Friday, January 20, 2012

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps (from Co2


By: John O’Sullivan

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind the man-made global warming new research shows the numbers were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K).

A team of dedicated international experts, known as the ‘Slayers,’ all highly qualified in their respective fields, spent the past year deliberating over the deep-rooted errors in the calculations employed in the greenhouse gas theory. Their findings are devastating to all those who claim carbon dioxide and the ‘greenhouse effect’ heats our atmosphere.

The standard argument of a clique of climatologists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is as follows:

  • A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)
  • The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.
  • This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.
  • The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.

This is the so-called greenhouse effect (GHE) examined closely by a team of professors of physics, mathematics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology who joined forces to put the numbers under a fresh microscope.

This group of 20+ specialist scientists has given the infant (and generalist) science of climatology a much-need shake up. Indeed, the ‘Slayers’ say a monumental paradigm shift is now very much under way.

Below, in simplified form, we examine in three parts how their brilliant analysis has eviscerated one of the most costly and mistaken theories of modern science, man-made global warming.

Part One: Coolant Carbon Dioxide

In a recent ground breaking paper Professor Nasif Nahle proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) actually works as a coolant when it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to induce the air temperature to cool not a warm.

Physicist, Joe Postma, in this epic debunk further describes the correct application of the laws of thermodynamics to address how the thermal capacity (or conductivity) works with the ‘coolant’ CO2. As Postma tells us,

“Carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases merely serve to make the atmosphere cooler in daytime, warmer at nighttime. This is what empirical evidence tells us. ”

He asks us to think of how this interpretation differs from what the uneducated and pseudo scientists say that is “the greenhouse effect makes the planet warmer than it should be.” But we know that in truth what we actually observe is somewhat entirely different.

In the future, says Joe, people will declare: “The atmosphere keeps the planet from getting too hot in the daytime, and too cold at night-time”.

Just that simple realization alone kills the so-called ‘blanket’ analogy of greenhouse gas theorists stone dead.

Step Two: How the IPCC Picked Wrong Numbers from the Get-go

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

Postma, a recent addition to the team sums up how much getting those first numbers right matters:

“We all agree that the atmosphere has an “atmosphere effect.” But what is of interest to us is how this effect changes if the properties of the atmosphere changes (a little).”

In this excellent paper geologist, Timothy Casey, gives a calculation for how much temperature variation will be caused by changes in CO2. It tells us:

“If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide.”

What Casey shows is that in reality, a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by a measly one percent and given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36 percent.

Casey finds,

“That would represent a 0.36 percent increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18 percent and a ceiling cooling of 0.18 percent of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000 ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth’s surface.”

“However, even if this wasn’t a negligible enough effect, Casey finds the proverbial doubling of CO2 would only contribute a change of 0.0040C at the surface”.

Step Three: Exposing the Idiocy

Groupthink is ‘Step Three’ in our explanation of how climatology got itself into such a muddle. Here’s a perfect example of scientific idiocy displayed by someone who ought to know better. Postma shows how a reality disconnect by one such theorist makes a mockery of IPCC numbers when applied to the real world. He explains,

“Yesterday a professor tried to tell me that a blackbody (BB) would heat itself up if its radiation would shine back on it – if it was surrounded completely by a perfect mirror.

I told him that all that would happen is you’d get a standing electromagnetic wave between the BB and the mirror, with a frequency spectrum and flux density equal to that of the BB – there’d be no spontaneous increase of temperature. 50C is 50C and there’s no way to get more than 50C, from 50C. The only way to get more than 50C is to bring in some outside work or something hotter than 50C.”

Postma then enlightened the perplexed professor that it’s impossible to make candles or insulation warm itself by its own radiation. “If we could make a candle burn hotter by reflecting it’s light back onto it, that would have been discovered long ago.”

The Slayers thus ask us to put it all in terms of radiation and conduction being analogous modes of heat transfer. Then it becomes plainly obvious and ridiculous.

Like his learned colleagues Postma suggests climatologists apply a little more common sense and joined up thinking; their heat transport equations should properly be addressed in terms of conduction such that radiation and conduction are simply MODES of heat transfer. If an object can heat itself via its own, or “colder” radiation, then it should also be able to heat itself by conducting with itself, or conducting with a cold body.

“An object conducting with itself to make itself hotter? What the heck does that even mean? An object conducting with a colder one and thereby becoming hotter? I don’t think so,” insists Postma.

Thus when we start to accept that conduction and radiation are analogous modes of heat transfer, then it dawns on us all that the laws work the same way with both of them.

Therefore, by working through this ‘Three Step Greenhouse Effect Debunk’ we are left with only one conclusion: IPCC junk (generalist) science is well and truly busted by the specialists in their fields.

Source: John O’Sullivan


Anon1152 said...

I'm really sorry that I have to ask this... (It's not you, it's me)... but... Is this satire?

Anonymous said...

Anon1152 -- No it is not. Why would you think so? You can check the work of Postma.

Anon1152 said...

Hi Anon @9:57.

I thought it must be satire when I read "Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication".

I wasn't so troubled by "Carbon dioxide is a coolant" in the first paragraph. Water (or air) can be a coolant. A coolant picks up heat (and is used to move heat from one place to another). So... for example, in my Air Conditioner, air passes through coils carrying coolant, the coolant picks up the heat from the surrounding air, it's moved to another part of the machine where the heat is blown outside my apartment, and the cooled air is blown inside my apartment.

CFCs and related materials (like HFCs, PFCs) are powerful greenhouse gases (they are addressed in the Kyoto Protocol). Freon, which was used in our refrigerator, is a powerful greenhouse gas. It doesn't just destroy the Ozone layer. Scientists have recognized this for a long time.

I did read the Postma paper. I should perhaps read it again. I'm not an expert, and found it difficult to understand at times. I know very little about thermodynamics, or the concept of a "black body". But from what I see in the blog post here, and comparing it to the paper, I see some potential problems...

For example, the blog post says: "In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K)."

Leaving aside the question of whether or not "the atmosphere acts like a coolant" (which, as I suggested above, may be perfectly consistent with current climate science), the Postma paper doesn't quite say that without the earth's atmosphere, the surface :"would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius").

The Postma paper says: "Via equations {1} and {3} it can be calculated that a perfect blackbody sphere surrounding the Sun at a radius of one astronomical unit (1 a.u., the distance of the Earth from the Sun) would heat to an equilibrium temperature of 1210C."

So the paper says that the earth would have a temperature of 121 degrees celsius if there was no atmosphere.... AND if it were "a perfect blackbody sphere".

But the earth is NOT a perfect black body. (It's not a perfect sphere either... but it comes pretty darn close).

The paper says that "the blackbody absorbs all the light that strikes it". The paper also says that the earth does NOT absorb all of the light that strikes it. The paper says that "the Earth, including its atmosphere, reflects 30% of incident sunlight".

There are surely people more qualified than me out there to comment on the Postma paper. It looks like it wasn't published in a scholarly paper. I wonder what other Scientists think about it... Of course, the paper (and this Blog post) says they aren't to be trusted... so perhaps there's no reason to check...


Che Joubert said...

The warming that is obviously occurring may not be due to the 'Greenhouse Gas' theory. Volcanic sills (underwater lava flows) are far more extensive than in the past. These huge, deep sea sills, arising from the mantle of the earth, bake the oceanic sediment they come in contact with, and release 'vast amounts of greenhouse gases', according to oceanographic institutions. Thus you have a situation where gasses produced by an increase in deep sea heat, aka mantle activity, are being blamed for the warming itself.

No doubt humans have added to greenhouse gases to some negligible extent, but we've also added air pollution, which has been proven to cool the earth's temperature by blocking sunlight. If not for this decreased sunlight the earth's temperature would be even hotter at this point. Super-volcanoes (mantle-plume volcanoes) are the end point of this cyclical increase in mantle activity, and cause massive die-offs of planet life at regular intervals.

Barakn said...

Troubled to see the phrase "ground breaking" applied to a paper by Nasif Nahle. Nasif is a mediocre biologist with absolutely no background in physics or climatology. His mathematical prowess is equivalent to about that of a junior high student. Papers of his in the past have been noted to be riddled with the kind of errors that one would hope even a novice wouldn't get wrong, such as using the wrong constant or equation, or not using dimensional (unit) analysis which would have caught his errors with constants/equations. See

DaveMcRae said...

This must be satire. Joseph Fourier came up with the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis in 1823 because the sun is very weak this far out. And since Tyndall in 1859 the evidence to promote the hypothesis to a theory have been coming in. And we now know why we're warmer than the moon.

For the fence-sitters, I urge you to check out how a CO2 meter works. Go to the manufactures' websites. It's global warming to can hold in your hand.

If it's impossible for you to accept CO2 can absorb IR radiation then .. we should organise you to be hit with a CO2 laser. I'm so keen to see if there is a reality denier field possible so that well you could be right in your alternate universe :)

BillM said...

To Dave McRae
A. I didn't write this.
B. Nobody says that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. I was a spectroscopist. The question is, how does the energy absorbed get released. It is partially by vibrational to translational energy exchange and partly by reradiation in the IR band.