electroverse.net: Over the years, scientific articles published around the world have argued that CO2 and other putative 'greenhouse gases' are responsible for the observed global warming. However, in fact, those who control the agenda in scientific journals themselves choose which theories to raise to the top so that the general public can hear them, and which ones to lower down, where at most several hundred specialists will get to know them.
And so, by chance, one of such invaluable papers was found, about which sheep wandering the streets with smartphones are not aware. The results of an enormous study were published in the scientific journal Environmental Pollution and Climate Change, but were never made public.
Moreover, the study was led by Professor Niels-Axel Mörner, who at one time held large positions in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), but left the UN with a scandal: the professor slammed the door and said that there was no problem of climate change nor, in general, science is of no interest to the “experts” in the UN.
Professor Moerner begins his research by explaining to street sheep: the theory behind the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and climate models used by the United Nations was first proposed and developed in the 19th century!
In these wretched and primitive experiments in the style of steampunk, the dark and ignorant adepts of the EARLY 19th century (!) Modeled the atmosphere by pumping air into a glass aquarium. The first to do this was the French mathematician Joseph Fourier, who irradiated such flasks with sunlight, measured the temperature, and then concluded: the air catches the radiation from the Sun and heats up, causing a kind of "greenhouse effect" in the aquarium. And more than half a century later, the ancestor of Greta Thunberg, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, created an equation to calculate the Earth's temperature based on the CO2 in the atmosphere. And on this shaky foundation the whole theory of "global warming" is built.
However, there are at least two unstable bricks in this foundation:
a) If you do not take into account the theory of the Flat Earth, then the atmosphere is not an aquarium - it is in contact with the lithosphere, with water and with space, therefore, a sealed glass bulb is a very dubious model;
b) Carbon dioxide at average earth temperature, average concentration and average pressure is so transparent that its absorption by atoms of something there can be neglected.
Promotional video:
The real mechanisms that control the temperature of the planet are the energy of the Sun and atmospheric air pressure. The so-called "greenhouse effect" is actually a function of the activity of our host star or a function of atmospheric pressure, which, in turn, is determined by the force of gravity, the mass of the atmosphere, or some other factor. Concentrations of “greenhouse gases” such as CO2, methane and water vapor have almost no effect on temperature.
Experiments confirming this have been done both on real physical models and on models built in computer simulations. In addition, all the obtained dynamic graphs and curves were confirmed by astronomical data on planets with one or another atmosphere.
“Our analysis has revealed almost zero relationship between global average annual temperature and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmospheres of planets in the solar system. This is an amazing result from the point of view of modern greenhouse gas theory, which suggests that the atmosphere heats the planet's surface by capturing radiant heat by certain gases that control the infrared optical depth of the atmosphere,”writes Professor Moerner.
The article then sets out four possible explanations for these observations and concludes that the most plausible explanation would be that global warming is caused by air pressure, which the professor calls the atmospheric "greenhouse effect." From the point of view of gas physics, it is something like compression heating of fuel in a diesel engine.
Editorial comment
As you can see from the retelling of Mr. Moerner's article (in full, it is available by reference in the original source) - for any person who is more or less versed in the physics of gases, the theory of "global warming" is sheer idiocy. But, nevertheless, this theory is official at the UN. Why? Do idiots work at the UN?
If we speak for the officials, then the professor is obviously right, but the world is ruled by forces whose brains are all right. For example, at one time they divided colonial India so that people in Kashmir still slaughter each other and the hotbed of conflict smolders for many decades, allowing someone to play on contradictions. And the entire planet is cut in the same way, which allows for games and manipulations on a global scale. Therefore, we cannot say that the UN is run by fools - everything is in order there with brains or computing power. But why, then, to explain global warming, the UN is ordered to adhere to such a stupid and wild doctrine as "greenhouse gases"?
The answer here is obvious: the real reason for the warming of the sheep roaming the streets cannot be said, since the real reason is the same - the appearance in the solar system of a new powerful source of radiation.
Technically, other reasons for the increase in atmospheric pressure can be proposed. For example: due to thermonuclear fusion in the core, the Earth grows in mass and volume, gravity increases, and therefore the pressure in the atmosphere also increases. The theory is good and logical, but the Earth has been growing very slowly and for a very long time, while global warming is fast and began recently.
It is also possible to propose a theory of a decrease in the volume of the Flat Earth dome or the injection of an additional portion of the atmosphere into it. Unfortunately, from such a theory, many eyes can get on the forehead, so we do not consider it strongly - although we do not exclude it. So today the most urgent reason for the increase in atmospheric pressure is the appearance of a new star in the solar system. When it will appear not only in the system, but also in the sky - here we do not know, but we are following the development of events.