Monthly Archives: November 2012

Lemmings Galore

Guest post by Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser

You’ll probably have come across the term “like lemmings” before. Lemmings are small hamster-like rodents found across the Arctic land area and the term refers to their change in abundance and behavior when their number reaches a critical point. At such a point lemmings are said to follow one another to die by drowning in the sea, although there are some open questions about the veracity of such claims [1].


Lemmings are hand-sized rodents, similar to the hamsters your son or daughter (age-dependent) may find cute and would like you to raise as their pet in your place (at least until your offspring loses interest).

Anyway, lemmings and hamsters come and go. Given the right circumstances, every so often they multiply enormously. However, nature has its own way of cutting them down to size again; usually by starvation. In times with plenty of food, any species will procreate as much as possible; lemmings are no different. When the inevitable poor harvest occurs, their fortunes change dramatically. This is known from many cyclic species with cyclic population exuberance and crashes. When a crash occurs, it can reduce the previous abundance by many orders of magnitude.


OK, that’s a new word. What I mean by it is the pretense of knowing all, still doing the same thing, and expecting a different result than before. Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as “doing the same things over and over again, expecting a different result.” Of course, Einstein had his own problems. Someone with the first name Adolf did not particularly like his theories. Adolf managed to enlist a good number of learned people who all concurred that Einstein was wrong. It helped to shape the opinions in the media and the populace. There remained just one little problem: scientific proof was not available at that time, neither for nor against Einstein’s science. As it turned out later, Einstein was right. In response to the hundred-plus scientists who had claimed that he had been wrong, Einstein simply said “one [scientist] would have been enough – if I had been wrong.”

To me that is an important lesson in science. Science does not work by consensus, rather by fact. Any theory, as outlandish as it may sound to another scientist or a layman alike, will eventually be proven to be false or true. But that proof does not depend on how many people believe that the theory is correct or false, at any time. There is no substitute for scientific proof – certainly not of the kind much of the media like to hype. To give you a modern example, let’s look at the Mann Affair.

The Mann Affair

To refresh your memory, Dr. Michael Mann was a major factor, i.e. contributor and lead author to several reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His work on tree (growth) rings helped to propel his “hockey stick” graph to worldwide attention. That graph supposedly showed a causative link between carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air and the climate on earth. That graph was used by Al Gore and others to “sell” the ideas of “global warming”, the “Kyoto Protocol” and other international agreements such as the UN’s Agenda 21 with its prescriptions for all kinds of government control of your life.

Dr. Mann and some of his associates were so convinced of his work that his employer, the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) had no qualms about publishing his biography with its claim that “He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.” In fact, Mann was so enthused about his scientific prowess that he started court proceedings against others who questioned his claims and wanted to see the raw data behind them [2].

Fast forward to November 2012: The court case brought by Dr. Mann against his most outspoken critic, Dr. Timothy Ball, appears to have collapsed. Mann simply failed to provide the data on which his whole hockey stick graph is supposed to rest. As a result, Mann, and potentially others like him, may be facing counter-suits and potentially substantial damage awards, possibly even punitive actions as well. PSU may not be pleased. They could be on the hook for millions. Stay tuned.

Take-Home Message

The take-home message here is simple. Don’t fall for media hype, awards, or scientific concepts or models with claims like “the majority of scientists believe” as their justification. “Consensus” does not exist in science – but facts do. Computer models can provide great inside knowledge – or can be utterly wrong, the latter for sure if the data behind it are “cooked.”


[1] Wikipedia entry ‘Lemmings’ (accessed online: November 28, 2012)

[2] L. Bell, ‘ ClimateGate Star Michael Mann Courts Legal Disaster,’ (accessed online: November 28, 2012)



Filed under Uncategorized

Top British Science Body in Revolt over Global Warming Censorship

Shock new email revelations show that since 2007 senior members of the UK’s prestigious Institute of Physics (IoP) cynically locked down any debate about man-made global warming. Now seasoned writer, Andrew Montford, draws on hundreds of leaked emails exposing how a clique of Big Green activists hijacked one of Britain’s most venerated institutions to shamelessly promote a one-sided version of the hottest environmental issue.

'Institutional Bias' on sale today for only £0.99 ($1.60)

‘Institutional Bias’ on sale today for only £0.99 ($1.60)

In his startling new pamphlet, ‘Institutional Bias’ Montford lays out the evidence selected from a vast body of leaked internal emails. Two whistleblower insiders were the source, Peter F. Gill, formerly the chairman of the IoP’s Energy Group and Terri Jackson (MSc Mphil), former science adviser to Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Rev. Ian Paisley and Founder of the IOP’s Energy Group.

The incredible correspondence details a conspiracy to silence any and all dissent challenging the alarmist mantra of human-induced climate change. Self-serving senior figures within the IoP are shown to have harassed and harangued every attempt for a grassroots debate among members over the global warming controversy.

Montford, a well-respected figure on the skeptic side of the debate and author of the best seller ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion,’ the book that exposed climatologist, Michael Mann’s iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph, is damning in his assessment of this fiasco.  Montford argues the leaked emails prove, “The voice of the membership is increasingly being silenced, with headquarters staff having arranged to abolish the annual representatives meeting, at which grievances had formerly been aired.”

The IoP is a vast organisation of 45,000 members with a multi-million income derived from member subscriptions, journal publishing and meetings. This new evidence puts flesh on the bones of what has for too long been glibly dismissed by elements of the mainstream press as “conspiracy theorization.”

We see in black and white the email evidence of how, when the Climategate controversy hit the news, pro-green elements in the IoP and British press were quick to paper over the cracks. Despite an upswelling among members for a full debate the IOP’s hierarchy silenced criticism in preference of a  “clear” message on global warming. In this the IoP chose to state “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now,” much to the ire of disenfranchised grassroots members. IoP’s Jackson was snipped by the green censor’s scissors when a version of her dissenting article, ‘Pouring cold water on global warming’ published in The Belfast Telegraph and due to also appear in The Times,  was “blocked” by green activists in London. Meanwhile Gill’s integrity was thrown into question by The Guardian.

Gill is delighted with the impact Montford’s pamphlet is making, “I must say that the reaction so far has been largely positive albeit that it has made some people sad and depressed.”

Initially, when Climategate hit the headlines Gill played a role in helping to draft the submission, from the Institute of Physics (IOP) to Parliament. The statement reflected widespread concerns that scientists at the University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that key reconstructions of past temperature could not be relied upon. But Gill’s statement was not what pro-green propagandists within the IoP wanted and a backlash ensued when the controversy was catapulted to prominence in the UK national press

Shaken and outraged by their experience Gill and Jackson now both choose to ply their talents within the maverick rival science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI). Both are assisting their new-found colleagues in compiling further hard-hitting revelations, including the shabby way the IoP subverted and blocked a scheduled talk by prominent skeptic, Lord Lawson. Ominously for the beleagured IoP Gill warns, “Andrew has chosen not to ventilate the whole question of how those that had the Lawson meeting cancelled got away with it… but that’s another rather long story….”

With the full set of embarrassing emails now in the hands of PSI we can expect to see a more objective light shone on this once unimpeachable British science institute. Read more  here.


Filed under Uncategorized

The Courts, Hans Jelbring and the Kiwis Bring Joy for Greenhouse Gas Deniers

Fast-growing maverick science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI) takes three more steps closer to defeating junk climate science and forcing an overhaul of the world’s “broken” science peer-review system. In the courts PSI’s chairman, Dr. Tim Ball hammers two prominent climate scientists, while in the science labs PSI’s debunk of the alleged greenhouse gas effect (GHE) has won over another slew of key recruits including a prominent climate researcher.

Justice comes to he who waits

Justice comes to he who waits

Today renowned climate expert Hans Jelbring and Bryan Leyland, spokesman on energy and economic matters for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) each announce themselves among dozens of new faces in the PSI team. Dr. Vincent Gray, Leyland’s colleague at NZCSC also issued a press release seen as further validation of PSI’s indomitable stance in refuting greenhouse gas science.

Tim Ball Launches Legal Counter Attack against Michael Mann (& Andrew Weaver)

But it is at the courtrooms of British Columbia, Canada that we must first begin our rousing roundup of news. It is here that popular Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball delivers the evidence signalling not one, but two impending dramatic legal victories against carbon hating junk climate scientists. Specialist Canadian libel firm, Pearlman Lindholm are to announce the filing of separate counterclaims on behalf of  Dr. Ball and against discredited climate professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver. Recently the Nobel Committee affirmed that both professors lied when each claimed to be co-winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Ball’s legal team are to file stiff counterclaims in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to coincide with the announcement of his separate victories over Mann and fellow IPCC doomsayer, Weaver. Cynics will say Weaver’s qualification as a proven and adept liar who “bribed university students with research funding” helped clinch his position as new Green Party leader.

Sadly, for Weaver his new political position will do nothing to save his junk science. Dismissal of his vexatious libel suit against Ball is the death knell of those discredited “complex computer models” touted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Weaver, the IPCC’s chief climate modeler, has fallen foul of court rules because he, just like Mann, has been timed out for failing to advance his case since it was filed in February 2011. This dismissal us due to Weaver’s (and Mann’s) bizarre refusal to comply with court rules to reveal the hidden evidence that supposedly underpins their science. Honest researchers would have no qualms over a little ‘show and tell’ to convince a jury their science is “settled.” But these charlatans must now think its worth blowing a cool million to keep it hidden. As such, for refusing to come clean both their lawsuits are now scheduled for summary dismissal, plus costs. The desperate duo are represented by libel expert, Roger McConchie, a big-hitting lawyer unused to having his butt kicked so emphatically round a courtroom. The news is a devastating blow to alarmist attack dogs, DeSmogblog and climate kook, David “jail the deniers” Suzuki who allegedly bankrolled Weaver’s failed lawsuit against Ball.

Yesterday (November 26, 2012) popular science blog WUWT ran a new article by Dr.Ball exposing the flaws in computer modeling. Ball and PSI are delighted and bullish after Weaver backed down over his pompous claims about the IPCC’s “complex models” that were long claimed to validate the GHE. But now the Canadian state has given ultimate legal validation of PSI’s debunk of greenhouse gas physics. In his now defeated writ Weaver tried and failed to get the court to punish Ball for declaring Weaver was part of the “corruption of climate science.” Ball further stated that Weaver was “unqualified” about climate and was dishonestly passing himself off as a climate expert when he wasn’t. Hilariously, it seems the court agrees with Ball and Weaver has removed the claim from his website. Also now given legal validity is Ball’s other claim that Weaver had his students  shamelessly heckle and interrupt Ball during a presentation he gave at the University of Victoria in April, 2010.

Sharing in the joy is Dr. Hans Jelbring, a long-standing independent critic of the greenhouse gas “theory.” Dr Jelbring provided PSI with a further boost by declaring, “The initiative of PSI is much needed and I will be glad to be informed by PSI and contribute to the goals of PSI as much as my skill allows me to do.” Jelbring’s 2003 paper, published in Energy & Environment is seen as being much in accord with PSI science as well as that of Nikolov and Zeller.

 New Zealand Skeptics Align with Maverick Science Body

As independent climate researchers move closer towards the universal abandonment of the greenhouse gas “theory” last week the indomitable Bryan Leyland showed his leadership by becoming the first prominent Kiwi skeptic to join PSI. Leyland, from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) is their spokesman on energy and economics while fellow NZCSC stalwart Dr. Vincent Gray is editor of the popular Kiwi newsletter. Each, along with Professor Cliff Ollier of the University of Western Australia announced their acceptance of all key elements of PSI science (see below).

Canadian Astrophysicist, Joe Postma, who also assists the Indian space agency and is now at the vanguard of advancing PSI science, had this to say, “NZCSC has made an important declaration in their newsletter and we are very gratified. The NZCSC position is almost a perfect echo of the work the Slayers and myself have been presenting over the past 2 years and more. I am very happy to see this synchronicity!”

Dr. Vincent Gray wrote, “In several recent newsletters I have attacked the plausibility of the basic climate model promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In particular Dr. Gray condemned the practice of IPCC junk science in stubbornly modelling Earth as is if were flat. As Postma’s calculations have shown, it is by crassly choosing to stick with this “flat earth physics” that climatologists have gotten away for decades in duping policymakers that any such greenhouse effect exists.

Postma’s work, most notably his latest paper, shows that IPCC models critically failed to factor into the mix legitimate heat flow differential equations nor did it take into account the impacts of latent heat, circulation, the Zero-Energy-Balance plot, etc. [1]

As Dr. Gray points out the IPCC went badly wrong because omitting these key factors was “completely at odds with meteorological science.” Dr. Gray, like Postma asserts that Earth’s surface is immediately cooled by “convection by the atmosphere and evaporation of water.”

Postma backed Gray’s assessment by declaring, “My initial papers were based on exposing the inherent tautologies and abuse of mathematics and physics such [IPCC] models exploit, introducing a new graphical schematic model baseline for treating the system dynamically as it actually occurs in reality.”

Thanks to such unswerving dedication to defend itself against the “dirty little secrets” of junk science, not only in the labs but in the courtrooms, Principia Scientific International is moving to the forefront as the only international science association prepared to expose the flaws woven (deliberately?) into greenhouse gas climate science.

[1] Postma, J.E., ‘A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect,’ (October, 2012),


Filed under Uncategorized

Joe Postma: Taking Climate Back from the Flat Earthers

Third-rate science has long been welcome in climatology. It has been deliberately modeling our Earth as flat for 50 years; all to hide the fictional effect  described by the  ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ In his latest stunning analysis, astrophysicist, Joe Postma, again demonstrates why it’s so dangerous to trust government climate science.

The New Religion of Climate Change. The Old Boss is the Same as the New, Part 1

by Joseph E. Postma

Setting the Landscape

As we have learned in my ongoing series on the fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, climate pseudoscience invented an artificial, fictional scheme by which the atmosphere can heat itself up without the Sun, so that they could create an alarmist political movement to vilify the life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide.  What we are going to learn now is that this is not just a political movement. It is something much more profound.

I first want to speak on the level of insanity that we’re dealing with on this issue:  The people who believe in the greenhouse effect, believe it makes no difference to think of the planet as either flat, or spherical, and they believe that a flat planet Earth must actually do a better job at explaining the “average system” than a spherical planet Earth.  They believe it makes no difference whether we model the input power of sunshine at -18oC, or at +49oC.

They believe that if you fictionalize the input power of the Sun to -18oC, on average, on a flat Earth, and then create a greenhouse effect to explain why it is so much warmer than this on the ground, that this is a more valid way of thinking about the planet Earth than its reality of actually being spherical with +49oC of heating input.  I have literally had to write out differential calculus equations proving that the Earth can be modeled as a sphere, and with real-time power from the Sun, and that it makes things very hot, and that this produces wildly different results than a flat Earth requiring the invention of a greenhouse effect.  But still, some people prefer to believe in thinking of the planet as flat.

That is as simple as my criticism is:  I look at the standard atmospheric greenhouse schematic and energy budget from climate science, see that it has a flat Earth and that sunshine is cold, and so I ask, “What difference does it make if you treat sunshine as hot, its real strength, and the Earth as a rotating sphere?”

That is the entire essence of my criticism.  Do these things make a difference?  Why wouldn’t they? Read more from this remarkable scientist here.


Filed under Uncategorized

Skeptics Pursue Mass NY Police Complaint Against Climatologist James Hansen

Skeptics of man-made global warming are piling pressure on New York’s finest to mount a criminal investigation into  what may be intentional data fraud by government climatologists. In a bold initiative one blogger yesterday (November 20,2012) filed a police complaint against  one of America’s top climate scientists, NASA’s Dr. James Hansen. Other Big Apple citizens are urged to follow suit.

Is he really a common criminal?

Is he really a common criminal?

Pierre Gosselin, who owns the ‘NoTrickZone’ blog insists Dr. Hansen is a key climate data rigger misappropriating tax payer funds to ply junk science on U.S. policymakers.   Gosselin continues, “I am officially reporting, to the NYC police, NASA-GISS scientist James Hansen, for manipulating and falsifying U.S. Government temperature data, with the likely intent to defraud U.S. citizens.” New Yorker Gosselin is urging other city residents to act on their “public duty” and partake in a mass grassroots protest to compel police to probe alleged shenanigans at NASA GISS, Columbia University, where Hansen works. On his blog,  Gosselin makes the following appeal:

“All witnesses are urged to notify the authorities and to provide evidence of Hansen’s activity so that the authorities can properly investigate what plainly appears as criminal activity in broad daylight and, as duty calls, to render protection to the public they have sworn to serve.” The blogger further claims Hansen is being aided and abetted in his climate conspiracy by a “white, balding male, donning a goatee, who appears to be Hansen’s assistant and goes by the name “Gavin.””

Gosselin seems perfectly serious urging other  “caring citizens“ to  contact NYPD, 26th Precinct, 520 West 126th Street, New York, NY 10027, Tel. (212) 678-1311. See NYPD’s webpage here. It appears this precinct is responsible for NASA GISS, Columbia University, where Dr. Hansen works as head of climate research for the U.S. government agency.

Citing as evidence obtained by fellow skeptics such as Steven Goddard and others Gosselin insists Hansen has falsified climate data to deceive tax payers and policymakers  “not just once but on multiple occasions.” With so many independent analysts over so many years having found irregularities in the strange “science” of Dr. Hansen surely there must now be sufficient evidence of a prima facie case here to warrant a police probe.  I think Gosselin has a point. As a fellow NY homeowner I’m happy to be in on this.


Filed under Uncategorized

The Greenhouse Gas Blanket that Fails to Warm the World

By John O’Sullivan & Douglas Cotton

Looking through his astrophysicist’s eyes Joe Postma made a great point when observing our beautiful blue, wet planet from space: “Energy leaves the Earth, the same amount leaving over two hemispheres, as what comes in over a single hemisphere.”

Our Sun heats Earth on One Side Only

Our Sun heats Earth on One Side Only

Amazingly, for over 50 years climate researchers overlooked the huge significance of this basic fact when they modeled Earth simplistically by averaging incoming solar radiation equally over both hemispheres. In the age before supercomputers it was expedient to ignore the complexity that our 70% liquid planet creates due to day/night heating and cooling of the water cycle. Averaging across the entire globe this solar radiation energy input was a fudge factor that gave rise to a rigid but flawed greenhouse gas radiation-obsessed paradigm.

Greenhouse Gas Theory Omitted Crucial Water Cycle

Utterly focused on radiation, the infant science of climatology gave scant consideration to the crucial interplay of that double intense dose of solar energy on the sunny side of our spinning planet. That intense dose of energy in a focused area was the supercharging fuel for a dynamo that did its work by latent heat. Indeed, while solar radiation may be the origin of all incoming energy, once it enters our gaseous wet planet it is spun convectively about the vortex of Hadley Cells and those blue oceans and albedo white clouds begin to interplay in a constant cycle of evaporation and condensation.

Spiraling wet and dry air masses are thus driven to convulse so that trillions of tons of water are heated – mainly at the Equator – then projected around the globe towards the poles where they cool. In this convective conveyor belt the only heat trapping “gas” is evaporated water operating as latent heat, not by any mythical “greenhouse gas effect.”

Thanks to Earth’s convective conveyor Postma’s ‘Model Atmosphere’ paper could fairly assert “…We [Principia Scientific International] hold that the average solar radiative input heating is only over one hemisphere of the Earth, has a temperature equivalent value of +30˚C, with a zenith maximum of +87.5˚C, and that this is not in any physically justifiable manner equivalent to an instantaneous average global heating input of -18˚C…”

But the infant branch of science, climatology, had invested so much faith in a static, timeless and radiated flat earth model that there was no room in their stale, dry universe for our climate’s second key player after the sun: the hydrological cycle. When we open up our minds and think outside their simplistic radiation box and factor in the phase changes of water (and miracle properties of latent heat) then we see no need for any “greenhouse gas effect” – it simply disappears as easily as the dew on a sunlit morn.

Of course, Postma, like Douglas Cotton and their other climate research colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) are well aware that our planet’s surface loses some of its surface thermal energy (or “heat” as most people call it) by radiation.

Back in 1854 Rudolf Clausius published his “statement” of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” [1] Any “other change” would entail the addition of external energy to the system being considered.

Scientists on all sides of the debate accept that radiation actually goes in all directions, so there is some passing each way between any two bodies. But in our wet atmosphere we see that conduction and convection are energy transfer processes inextricably involved, especially the nearer to the surface we go.

Latent Heat is Key Player Not Carbon Dioxide

For example, at the interface of the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere energy is transferred as molecules of air collide with those of the surface (70% ocean). This is a conduction like process, but, because conduction is usually associated with heat transfer in solids, we will use the alternative terminology and call it “diffusion” where gases (and liquids) are involved. Energy, we know, also transfers from liquid surfaces by way of evaporation, simply because it requires energy to bring about a phase change from liquid to gas, such as when you boil water in a jug, creating steam. Evaporation not only cools the surface but also transports considerable latent heat to the immediate atmosphere (about 590 calories per gram).

PSI researchers then looked closely to see what, if any, effect radiation from a cooler atmosphere has on these non-radiative processes (mostly diffusion and evaporation) that play a key role cooling the surface.

As Joseph Postma wrote (see page 47 of [2]) “The only attempt at a mathematical physics explanation for radiation obeying the laws of thermodynamics that this author is aware of is found in Claes Johnson’s work on the subject.” Prof Johnson’s paper Computational Blackbody Radiation [3] is discussed at length in Douglas Cotton’s paper [4] and Johnson’s conclusions have been accepted at Principia Scientific International. Readers are encouraged to read all the papers in the Publications menu on the PSI website. [5]

In summary, Johnson showed computationally that the electro-magnetic energy in radiation from a cooler source is not converted to thermal energy when that radiation strikes a warmer target. This is the essence of how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics still functions correctly for radiation, as it does for conduction. There is a discussion of the quantification of heat transfer from a warmer source in Cotton’s paper mentioned above. Johnson goes on to explain that the radiation from a cooler source is only momentarily absorbed and then immediately re-emitted with exactly the same frequencies, intensities and energy, this resulting from resonating processes. None of the energy can be converted to thermal energy, so there is no heat transfer involved. Heat is only transferred when some of the radiated energy from a warmer source strikes a cooler target.

Conduction and Convection, Not Radiation Dominate in Gases

Let’s just assume Johnson is correct. His explanation certainly sits more comfortably than the simplistic two-way heat transfer implicit in “Energy Budget” diagrams constructed by climatologists. Let’s look then for empirical evidence that supports what he says. If he is right, then radiation from a cooler atmosphere striking a warmer body of water cannot penetrate the water and cause any warming. Hence, we would not expect it to have any forcing effect on the rate of evaporation.

What effect does it have, if any? Well, we know that the total amount of radiation from any body is limited by its temperature. This is the well-known Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) Law [6] which is related to the Planck curve representing the frequencies and intensities of the radiation. If Johnson is correct, then the incident radiation provides the energy required for an equivalent amount of radiation to be immediately re-emitted by the warmer body. The target finds it easier to use that energy (which is already in the form of electromagnetic energy) for the corresponding portion of its “quota” of radiation as per the S-B Law. Hence it does not have to go through the more involved process of converting a corresponding amount of its own thermal energy into electro-magnetic energy. And, because it is not using up so much of its own energy, it transfers less of its own energy to the atmosphere, and thus the rate of cooling by radiation is slower than it would have been without the backradiation.

Konrad Hartmann looked into this and designed an experiment [7] to test whether or not the rate of evaporative cooling did actually accelerate to compensate for a slowing of the radiative cooling, and indeed he found that it did. So here we have some evidence that there can be spontaneous compensation by non-radiative processes when radiative cooling is slowed. So far, nothing here to prove Professor Johnson wrong.

But why then does it remain slightly warmer in calm conditions at night when low clouds pass over? Well, Konrad also found that there was some slowing of overall cooling rates for land surfaces. We can assume that this is because diffusion processes do not accelerate as quickly as evaporative cooling, and so they do not appear to fully compensate within a short time frame. But do they over a longer period, such as throughout the night when the clouds have passed over?

To answer this we need to think about the huge amount of energy stored not just in the land surfaces and the oceans, but also below the crust, right down to the core. The very fact that there is only a slow net energy flow coming from beneath the crust is proof in itself that the massive amount of heat down there is not changing very much on a percentage basis. So it does in fact perform a very strong stabilising effect on Earth’s climate.

Increased CO2 Fails to Raise Temperatures

We can see, for example, that it has been happening for the last 14 to 15 years when temperatures have been fairly stable and possibly declining slightly, despite ever increasing carbon dioxide levels. Whatever it is that causes climate to vary, it would appear to be natural causes, possibly following natural cycles that relate to the mean intensity of Solar radiation reaching the surface. There is growing evidence that planetary orbits may govern the regular periodicity of these natural cycles [8] such as apparent 1,000 year and superimposed 60 year cycles.

So, does carbon dioxide still have some way of causing a net warming effect? Does it form some kind of blanket over the Earth? Absolutely not. Whether or not you believe Prof Johnson to be correct, you cannot escape the fact that there is a diffusion process which transfers energy from a solid surface into an adjoining gas. Douglas Cotton discusses this in his ‘lamp holder experiment’ here. [9]

What this means is that oxygen and nitrogen molecules which collide with the warmed surface will themselves be warmed by diffusion. We all know the air just above the surface is only a little cooler than the surface itself at any time in calm conditions, day or night. In fact it cools a little faster than the surface on a calm night. Measure it in your backyard. The warmed air can be shown to rise by convection and cooler air moves in to get warmed itself by the same diffusion process.

‘Holes’ in the Greenhouse Gas ‘Blanket’

Now, oxygen and nitrogen cannot radiate away the energy thus gained from the surface. But they certainly do lose energy as the air moves up into cooler regions of the troposphere. So they must be transferring energy by diffusion into the radiating molecules such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane etc. It is these very molecules which are doing all the radiating of all the energy that is leaving the atmsophere as it cools. They are like holes in the insulating blanket which is formed, not by radiating gases, but by the non-radiating oxygen and nitrogen air molecules.

So carbon dioxide clearly has a cooling function, not a warming one. Even though it does send some radiation back to the surface, all that radiation can do is to slow that portion of the surface cooling which is itself due to radiation. The backradiation cannot slow non-radiative cooling, and these processes like evaporation (in over 70% of the Earth’s surface) accelerate to nullify the effect, as empirical evidence demonstrates.

So it is oxygen and nitrogen which form the “blanket” when they get warmed by diffusion (and thus slow the rate of non-radiative cooling) whilst carbon dioxide and water vapour in particular are like holes in the blanket which cool the air by allowing energy to escape to space.

That extra 33 degrees in the surface temperature, usually blamed upon so-called greenhouse gases, is in fact entirely due to (and fully explained by) the adiabatic lapse rate which is related to the declining temperature in the troposphere. This temperature plot has the gradient that it does because of the time lag in diffusion of energy into oxygen and nitrogen, and the time they then take to rise and cool. So the 33 degrees has nothing whatsoever to do with water vapor and gases like carbon dioxide. Without these radiating gases in the atmosphere our planet would be much warmer than it is.

As Postma tells us:

“The Earth is not flat. The sunshine is not cold. The hot sunshine is the only input, and everything else is a response. A temperature does not increase its own temperature. A cold temperature in the atmosphere cannot increase its own temperature. A cold temperature in the atmosphere cannot heat up an already warmer ground. There is nothing true about how the GHE is derived from the first-principles of a flat-earth model.“

In essence, the greenhouse gas theory succeeded as a false paradigm for so long because it hoodwinked us into accepting the static flat-earth radiation-obsessed model that omitted the engine of the Coriolis effect that drives Hadley Cells within the constraints of adiabatic pressure. As such latent heat was left out of the equation.

But PSI shows that the 50-year focus on radiation was a blind alley. The Sun is the only driver of the system, and everything else is a response. The atmosphere is not a secondary source of energy and only latent heat, via the hydrological cycle “traps” energy. So it isn’t the “greenhouse gas effect” it’s actually the latent heat effect. As PSI researchers have found, there is a natural lapse rate distribution of temperature in the atmosphere that has nothing to do with the cold atmosphere heating itself up. A cold temperature cannot heat up its own cold temperature by heating up another warmer object. The analysis of Professor Johnson and Douglas Cotton affirms that.


[1] Clausius, R. (1867) (in English). The Mechanical Theory of Heat – with its Applications to the Steam Engine and to Physical Properties of Bodies. London: John van Voorst.

[2] Postma, J.E., ‘A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect,’ (October 22, 2012), Principia Scientific International, (retrieved online: November 19, 2012)

[3] Johnson, C., ‘Computational Blackbody Radiation,’, (accessed online: November 19, 2012)

[4] Cotton, D., ‘Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,’ (accessed online: November 19, 2012)

[5] Principia Scientific International

[6] Stefan–Boltzmann law, (accessed online: November 19, 2012)

[7] Tallbloke’s Talkshop, ‘Konrad: Empirical test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory,’, (accessed online: November 19, 2012)

[8] Watts, A., ‘Is there a planetary influence on solar activity? It seems so according to this new paper,’ (accessed online: November 19, 2012)

[9] Cotton, D., ‘What Physics Says About Climate Change,’ (accessed online: November 19, 2012)


Filed under Uncategorized

Heat Streams One Way Not Two: How Greenhouse Gas Physics Fails

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) coined a new term that confounds the established laws of physics. This term is “back radiation” heating. It is a conjured up mechanism upon which a 21st Century international pseudo science is based – atmospheric physics. But whereas radiation goes where it likes, heat only streams one way – from warmer to cooler as per actual physical laws. Strict adherence to such laws is what distinguishes the science of Principia Scientific International from that of the IPCC and this is perfectly embodied in a telling new paper by Jef Reynen.

Wikipedia, ever among the least reliable references for anything, assures us that “Atmospheric physics is the application of physics to the study of the atmosphere.” Wikipedia’s entry on this issue makes no mention of latent heat and much mention of radiation. Critically, we see no mention whatsoever of conduction or convection, the predominant modes of energy transport in any gas. We have for decades been subliminally steered away from the abiding truth in science, that the miraculous element: water is the key to climate – not radiation. Water does this via latent heat, the true “trapping mechanism” of incoming solar radiation. But the IPCC hides that pea under the thimble and instead tells us there is a two-way energy stream called “back radiation” that is the key. However, you will find “back radiation” nowhere in any texts on thermodynamics. It doesn’t exist in real science.

Notwithstanding their oversight Dutch researcher Jef Reynen, in his new paper ‘Atmospheric absorption by IR-sensitive molecules,’ uses a parameter study to test how this obsession with “back radiation” stands up under closer examination. Inspired by Professor Claes Johnson, Reynen performs an experiment to see whether the IPCC’s “back radiation” model can possibly add to, or delay energy transit in Earth’s atmosphere. Applying MATLAB to solve the simultaneous equations Reynen analyzed the difference between one-stream heat flow by radiation formulation and the two-stream formulation, as is used by the IPCC. The findings are astonishing and his new paper is set to be another milestone in the inevitable march back to REAL scientific inquiry about our climate.

Reynen first identified that a ‘one slab’ model, with simple back-of-the-envelope algebra can be shown to be reliable, while any attempt to show a two-stream heat flow (the IPCC’s “back radiation” formulation) will give spurious absorptions, even though temperature distributions for the two formulations were the same.

He found that IPCC software (not real world data) relying exclusively on the two-stream formulation, points to huge absorptions and thereby huge values for back-radiation of heat from colder to warmer temperatures. Reynen analyzed the IPCC’s one-slab (two-stream) model and developed a multi-layer model based on the one-stream for heat flow by radiation formulation.

The Dutchman conceptualized such a model as a stack of grids – in appearance something like chicken wire. The model was given large holes with a normalized cross-section “1-f” and thin wires with a normalized cross-section ”f”, where “f” can be interpreted as an absorption coefficient.

Reynen determined that such a feasible model could be comprised of a stack of 50 layers, starting at the bottom with a first layer at 6 mm near the surface (where there is most incident energy) and building up to thicker layers towards the top of the atmosphere at a height of 10 km.

Besides this geometry of the mesh, Reynen showed a distribution of the thickness of the wire, acting as the absorption coefficient, to show how the IPCC had established their global and annual mean heat budget (but without their contrived back-radiation heating). By this construct Reynen proved that absorption by the atmosphere turned out to be an order of magnitude lower. Reynen reports, “A sensitivity analysis has been carried out and doubling of the concentration of CO2 results in a surface temperature increase of 0.08 C.”

Yes, you read that correctly. By modeling the atmosphere more closely to it’s true physical structure, we can demonstrate the IPCC erred by fudging the absorption coefficient in their analyses.

As such the IPCC wrongly identified CO2 as the climate villain. It is, in fact, the IPCC’s flawed two-stream formulation for heat flow that arbitrarily and capriciously conjured up “back-radiation“ heating, unknown to the laws of thermodynamics, and now employed as a contrivance to concoct warmer temperatures from cooler ones. As Jef concludes, “We could live with the misnomer back-radiation but we can not accept the huge numbers given to it.” Reynen’s experiment now stands as a stark challenge to those universities teaching ‘atmospheric physics’ to either abandon the IPCC’s bogus two-stream heat flow formulation or perform their own experiments to try to prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrong.


Filed under Uncategorized