) [119] and Aquittal for CO2 (In German,
2002) [120] tried to demonstrate that the CO2 greenhouse effect hypothesis is pure nonsense.
• A book written by Heinz Hug entitled Those who play the trumpet of fear (In German,
2002) elucidated the history
jazz
tu nous aura permis ,d'attendre avec espoir ,tes recherches vont porter leurs fruits?
ensuite ,une chanson à venir. qui est sombre ,mais .....je pleure e'ncire cette chanteuse.(emy)