Press Release:
Principia Scientific International Publishes Ground breaking Paper
Refuting the Greenhouse Gas Theory
(by John O'Sullivan, October 30, 2012)
Joseph E. Postma's new paper is the most coherent and complete analysis any of the 120+ members of Principia Scientific International has seen on the greenhouse gas theory (that includes one Nobel SCIENCE prize nominee!).
As a multi-disciplinary group of dedicated and trusted colleagues, we see there is so much original material here to establish a watershed. We do not make the claim lightly because we know our credibility will depend on this. Nonetheless, if these findings are widely confirmed then future climate researchers may well be discussing the science in terms of “pre-Postma” and “post-Postma” analysis.
Principia Scientific International, as a fledging science association, is pioneering a new kind of peer-review in open media (PROM). As such, we heartily welcome full and open public examination of Postma's work. It is in the interests of us all that Postma's claims are put under the spotlight and either accepted as compelling and valid or demonstrated to be flawed and inconsequential.
Article continues below this advert:
The ball is now firmly in the court of all those who insist the so-called greenhouse gas effect must cause “some” warming – a claim this paper compellingly refutes.
Abstract:
A contextual flaw underlying the interpretation of a back-radiative greenhouse effect is identified. Real-time empirical data from a climate measurement station is used to observe the influence of the “greenhouse effect” on the temperature profiles. The conservation of heat energy ordinary differential equation with the inclusion of the “greenhouse effect” is developed, which informs us of the temperature profile we expect to see when a “greenhouse effect” is present. No “greenhouse effect” is observed in the measured data. The latent heats of H2O are identified as the only real heat-trapping phenomenon and are modelled.
A discussion on the existence of universal principles
John O'Sullivan
Coordinator: Principia Scientific International
http://principia-scientific.org/For more information contact: info@principia-scientific.org
Click source to download PDF and read FULL paper from Joseph E. Postma
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
No sense paying attention to the "legal consultant"; just pay attention to the paper itself. The author declares that he can find no evidence of "back radiation", using a straw man construction of what IR effects CO2 and water vapor actually could produce: that so-called "back radiation" is claimed to heat the surface past insolation (false; it simply reduces net outgoing IR from the surface), that the earth does not act like a "greenhouse" (obvious, but such a straw man misnomer is useful to a person desperate, for preservation of book sales potential, to deny IR effects), and even a false explanation of how greenhouses actually work.
The author claims to find no evidence of such IR effects, but in fact depends on them: for the cooling effect at the top of the atmosphere, through absorption and re-emission to space, of both insolation as well as outgoing cooling at night.
The author claims to find no evidence of such IR effects, but the IR absorption and re-emission of energy is a necessary and constant fact, demonstrated by Stefan-Boltzmann, which remains unrefuted.
Jiggle a few numbers for which there is insufficient data or debate -- incoming insolation, grey body emissivity -- and ignore energy conversion through IR and molecular collisions along the way, and -- Bingo! -- only convection is needed.
But IR absorption and re-emission occurs, otherwise Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchhoff have to be ignored.
If the author has simply "missed" that irrefutably-present process, how can any other part of his non-peer-reviewed, privately published (for profit) paper be entertained as useful?