Ground Breaking Paper Refutes the Greenhouse Gas Theory

International team of researchers confirms peer-reviewed new paper refutes the greenhouse gas theory, the cornerstone of science that claims human emissions of carbon dioxide dangerously warms the Earth. Principia Scientific International (PSI) today issues a press release for Joseph E. Postma’s astonishing game-changing publication  ‘A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect.’

Principia Scientific International Finally Slays Greenhouse Effect Dramatists

Amateurish Greenhouse Effect Dramatics Comprehensively Slain

PSI are adamant that what they have here compellingly debunks what a generation of government climatologists  incorrectly assumed i.e. that the flow of radiation in Earth’s atmosphere is indicative of the flow of heat. They endorse Postma’s findings and confirm that the issue was never really about whether radiation moves freely about in the atmosphere (it does), the  big question should have been whether once it has arrived at the surface: does it get more than one go at generating heat (i.e. “back radiation” heating)?

Along with other critical debunks beside this one, Postma and his colleagues say “no” because a) no such phenomenon as “back radiation heating” is cited in any thermodynamics textbooks and b) nor has any such effect been measured empirically. As the debate has raged in the blogosphere believers in the GHE were shown to be incapable of determining whether  to support the “back radiation” heating or the “delayed cooling” (i.e. “blanket effect”) argument for the GHE. But as Postma’s paper proves,  each of the ideas is a contradiction in terms and may separately be shown to not have any empirically proven basis. The Laws of Thermodynamics probably play a part in this.

Texan engineer, Joe Olson, speaking on behalf of his colleagues said this morning, “This paper has been assessed by a multi-disciplinary group of dedicated and trusted colleagues, we see there is so much original material here to establish a watershed.”   Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is among those who assisted in developing the paper. Like the other 120 members of PSI (known in the blogosphere as the ‘Slayers’) Ball accepts that his and his colleagues’ credibility are at stake. Nonetheless, Ball and co. are adamant that if Postma’s findings are widely confirmed then future climate researchers may well be discussing the science in terms of “pre-Postma” and “post-Postma” analysis.

Hans Schreuder, who along with Alan Siddons, provided the core science upon which Postma’s paper was built, has laid down a bold challenge to the critics, “If they can demonstrate we are cranks then all power to them.” PSI’s press release reads as follows:

Principia Scientific International Publishes Ground breaking Paper

Refuting the Greenhouse Gas Theory

( October 30, 2012)

Joseph E. Postma’s new paper is the most coherent and complete analysis any of the 120+ members of Principia Scientific International (including a Nobel SCIENCE prize nominee) has seen on the greenhouse gas theory.

As a multi-disciplinary group of dedicated and trusted colleagues, we see there is so much original material here to establish a watershed. We do not make the claim lightly because we know our credibility will depend on this. Nonetheless, if these findings are widely confirmed then future climate researchers may well be discussing the science in terms of “pre-Postma” and “post-Postma” analysis.

Principia Scientific International, as a fledging science association, is pioneering a new kind of peer-review in open media (PROM). As such, we heartily welcome full and open public examination of Postma’s work. It is in the interests of us all that Postma’s claims are put under the spotlight and either accepted as compelling and valid or demonstrated to be flawed and inconsequential.

The ball is now firmly in the court of all those who insist the so-called greenhouse gas effect must cause “some” warming – a claim this paper compellingly refutes.

For more information contact: info@principia-scientific.org

—————–

Below is Postma’s summary as it appears on Page 54 of his paper:

(1)

The surface of albedo is not the ground surface, and so it never was correct to associate the radiative temperature of -180C with the ground surface in the first place when devising GHE equations, since the albedo is what determines the equilibrium temperature and the albedo is not found with the physical surface.

(2)

Even as the climate models show, an increase in cloud height causes an increase in temperature at the surface. This is not due to a backradiation GHE but due to the lapse rate of the atmosphere combined with the average surface of equilibrium being risen further off of the surface.

(3)

A real greenhouse doesn’t become heated by internal backradiation in any case, but from trapped warm air which is heated by contact with the internal surfaces heated by sunlight, and then physically prevented by a rigid barrier from convecting and cooling. The open atmosphere doesn’t do what a greenhouse doesn’t do in the first place, and the open atmosphere does not function as a rigid barrier either.

(4)

The heat flow ordinary differential equation of energy conservation is a fundamental equation of physics. It combines the fundamental mechanics of heat flow together with the most venerated law of science, conservation of energy. This equation predicts what should be observable if backradiation or heat-trapping is introduced to the equation, in accordance with the main idea of the atmospheric GHE, that a higher temperature than the insolation will be achieved. A higher-than-insolation temperature is not achieved in experimental data, and we make it clear how one could test the postulate with even more surety by using the “Bristol Board Experiment”.

(5)

An important factor for why the introduction of backradiation into the equation fails to match the real world is because radiation cannot actually increase its own Wien-peak frequency and its own spectral temperature signature; radiation cannot heat up its own source. The Laws of Thermodynamics are real and universal.

(6)

The rate of cooling at the surface is enhanced, rather than retarded, relative to the entire atmospheric column, by a factor of 10. Therefore, backradiation doesn’t seem to slow down the rate of cooling at the surface at all. Backradiation neither causes active heating, nor slowed cooling, at the surface. (Given Claes Johnson’s description of radiative heat transfer, radiation from a colder ambient radiative environment should slow down the rate of cooling, and we agree with that. What we didn’t agree with was that “slowed cooling” equated to “higher temperature” because that is obviously sophistic logic. And now in any case, it is apparent that sensible heat transfer from atmospheric contact at the surface dominates the radiative component process anyway, leading to ten times the rate of cooling at the surface relative to the rest of the column.)

(7)

Given the amount of latent heat energy actually stored (i.e. trapped) within the system, and that this energy comes from the Sun, and considering the Zero-Energy-Balance (ZEB) plot, it is quite apparent that this energy gets deposited in the equatorial regions and then shed in the polar regions. This trapped latent heat prevents the system from cooling much below 00C, which keeps the global average temperature higher than it would otherwise be and thus leads to an “interpreted appearance” of a GHE caused by “GHG trapping”, when the only trapping of energy is actually only in H2O latent heat.

(8)

Subsoil readings prove that a large amount of energy is held at a significant temperature (warmer than the surface) overnight, and because this soil is warmer than the surface, and the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, then the direction of heat flow is from the subsoil to the atmosphere. And as discussed, the atmosphere seems to enhance surface cooling rather than impede it.

(9)

The heat flow equation can be modeled to show that the Sun is capable of maintaining large amounts of water under the solar zenith at about 14 degrees C. This is very close to the surface average of +150C. The Sun can maintain a liquid ocean at +140C because it takes a long time for heated water to lose its thermal energy. This is also in combination with the surface of albedo being raised off the surface where the lapse rate will maintain a near-surface average of +150C in any case.

(10)

The issue has never been about whether radiation moves freely about in the atmosphere (it does), the question is whether once it has arrived at the surface, does it get more than one go at generating heat (i.e. “back radiation” heating)? We say “no” because a) no such phenomenon as “back radiation heating” is cited in any thermodynamics textbooks and b) nor has any such effect been measured empirically. GHE believers are left not knowing whether to support the “back radiation” heating or the “delayed cooling” (i.e. “blanket effect”) argument for the GHE; this is because each is a contradiction in terms and may separately be shown to not have any empirically proven basis. The Laws of Thermodynamics probably play a part in this.

(11)

As Alan Siddon’s has explained [41], it isn’t actually clear, and there seems to be a plain logical contradiction, when we consider the role of non-GHG’s under the atmospheric GHE paradigm. If non-GHG’s such as nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate, then, aren’t they the ones trapping the thermal energy which they sensibly pick up from the sunlight-heated surface and from GHG’s? If on the other hand they do radiate, then aren’t they also GHG’s? If a GHG radiates, and the others gasses don’t, then doesn’t that mean that GHG’s cause cooling because they provide a means for the atmosphere to shed thermal energy? If the GHE is caused by trapping heat, then aren’t all non-GHG’s contributing to the effect since they can’t radiatively shed the thermal energy they pick up? Isn’t how we think of the GHE therefore completely backwards? In any case, everything with a temperature is holding heat; the only place trapping can be thought to be occurring is in latent heat.

 

About these ads

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “Ground Breaking Paper Refutes the Greenhouse Gas Theory

  1. Pingback: Ground Breaking Paper Refutes the Greenhouse Gas Theory « Skeptics Chillin'

  2. Joe Born

    There are those who would no doubt look at this as merely a semantic issue, as the first comment to a similar discussion here: http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/07/23/how-the-greenhouse-effect-works-a-guest-post-and-discussion/ shows.

    • johnosullivan

      The semantics of the GHE may be accurately characterized as sophistry when we start from first principles to demand proof of fantastical GHE claims of “back radiation” heating that exists nowhere in the laws of physics nor are shown by experimental or observational record. But math was also gotten wrong – the albedo was incorrectly assumed to be at the surface when, in fact, it is at the cloud tops kilometers above. The more you look at it, the less there is seen any GHE.

    • John in France

      “Merely” semantic? If you base your work on dodgy semantics, all your calculations will certainly end up as GIGO. That doesn’t only apply to computers.

      • At least we know you read the first line of John’s post but did you read and understand the remainder. It had nothing to do with “dodgy semantics”? It had to do with applying first principles and experimental and observational data to the task of analyzing the “fantastical GHE claims” embedded in the dodgy semantics of GHE.

        There is no reliance on the dodgy semantics except to extract a clear specification of what GHE is supposed to be. The mechanism of any so called GHE is found not to exist except in the imagination of the GHE proponents and the fools who believe in it..

        However, I agree the dodgy semantics of GHE is garbage in and results of garbage out when used as a bases for computing what happens in the real world. Hence all of the sacred and unquestionable climate models based upon a presumed GHE output nothing but garbage.

        It is bad form to not say what you mean and not mean what you say. When you do that, your words have no meaning and can neither be true nor false. They are simply arbitrary and without connection to reality. Your fickle and ever changing intent not withstanding. We can read your words but we cannot read your mind. Your words are all we have to go on. Your momentary intent is irrelevant to us or to anyone. This is the real meaning of “dodgy semantics”.

      • John in France

        Lionel, I wasn’t addressing John’s point, it was an admittedly knee-jerk reaction to the first comment by Joe Born and only intended on a general level.
        I entirely agree that “the sacred and unquestionable climate models based upon a presumed GHE output nothing but garbage”. You’ve made my point for me and framed it much better.
        I would just add that I immediately downloaded Joe Postma’s paper this morning as well as Leonard Weinsein’s linked by JB and will take my time to read them.
        (I would like to have been able to directly reply to your comment but WordPress doesn’t seem to want that, so God knows where this one will show up).

      • John in France

        Oh good, it has shown up in the right place.

  3. Steve Mennie

    Well. I for one will sleep easier tonight now that we’ve put the AGW business behind us. I hope the Nobel committee has been paying attention because Postmas’s ‘astonishing and game changing publication’ certainly deserves their seal of approval. Why has it taken so long and further, why is it not being talked about so breathlessly in any reputable or legitimate quarters? Hmmmm….I wonder. And you John will likely be able to claim some part of the fame as you are largely responsible for the existence of “Principia Scientific International” – the august body that issued the pressed ham – er, I mean press release.

  4. Joe Born

    The 276 deg. figure on page 3 is based on the assumptions of (1) an albedo of 0.04 and (2) unity emissivity for the earth. It is also implicitly based on a uniform surface temperature. Perhaps the paper contains some justifications for these assumptions, but I have not yet encountered them. Has anyone else?

  5. With reference to (10) and (11):

    To me there is no question that “back radiation” exists as well as “forward radiation” (which always seems to be neglected). A warm atmosphere radiates isotropically and some of this energy is intercepted by the Earth’s surface and converted to thermal energy. This does happen but this does not mean that the atmosphere produces net warming of the Earth’s surface. In fact at equilibrium the atmosphere removes heat from the surface via conduction, convection and latent heat of evaporation of water and radiates this energy into the colds of space. Without this cooling mechanism (and GHGs are the most effective cooling gasses) the Earth itself would have to radiate itself to an alternative equilibrium temperature which would be much higher that the case of the Earth with an atmosphere. The atmosphere and especially the GHGs keep the planet cool.

    This is much better explained in an article at:

    anthropogenicglobalcooling.com

  6. George Marlatt

    I guess back radiation is a GHE specific term. As a mechanical engineer I would just look at the radiation heat transfer as a net flow from hot to cold. The sum of back and forward is a net flow. Ambiguity can be removed by using rigorous mathematics. All the heat transfer to and from the earth and atmosphere is by radiation. The amount of radiation from the gases which are heated by convection and which have a temperature gradient is very complicated. Modeling generation distribution and effect on net radiation of water vapor would be even more complicated. The rise and fall of CO2 with temperature does not prove it causes global warming. The main thrust of Global Warming Science seems to be trying to prove the CO2 hypothesis. The CO2 theory needs to be challenged to be proven. I have 40 years experience modeling in the nuclear industry and I am now retired. I have used many different types of boundary conditions. Albedos can be defined as ratios of current. Note that in many industrial settings several models are used with different approaches as a check. I would welcome an opportunity to be of service.

  7. JohnInEngland

    If anyone could design a material, gaseous or otherwise, which was able to raise the average surface temperature of a rock spinning slowly in space, heated only by a distant radiative source a considerable distance away, they would not only rewrite the laws of thermodynamics but would probably be on track to invent a perpetual motion device.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s