Caught Red-Handed | Independent Research 20240928

This video was made to thank my 4,000 plus Subscribers. It is a dectective story I started sketching since March this yere when I first watched the talk by Dr John Clauser. During editing of this video, I noticed John gave another talk in May this year on the same issues. So, I read more references in order to make this talk more interesting. I hope you will like it.

#imbalance #ohc #imbalance #ceres

Related links for viewers:
1. Official Interview: John Clauser, Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

2. Earth - A White Planet' by Dr Graeme Stephens

3. Physical Controls of the Earth's Climate and Climate Change - Graeme Stephens

4. "Climate Change is a Myth" -- A Nobel Prize Winner's Embarrassing Ideas

Transcript
John Clauser is a great experimental physicist, whose expertise is in accurately detecting amplitudes and phases of electromagnetic waves, or photons, often called radiation by climate researchers who wish to understand the fundamental issues in climate theories.

In 1972, for the first time, his critical measurements of radiation fluxes confirmed that Albert Einstein, his hero, is wrong about quantum mechanics, despite of rejections and mocks around him when his adventure began, including Richard Feynman.

Early this year, at age 81, John Clauser pointed his finger to Graeme Stephens, a high-profile climate researcher who knew radiative transfer equation and Manabe’s work as early as 1981 in Melbourne.

Here is the key paper in question, published by Stephens et al in 2012. In their Fig. 1, they concluded that the earth energy Imbalance, or EEI for short, observable at the top of the atmosphere is 0.60.4 in Watt per square meter, inferred from their estimated Imbalance at the surface, 0.617 in Wm-2. Notice, the uncertainties are 0.4 and 17 Wm-2, respectively.

Clauser first remarked that such a small power-flow Imbalance cannot be possibly measured, given a number of fluctuations arising from random variations of clouds and thermal processes near the surface.

In particular, John Clauser used two early papers as examples. One is by Stephens et al. in 1981, another by ra-Manathan in 1987, respectively. Their results for the Imbalance were quite different, one is 6.8 Wm-2 for warming, another -3 Wm-2 for cooling.

Further, Clauser explained to his audiences that the uncertainty in obtaining the Imbalance at TOA is too larger to derive a non-zero Imbalance. In doing so, he used this basic equation for uncertainty-propagation for uncorrelated measurements.

14.It simply shows the uncertainty for the Imbalance should be larger than any of the three uncertainties in measuring incoming solar radiation ISR, reflected solar radiation RSR, and outgoing longwave radiation OLR.

15.Return to the 2012 paper by Stephens et al. Using the same data as Stephens used, Clauser noticed that their calculation for the Imbalance at TOA should be 0.53.9 Wm-2, rather than 0.60.4 Wm-2. In other words, the uncertainty should be 10 times larger. In fact, Stephens recently admitted that.

16.Because the desired Imbalance is about 1 Wm-2, hence it seems impossible to measure the Imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Indeed, this is a bad news for the entire community of climate research as many climate researchers rely on this magical number to justify their models, and more importantly making their living.

17.Unsurprisingly, the person who jumped out to categorically defy the direct satellite-based observations of the Imbalance, or EEI, was James Hansen.

18. In 2005, Hansen et al published this paper in which the estimated Imbalance was subjectively re-set as 0.850.15 Wm-2. As you can see the uncertainly in his Imbalance is ridiculously small, 0.15 Wm-2. Nearly 40 times less than the original uncertainty from using CERES.

19.How could they do that? Simple, but wired. Both the averaged Imbalance and the uncertainty were inferred from their climate modeling and re-analysis of ocean heat content measurements.

20.Not only did they predict future warming, but also they simulated the evidence in support of their rhetoric. That’s to say, any instrumental observations at TOA must be first and foremost conformed with the inference from climate modeling and OHC measurements.

21.Following Hansen’s instruction, Loeb et al, not lobsters, switched their modality from satellite-radiometry data to surface-measured OHC data, namely, ocean heat content. In addition, they also adjusted the observational EEI, originally from CERES, the instrumental measurements from satellites, called Clouds and Earth Radiant Energy System, so that their adjusted Imbalance becomes identical to the estimate by Hansen et al. 0.850.1 Wm-2.

[ricshumack]

Thanks, this information deserves broader exposure.

[andymcculloch]

So much for science, just fix the data, these so called climate scientists have no shame.

[eagle]

It’s interesting to understand how these researchers choose what to present and what not to, based on their interests

[C_R_O_M________]

Thank you for a very valuable insight into the cyclicality of their scam!

[markasp]

Slide 15:
In early summer, the modeled albedo increases but the CERES data steadily falls until July!

[ingridschmall]

2:41 Ich bin enttäuscht von Sabine Hossenfelder, weil sie durch Weglassen, Menschen in die Irre führt

[carlosgaspar]

these scientists basically check the answers at the back of the textbook and adjust their models accordingly?

[lv]

Catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 mediated climate change, reminds me of any obsession that consumes people . the best majority of people known absolutely nothing about the physics involved in the complexity of climate, but the idea that CO2 emissions are gonna kill. Everybody is constantly on their mind and consequently, they have exaggerated responses to something that they just don’t understand.

[ivanhunter]

If anything it’s all great food for thought! Thanks

[BillHickling]

Can anyone explain to me why the OHC can be a basis or proxy for the energy budget at the TOA? Or is this Dr Yong's whole point? Thanks.

[glenndavis]

Is this “extra “heat energy then added to total earths heat energy ? The entire mass ? It doesn’t seem like much otherwise. And wouldn’t nitrogen and oxygen, which are not absorbing watts, draw down the heat energy gained/blocked“ by GGs ? It should be less, just because of that.
If they alone are trapping the “extra” heat energy.

[josediego]

Interesting. Atmospheric measurements of in-out energy are tricky, but tracking ocean temperature is much easier. Is the warming of the oceans also a hoax? I see some cherry picking here