View Article & Comments
view the latest news articles
Monday, July 25th 2011, 6:02 AM EDT
Powerful new physics paper shows how climate modellers treated Earth like a star ignoring night and day temperature differences. Fudged equations exposed.
Astrophysicist, Joe Postma's new paper, 'The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect' (July 22, 2011) is touted by skeptics as the definitive debunk of the faux science that props up the man-made global warming scare industry.
The paper highlights and then dissects the “night & day flaw” in standard greenhouse gas effect (GHE) equations plus the spurious concept of “back radiation heating” that is increasingly dismissed by experts as unphysical.
Night and Day Differences Ignored by Doom-Saying Theorists
Postma proposes a more realistic atmospheric model based on the fact that our earth is made up of two thermodynamically opposite hemispheres: one hemisphere continuously being heated by all of the solar energy, the other hemisphere receiving no solar energy at all and continuously cooling, yet both hemispheres together, the sphere that is our earth, radiate energy to the vacuum of space.
Although it has commonly been assumed that 12 hours of intense solar heating, followed by 12 hours of cooling down, can be mathematically represented as 24 hours of frigid solar heating, Postma shows that this assumption is fallacious and that it leads people to imagine that a 33°C disparity must owe to an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” caused by radiating trace gases. Fitting the earth-atmosphere system to an actual 12-hour insolation period, however, obviates such an explanatory mechanism, likewise removing any rationale for alarm about additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Computer Models Illogically Fudged
In clearly written language, Postma shows how a basic equation of radiative physics, and the modelling techniques used for stellar atmospheres, have been applied incorrectly to our earth, and how in actuality, the bottom of the atmosphere is supposed to be warmer than the radiative average of the entire ensemble.
Article continues below this advert:
To compensate for these inherent flaws, rather than correcting them, most climatologists have argued for the existence of a radiation-enhancing “greenhouse effect”, a postulate that Postma demonstrates to be devoid of logic and coherent meaning since it contradicts (and even reverses) the laws of physics.
Skeptics hope that Postma’s alternative thermal model will lead to the birth of a new climatology, one that actually follows the laws of physics and properly physical modeling techniques.
This is Postma's follow-up paper to his earlier 'Understanding the Atmosphere Effect' (March 2011) and becomes the latest and most compelling of a series of science papers undermining the credibility of a clique of UN government-funded climatologists.
Comparison of Tropic Versus Desert Conditions Undermines Theory
With so much of the science of climate requiring a high level of mathematical ability to comprehend, it comes as a delight to see a scientist use real-world analogies to reveal the obvious anomalies that common-sense thinking backs up.
Postma deftly shows how the systemically tautologous conjecture that is “back-radiative heating” just doesn't add up. We see how climatologists fudged the numbers to make it appear as if Earth actually raises its own temperature by having its own radiation fall back upon it - a conjecture contrary to fundamental physics.
The error of this reasoning is exposed in a physically real scenario by comparison of day-time desert and tropical conditions at similar latitude. Postma explains how the desert, which is nearly devoid of the strongest “greenhouse gas”, water vapour, easily reaches far higher temperatures, contradicting the hypothesis that more GHG’s induce higher temperatures.
Postma's paper echoes neatly the original ideas encapsulated in the ground breaking 'Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory' (2010), that first cast serious doubts about the core equations that are the cornerstone of man-made global warming.
Postma's reasoning here concurs with that of Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder. “Great minds see the truth alike,” was his reaction to the new paper.
Water Vapour: the Key Moderator of Earth's Temperature
Schreuder, one of 22 prominent skeptic 'Slayer' scientists had long argued that, “The earth would be warmer if there was to be no water vapour in the atmosphere, and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course).”
Both scientists refer to the evidence readily seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g. Sahara, Namib, Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures.
“Absence of water vapour allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally when compared to an atmosphere that holds greater water vapour and is at the same latitude.”
Conversely, says Schreuder, “the absence of water vapour will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort-of "greenhouse effect" in reverse.”
Government scientists are increasingly befuddled as to where all that predicted global warming has gone. Latest proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States grudgingly conceding, "It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008”.
Hopefully, Postma's new paper will stand tellingly alongside the recent publication by Professor Nahle as a profound wake up call to those who have long accepted the increasingly discredited GHE paradigm.
Comments section below this advert:
Comments
Have Your Say
9 comments found
showing page 1 of 1
« previous 1 next »
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
TonyM:
July 28th, 2011 at 2:17 am
Hello Jo, great site you have.
Not sure where to post this as it is an issue for Joe Postma and his new paper.
Great paper from Joe Postma; am still digesting it all!
But,using Jo Nova’s prudent suggestion that we get it right, I would question :
” increase in GHG’s will increase the temperature of the bottom of the atmosphere,
while decreasing that at the top”
based on
“atmosphere essentially fixed in depth” (p16) which is a follow on from “this ensemble is bounded at the bottom and top by the Earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere” (p7)
The paper then goes on to conclude that a GHG warmer ground T would then need a cooler top of atmosphere T and hence result in faster (-ve) lapse rate. Faster will refer to the absolute value (e.g. -9 is faster than -5).
I can’t see a reason to allow such a constraint of fixed depth when the atmosphere is free to expand.
Hence one would question the conclusion that the lapse rate needs to be faster (-ve) to offset the larger gap between the warmer T closer to the ground and colder T at the top. What if the warmer T at the bottom simply causes expansion of the atmosphere with a lower lapse rate and just pushes the T’s further out in height?
By relaxing that assumption of a fixed depth it can be shown that lower lapse rates can result from higher ground Temp readily – just expand the atmosphere.
I wonder whether the water vapour is a good example of a lapse rate argument given that it would undergo some type of phase change somewhere on the T gradient and release heat – hence its much lower lapse rate.
Postma argues that due to water vapour GHE “the lapse rate should already be faster than -10K/km because there is (ostensibly) already a GHE in operation in the atmosphere” This conclusion again derives from the assumed constraint of fixed height of atmosphere. Again, I don’t agree.
In any case, one could argue that the observed lower lapse rate with water vapour shows that it functions as a GHG and caused the observed warming and also resulted in a lower lapse rate compared to an ideal gas. In other words it becomes a de-facto proof of the GHE hypothesis. And it achieved this by expanding the atmosphere.
This can be shown to occur without altering the amount of energy emitted by earth i.e. the -18 deg C average emitting T height just shifts to some other height.
BTW: Fig 8 needs to be corrected at the of the top of troposphere. I make it 11.8 km if T is -55 deg C (or -105 C at 18.5 km) and not -55C and 18km which is shown..