fredag 4 februari 2011

Planck's Trick vs Mann's Trick

Central to climate science is Planck's radiation law which Planck after much agony and struggle managed to derive theoretically in 1900 resorting to a "trick" described by Planck as follows:
  • ...the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be...Either the quantum of action was a fictional quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was essentially an illusion representing only an empty play on formulas of no significance, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on sound physical conception ... (1906) Mechanically, the task seems impossible, and we will just have to get used to it (quanta).
Planck's "trick" became immensely popular by the success of the quantum mechanics viewed to be born from Planck's quanta, although Planck himself never could fathom what he had instilled.

The basic postulate of CO2 climate alarmism of "backradiation" emanates from Planck's "trick"
suggesting that heat energy is transferred as quanta of energy carried by photon particles.

There is another "trick" underlying CO2 climate alarmism, Mike Mann's "trick" described by Phil Jones as follows:
  • I have just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline.
The question if climate science is based on "tricks" presents itself. Any anwers? Compare with the previous post.

3 kommentarer:

  1. The climate scientists' "trick" has been in closing off the greenhouse theory (and its basis, the radiative transfer theory, as applied by climate scientists) from any possible correction, by claiming at all points, "the physics is settled," when the facts show their physics is not just unsettled, not even just wrong, but that it is incompetent, (as the comparison of atmospheric temperatures of Venus and Earth -- which I have lately done -- which definitively disproves the greenhouse effect, could have and should have been properly done at any time over the last 20 years, and accepted by the scientific community long ago). Your own work shows the incompetence in climate science has in part been built upon long-standing incompetence in theoretical physics, which even some of the best physicists tried and failed to remove over the last 100 years.

    The main trick, however, which allowed climate science to go so bad -- to the point of ignoring mounting contrary evidence, as is still being done -- was in creating a political machine (the UN IPCC) dedicated to turning science to its own political purpose, and inevitably, away from the truth. All of our scientific institutions have been suborned, and eagerly spread falsehood as science. Few are willing to confront the truth; fewer still, able to pinpoint, remain focused upon, and refute the wrong assumptions and methods that have led to the wrong conclusions.

  2. The difference of course is that the Mann "trick" was hidden from the public.
    The attempt was to "hide the decline".
    Had he been truthful with the public and left everyone clear about his "cut and paste" hockey stick then an honest appraisal could be possible.
    Planck on the other hand was "up front" and although successful in making the theory fit the facts was unhappy about quantisation and hoped this "working hypothesis" would give way to a fuller deterministic theory in time.


  3. But a trick is a trick is a trick...