Eerie Speechlessness surrounds the Climate Summit in Marrakesh

Annual UN mega-events, such as the “World Climate Summit,” normally produce a storm in the media. But this time it is different. There is an eloquent silence. Was it the election in the US that caused the climate experts, politicians and NGO representatives to lose their voice? Are they afraid that their global business of “climate-fear” mongering could implode? This would be the case when a statesman finally found the courage to say loudly and comprehensively to the entire world: “climate” no more existing than the “new clothes” in the fairy tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

That statement requires very little knowledge, just bravura and civil courage! The only knowledge required is how “climate” is defined. This can be found in every textbook and in any lexicon and can also be found at the web site of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. According to the internationally valid definition of the Meteorological World Organization (WMO) from the year 1935, the term “climate” describes the average weather at a specific place over a 30-year period. It is therefore necessary to observe and record the weather continuously in one place for more than 30 years to describe what the “climate” has been at that location during the period of observation.

This has never happened before and even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has never even tried to produce such. Only a single one of the many meteorological elements has been used to date. This element is the temperature! But what does a mean of the temperature tell about the weather on which it is based? Not even the daily average temperature, which was formerly derived from the temperatures at 7 am, 2 pm, and 9 pm, the so-called “Mannheim hours,” reveals anything about the actual daytime course of the temperature or the weather.

The “average temperature” is an abstract, indeed a fictitious value, which is irrelevant to nature. Nature, whether it is plants, animals or humans, depends on the real weather. What is true for the short-term temperature is especially true for the average monthly temperature, the seasonal means, and the annual mean temperature. Not even the most ingenious “climate expert” could use an annual average temperature to describe, even approximately, what the weather was at any place during the year. Similarly, calculating a mean “global value” from 1000 temperature records only produces a new value which is nowhere valid on the earth.

From looking at Earth as a “disk”, then as a “sphere”, now as a kind of “disk-sphere”

Svante Arrhenius described in his book “The Idea of ​​a World Structure in the Change of Times” (1911) about “Legends of the Natural Peoples”, about the “Creation Legends among the Peoples of Culture” whose oldest observations concluded that the earth is a “sphere”. According to the Chaldeans, Pythagoras (582-496 BC) arrived at the view of the spherical forms of the moon and the earth. Aristotle (384-322 BC) proved this assumption by observing that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon is always a precise circular arc. Aristarchus from Samos (310-250 BC) even set forth the hypothesis that the sun is the center of the planetary system and not the earth. Already at the time of the beginning of Christianity the spherical shape of the earth was known as can be taken from the biblical “history of creation.”

But the early myth of the flat earth as a “slice” prevailed again after Claudius Ptolemais (100-160 AD) had rejected the “heliocentric world view” of Aristarchus and once again established the “geocentric world view.” It lasted until Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) re-established the “heliocentric view” with plenty of difficulties. When Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) set off on his “journey to India” and discovered “America” ​​in 1492 and Fernando Magellan (1480-1521) sailed around the world for the first time, the myth of a “disk-shaped earth” was still prevalent. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) finally managed to bury the “heliocentric world view” for good.

However, the concept of earth as a “disk” is still virulent in many brains, especially in those of the UN’s devout “climate experts,” the IPCC indulging in the Zeitgeist. They still start with the presumption of earth as a “disk,” even if this is not literally expressed but cleverly circumscribed by the term “Mean Cross Section.” Even self-confessed critics of the “greenhouse effect” are unaware of that “disk-ball-combination.”

Reconstruction of the fictional “radiation equilibrium temperature” of the earth

The calculation of this value is fundamental for the derivation of the “natural greenhouse effect” claimed to be 33 degrees Celsius. It uses the basic assumption that there is a “radiation equilibrium” between the sun and the earth. This means that all the electromagnetic radiation energy coming from the sun that is absorbed by the earth and heating its surface is also radiated completely from the earth. If this were not the case, the earth would gradually heat up. On first sight, this appears logical but it is not.

A not insignificant part of the solar energy is absorbed by the “green plants” during photosynthesis and serves as vital energy source for the plants and animals as well as for us humans through the metabolisation in the body. Also the global water cycle is driven by the solar energy through the evaporation of water. Almost one third of the solar energy is used solely for the evaporation of water and not for the heating of the earth’s surface, so it has to be subtracted as it does not serve the fictional “radiation equilibrium.”

But back to the modelling assumption used by the “climate experts.” They also start with the assumption that the solar radiation is “constant,” a fact that is hidden behind the term “solar constant.” This value is given as 1368 Watt per square meter. And now it gets interesting: this radiation of 1368 W/m^2 is for the “cross-sectional area of ​​the earth,” which is nothing more than a camouflage-type term for the circular “Earth disk” with an area of π-times-r^2. Then we find that the earth is a sphere and that it emits the energy (received by the assumed disk-shaped surface) from a sphere. Since the spherical surface area is exactly 4 times the area of the disk, the irradiated energy of 1368 W/m^2 is divided by 4 and results in a value of 342 W/m^2. The calculation is mathematically correct, but physically totally wrong. That’s because 30% of the 342 W/m^2 (a simplified assumption) does not contribute to the heating of the earth’s surface as it does not penetrate to the Earth’s surface but is scattered in the atmosphere or reflected by the clouds. This is hidden behind the term “albedo,” which is assumed at a flat rate of 30 percent. This way, the solar radiation is reduced to 240 W/m^2.

With this value of 240 W/m^2 for S, one takes the Stefan-Boltzmann equation S = σ T^4 and calculates the temperature T, resulting in a value of 255 degrees Kelvin which corresponds to a temperature of -18 °C. This “-18 degree-C” value is then elevated to the level of dogma that is no longer allowed to be questioned. Anyone who would do so will be labeled “climate denier,” even if one considers the change of the climate to be natural. To begin with, the daily rotation of the earth around its axis and its annual revolution around the sun, with a constant inclination angle of 23.5 degrees arc of the rotational axis to the ecliptic, causes the Earth’s different “climate zones.” Second, the weather changes constantly and with it the weather-derived mean-value construct “climate.” The definition of climate does not permit any interpretation other than that the average “climate” value as a sliding mean with a delay of 15 years lagging behind the weather.
“Hendricks: The Global climate protection gets a basic law”

On November 3, 2016, Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks proudly announced that the Paris Climate Protection Agreement will come into force on November 4, 2016 and stressed “That it is a turning point for us climate protectors. The global climate protection receives the blessing of a basic law. On this basis, the whole world is on the way to a climate-tolerable economic practice.” She chose the term” basic law,” which is a German peculiarity, because, so far, no people made that “basic law” a part of their constitution. This implies that the “climate basic law” should still be elevated by the world’s inhabitants to the level of a “constitution.” Barbara Hendricks ushered in a new era: “During the COP-22 gathering in Marrakesh, the first Treaty Conference under the Paris Agreement will be opened in Marrakesh on November 15.”

Does the hushed-up beginning of a new numbering system mean that the previous 21 climate summits were for nothing and only paper dreams? It is an extremely expensive dream space, as revealed by the MBUB in a press release of November 15, 2016, where it boasted: “The federal government will allocate a large part of its climate financing – in 2015 [IST DAS JAHR HIER RICHTIG?] alone 2.7 billion Euro via regular budget resources to the partnership and in support of countries on all continents for climate protection and adaptation.” However, not just the Ministry of the Environment is responsible here [ICH HALTE DAS WORT UND DIE NORMALE UEBERSETZUNG VON “SUENDENBOCK” (englisch: scapegoat) HIER FUR UNANGEBRACHT, IST URHEBER GEMEINT?]. It also applies to the federal Minister of Finance, and the Chancellor who provides the guidelines. For this “waste” of taxpayers’ funds the whole parliament is responsible as it is empowered to grant or withhold such funds.

Actually, can money even protect the climate or stop “climate change?” The answer to that question would first have to determine if money could guide or influence the world’s weather. As this question is posed neither politically nor scientifically it must be answered in the negative. This means that the 50 million Euro that the Ministry of the Environment has offered in addition to the already spent 140 million Euro for “flood protection measures” are misspent as well. According to the irrational interpretation of “climate protection = protection of the climate,” the question arises whether “flood protection” also means “protection of the flood?” In any case, the terms weather protection, rain protection, lightning protection, and sun protection always and unambiguously mean protection from weather, rain, lightning, and solar radiation.

What was the task Barbara Hendricks was sent to deliver at COP-22 in Marrakesh? It was the “Climate Protection Plan 2050″ which the Cabinet had provided as a “signpost for a climate-neutral Germany.” However, “climate neutral” is also “weather neutral,” so, what does a neutral weather look like? In the press release of November 14, 2016, Barbara Hendricks provides the explanation: “With this climate protection plan we gain international stature. We are guided by the principle of the extensive greenhouse gas neutrality by the middle of the century. For the first time, we have defined time corridors for individual sectors.” In addition to the energy industry, buildings and the transport sector are also to become “climate neutral.” What a nonsensical intention, have pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists ever influenced the weather, or been able to prevent fog or ice?

And what do buildings have to do with the “climate?” They protect us from the seasonally changing weather. If it’s too hot, we’ll escape into cool houses. If it is too cold, then we are glad to have heating to provide a “climatisation” according to one’s personal desires. Do we live in a world that is ideologically so preoccupied that it no longer sees the realities and moves to a distant utopia? The weather is “neutral” by nature because it is quite impersonal and affects everyone alike, albeit differently.

The Paris convention is and will remain an utterly utopian dream, far removed from natural forces.

The derivation of the fictional “radiation equilibrium temperature” of -18 °C is not by me. You can find it in the first Enquete report for the protection of the earth’s atmosphere, published on November 2, 1988. I simply interpreted the calculation as unrealistic.

Likewise, the corresponding value of the “global temperature” is also unrealistic. The difference of both of these fictional values is used to derive the “natural greenhouse effect” of 33 degrees, which is even more unrealistic. Just as the solar radiation cannot be distributed evenly over the earth by simple division by 4, there is also no ubiquitous “global temperature” of + 15 °C, which could be controlled and adjusted according to taste with a CO2-thermostat. This is simply because the earth is not a “greenhouse,” that picture is wrong. The earth cools by radiation, conduction and convection and must be reheated by the sun after every night.

It is absolutely illusory to believe that a body floating freely in space and bound only by the gravitational force to the sun, whose life depends on the sun, could heat itself with the radiation that it itself emits. This assumption alone shows how absurd the claim of a “greenhouse effect” is. This can be checked by anyone who is stuck in snow drifts with his mobile “greenhouse” at night. Just having to scrape off the ice after a clear night should make one think.

“Nature is Speaking” through the thriller star Oliver Mommsen

On November 17, 2016, the BMUB surprised at 14.44 with the message: “Oliver Mommsen lends his voice to the ground!” The simple message? “Nature does not need man – man needs nature.” This truly stunning platitude was already known to the “naked ape” that had to find his food. Prior to becoming a “carnivore” with brain, he lived vegan or vegetarian. What would the “naked ape” say to the “decarbonisation” goal climate decided in Paris? He would curse today’s people, us, because the condemnation of carbon dioxide as “environmental poison” and “climate destroyer” that ought to be forthwith exiled from the atmosphere would remove the lifeblood of all “green plants” that would lead to the global “genocide” as per Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.

The “French Revolution” in 1789 was nothing against the consequences that may result from the “Paris Convention” of 2015!

Comments are closed.

© 2012 DerWettermann.de. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.