Breaking: U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along –  a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier.*

NAS logo

Unwittingly, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council have all dealt climate alarm it’s biggest ever blow. Their killer evidence had been hidden in plain sight for 33 years until uncovered by a team of maverick climate researchers.

All those global warming skeptic Christmas wishes have come at once wrapped in the NAS document, ‘Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, a joint publication from 1979 commissioned on behalf of the U.S. government. This amazing story ties in perfectly with all the big climate news chatter this past week about the revelations from the leaked draft report (AR5) of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The leaked IPCC draft admits it has had to ratchet down yet again the climate sensitivity it expects to find from carbon dioxide (CO2). No wonder the IPCC is today having to retreat over CO2 sensitivity –  the trace gas can’t be any factor in our climate if there is no greenhouse gas effect to begin with!

Readers can browse for themselves online the 13,000-word 33-year-old U.S. government report that details the role of carbon dioxide and how it might impact climate. You will see that while CO2 is mentioned no less than 112 times, as you’d expect, nowhere in those 13,000 words will you find ANY mention of the greenhouse gas effect/theory. Scientists at PSI who have carefully studied the document assert this to be the most compelling physical evidence ever found proving the GHE as nothing more than a modern  (post-1979) political construct – a veritable sky dragon now well and truly slain. After studying the report PSI expert Hans Schreuder adroitly characterizes the tone of it’s authors: “the main theme that jumps out at me is “we don’t know enough.””

The NAS study was commissioned by the U.S. government to address the best science of the day on the role of carbon dioxide in atmospheric physics and is the perfect seasonal accompaniment to the leaked IPCC admission that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is once again lower than all the experts predicted  – now we know why!

Because of it’s total omission from this key report, any rational human being will be forced to infer that America’s brightest and best in climate science knew as far back as 1979 there was no greenhouse gas effect for CO2 to impact. The report was the distillation of the best climate science from that era. It examined all aspects of how CO2 might alter the temperature of the atmosphere. Popular Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball and climate researcher, Derek Alker, both of Principia Scientific International (PSI) recognized the significance of the NAS publication straight away. Acting on their suggestion this author obtained a download copy from the NAS website and ran it through a full word search to confirm the  numbers. Readers can check for themselves. There is ZERO mention of any greenhouse gas effect as a factor on our climate.

Now let’s be clear on this. No governmental scientific body entrusted to present the best available evidence on the impacts of CO2 on Earth’s atmosphere would omit to make any mention of the so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ effect unless they did not consider it a factor – however small. But omit it they did.

So, if climatologists are to be accorded the prestige of being the best arbiters of what mechanisms are most likely driving our climate why is there such a huge discrepancy between what science knew 30 years ago and what we are being told today?

One crucial factor here is credibility. What we can be sure of is that the cream of U.S. climate science in the 1970’s had no political axe to grind. Back then the political hullabaloo about man-made global warming took another decade to gather momentum. As such this pristine and untainted evidence provides skeptics the world over with an unequivocal smoking gun to challenge the man-made global warming scam.

We can now say with great confidence that no serious mainstream climate scientist (up to the current generation of rent seekers) gave the GHE the time of day. This new revelation vindicates what experts like Tim Ball have been saying all along: the GHE was already debunked by Professor  H. W.Woods in 1909.

I asked senior members of the 200-strong Principia Scientific International who had worked in meteorology or climate science to recall when they first saw the ‘science’ of the GHE emerge onto the radar in universities, schools and national science academies.

PSI co-founder, Dr. Martin Hertzberg recalls:

“I was trained and served as a forecasting and research meteorologist for the U.S. Navy from 1953-1956. The term “greenhouse gas” never appeared in any of the texts or articles I studied during that period, nor did I or any of my fellow meteorologists ever use the concept in either short term or long term weather prediction.”

While Dr. Tim Ball confirms:

“As I recall the original greenhouse effect concept was created as a teaching analogy that was adopted and adapted into the hypothesis. Carl Sagan and Hansen were messing around with the aerosol issue because of the alarmist threat of nuclear winter. This proposed that with a global nuclear war so much dust would be put into the atmosphere sunlight would be blocked driving the world into a snowball earth. The idea was later shown to be theoretically incorrect and disappeared but not without leaving residue such as Hansen’s focus on aerosols and soot. This created his pathological hatred of coal that is the broad theme running through his career. He came to world attention because Gore and Senator Wirth heard about him and brought him to testify before Gore’s Committee in 1988.”

PSI is appealing for more anecdotal evidence from other professionals and scientists the world over who studied in, or were connected to, climate and meteorology studies before the 1980’s.  PSI’s aim is to forensically compile a trace line back to where national science bodies and universities went over to the ‘dark side’ to sound the alarm over bogus greenhouse gas ‘science.’

Sane minds will now put all the telling pieces of evidence together and understand why the most modern of science instruments shows little if any climate sensitivity to CO2; while climatologists knew in 1979 the greenhouse gas effect wasn’t even a consideration. If there was to be found killer evidence to expose this scam this surely must be it.

*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part OnePart TwoPart ThreePart FourPart Five,Part 6

—— UPDATE ——-

John Cook (Skepticalscience.com) and other GHE fanatics have rushed here to post a swath of comments to berate me that I’ve been misleading in my article (above). It is they who are being misleading. Settled science requires settled nomenclature.

The very fact no mainstream science body dared tout the greenhouse gas theory by name in 1979 is because: (a) they lacked the confidence in the science to call it as such (b) they well understood that the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ had already been refuted by RW Woods (1909) and affirmed as such by the American Meteorological Society (1951) in its Compendium of Meteorology (Brooks, C.E.P.  “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” pp. 1004-18 (at 1016)).

The AMS was adamant that the very idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

The cold, hard facts are in black and white and the revisionists of science history have failed to bury the truth despite billions of dollars in resources and virtual ownership of the media.

About these ads

72 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

72 responses to “Breaking: U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

  1. Jp

    Eh? The report is full of references to an atmosphere with more CO2 absorbing more heat emitted from the surface. That’s the greenhouse effect, isn’t it?

    • Jp, this is not the description or definition of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect. And the physical description given by the AGW activists is rather poor.

      Molecules not only absorb radiative energy, but also emit energy. This was already described by Albert Einstein (1917). To derive Planck’s radiation law he not only considered absorption by molecules, but also spontaneous emission and an emission induced by the radiation field (search for Einstein coefficients). Einstein wrote his paper in German, but there is also a translation into English. Milne (1928) extended Einstein’s idea by considering inelastic collision (collision of first kind) which plays an important role in the Franck-Hertz experiment and super-elastic collision (collision of second kind) the was introduced into the literature by Klein and Rosseland at the beginning of the 1920’s. According to the papers of Einstein and Milne, the source function in the Schuster-Schwarzschild equation can be replaced by Planck’s radiation law if local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) exists (see Chandrasekhar, 1960, Radiative Transfer). Base on Milne’s formula, one can show that the assumption of LTE is valid up to a height of about 60 km above the earth’s surface. Beyond this height, a source function for non-LTE is required. The is the case, for instance, if radiative cooling in the mesosphere is calculated.

      Hansen et al. (2011), for instance, claimed that a planetary energy imbalance of 0.58 +/- 0.15 Wm^2 does exist at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Hansen eventually expressed this energy imbalance by more than 400,000 atomic bombs of the Hiroshima type. However, Hansen et al. derived this value on the basis of an obsolete value for the solar constant of 1366-67 W/m^2. But we now that during the past six decades the value of the solar constant was 1360-61 W/m^2. Thus, if we use the correct solar constant, no energy imbalance at the TOA does exist (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1289v2 and the references therein).

  2. From the Summary of Conclusions:

    “When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes. This range reflects both uncertainties in physical understanding and inaccuracies arising from the need to reduce the mathematical problem to one that can be handled by even the fastest available electronic computers. It is significant, however, that none of the model calculations predicts negligible warming.

    The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earth’s surface and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere. A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture, which is an even more powerful absorber of terrestrial radiation. We have examined with care all known negative feedback mechanisms, such as increase in low or middle cloud amount, and have concluded that the oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principal conclusion that there will be appreciable warming. The known negative feedback mechanisms can reduce the warming, but they do not appear to be so strong as the positive moisture feedback. We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C. Our estimate is based primarily on our review of a series of calculations with three-dimensional models of the global atmospheric circulation, which is summarized in Chapter 4. We have also reviewed simpler models that appear to contain the main physical factors. These give qualitatively similar results.”

    3 degrees C temperature increas, plus or minus 1.5 C, from a doubling of CO2. The reason being that increased CO2 absorbs more thermal radiation. But no greenhouse effect.

    LMAO

    • johnosullivan

      Tom,
      If the greenhouse gas effect were real “settled science” and well understood since the days of Arrhenius then why did the NAS omit any mention of the GHE as “settled science”? Again, I suggest you go back through the literature and try to locate ANY mention of the GHE in mainstream science journals, encyclopedias etc. because, as shown above, it wasn’t even mentioned among professional scientists in climate and meteorology. As per my reply to John Francis – the AMS had specifically dismissed the concept of a GHE by 1951, affirming RW Woods’ debunk of 1909. Not only do you need to explain away why the NAS didn’t define the GHE itself, you’re also left with the challenge of explaining why the nomenclature disappeared off the radar from the RW woods debunk of 1909 till ‘re-discovered’ by Brolin and others in 1975.
      My colleagues and I are especially interested to contact climate researchers from the pre-1980’s era of climate alarm so we can demonstrate how strong the link is between UK PM Margaret Thatcher’s gambit to take Brolin’s concept and turn it into a plausible (yet pseudo-scientific) hypothesis to fulfill political objectives. Help get us started – tell us when it was you first learned of the GHE?

      • Glenn Tamblyn

        John

        They omitted it because there is no need to describe basic science that is already well established.

        The US Supreme Court used much the same argument recently when rejecting challenges to the EPA’s power to regulate CO2. The said in effect, the EPA does not have to reprove the existance of atoms every time they make a finding.

        So too most published science doesn’t re-iterate basic science that has already been well established.

        Really John, you are doing some logical flip-flops here.Why didn’t they mention something that didn’t need to be mentioned?Because it didn’t need to be mentioned.

        Consider thsi text from the report:

        “To summarize, we have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warmings due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to negligible proportions or reverse them altogether. However, we believe it quite possible that the capacity of the intermediate waters of the oceans to absorb heat could delay the estimated warming by several decades. It appears that the warming will eventually occur…”

        “The value 4W m−2 is obtained by several methods of calculating infrared radiative transfer. These methods have been directly tested against laboratory measurements and, indirectly, are found to be in agreement with observation when applied to the deduction of atmospheric temperature profiles from satellite infrared measurements. ”

        They would be referring here to this paper among others:

        http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700022421_1970022421.pdf

        Go take a look at Figs 5, 6 & 7. Look at the huge chunks taken out of the Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation spectrum by GH gases. Particularly by CO2. Read the paper

        That is how you do science John.Make a prediction from theory and compare it with observations. In this case theory and observations agreed so closely that they had to shift one of the curves up on the graph so they could be told apart.

        By the way. A question I have posed for you in the past but never got an answer to. How long have you thought that the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation is the work of one person?

      • Glenn Tamblyn

        John.

        A lot of the researchers you need to talk to are dead John. Because this goes back to way before 1980. Nothing whatever todo with Maggie Thatcher.In fact the first leader of a Government to be advised by scientists about the threat of Global Warming was Lyndon Johnson in 1965.

        Starting point would be Gilbert Plass, “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change” Tellus magazine, 1956. But Plass is dead.

        One of the semiinal papers, the one that put all the pieces together on how the various components of the GH Effect works was Manabe & Wetherald 1967 here

        http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf

        I believe Syukoro Manabe is still alive although I don’t know where he works now. Read Manabe & Wetherald John. Reaf Conrath et al I mentioned in another comment. Then read back through the references they cite. Do that and you will be following the backtrail of the development of our understanding of the GH Effect, and of the calculations needed to solve the Equation of Radiative Transfer.

        And supposedly your ‘colleagues’ include a number of scientists. Are none of them capable of one of the most basic activities in science? Conducting a literature search!

  3. It appears you have been misinformed- read the document and if anything it is sobering read that makes pretty accurate predictions despite the primitive models of the time. Especially the oceans absorbing heat and offsetting global warming.

    • johnosullivan

      Jules,
      if you had bothered to factor in what the leaked draft of the IPCC’s AR5 tells us – ratcheting down of CO2 sensitivity – we have gone full circle to what the AMS was telling everyone in 1951. They stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” (see reply my John Francis)

      • Glenn Tamblyn

        Yes, John. That was the position of the AMS in 1951.Which was completely overturned in the years after that when careful numerical anlysis of the radiative transfer in the atmosphere using the newly emerging computers should that the driving for global warming due to increased CO2 was not actually due to increased absorption of long-wave radiation at low altitude.

        It is due to reduced emission of long-wave radiation at high altitude. And water vapour plays a much smaller role at high alyitude because the atmosphere is extremely dry at high altitude. In the Startosphere where a significant part of the GH Effect occurs, CO2 is still 390 ppm but H2O is down to just 5-10 ppm.

        You are commenting on science that is over 1/2 a century out of date John.If you want to convince anyone you need to get alot more of your facts right John.

  4. John Francis

    I have just read the entire paper from 1979. I don’t think any skeptic should get excited. Certainly the term greenhouse gas is never used, but:

    All they did was ask NOAA and GISS for their opinions, and investigated the statements that were made for logical compatibility
    The review was based on models only.
    The 5 models were provided by NOAA and GISS (yes, with Hansen in the lead)
    The review accepts that CO2 and water vapor heat up from IR radiation from the ground, re-radiate, and warm the surface even more–exactly the same as the GHG effect claim
    The study predicts a warming of 3 degrees C from a doubling of CO2.

    This study actually strengthens the alarmist’s claims

    • johnosullivan

      Now if the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ was truly a well settled theory then why is the term completely absent from the report? This is especially puzzling being that much has been made of R W Wood’s debunk of the greenhouse gas effect in 1909. Also, another important reference is from the AMS in 1951.
      Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. They stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

      http://www.archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer/compendiumofmete00amer_djvu.txt

  5. The NAS report concludes “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C”. Am curious as to how you think CO2 can cause 3 degrees of global warming with a non-existant greenhouse effect.

    • johnosullivan

      John, please show us where in the NAS report it specifically addresses the mechanism of climate with the nomenclature of ‘greenhouse gas effect/theory’ – it isnt articulated for a reason. It wasn’t even a well formed hypothesis with an energy budget until Kiehl-Trenberth concocted theirs in 1997. But if you care to try to prove otherwise please cite some pre-1970’s references that specifically state so.

      • The greenhouse effect was actually established over 120 years before the NAS report. Your argument is equivalent to reading a NASA report about space travel that doesn’t explicitly mention the “gravity effect” and claiming gravity doesn’t exist. But I’m still curious as to how you think a doubling of CO2 could cause 3 degrees of global warming without a greenhouse effect? Please enlighten us.

      • Jp

        I’m mystified by the passion you are displaying over this arcane matter of whether a particular term is being used or not. So what is the word ‘greenhouse’ doesn’t appear? Maybe they didn’t want to dumb down? Is is absolutely obvious that the paper describes incoming shorter wave radiation coming in through the atmosphere, heating the surface, and the longer wave radiation emitted as a result being trapped on the way out – and more is trapped when there is more co2. It is the same phenomena, clearly, as what everyone calls ‘greenhouse effect’ nowadays. So what?

    • John, no, you’re wrong. RW Woods refuted the GHE in 1909 and the AMS affirmed the GHE had fallen from serious scientific consideration in their 1951 Compendium of Science (see related comments). You also pose a very easy question to answer: just read this new paper: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

      • For such an easy question to answer, you do seem to be doing your best to avoid answering it. The paper you link to asserts the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist but doesn’t answer the question – how can CO2 cause 3 degrees of warming without a greenhouse effect. Your headline assertion is the NAS says the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. If so, what mechanism will cause the 3 degrees of warming that the NAS state will eventuate from a doubling of CO2?

  6. lthayles

    didn’t mention it as it was a given. Look at the reports bibliography. Williams J., ed. (1978). Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Society.. over 300 pages of studies looking into CO2 and the greenhouse effect. http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/XB-78-502.pdf

    • johnosullivan

      you’ve dodged the issue – the biggest problem for GHE believers is how to explain away why the term ‘greenhouse gas’ effect/theory is absent from this key NAS report specifically commissioned to address the best atmospheric science of the day. Also, where in the NAS report does it mention ‘back radiation heating’ and/or ‘delayed cooling’ as mechanisms. Where is any reference to the GHE making our planet ’33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be’ in there? These glib contemporary terms just aren’t in pre-1979 mainstream climate science publications and for very good reason. It has taken another 30 years of sophistry and revisionism to contort the data and the ‘science’ to sing the tune alarmists wanted it to.

  7. John, you ask ” how you think a doubling of CO2 could cause 3 degrees of global warming without a greenhouse effect?”
    The answer is CO2 only causes warming in the GIGO junk models. Otherwise please show me any empirical evidence demonstrating that CO2 warms. In fact, it is well understood in the refrigeration industry that CO2 is a superb COOLANT.
    One such leading spokesman in the applied science of refrigeration tells us CO2 has “negligible direct global-warming impact and ozone-depletion potential.”
    See what more of what those applied scientists and real world experts on CO2 say here:
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10538-coolant-carbon-dioxide-our-planets-future-for-mass-refrigeration

    • If that’s the case, then what exactly are the NAS saying when they claim doubled CO2 will cause 3 degrees warming? In the headline of your article, you claim the NAS finds the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Either you are misrepresenting the position of the NAS or they are claiming some other mechanism besides the greenhouse effect is how CO2 causes 3 degrees of warming. So which is it? Are you misrepresenting the National Academy of Science or can you inform us of another mechanism by which CO2 causes global warming?

  8. John, you’ve dodged the issue. Read the paper again and understand that the NAS didn’t refer to the greenhouse gas effect by any such nomenclature because they knew full well the GHE had been refuted by RW Woods (1909) and dismissed out of hand by the American Meteorological Society (1951) as per my references above – now go check them.
    Again, I challenge you to provide EMPIRICAL evidence demonstrating CO2 warms. As everyone in the refrigeration industry understands, the key property of carbon dioxide is its superb COOLING ability.
    The mechanism that controls our atmosphere is latent heat and adiabatic pressure. No need to factor in any junk science GHE. Latent heat ( the phase changes of water) is proven to provide the only heat trapping mechanism in our atmosphere. Give up this GHE nonsense and stick to applied science rather than GIGO computer models.
    What I cite is thoroughly peer-reviewed and published by the 200-strong membership of Principia Scientific International. Go read the papers over there and then we can debate the details of PSI’s openly peer reviewed science. Does that sound reasonable?
    http://principia-scientific.org/

    • More than happy to discuss the empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect once you’ve answered what I consider a very simple question (you even said it was easily answered while failing to answer it). My question is this:

      When the National Academy of Science state that doubled CO2 will cause 3 degrees of warming, what mechanism is meant to cause this warming?

      • John O'Sullivan

        John,
        Again, the NAS mentioned no mechanism. Please show me, by reference to anywhere in the report, where the NAS stated ANY mechanism. They admitted the science was uncertain and deferred to guesstimates by computer models.

  9. John Sullivan says:
    “Again, I suggest you go back through the literature and try to locate ANY mention of the GHE in mainstream science journals, encyclopedias etc. because, as shown above, it wasn’t even mentioned among professional scientists in climate and meteorology.”

    Google Scholar hits on “CO2″ plus “Greenhouse effect”

    1950-1959: 34
    1960-1969: 225
    1970-1979: 762

    “[W]asn’t even mentioned” my ass.

    Why to you think repeating blatant falsehoods is persuasive to anybody who actually thinks, or looks up the data.

    • John O'Sullivan

      Tom,
      You’ve proved my point by exposing the exponential proliferation of references to the GHE. Among the tens of thousands of climate researchers those numbers from earlier decades are piddling. But why not show us by cited reference when Encyclopedia Britannica, or National Geographic or any other major world science publication first stated that the greenhouse gas theory explained our climate.

  10. I consider it hilarious when people like John Cook completely pass over clear statement by Mr. Osullivan about what is MISSING in the NAS paper statements such as:

    “‘greenhouse gas’ effect/theory is absent from this key NAS report specifically commissioned to address the best atmospheric science of the
    day. Also, where in the NAS report does it mention ‘back radiation heating’ and/or ‘delayed cooling’ as mechanisms. Where is any reference to the GHE making our planet ’33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be’ in there? ”

    Not once has John Cook and others been able to show evidence of the terminology in their replies.Just babble about models and predictions that has NO STATED HYPOTHESIS/THEORY written behind it.It is just words that have no scientific value when there is no Conjecture,Hypothesis or Theory to fall on as part of science research.

    The point I believe that Mr. Osullivan is making is that the idea of a greenhouse THEORY is absent in the NAS report thus lacking the necessary terminology needed to advance even at the level of a conjecture.

    Meanwhile we have a John Francis who unknowingly torpedoes his argument with this statement:

    “All they did was ask NOAA and GISS for their opinions, and investigated the statements that were made for logical compatibility
    The review was based on models only.
    The 5 models were provided by NOAA and GISS (yes, with Hansen in the lead)”

    Climate models is all they came up with you say John Francis but notice the absence of a background HYPOTHESIS or THEORY behind it? Just guesses without a working Hypothesis behind it to run with.

    In todays world we see that a Greenhouse Effect CONJECTURE fails all of the few tests given to it and still we have this absurd infatuation of the GHE that was NEVER validated by your camp at all Mr. Cook and Mr. Francis.

    ROFLMAO!

    • Sunsettommy, if the NAS report states that doubled CO2 will cause 3 degrees of global warming, then it is abundantly obvious that the NAS endorsed the greenhouse effect in 1979. Publishing a blog post over whether the NAS report used the exact phrase “greenhouse effect” is quibbling over semantics. It is clear that John O’Sullivan is misrepresenting the NAS report – further emphasised by the fact that he studiously avoids answering my simple question “if the greenhouse effect is not the mechanism by which CO2 causes 3 degrees warming, then what?”

      • Pathetic.

        You are emplying the standard deflection that is obvious since you can’t admit that there is no WRITTEN statement of any Greenhouse effect or hypothesis in the NAS report thus you fall back on a single paragraph that has no underlying emprical research behind it since they are just the usual run of unconfirmed climate models to run with that you obviously excited about.

        Recall what John Francis wrote:

        “The study predicts a warming of 3 degrees C from a doubling of CO2.”

        Was it validated……?

        It is a PREDICTION John that is not testable or verifiable!!!

        I find it hard to believe that you once went to college and got a degree when you fail to realize that it was NEVER tested or validated!

        I suggest that you reread the Scientific Method again since you never learned it in college.

      • sunsettommy, the issue here is that John O’Sullivan’s key point, expressed in his headline, is that the National Academy of Science denies the greenhouse effect in this report. However, regardless of whether they use the specific phrase “greenhouse effect” or not, it’s clear from statements like “doubled CO2 causes 3 degrees of warming” that they do endorse the greenhouse effect. Hence O’Sullivan is misrepresenting the National Academy of Science.

      • You claim that John O’Sullivan DENIES the greenhouse effect in the report

        Here is what John O actually wrote that you DISTORT:

        “Readers can browse for themselves online the 13,000-word 33-year-old
        U.S. government report that details the role of carbon dioxide and how it might impact climate. You will see that while CO2 is mentioned no less than 112 times, as you’d expect, nowhere in those 13,000 words will you find ANY mention of the greenhouse gas effect/theory.”

        He states that nowhere in the NAS report are the word/phase greenhouse effect or theory MENTIONED once.But you try to make it look like he is DENYING something.

        Why can’t you admit that they are NOT mentioned in the report?

        John O also wrote this:

        “The report was the distillation of the best climate science from that era. It examined all aspects of how CO2 might alter the temperature of the atmosphere.”

        LOL

        Come on Mr. Cook when will you stop the bullshit?

  11. The answer to John Cook’s question, that Sullivan wishes to avoid giving is:

    “An increase of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases its absorption and emission of infrared radiation and also increases slightly its absorption of solar radiation. For a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the resulting change in net heating of the troposphere, oceans, and land (which is equivalent to a change in the net radiative flux at the tropopause) would amount to a global average of about ΔQ=4 W m−2 if all other properties of the atmosphere remained unchanged. This quantity, ΔQ, has been obtained by several investigators, for example, by Ramanathan et al. (1979), who also compute its value as a function of latitude and season and give references to other CO2/climate calculations. The value 4W m−2 is obtained by several methods of calculating infrared radiative transfer. These methods have been directly tested against laboratory measurements and, indirectly, are found to be in agreement with observation when applied to the deduction of atmospheric temperature profiles from satellite infrared measurements. There is thus relatively high confidence that the direct net heating value ΔQ has been estimated correctly to within ±25 percent.”
    (Section 3.1.1)

    You will note the direct citation of Ramanathan, who certainly describes the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Like wise you will note the explicit mention of empirical confirmation both by laboratory experiments and by satellite observations.

    Curiously, although thinks the report is reliant on Woods (1909), that paper is not in fact cited by the report. On the other hand, Manabe and Wetherald 1975, who showed conclusively that Woods concept of how the greenhouse effect worked was fundamentally mistaken (as is that of Sullivan).

  12. John Francis

    Let me clarify my position:
    I don’t believe in the GHG effect, as it defies thermodynamics and common sense. An object subjected to IR radiation from the surface of the Earth cannot itself warm the Earth even further, even a perfect IR mirror, much less CO2. As an engineer, I know that is a perpetual motion machine (use more mirrors!).

    All I was saying is that the “study” did not refute the GHG effect, in fact it supports it. Unfortunately.

    • Mr. Francis,

      how can you say that it supports it when it is not testable or validated?

      Have you mulled over this feeble science declaration at all?

      “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C”

      They call it … he he… bwahahahahaha!!!… the most probable estimate of nearly 3C warming on a doubling of CO2 and with a HUGE +- range in it despite the probability of it being a good estimate.

      You think this is good science?

    • John Francis,

      1) Your understanding of the greenhouse effect as simply a function of back radiation at the Earth’s surface is incorrect. I would suggest you actually learn the physical mechanism of the greenhouse effect before rejecting it. I have written a simple introduction to the theory here:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html

      2) As an engineer, you should know that if you reduce outgoing energy from an object, but do not reduce the incoming energy, the object will warm. Back radiation, if that were the greenhouse mechanism, would have the effect of reducing net outgoing energy from the planetary surface. The result is that the sun warms the Earth more efficiently because its energy is not lost so efficiently. That defies neither the laws of thermodynamics nor common sense.

    • Glenn Tamblyn

      John

      Actually there is no reason at all why it can’t ‘heat the Earth further’. As an engineer you are failing to consider all the energy flows.

      1. Energy arrives from the Sun and ‘heat’s’ the Earth.
      2. Energy is radiated (and convected and evaported) away from the Earth and cools the Earth.
      3. Some of this Energy is intercepted and radiated back to the Earth, heating it some more
      4. Energy is radiated away from the Earh again ….
      and so on.

      You are only considering the heating effects but ignoring the cooling effects. If only steps 1 & 3 were occurring, that would be a violation of the 2nd Law. But with step 2 as well, and with the step 3 being smaller than step 2, there is no 2nd Law violation and no perpetual motion machine.

      It’s like learning Double Entry Accounting. Keeping a ledger of Debtors AND Creditors. Its when you add both ledgers up that you get the real picture. Just focus on one side of the ledger and you accounts will be all wrong.

    • Glenn Tamblyn

      John

      Go read Conrath et al that I pointed John O at. Observations taken in 1969 showing the huge impact that GH gases have on the Earth’s long-wave spectrum. Your an engineer so you understand the Plamck Equation. Look up the spectrum of the Sun – its a pretty good match to the Planck Equation. Then look at the Earth’s spectrum; like a piece of cheese that the rats have been gnawing at.

      Something is screwing with the Earth’s emission of Infrared. In the absorption bands of the GH gases.

      Then ask your self a question in response to this statement:

      “The Greenhouse Effect is caused mainly by the effect of GH gases on Emission of Infrared at high altitiude. Absorption of IR at low altitude is a much smaller component”

      How well do you understand the statement I have just made? Does my statement agree with your understanding of how the GH Effect does (or, I will concede with you for the sake of discussion, is claimed to) work?

      If what I have said is at odds with your conception of the GH Effect, maybe you need to explore the actual nature of the GH Effect in more detail.

      And this is as one Engineer to another.

      Glenn Tamblyn
      B Engineering (Mechanical)
      University of Melbourne
      1978.

      • johnosullivan

        in essence you’ve said “the greenhouse gas effect is caused by greenhouse gases” – what a tautology! This is the kind of sophistry that is being utterly exposed by 200+ researchers at Principia Scientific International.

      • Glenn Tamblyn

        John O

        Well I suppose there might be a tautology in there John. Probably inevitable when you are dealing with facts.

        So after your little distraction, when will you be reading Conrath et al?
        Some of that basic science you claim tobe so fond of. Prediction from Theory compared with observations. If the observations disagree with the theory, you have to start scratching your head. But when the observations match the theory to an incredible degree, then that is a confirmation of the theory.

        And that is exactly what Conrath et al is all about.

        Experimental confirmation of the GH Effect. Take the masses of data we have on the absorption properties of the GH gases, apply that to predicting what the solution to the Equation of Radiative Transfer will produce in a particular situation.Theory. Then carry out observations to confirm whether your predictions were correct. And they match to an incredible degree. As have all calculations and observations ever since.

        So, if all your ‘scientists’ at Principia Scientifica are so industrious, when can we expect them to produce scientific papers that contain any predictions? Testable predictions that will let us test their theories!.Because without predictions, theories are just a waste of paper.

        In fact, when will the ‘scientists’ be putting forward explanations, based on their theories, for the masses of existing observational data that supports current theories. When will Claes Johnson be putting forward his explanation, based on his oscilator hypothesis, that explains the Earth’s observed infrared spectrum. Or the observed patterns of Back Radiation.

        When will he be explaining to all those scientists, even high school physics teachers, who have demonstrated wave/particle duality through countless variations of low intensity double slit experiments what his alternate explanation for their observations is?

        I understand Claes is probably a very busy man. Entire branches of science are lining up to have Claes explain how he has completely overturned their branch of Scienceandhow his theory will replace evrything they thought they new.

        Physicists are interested to know whether any of the Standard Model of Qantum Mechanics will remain. How Cales resolves the old problem of explaining atomic spectra since he has done away with quantisation.

        Chemists are woundering whether any of ourknowledge of chemistry willsurvive his revolution. Since his starting point was to throw our entire understanding of atomic structure out the window.

        Electron Orbitals? Nope.
        Explanation for the structure of the Periodic Table? Nope.
        Kinematics of chemical raections?Nope.
        Pauli’s Exclusion Principle? Nope.
        Understanding Hydrogen Bonding or Van Der Waals forces? Nope.

        What about the poor Electronics people.
        Quantum Tunneling? Nope.
        Doping of SemiConductor materials? Nope.
        Transistors? Nope.
        The Internet? Nope … hey wait a minute….

        Do you get my drift John? Launching a scientific revolution that throws out a century or 2 of science, all science, is a pretty big job.

        And on a small language issue, since that is what you opened with.

        Principia Scientifica????

        Please tell me that isn’t an allusion to Isaac Newton. That you guys don’t liken yourself to him? Please tell me that John. Because the sheer arrogant hubris of someone actually meaning that beggars the imagination. Nobody could have such a monstrously inflated ego as that. Something about big boots and filling them.

        Do you still hold that Mr (Herr) Stefan-Bolzmann never intended his equation to be applied to a rotating body?

      • John O’Sullivan:

        1) Glenn Tamblyn said that the Greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases, which is not tautological. That you found it necessary to rephrase it to make a purely rhetorical point shows the poverty of your argument.

        2) Glenn Tamblyn asked you to look at some empirical evidence. You evaded that with a rhetorical flourish. That complete refusal to even acknowledge the copious empirical evidence out their that substantiates the theory of the greenhouse effect, and refutes the pseudo-science you are fond of is what we have come to expect from Principia Scientific and its cotery.

  13. John Francis

    I don’t think you have thought about my reply. The report accepts the conjecture that CO2 exposed to views of the surface gets hotter. I don’t and even if I did, the heat would be converted upwards immediately by the air. This report is no help to skeptics or slayers

    • The report does not help ANYONE because it is not TESTABLE or VALIDATED!

      It is a modeling construct temperature prediction that is running way ahead of measured reality thus worthless.It does not advance climate science research and with no WRITTEN supportable hypothesis to work with runs on ad hoc thinking the very worst state to be in.

      Recall this line:

      “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C”

      It is a guess and nothing more since it can’t be shown that it is valid or even credible since as it is far into the future long after you,me and all the people who were involved in the 1979 NAS report will be dead.

      Again I ask you is this good science?

      • John Francis

        No, it’s not good science. They asked Hansen and Manabe what they thought, and took their word for it.

    • By the way where is that elusive written conjecture in the NAS report?

  14. John Francis

    Nowhere. But we get nowhere if we highlight a so-called study that isn’t helpful or persuasive.

    • True,

      but it does show how weak their whole position is when it is always climate models that can’t be testable or validated like the ones that supposedly make CO2 some kind of super duper molecule despite that it is rare with limited absorption windows and competes with Water Vapor and a non player in the tropics where Water Vapor dominates by concentration and where the most sunshine and heat is present as well.

      That 1979 report is just as worthless as all the other model based temperature guesses are since they can’t be validated within 100 years time.

      That is why John O’s post helped show how feeble Mr. Cook and his friends arguments really are since they deal with temperature models that are not credible or verifiable thus they are once again exposed as being scientifically shallow.

  15. Good HEAVENS. What an OUTRAGEOUSLY deceitful article!

  16. Glenn Tamblyn,
    In reply to your comment above,reasonable folk can see from the empirical evidence that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is busted as per the following facts:

    (a) All the empirical data proves there is no causal link to show CO2 can drive climate.

    (b) No national science body accorded the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ validity until PM Margaret Thatcher’s Speech to the Royal Society (27 September 1988), Public Statement, Speech Archive, Margaret Thatcher Foundation (accessed online: December 3, 2012)
    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107346

    (c) Until (b) mainstream science had long rejected the greenhouse gas hypothesis, as affirmed by the peer reviewed literature and affirmed by the American Meteorological Society (1951). See Brooks, C.E.P. “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change,” Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). The AMS is on recording affirming that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”
    http://www.archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer/compendiumofmete00amer_djvu.txt
    One of my colleagues, Piers Corbyn is in the game of making accurate predictions (peer reviewed rate: 85%). He succeeds on the basis that there is NO greenhouse gas effect whatsoever. Yet the UK Met Office, which programs its supercomputer to factor in the GHE has been humiliated time and again for its’ ‘barbecue summer’ junk long-range forecasts. Isn’t that “carrying out observations to confirm whether your predictions were correct”?

    PSI scientists have demonstrated that GHE math is one vast tautology as proven here:
    http://climateofsophistry.com/2012/12/20/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-7-the-tautology-of-ghe-math/

    That your long-winded comment descends into rambling ad hom and appeal to authority is par for the course. To which I reply, we have 200+ members and growing. Among us are scientists who worked on the Apollo space program, have been nominated for the Nobel Physics prize, are employed by the Canadian space agency, Indian space agency, design orbital satellites, hold patents on said satellites, on missile defense systems, are acknowledged international experts in thermodynamics, one member is Sweden’s most-cited mathematician in the peer-reviewed literature,…etc. etc. Please focus on the empirical facts, Glenn, not discredited GIGO computer models.

    Kind regards,
    John

    • Glenn Tamblyn

      John

      “(a) All the empirical data proves there is no causal link to show CO2 can drive climate.”.

      Have you got a reply from Claes yet about how his ‘oscilators’ explain the observed spectrum of the Earth? The Earth’s spectrum looks like a piece of cheese that the rats have been gnawing at. How does Claes explain that?

      Have you actually read Conrath et al 1970 yet John. Have you gone back through the citations trail to understand what those scientists were discovering 1/2 a century ago?

      Additionally, if there is no data to support the role of CO2 in climate through it’s role in radiative forcing, well, will you be telling the US Defence Department or should I?

      Because they were behind the discoveries that lead to to our detailed understanding of the physics of all this. They were the backers of the Cambridge Research Laboratory’s ongoing program to investigate IR absorption buy Gases. In fact they had been backing this research since WWII. The current HiTran Spectroscopic Database, containing detailed spectroscopic data on 2.4 million absorption lines for over 30 different gases had it’s origins in the CRL research and back to WWII.

      All those balloon launches, high altitude flights, satelite observations and so on during the 60’s – obviously just the DoD conning itself.

      Have you ever heard of the ModTran program John. A computer program that calculates solutions to the Radiative Transfer Equation. Not the most detailed such program but pretty good. And publically available.

      And owned by the DoD. Control of the program has been vested in the Commandant of the USAF Geophysics Laboratoty at Hanscomb AFB, MA for many years. Now it is controlled by the Commandant of Kirtland AFB in CA.

      If there is no evidence, why does the DoD think their is? Why do they have patents on the technology used to analyse this stuff.

      “(b) No national science body accorded the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ validity until PM Margaret Thatcher’s Speech to the Royal Society ”

      John.
      Obviously you have never heard of the President’s Scientific Advisory Commitee.

      Established by Pres’ Harry Truman in 1951, it was tasked with providing the President with advice on a wide range of scientific issues, using the best available science. In 1965 they presented a report to Pres’ Lyndon Johnson which included a 20 page summary of the then understanding of the threat of climate change. Pres’ Johnson made a speech to Congress on the subject. The first report to government on Climate Change – a 1/4 of a century before Maggie Thatchers speech.

      It seems like 25 years or more of research has just managed to slip your attention John.

      200 members! Wow. So when will you reach something like 20,000 members John? Thats roughly how many people attended the recent Fall conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Thats just the Geophysical folks. Doesn’t count the Physicists, Chemists etc.

      You like saying things like “One of my colleagues … showed that …’.

      You really don’t get how science works do you. Nobody ‘shows’ anything. Somebody puts forward a hypothesis, something where they think things might be ‘like this’. They offer testable predictions, observations that one could make to provide support or rebutal for the hypothesis. Things like – ‘Special Relativity predicts that Mercury’s orbit around the Sun will produce this effect.’ Or ‘the IR spectrum of the Earth, when observed under these conditions, will be this!’

      Then other scientists can go off and perform experiments to test the hypothesis, look for evidence that confirms or denies the hypothesis.

      So please list the actual predictions that your ‘scientists’ have made, predictions that other scientists can go and examine and investigate.

      Have any of your 200+ scientists made a single testable prediction? Just 1. What is it?

      By the way John.

      Why did you bring up Climate Models? I didn’t mention them. My interest isn’t in them. It is you and Principia Scientifica that is under the microscope. Nothing else.

      So please John. Provide some science that other people can take away and test and evaluate. Anything else isn’t science, just mathturbation. No matter how clever the words, all of it is meaningless without testable predictions.

  17. Edmonton Al

    I have a question.
    Is it not true that, if the atmosphere heats up, conduction and convection primarily expand the size of the atmosphere, then the atmosphere contains the extra heat but the temperature stays the same???
    Generally speaking that is.
    Where is the so-called positive feedback?

  18. Update: John O’Sullivan claims that you don’t need to examine the evidence to know that a theory is false. You only need to check if a particular report pronounces shibboleth correctly uses a particular word regardless of the actual contents and references in the report.

    It must be nice to have such evidence (and thought) free ways to know the Truth ™.

  19. Steve Mennie

    Jeez, John..you hit a nerve with this one. You actually have more than a couple of dozen responses. Careful you don’t believe your own horseshit now and ramp up the rhetoric and purple prose even more.

  20. Rosco

    This discussion is about the same old story – an unproven hypothesis.

    What is real is that the Earth radiating at ~240 W/sq m and at 255 K has nothing to do with the surface temperature the Solar radiation can heat to.

    The data NASA presents from the Moon conclusively demonstrates a couple of things.

    The Sun heats Earth’s surfaces to much higher levels than shown in pesudoscience – the minus 18 “average” is a distraction.

    A heated surface radiating to space cools at a slow rate.

    Despite the bullshit at SkepticalScience the lunar surface cools at an average rate of less than 1 Kelvin per hour. The SkepticalScience author who wrote that the cooling is a dramatic plunge obviously hasn’t the intelligence to note that the Moon data is presented as a lunar day of 24 hours.

    The clown who claims that the temperature drops from 390 K to 100 K in a few hours forgot to multiply by the conversion factor of 29.5 – 24 Lunar hours is approximately 708 Earth hours.

    If the Moon’s surfaces heated to 390 K cool at a rate of about 1 K per hour then in 12 hours between sunset and sunrise the Earth’s radiating surface isn’t going to cool anything like the Moon.

    Of course the advocates are going to ignore real data as usual –

    but, but, but space is cold and the atmosphere wraps around us like a blanket keeping us warm analogy.

    Beside the absurdity of applying physical principle to something that has no substance at all there is one other problem with this piece of crap.

    The space surroundin the Earth is literally awash with Solar Radiation capable of heating planets to 390 K – the only way to avoid it is to hide in a planet’s shadow – there is no way known that the space near the Earth is “cold” – no matter what absurdities are uttered by people with PhDs.

  21. Rosco

    And John – I really wish you had left this one alone – AGW will collapse under its own inconsistencies and pseudoscience anyway- I love the way the goalposts keep shifting – global warming morphing into climate change – Backradiation heating the surface into a slowing of the cooling rate.

    Gotta love it and all without any data – wait that’s wrong – there is data and it shows that the claims are crap !

    • Steve Mennie

      @ rosco…

      So Rosco, if this is all so blatantly obvious and all that ‘crap’ being spewed by people with Phd’s is so indefensible why don’t you put all this together in a paper and blow the lid off of this entire enterprise…? I’m sure there would be a Nobel prize in the offing.

      • LOL,

        You have no idea why you are the fool because a true thinker KNOWS that a packaged science claim has to have the ability to be credibly tested to support their stated position.

        When we are given wild guesses that requires numerous decades in the future to see if it is credible then it is not since it is a guess and nothing more thus their stated position can’t be supported.

        That is why most CAWG skeptics do not bother trying to publish papers against such prepackaged pseudoscience claims as they are not worth the time as they are by initial reading worthless.

        You need to read the Scientific Method to understand how verifiable science research is done:

        Introduction to the Scientific Method

        http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

        Making 50-100 year temperature models and claiming this is evidence in support of the CAWG conjecture utterly fails to meet the stated scientific method description.

        Only fools continue to ignore the time tested ideals of the Scientific Method.

  22. Pingback: CO2 cooled the atmoshere … before it didn’t | pindanpost

  23. Pingback: U.S. National Academies and the Greenhouse Gas Effect (Part Two) | johnosullivan

  24. From: Oliver Manuel:

    Our fate and Earth’s climate are controlled by the pulsar Sun that made our elements and birthed the Solar System in a Hiroshima-type explosion about five billion years (~5 Gyr) ago – despite united government efforts to hide that fact after the United Nations was formed on 24 Oct 1945.

    Oliver K. Manuel and Alberto Boretti, “Yes, the Sun is a pulsar,” Nature (submitted 12 Dec 2012) http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Yes_the_Sun_is_a_pulsar.pdf

  25. David

    Without the sun, there is no climate. We wouldn’t be here because the earth’s average surface temperature would probably be hovering around 0 degrees Kelvin. Conversely, if the sun gets hotter and/or the earth becomes closer to the sun, the atmosphere would react by thickening and including other elements like more CO2, SO2, VOCs and particulate matter.

    CO2 is NOT(!) a harbinger to a warmer climate: A warmer climate is a harbinger to more CO2! One must ignore the periodic table, the reference to atomic weight and density, the dynamics of carbon dioxide with respect to heat and the lack thereof, as well as the countless other factors impelling our climate (the most conspicuous influece being the sun), in order to believe man’s carbon dioxide emissions are the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    The presumption that CO2 is a harbinger to a warmer climate is absurd. Albert Gore’s wet dream is not about saving the planet; it’s about getting stupid rich by fascist force of law. If you can’t understand these basic precepts, you should leave the argument.

  26. Amazingly Glenn Tamblyn writes this:

    “So please John. Provide some science that other people can take away and test and evaluate. Anything else isn’t science, just mathturbation. No matter how clever the words, all of it is meaningless without testable predictions.”

    You the same person who is a convinced believer in the never validated CAWG conjecture that is all about temperature models that are commonly projections far into the future even as long as 100 years in the future yet you seem unbothered by the lack of verification possibilities in them.

    Maybe YOU also need a refresher in reading what the Scientific Method is as well as many of your irrational CAWG believers who have similar delusions you have.

    Introduction to the Scientific Method

    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

    You and your kool aid crowd need to stop embarassing themselves.

  27. Pingback: US National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part Three | johnosullivan

  28. Thomas Watson

    Comment by email from Thomas Watson:

    Hi John

    This quote: ‘Now let’s be clear on this. No governmental scientific body entrusted to present the best available evidence on the impacts of CO2 on Earth’s atmosphere would omit to make any mention of the so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ effect unless they did not consider it a factor – however small. But omit it they did.”
    Is perfectly valid, for Science has not understood this simple fact. Our Earth is orbiting within the Sun’s heliosphere and on the 15 February 2001, our Earth entered the Positive magnetic zone and it was this interaction between this sector and our Magnetosphere that changed the barometric pressures, that has been going on now since this changed magnetic condition, by 150 days.
    I’ve also established a positive connection showing that our Moon controls our tidal effects because of the emission of its face, facing Earth emits a Positive magnetic field, and is also the reason why the tidal effects are larger within the Northern Hemisphere than at the southern hemisphere, and this characteristic also shows that when the Moon has its full face (Full Moon) facing Earth, is always within the Northern Hemisphere and has never been recorded within the Southern hemisphere.
    This answers many other scientific reasoning, because it is not, Gravity.

  29. Pingback: Another Alarmist Author Admits Spreading Greenhouse Gas Theory Bunkum | johnosullivan

  30. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 4 | johnosullivan

  31. high treason

    It is quite likely that the 33 degrees of “Greenhouse Effect” is purely and simply from the Boltzman equation which I learnt in high school. PV=nRT . The pressure from the weight of gases on themselves through gravity forces up the temperature. Pressure is proportional to temperature. This explains why there is a predictable temperature decrease with altitude(less of the density of gas) and why Venus is so hot- closer to the Sun and the extremely thick, dense atmosphere. Venus too is cooler at higher altitudes. I lay down the challenge for a physicist with more of the astronomical information than myself on pressure of gasses on Venus and black body temperature to dispel the Greenhouse myth and gain themselves a place in history.
    To say “the science is settled” and refuse to debate the issue because “the science is settled” is simply NOT science.If it science, it is not settled. If it is settled, it is not science. There are some ENORMOUS stakes involved in the whole AGW scam, the UN in particular being a major recipient (and the major perpetrator of the AGW myth,) 10% of ETS money goes to the UN, which is a much higher slice than Al Gore and other carbon traders parasitically leech out of the system. Those scientists that do not toe the AGW line simply do not receive funding. The scientists who cherry pick data to achieve the results expected from them are debasing science itself on exchange for Fame, Fortune and Funding (and Fabianism.)

    Nothing so sullies the integrity of humanity as the subversion of science for the servitude of politics.

  32. Pingback: ” CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other” … | pindanpost

  33. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5 | johnosullivan

  34. Pingback: National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6 | johnosullivan

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