Af Form 971: Fill & Download for Free

Original Question: How often are new Air Force One airplanes brought into service?SAM 970 was a B model VC-137 bought during the Eisenhower Administration for VIP travel and with her sister ships 971 and 972 were used as AF-1 and AF-2 as well as other missions. They lacked the range to reach the European continent without a refuel, a problem that Boeing was correcting with the C Model 707. 970 continued to be used as AF-2 until the 90s and I spent many a pleasant flight on it.(970 AF-1)(970 later as Air Force Two, notice the baby blue of AF-1 isn’t applied and the dark blue doesn't go over the top of the cockpit like on AF-1.)As far as aircraft specifically designed and bought to be the primary Air Force One aircraft, they are not replaced very often in recent history.26000 went into service in 196227000 went into service in 1972Both of these aircraft were basically interchangeable and were kept in service as Air Force One until 1990 and then as VIP aircraft through 2001. Bush43 flew on the last 27000 Air Force One mission in 2001.28000 went into service in December of 1990. ~30 years after 2600029000 wasn't used as AF-1 until March of 1991. ~20 years after 27000The next two aircraft are scheduled to be in service by 2024. 30000 and 31000? Maybe 31000 and 32000. As they are presently called as “SAM two nine thousand and SAM two eight thousand.”(SAM Three One Thousand?)With present projections the present aircraft will have been in service 34 years if the new ones arrive on time. The airframes themselves are about five years older as it takes a great amount of time to build the birds into a VC-25B.30 to 35+ years is the approximate lifespan of the aircraft used as Air Force One.

Original Question: How much wear and tear has Trump put on Air Force One with golf and campaign trips? Is it normal?Well of course it does count towards that ultimate time the aircraft wears out. However, aircraft life is determined more by cycles than anything else. All the structual strain is in landings and takeoff, or cycles as they are called.Most commercial heavy aircraft experience two or three cycles a day, day in and day out. Even the really long haul birds see at least one cycle. Air Force One doesn’t see anywhere near that amount of use. Most of the time it is less than four a week, and often times even less, it may not be flown at all some weeks, and when the President is on vacation it may sit for two or three weeks at a time without flying. In the summer time he uses the 757s instead of the 747 to go to Bedminster for the weekends.So the President isn't shortening the time that the current VC-25As will be used as AF-1. That will be determined by when the VC-25Bs are ready to enter service. Presently the new 747-800s are being converted to the VC-25Bs, but it is still a ways off before they are ready.(New Air Force One aircraft still in White Factory Paint. If you look close you will notice it is bigger than the present Air Force One aircraft.)Whether the A models will be kept in service after that point or not has not been released to the public. The last two AF-1 aircraft SAM 26000 and SAM 27000 remained in service for an additional time of 12+ years. The entire executive fleet is extremely well maintained and kept in excellent shape and used much less than their commercial cousins, so they last forever.I used to fly on on VC-137B SAM 970 as Air Force Two carrying Vice President George Bush, it continued in this role until 1996 when it was retired. Amazingly it started life as President Eisenhower's Air Force One in 1959. Back then the paint scheme involved some high visability orange in it for safety reasons.Later on it was repainted into the livery of the VIP Execustive Fleet.This is her as AF-2. Notice that there isn't any of the robins egg baby blue on the nose or engine cowlings like Air Force One would have or the Presidential Seal as we see on 27000 below,(970, 971, and 973 were B models and as such didn't have the legs to make it to the European continent without refueling in Ireland. So the first C model [SAM 26000] was bought for JFK's use in 1962, and then a second was purchased for Nixon's use [SAM 27000] in 1972 and remained in use until 2001, having carried seven Presidents from Nixon to Bush43.)They get many many years out of each aircraft, and the golf trips aren't hurting that. Now operating costs are another thing entirely.Trivia: Air Force One has taken off more times than it has landed. Do you know how this is possible?

The term climate change has been bruised. The long accepted scientific meaning has been revised by alarmists to remove its utility and make nonsense of it. Like temperature climate change could mean either hot or cold changes.The difference between climate change and weather is the time scale.Wikipedia offers this sensible meaning:“Climate change occurs when changes in Earth's climate system result in new weather patterns that remain in place for an extended period of time. This length of time can be as short as a few decades to as long as millions of years. The most general definition of climate change is a change in the statistical properties (principally its mean and spread) of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause. Accordingly, fluctuations over periods shorter than a few decades, such as El Niño, do not represent climate change.” W.Alarmists and big media ignore this meaning and now say climate change means global warming caused by human emissions of Co2. This is nonsense as it is like saying temperature means rising temperatures and not falling temperatures . The new twisted definition pushes science into the realm of politics where many doubt trace amounts of human Co2 plant food matter to the climate and are reinforced with a pile of peer reviewed studies.There is political trick of alarmists and big media to say record hot days are climate change while record cold days are just weather. This is anti-science because in fact no one even the media has ever seen climate change because you do not live long enough. We can only observe weather and then we write up statistics of the weather to see if there is a permanent change based on data going back centuries at least.The key question is what causes climate change? Is there a greenhouse effect trapping heat or is it bunk contrary to basic physics? I offer four major papers refuting the idea of a greenhouse effect from Co2.When we put the sun and solar cycles back into the climate equation as the major source of heat and climate change the result is the greenhouse gas effect falls off the table.“Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactAbstract Full-Text HTML Download as PDF (Size:13770KB) PP. 971-998DOI: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124 17,078 Downloads 39,876 Views CitationsAuthor(s) Leave a commentGerhard Kramm, Ralph DlugiAffiliation(s).“ABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quan- tifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence, it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.” [Emphasis added]KEYWORDSPhysical Climatology; Statistical Climatology; Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect; Earth-Atmosphere SystemConflicts of InterestThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.Cite this paperKramm, G. and Dlugi, R. (2011) Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact. Natural Science, 3, 971-998. doi: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124.INTRODUCTION…“2. ON THE MEANING OF CLIMATE, CLIMATE VARIABILITY, CLIMATE CHANGE and CLIMATE VARIATIONSLike many other ones disputed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner in their paper [2], the explanations of the atmospheric greenhouse effect scrutinized in our contribution are related to the global scale. This relation could be the reason why often the notion “global climate” is used and the debate on climate change is mainly focused on global climate change.The notion “global climate”, however, is a contradiction in terms. According to Monin and Shishkov [10], Schönwiese [11] and Gerlich [12], the term “climate” is based on the Greek word “klima” which means inclination. It was coined by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus of Nicaea (190-120 BC) who divided the then known inhabited world into five latitudinal zones—two polar, two temperate and one tropical—according to the inclination of the incident sunbeams, in other words, the Sun’s elevation above the horizon. Alexander von Humboldt in his five-volume “Kosmos” (1845-1862) added to this “inclination” the effects of the underlying surface of ocean and land on the atmosphere [10].From this point of view one may define the components of the Earth’s climate system: Atmosphere, Ocean, Land Surface (including its annual/seasonal cover by vegetation), Cryosphere and Biosphere. These components play a prominent role in characterizing the energetically relevant boundary conditions of the Earth’s climate system. Other [G. Kramm et al. / Natural Science 3 (2011) 971-998 Copyright © 2011 SciRes. ] definitions are possible. Ocean and cryosphere, for instance, are subcomponents of the Hydrosphere that comprises the occurrence of all water phases in the Earth- atmosphere system [13]. Thus, the interrelation between the solar energy input and the components of our climate system coins the climate of locations and regions sub-sumed in climate zones.An example of a climate classification is the well-known Köppen-Geiger climate clas-sification recently updated by Peel et al. [14]. It is illusrated in Figure 1.2.1. The Boundary Conditions and Their Role in Physical ClimatologyFirst, we have to explain how the inclination of the incident sunbeams does affect the climate of a location or region. The solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere (TOA) depends on the Sun’s role as the source of energy, the characteristics of the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun (strictly spoken, the orbit of the Earth-Moon barycenter) and the orientation of the Earth’s equator plane. The orbit geometry and the orientation of the equator plane are characterized by 1) the orbit parameters like the semi-major axis, a, the eccentricity, e, the oblique angle of the Earth’s axis with re-spect to the normal vector of the ecliptic, ε = 23˚27' and the longitude of the Perihelion relative to the moving vernal equinox, v and 2) the revolution velocity and the rotation velocity of the Earth [15,16]. Note that vxy =+, where the annual general precession in longitude, y, describes the absolute (clockwise) motion of the vernal equinox along the Earth’s orbit relative to the fixed stars (see Figure 2) and the longitude of the Perihelion,x, measured from the reference vernal equinox of A.D. 1950.0, describes the absolute motion of the Perihelion relative to the fixed stars. For any numerical value of v, 180˚ is subtracted for a practical purpose: observations are made from the Earth and the Sun is considered as revolving around the Earth [17,18]. Obviously, the emitted solar radiation depends on the Sun’s activity often characterized by the solar cycles that are related to the number of sunspots observed on the Sun’s surface (see Figure 3). However, to understand in which way the solar insolation reaching the TOA is affected by the Earth’s orbit, a brief excursion through the Sun-EarthFigure 1. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification (adopted from Peel et al. [14]). The 30 possible climate types inTable 1 are divided into 3 tropical (Af, Am and Aw), 4 arid (BWh, BWk, BSh and BSk), 8 temperate (Csa, Csb, Cfa, Cfb, Cfc, Cwa, Cwb and Cwc), 12 cold (Dsa, Ds“5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSIn this paper, we scrutinized the atmospheric greenhouse effect, where we debated the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way this effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively.In doing so, we distinguished between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology and 2) statistical climatology. We argued that studying 1) the input of solar energy into the system Earth-atmosphere, 2) the temporal and spatial distribution of this energy in the atmosphere and the oceans by radiative transfer processes, circulation systems and cycles, governed by fundamental geophysical fluid dynamic processes, 3) the absorption of solar irradiance in the under-lying soil, 4) the exchange of energy between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere by the fluxes of sensible and latent heat and the infrared net radiation and 5) the long-term coinage of the boundary conditions of the respective climate system under study is the scope of the physical climatology.We described, for instance, how the daily solar insolation at the TOA is varying with latitude and time of the year, not only for present day orbital parameters, but also for long-term scales of many thousands of years, where we paid attention to Milank-ovitch’s [33] astronomical theory of climatic variations.On the contrary, the scope of the statistical climatology is the statistical description of weather states over long-term periods of, at least, thirty years to characterize the climate of locations, regions or even climate zones by mean values and higher statistical moments like variance (or its positive square root, called the standard deviation),skewness and kurtosis. We argued that climate change or climate variability can only be identified on the basis of two non-overlapping climate periods for which, at least, 60 year-observation records are required.From the perspective of the statistical description of weather states as described before, we have to acknowledge that trends often considered as an indication for climate change are rather inappropriate in describing climate change and climate variability, respectively.In fathoming whether the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is really falsified as Gerlich and Tscheuschner [2] claimed or the notion “atmospheric greenhouse effect” is only a misnomer that describes a real effect, we scrutinized two completely different explanations of the atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the AMS and the WMO, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1]. Both explanations are related to the global scale. This relation could be the reason why often the notion ‘global climate’ is used and the debate on climate change is mainly focused on global climate change. However, as outlined in our paper, the notion “global climate” is a contradiction in terms.We showed that the explanation by AMS and W·MO related to the temperature difference ns e TT TD=- » 33 K, where ns T = 288 K is the globally averaged near-surface temperature and 255 K eT@ is the temperature of the planetary radiative equilibrium, has to be discarded because of physical reasons. As argued in Section 3, various assumptions on which eT is based are, by far, not fulfilled. Furthermore, the temperature of the planetary radiative equilibrium estimated for the Moon, 269.9 K eT =, is much higher than the Moon’s averaged disk temperature of about 213 K obtained by Monstein [78] at 2.77 cm wavelength. Moreover, comparing e T with ns T is rather inappropriate because the meaning of these two temperatures is quite different. The former is based on an energy-flux budget at the surface even though it is physically inconsistent because a uniform temperature for the entire globe does not exist; whereas the latter is related to the global average of observed near-surface temperatures. We argued that only the average temperature inferred from Eq.3.8 is comparable with ns T = 288 K. Consequently, the argument of Gerlich and Tscheuschner [2] that this 33 K is a meaningless number is quite justified.We showed on the basis of a Dines-type energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system that Fortak’s [31] forty years old statement that the “cycle” of the long- wave radiation between that Earth’s surface and the atmosphere does not contribute to the heating of the system must not be rejected. Even though there is a large scatter (see Table 2), the results of various researchers confirm Fortak’s [31] statement, too.Thus, we acknowledged Fortak’s [31] argument that the outgoing emission of infrared radiation only serves to maintain the radiative equilibrium at the TOA.We also showed that the globally averaged near-surface temperature of nsT = 288 K cannot be thermo-dynamically related to the Dines-type energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system because the temperatures E T and aT are volume-averaged quantities [21].Thus, the related long-wave emission by the Earth’s surface of about 390 W·m–2 is meaningless in such an energy-flux budget. Consequently, the explanation of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by Ramanathan et al. [1] is physically inappropriate.Based on our findings, we conclude that 1) the so- called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in past climate periods, 2) the description by AMS and WMO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.”Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactThe next paper by Dr. Tim Ball who recently won a libel case brought by Michael Mann supports the Gramm / Dlugi study that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas.“Dr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse GasSeptember 14, 2018 Pam Barker ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT, Tyranny 0Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse GasDR. TIM BALL“The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ Technocracy News EditorThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation. Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification. Douglas Yates said, “No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited.”Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming skeptics. Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.“Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.”The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory. In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based. For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world: e = mc2. You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions. One of these is represented by the letter “c” in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are, how did the false assumption develop and persist?The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda. They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is, he didn’t say what they claim. Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius. The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work. They wrote,Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence of the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius’ colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results.a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.This allowed them to only examine human causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don’t know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change. IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using. Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians. It said,“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because, when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase. Of course, the computer was programmed for that to happen. These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total. They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%. The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour. The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1). To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2. This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.Figure 1In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000 years. It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase:In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article.“our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]”Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.“It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…”Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first. In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth, he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult. He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.Thomas Huxley said,“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact.”The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998, CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing. Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)Figure 2The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998. The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the “pause” or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).Figure 3“The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius. He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapour (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapour. The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2. If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.Figure 4″************Original articleDr. Tim Ball: The Evidence Proves That CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas | Europe ReloadedInternational Journal of Modern Physics BVol. 23, No. 03, pp. 275-364 (2009)Review PaperNo AccessFALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICSGERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNERhttps://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979... by:18AbstractThe atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.Reviews of GeophysicsFALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICSA new paper entitled “Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory” has recently been made available online.Written by Blair D Macdonald, an independent researcher specializing in fractral geometry and quantum mechanics, the analysis utilizes real-world IR spectral measurements from a Raman spectrometer (laser).Concisely, Macdonald has determined that CO2 is no more “special” a gas absorber and re-emmitter of radiation than nitrogen or oxygen, even though the latter are not considered greenhouse gases.What follows is but a tiny snapshot of some key points from this comprehensively-sourced paper.Note: It would be advisable that interested readers – especially those who are rightly skeptical of iconoclastic analyses like these – should read the text in some detail before commenting. Turning the spotlight on papers that question conventional wisdom is primarily intended to elicit open-minded discussion. It is not intended to convey we have arrived at a definitive conclusion about the authenticities of the CO2 greenhouse effect.Macdonald, 2018“Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory“Abstract: “Greenhouse theory’s premise, nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation, presents a paradox; it contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics – where all matter above absolute 0° Kelvin radiates IR photons. It was hypothesized these gases do radiate at quantum mechanics predicted spectra, and these spectra are observed by IR spectroscopy’s complement instrument, Raman spectroscopy; and N2 spectra can be demonstrated to absorb IR radiation by experiment, and application o the N2-CO2 laser. It was found the gases do possess quantum predicted emission spectra at 2338 cm−¹ and 1156 cm−¹ respectively, both well within the IR range of the EMS, and are only observed – and their temperatures accurately measured – by Raman spectrometers. Raman spectrometers measure, more accurately, the Keeling curve, and have application with meteorological Lidars and planetary atmospheric analysis. The N2-CO2 Laser showed – contrary to current greenhouse theory – N2 absorbs electrons or (IR) photons at its – metastable ‘long-lasting’ – spectra mode. It was argued atmospheric CO2, as a law, is heated by the same mechanism as the N2-CO2 laser: nitrogen (first) and the entire atmosphere absorbs IR radiation directly from the Sun, just as it heats water on the ocean surface. With these findings, greenhouse theory is wrong – all gases are GHGs [greenhouse gases] – and needs review.”Image(s) Source: Macdonald, 2018Claim: Real-World Spectral Measurements Show The ‘Greenhouse Theory Is Wrong’ - ALL Gases Are GHGs”“Another Experiment Proving CO2 Is Innocent Of Climate ChangePublished onAugust 6, 2019Written by John O'SullivanIndependent British climate researcher, Geraint Hughes, author of ‘Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate,’ has developed yet another experiment to prove CO2 is innocent of climate change.For those who haven’t yet seen Geraint’s impressive initial experiment, which successfully demonstrated that CO2 does not induce back radiant heating, take a few minutes to view two Youtube videos here and here.Above, two photographs demonstrating the effects of an exposed light filament where exposed to a vacuum( left) and in a pure CO2 environment (right). As can be seen, the filament exposed only to CO2 is dimmer and cooler.Speaking to Principia Scientific International, Geraint Hughes explained some of the feedback he has gotten since publicizing his results.”He reveals that some scientists, including professors, have made asinine comments, such as “The filament isn’t emitting IR, that’s why you can put your hand on the bulb in your video,” also, “the base is shiny this is distorting what’s happening.”Among the worst responses was that the tungsten filament wasn’t emitting infrared radiation!Hughes laments:“He must be the only person on the planet who thinks that, but he has PhD so he must be ‘right’. People really are willing to come out with any old clap trap to try and silence the truth.”The intelligent comments will be addressed in a follow up with modifications to the experiment. These included:Height of the ChamberA great number of comments came back saying that the chamber wasn’t tall enough for the back irradiance of CO2 to be induced and that the full height of the atmosphere cannot be represented with these chambers. Such comments are superficial and biased, insofar as the ‘standard experiment’ that ‘proves’ CO2 ‘traps’ heat is merely conducted in small, glass jars. In such a confined experiment (for or against the proposition) it cannot be claimed the results are truly representational of a mechanism occurring in the whole atmosphere.But this is the point, the entire premise of CO2-driven radiative climate forcing is an unrepresentational demonstration in a lab environment. Thus, the entire narrative of the greenhouse gas effect relies on a claim that applies only to an artificially closed system, not the open-to-space reality of earth’s atmosphere.Sticking strictly to the parameters of the closed system, laboratory environment, we see that back radiance from the CO2 gas isn’t causing a rise in temperature of the filament because such a thing doesn’t happen, not because of the height of the tower is insufficient.Hughes told PSI:“So in an attempt to address this, I will construct a tower which is twice as high as the current chambers, which are 200mm high. My new tower will be 400mm high.”As any rational skeptic would expect, the result is unsurprising.“The convective currents will increase, because there is now more space for gas to rise and move and so therefore, the rate of heat loss from the filament will rise, causing lower temperatures.”This is the same effect of increasing the height of a greenhouse. The taller we make a greenhouse, the cooler it will be inside, as the restriction to convective cooling lessons as air is able to rise higher before coming back down again.Hughes reports that his endeavors to substantiate his original findings are ongoing:“Once in possession of a higher chamber I will, of course, record and publish the results and likely as not, the climate cultists will be disappointed. I predict, the taller I make this chamber, the cooler it will be. “Flippantly, Hughes argues that a 20km high chamber will never be able to reverse what is happening.Length of TestGeraint Hughes reports that since posting his initial findings online he has been bombarded from both alarmists and lukewarmists that the time length of the test was too short.The reasoning seems to be that because the CO2 being used in the experiment comes from a bottle, it is thus cooler than air temperature and so Hughes needs to wait for it to “Warm up.”“Apparently, if I left the light on all day with the CO2 inside, I will at some point witness the sudden reversal in cooling to warming as back radiance “takes time” to get going before the tipping point suddenly gets reached and “flips” it to warming, ” comes a sarcastic Hughes reply.For those firmly wedded to their alarmist position, Hughes holds little hope that any modification in his experiment will satisfy their unwillingness to alter their view.Hughes has even had his filament experiment running all day and no change is detected:“I can leave it on all day and it NEVER changes. Cynics are kidding themselves if they think this is the “key trick” to this experiment. There is no trick, this is real science, this is real engineering. Stop believing in stupid things, you need to understand that the BBC is full of rubbish.”Hughes has run his tests for months and the magic “Tipping point” never gets reached, it never warms, it never gets brighter the light filament exposed to a CO2 only atmosphere stays dim (cool).Pertinently, Hughes suggests that his critics take note that radiation moves at the speed of light – hundreds of thousands of miles per second. Radiation effects are instant. Radiation isn’t something that takes all day to get going, its effects are felt straight away, especially in such a small container. Just imagine on a sunny day walking under a umbrella then back out again, you notice the difference on your skin, straight away. There is no lag.It was even suggested by an unmoved critic that Hughes should set his experiment as a live feed for at least 24 hours on Youtube. It would possibly count as the most boring video of all time but such is the extent some will go for the cause of empirical science.Different GasesHughes reveals,“I get this one a lot. Apparently I am being unfair on CO2 by showing that its back irradiant powers don’t exist and that Climate Fraudster are lying. Showing things how they are just isn’t allowed. I need to show other gases too. Ok that’s easy so that is what I will do.”IA new set of tests will be performed adding the gases, Argon, Nitrogen, Helium and simply with each one see what happens. He will also add thermometers to read temperatures of gases and then repeat the CO2 test with the thermometers also.Some bright sparks have suggested me that if Hughes adds Argon, the filament will cool and this is the same as adding CO2 and therefore doesn’t show that CO2 doesn’t have back radiant powers. In other words, some people are sure CO2 is the same as Argon, Argon has no IR absorption but CO2 does, so shouldn’t CO2 be different?Hughes believes others should follow his lead and perform this obvious experiment themselves.He expects they will learn that adding CO2 cools the filament, adding Argon cools the filament, adding any gas cools the filament.As a confirmed skeptic of the CO2-radiative greenhouse gas theory Hughes wishes others to realize that CO2 does not have any special back radiant heat inducing powers at all.“Argon and CO2 have similar properties and so therefore will result in similar temperatures. Argon has no IR powers, yet CO2 does and both will be approximately similar. This will show that CO2 back irradiance as a theory of heat and weather control is obsolete.I will show which gas results in the warmest temperatures and I will post videos of each, tabulate the data, produce graphs and do several repeat tests of each showing room temperature also.I am going to swap the tungsten filaments for 1mm thick, instead of normal hairline filaments, because all these different tests will burn out loads of bulbs. I haven’t done that before so it may take me a while to get it all to work. Hopefully I will have all these done within 3 months or so.”What will the point of all these be, the point is that CO2 does not induce back radiant heating and all the “pathological reasoning” which people put forth as to why back radiant heating didn’t occur is false.It didn’t occur because the chamber “was too small” it didn’t occur because “It wasn’t given enough time” and it didn’t occur “because you didn’t compare it with other gases”.The reason it didn’t occur, is because gases just can’t do that. They aren’t real reasons as to why back heating didn’t occur.As he also shows in his new book, we are being constantly bombarded by the fake news media and twisted education system. “It’s time for the fraud to stop and all those fraudsters to be bought to task.”As for the book, Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate, it includes:A full and comprehensive summary of the main reasons as to why the human-caused Global Warming theory is false.Global warming science is taught falsely, right from the start. This false teaching is to convince people to believe in science which isn’t true, so that they willingly make expensive and unnecessary life changes, submit themselves to restrictions on their energy usage and happy to pay extra taxes. Extra taxes to people whom offer nothing in return for the extra expense but hardship.Black Dragon shines a light upon the major aspects of these falsehoods and illuminates the truth in a manner which can be understood, plainly and simply.The “twaddle talk” about how greenhouses work by radiation or the lies that atmospheres back-warm planets and the ever ready falsehood that Venus suffers a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” are all absurd. This book explains why. The deceptive experiments of the left are laid bare and true science is taught. Black Dragon breaks the code of deceit and teaches how greenhouses really work and how to use real thermal radiation equations to quickly approximate temperatures of simple objects in space.Another Experiment Proving CO2 is Innocent of Climate Change | PSI Intl