BOZEMAN, Mont. – A new scientific paper contends the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory – the assumption that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat – is wrong. If confirmed, the study’s findings would crush the entire “climate change” movement to restrict CO2 emissions, the authors assert Some experts contacted by WND criticized the paper, while others advised caution. Still others suggested that the claimed discovery represents a massive leap forward in human understanding – a “new paradigm.” The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.
They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect. Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere. The same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA. So precise is the formula, the authors of the paper told WND, that, by using it, they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis. The paper The paper, published recently in the journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change,” was written by Ned Nikolov, a Ph.D. in physical science, and Karl Zeller, retired Ph.D. research meteorologist.
That theory, which underpins the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis and the climate models used by the United Nations, was first proposed and developed in the 19th century. However, the experiments on which it was based involved glass boxes that retain heat by preventing the mixing of air inside the box with air outside the box. The truth about global warming is no further than the WND Superstore, where “Climategate,” “The Greatest Hoax,” and more publications are available.
The experiment is not analogous to what occurs in the real atmosphere, which does not have walls or a lid, according to Nikolov and Zeller. The new paper, headlined “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model,” argues that greenhouse theory is incorrect. “This was not a pre-conceived conclusion, but a result from an objective analysis of vetted NASAobservations,” Nikolov told WND. The real mechanisms that control the temperature of the planet, they say, are the sun’s energy and the air pressure of the atmosphere. The same applies to other celestial bodies, according to the scientists behind the paper.
To understand the phenomena, the authors used three planets – Venus, Earth and Mars – as well as three natural satellites: the Moon of Earth, Titan of Saturn and Triton of Neptune. They chose the celestial bodies based on three criteria: having a solid surface, representation of a broad range of environments, and the existence of reliable data on temperature, atmospheric composition and air pressure. “Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between global mean annual temperature] and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System,” the paper explains. “This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth,” the study continues.
The paper outlines four possible explanations for those observations, and concludes that the most plausible was that air pressure is responsible for the greenhouse effect on a celestial body. In essence, what is commonly known as the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect is in fact a form of compression heating caused by total air pressure, the authors told WND in a series of e-mails and phone interviews, comparing the mechanics of it to the compression in a diesel engine that ignites the fuel.” And that effect is completely independent of the so-called “greenhouse gases” and the chemical composition of the atmosphere, they added.
“Hence, there are no greenhouse gases in reality – as in, gases that can cause warming,” Nikolov said when asked to explain the paper in layman’s terms. “Humans cannot in principle affect the global climate through industrial emissions of CO2, methane and other similar gases or via changes in land use,” he added. “All observed climatic changes have natural causes that are completely outside of human control.”
For the first time, Nikolov said, there is now empirical evidence from NASA data that the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is not caused by the trapping of heat, but by the force of atmospheric pressure. The pressure is the weight of the atmosphere, he added. And the combination of gravity and the mass of the atmosphere explains why the Earth, for example, is warmer than the moon. “The moon receives about the same amount of heat from the sun as Earth, yet it is 90 degrees [Celsius] colder than the Earth, because it has no atmosphere,” Nikolov explained.
atmospheric pressure. If correct, the implications of the discovery would be enormous, multiple scientists told WND. For one, it means the climate projections used to forecast warming doom and justify a wide range of policies are completely wrong. That is because they were produced by computer models built around a “physically deeply flawed concept, the radiative greenhouse theory,” said Nikolov, who works as a federal scientist but did the new study completely on his own time. “One major implication of our recently published study is that there is indeed a fundamental problem with the physics of current radiative greenhouse concept,” he told WND, highlighting the origin of the “inaccurate” theory in two 19th century papers.
“The foundation of the greenhouse theory was born of an assumption, it was never shown experimentally, and our results show this is completely wrong,” Nikolov said. “Our study blows the greenhouse theory completely out of the water. There is nothing left.” “Hence, the public debate on climate needs now to shift focus to the fact that the basic science concept underlying current climate projections by the UN [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC and other international bodies is physically flawed,” Nikolov added, saying the new findings require a “fundamental overhaul of climate science” and that Earth may be heading for a cooling period. “This is what the data shows,” he said. “We didn’t start with a theory, we started with the data, which is the opposite of how the greenhouse theory came about.”
The greenhouse theory, Nikolov explained, is based on the assumption that a free convective atmosphere – an atmosphere with no “lid” on it – can trap heat. “This was an assumption born out of a misinterpretation of experiments involving glass boxes in the early 19th century by Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician,” he said. “Glass boxes get warmer inside when exposed to the sun not because they trap long-wave radiation, as thought by Fourier, but because they hamper the exchange of air between the inside of a box and the outside environment,” he added. Next came Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, who assumed Fourier was correct and in 1896 created an equation to calculate the Earth’s temperature based on CO2 in the atmosphere.
“This equation is both mathematically and physically wrong,” argued Nikolov. “Yet, this paper is still cited as ‘evidence’ that the physics of the greenhouse effect have been well-known for over 100 years.” The atmosphere does, indeed, increase heat near the surface of celestial bodies. The truth about global warming is no further than the WND Superstore, where “Climategate,” “The Greatest Hoax,” and more publications are available. “But until our paper, the mechanism to explain this – pressure – was not known,” Nikolov continued. “All of the climate science has been based on these false assumptions, all the computer models were based on the assumption, but it’s incorrect.”
Zeller, a retired U.S. Air Force reserve colonel and a retired research meteorologist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service and NOAA, also said that the monumental implications of the findings would extend even beyond the climate debate. “The implications, beyond the scientific ones, of this study, are that once understood, it may be an opportunity for healing by looking back and seeing that even in this day and age science can be wrong,” he told WND. “Possibly this will demonstrate that the world’s peer-review system needs to be rethought so that it doesn’t continue retarding the advancement of human evolution: Medicine, pharmaceuticals, cancer cures, proper dietary guidance, etc. are all hampered by combinations of greed and strongly held beliefs,” he added.
In terms of advancing scientific inquiry, “our formula, if we can get it out there to the world, is going to open up all sorts of new lines of research,” Zeller continued. Among other examples, he noted that if the formula is applied to the earth’s temperature record stretching back to previous warm and cold periods, it would explain everything from the observed reduced differences in temperature between the earth’s poles and the equator, to how pterodactyls could fly despite the physics of flight not working based on today’s atmospheric density. While describing himself as a “flaming, bleeding heart liberal,” Zeller noted that this should all be about science, not politics. “This climate controversy is costing billions, making the wrong folks rich, and keep us from solving real environmental problems,” he explained. What do YOU think? Sound off in today’s WND poll on study claiming to demolish “greenhouse theory.” What supporters say: WND reached out to a wide range of scientists around the world working in a variety of fields related to physics or climate.
Most either did not respond, or said they did not have the technical knowledge needed to evaluate the new study’s validity. However, of those who responded with an opinion, most suggested that the paper was interesting and important. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired chief of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, was among those who expressed support for the findings. “The paper by Nikolov and Zeller is exceptionally interesting, a big step forward, and probably a door-opener to a new ‘paradigm’,” he told WND. Mörner, who served as an expert reviewer for the UN IPCC until realizing that it was not truly interested in science, added that he “fully” endorsed the conclusions offered by Nikolov. Professor Philip Lloyd with the Energy Institute at South Africa’s Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) also expressed support for the paper.
“Nikolov’s work is very interesting, and I think the underlying physics is sound,” he told WND in an e-mail. Lloyd, who was educated in nuclear physics at MIT and also served on the UN IPCC, noted that “slightly more than half of all climate scientists have just a bit of doubt about the ‘human-made carbon dioxide causes global warming’ hypothesis.” “However, they face the question, if not carbon dioxide, what is it?” noted Lloyd, who also serves as a professor at the Agricultural University of Beijing and was nominated by the UN IPCC in 2007 as part of the team to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. “Nikolov and Zeller may have found the answer – the sun,” he said.
“We have known for some time that solar activity and global temperatures are highly correlated, but correlation and cause are not the same. However, Nikolov has managed to link the two in what seems to be a scientifically sound manner.” One important element to note is that the theory advanced by Nikolov and Zeller has made predictions about the surface temperature of other bodies in the solar system, he explained. That means the theory can be tested. “One of the reasons why many of us have doubts about the carbon dioxide hypothesis is that it, too, makes predictions, and many of those predictions have turned out to be wrong, so it is really nice to have something else we can test, rather than trying to tweak the carbon dioxide hypothesis to make it fit the facts better,” he concluded.
Emeritus Professor David South of Auburn University, who has testified before Congress on issues related to atmospheric CO2 concentrations, first learned in 2012 of the “new discoveries” made by Nikolov and Zeller. He promptly invited Nikolov to give a lecture on the “Unified Theory of Climate” to the faculty at Auburn University. “When I introduced Ned, I said the professors would learn about a paradigm- shifting discovery,” Professor South told WND in response to questions about the new paper. “Using correct math procedures, Nikolov and Zeller realized our atmosphere warms the Earth by about 2.7 times more than is commonly believed,” he said. “The reason for this extra warmth is simply due to the pressure from the mass of the atmosphere.”
Drought climate change global warming
“Using Ned and Karl’s simple equation, people can now accurately predict the average temperature of many planets by just knowing two things, the total surface atmospheric pressure and how much sunlight reaches the atmosphere,” he explained. “Thanks to the groundbreaking research by Nikolov and Zeller, we know more about our Earth than we did a few years ago,” he concluded. But of course, it will take time for the new knowledge to catch on and become accepted, he cautioned. “As with any new discovery, many from the old school choose not to accept new ideas,” South continued, pointing to the early dismissal of the continental drift theory when it was first outlined in 1915.
Today, a similar pattern is happening, with some “older experts” who assume that “ignoring the paradigm shift will somehow protect their reputation” choosing not to believe in “the Nikolov-Zeller (N-Z) equation” or to “admit their math errors,” South said. “I find many advocates will choose not to learn about new findings while true scientists will admit to math errors,” he added. “There will continue to be those from the old school who refuse to accept correct math and who choose to ignore the fact that atmospheric pressure affects the temperature of the Earth.”
‘If it disagrees…’ South also quoted physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman, who said: “It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong! That is all there is to it.” Yet another prominent expert who suggested the new paper was important and needed to be considered was Nicola Scafetta, a professor at the University of Naples Federico II. Like many other experts who spoke with WND, Scafetta said the paper was “interesting.”
“Although this paper appears to contradict the atmospheric greenhouse theory, I believe that it needs to be taken into account for a very simple motivation: at the moment there is a severe uncertainty regarding the effect that CO2 causes to the Earth’s climate,” he said. After outlining what he said were the flawed views on CO2 advanced by many governments and man-made warming theorists, he argued that the “claim that science has ‘determined’ what [greenhouse gases] such as CO2 can do to the atmosphere is false.” “The uncertainty is simply still too large,” he added, pointing to his own research findings showing “at most a small climate sensitivity to CO2.”
“Might the above uncertainty and the fact that more and more studies are indicating a smaller and smaller climate sensitivity to CO2 be due to some fatal error that the study by Nikolov and Zeller would suggest?” Scafetta asked. “I say that there is a need to be open to alternative interpretations and evaluate them carefully.” The truth about global warming is no further than the WND Superstore, where “Climategate,” “The Greatest Hoax,” and more publications are available. Another scientist who highlighted the potential significance of Nikolov’s and Zeller’s findings was Gary L. Achtemeier, a retired federal research meteorologist.
Achtemeier noted that the geophysical heating mechanism proposed by the two scientists – the pressure produced by the atmosphere – explained the entire temperature difference between the Earth and the moon. Combined with an earlier paper published by Nikolov and Zeller (under the pseudonyms Volokin and ReLlez), Achtemeier said the findings “challenge the foundations of the current climate theory.” “Their success resides in the inclusion of knowledge of the thermodynamics of other planets and moons with atmospheres residing in our solar system,” he said. The implications could be enormous.
“The current climate theory which depends exclusively on greenhouse gas heating to explain the thermal effects of Earth’s atmosphere is demolished,” Achtemeier said. Still, it could take years for the scientific community to fully confirm the results, he added. “If the results withstand what is sure to be fiery scrutiny, then the global warming hypothesis, alarmist hysteria, 97 percent consensus, political movements, and climate treaties are reduced to hogwash,” the retired meteorologist concluded. No comment, neutral, and unsure: Anumber of independent experts and scientists contacted by WND said they did not have the technical expertise to offer critiques or comments on the paper. WND also reached out to many of the world’s most prominent advocates of the man-made global-warming theory, including Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and James Hansen.
None of the three responded to requests for comment on the study by press time. Other scientists declined to comment on the study itself, but did point out that they did not believe man’s CO2 emissions were responsible for the observed variations in climate. “Years ago I decided to concentrate on the sun’s role in climate variation, especially since CO2 and in particular, that caused by man, has little to do with the ups and downs of climate,” explained longtime climate researcher and former NASAscientist John Casey, who is now the president of the science and engineering consultancy Veritence Corporation. “Therefore I don’t get involved in wasting my time in debating CO2 climate impacts.”
Norway tops the Good Country Index list of countries that have made positive contributions to the planet and climate.
Norway tops the Good Country Index list of countries that have made positive
contributions to the planet and climate (Credit: imageBROKER/Alamy)
Planet & Climate Index ranking: 1
Topping the list for contribution to the planet and climate is Norway, which has
led the world in a number of environmental initiatives, including the highest
electric car adoption in the world and a governmental pledge to be climate neutral
by 2030. But the relationship with the natural world here goes well beyond
policy. Norwegians embrace the concept of friluftsliv, which translates to ‘open-
air life’ and conveys the importance of spending time outdoors to be healthy and
“It’s a really deeply rooted part of our culture, and something that’s almost like a
religion for a lot of people,” said Norwegian Axel Bentsen, founder and CEO of
Urban Sharing, the company behind the popular bike sharing programme Oslo
City Bike. “We spend time outdoors in all weather, and our babies even take
naps outdoors. Our capital, Oslo, is unique in that you can actually take public
transit right out into the forest, so it’s a popular thing to do before or after work.”
Oslo was named the 2019 European Green Capital by the European Commission for restoring its waterways, making investments in cycling and public transportation and for its innovative approach to climate budgeting (making carbon dioxide emissions a trackable metric just like financial funding).
The city has also worked to become car-free in its centre. “Over the past year, it’s
been great to see the city remove parking spaces to allow for more pedestrian and
bike-friendly areas, while the biking infrastructure has also been improved with
more bike lanes,” Bentsen said.
Norwegians embrace the concept of friluftsliv, which translates to ‘open-air life’
(Credit: Steve Taylor ARPS/Alamy)
Though 99% of Norway’s domestic energy is sustainably sourced through
hydropower from its coastline, fjords and waterfalls, Norway is still a major oil
extractor and exporter, which has become a controversial political issue.
“Is the continued extraction and export of oil and gas worth it because it generates
the huge sums of money being spent on environmental infrastructure that
wouldn’t otherwise be available?” asked David Nikel, a British expat who has
lived in Norway since 2011 and blogs at Life In Norway. “Many think [the
money spent on environmental infrastructure] will inspire other cities and other
countries, and eventually lead to a greener world. Others think it’s a double
standard. It comes down to which side of the equation you fall on.”
As 5G is able to cause severe pain and even death to humans, 5G is at the top of the discussion list of the Bilderberger´s annual meeting and they have made unlimited funds available to top technicians within this field.
WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >
The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.
All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Human-Synthesis articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites. Human-Synthesis contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
TILBAKE TIL HOVEDMENYEN - BACK TO THE MAIN MENU