Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greenhouse Effect Theory exposed as mathematical wizzardy
#1


New physics paper shows how climate modellers treated Earth like a star by turning night and day into a 24-hour twilight.

Astrophysicist Joe Postma's new paper, 'The Model Atmosphere' (July 22, 2011), 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.

LINK: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Mode...sphere.pdf

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 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.
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.

LINK: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7457

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.

LINK: http://slayingtheskydragon.com/

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.”

There's a subtle but vital difference between "not as cold" and "warmer than it should be".

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”.

LINK: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-...t-al-2011/

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.

LINK: http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

Yet despite all these revelations, well-known academics continue to fudge the truth by telling themselves and us that "atmospheric cooling mechanisms raise the mean global temperature and reduce the range of surface temperatures over the planet." - they believe this, trust me!

Alan Siddons added this summary:

- Radiative blockage causes a build-up of IR photons. I call this the Thermal Bubble model.
- Back-radiation from Greenhouse Gases causes more radiation than the sun provides.
- Greenhouse Gases inhibit the outward flow of IR, thus not actively warming the earth but slowing down heat loss.

Cooling means warming and warming means cooling - who needs climate alarmists when you have "sceptics" like this?!

Hans Schreuder
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com


Attached Files
.pdf   Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect Joseph E. Postma March 2011.pdf (Size: 741.29 KB / Downloads: 337)
.pdf   The Model Atmosphere Joseph E. Postma July 2011.pdf (Size: 1.49 MB / Downloads: 437)
Reply
#2
Hi All,
Please feel free to ask me questions on this thread in regards of Joe's 2nd paper.
I have been lucky enough to know most of the contents for some time now,
so I may be a bit ahead of most in getting my head around what he has shown, and is saying.

If anything asked is beyond me, I can always go and get the answer from Joe.
He has a very good way of explaining things, very clearly, and simply.

I would also strongly suggest that you visit,
http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/
Milford Haven weather station
Milford Haven Port Authority.
" This site displays the weather information brought back from a remote monitoring station based at Milford Docks in Pembrokeshire.
All the information contained within this site is 'live' - the information is brought back from Milford Docks once a minute.
"
both before and after reading Joe's paper.
You may well interpret what you see there differently after reading Joe's paper.............
Reply
#3
"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."

I just like reading that, Derek.

I would also point out that it wasn't "mathematical wizzardy" (gives Wizzards a bad name), but "mathematical devilry".

Wink
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#4
(07-30-2011, 05:46 AM)JohnWho Wrote: I would also point out that it wasn't "mathematical wizzardy" (gives Wizzards a bad name), but "mathematical devilry".

Agreed with wholly JohnWho, well spotted.
Reply
#5
(07-30-2011, 05:46 AM)JohnWho Wrote: "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.
"

I just like reading that, Derek.

Please excuse me not picking up on this earlier most important point that JohnWho made.
Thank you JohnWho, you have got to the crux of the matter.

I have recently tried to illustrate the false basis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), and Greenhouse Effect "theory" (GH) which is P/4, in the below thread,
P/4 - Why it is THE issue that destroys GH and AGW.
In that thread several of the posters do not seem to have grasped the problems with
dividing the solar power received at the earth's surface by the whole of the earth's surface, over a 24 hour time period, ie P/4.
I have said repeatedly, that P/4 in it's use as THE starting point for GH in particular, and therefore AGW by default,
means they (GH and AGW) are both unphysical, and divorced from reality in any meaningful way. ie, GH and AGW are both imaginary.
Given some have not "seen" this most obvious and basic point,
I will try to explain briefly here a bit further.

Recently Alan Siddons has posted elsewhere a baking simile to try to illustrate the problems of P/4.
Alan Siddons posted,
" When a recipe says bake for an hour at 200°C, a climatologist assumes that
four hours at 50°C degrees will produce the same result.
"

This is a brilliant generic baking simile by Alan Siddons, although I have suggested
it could be adapted (by roasting a chicken) to show and emphasize the dangers of missing out the "physics" (high temperatures and their effects)
that such averaging (P/4 is averaging) utterly misses, ie a cake will not bake, nor will a chicken roast, at 50C.
This suggestion has been beautifully illustrated by John O'Sullivan, as follows.
it's going to be the 5lb gourmet cooked bird then!
" When a recipe says roast a 5lb chicken for 1 hour at 200°C,
a climatologist assumes that 4 hours at 50°C
will produce the same result.
"
as per
http://www.helpwithcooking.com/cooking-p...icken.html

http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com

" a climatologist assumes that 4 hours at 50 degrees Celsius will produce the same result. "
ie, P/4 in what passes as the consensus "Climate Science" and mainstream "Climate Science skepticism" presently.

I would like to ask the readers here, if a climatologist, or a mainstream so called climate science skeptic cooked you
a roast chicken dinner, employing their ("approved" and "only") P/4 cooking method.
1) Question - Would you happily and unquestioningly "consume" such a "roast chicken dinner" prepared by a climatologist.
Answer - For your safety I strongly suggest you do not.

2) Question - Does the slick, professional, and almost constant presentation and repetition of only this (approved by climatologists) method to cook the meal not raise your suspicions?
Answer - If it does not, what would?

3) Question - Does the fact the climatologist eats, seemingly exclusively, the same meal mean it is safe to be consumed by all?
Answer - It is not safe to eat (chickens DO NOT roast at 50°C), you will get a divorced from the physics, and unrealistic view of reality, at best.
You may, (read will, if consumed unquestioningly) end up spewing the same "puke" as (consensus science) climatologists and mainstream so called climate skeptics mostly do at present.

I hope the above helps to further illustrate (along with the linked to thread) the problems of using P/4 in GH and AGW.
I would also note that to date no one anywhere I am aware of, has tried to even begin to answer the following criticism of GH.
P/4 establishes the principle that increased surface area = reduced intensity, YET,
GH itself does not apply this principle to the atmosphere and it's intensity of emission.
Please see P/4 thread here, at GWS linked to previously and,
this plot I produced some time back now.
[Image: Slide24.jpg]

Put simply GH theory fails because it does not apply it's own logic throughout it's own "theory".
ie,
[Image: Slide23.jpg]


To return to,
"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.
"

I think many people are having a bit of a time getting to grips with Joe Postma's work, which is in part because he explains it neccesarily "as a whole".
Obviously he has to, but I would like to suggest "we" here have the luxury of being able to look at it at a slightly different, and smaller scale, which "we" might find far easier to understand.
Let us look at the thermodynamics of a square meter only of the earth's surface, for the next second.
What will the square meter of earth's surface temperature be?

It will be the "sum" of the inputs and outputs of energy and heat for the square meter over a second.
As a first approximation I have produced the following two plots, one for input (energy / heat in), the other for output (energy / heat out).
All possible Inputs of energy and heat for a square meter of the earth's surface.
[Image: Slide1.jpg]

and,
All possible Outputs of energy and heat for a square meter of the earth's surface.
[Image: Slide2.jpg]

Does the above method describe a better way to try to calculate the actual surface temperature of a square meter of earth's surface at a moment in time?
Does the above thermodynamic method describe a better way to try to understand the reasons why the earth's surface temperature changes over time?

As the above are first attempts, please feel free to point out any omissions on my part.

Of course, one could just use a measurement of near surface air temperature as measured 6 foot above the surface, and
behind a Stephenson's screen, and
maybe even average such readings globally.
One could even largely ignore or omit night time readings as well.
But, surely such a technique/s would be rather removed from what is actually happening, and
may well give a false impression of what is actually happening.....
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#6
(07-31-2011, 03:24 AM)Derek Wrote:
(07-30-2011, 05:46 AM)JohnWho Wrote: "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.
"

I just like reading that, Derek.

Please excuse me not picking up on this earlier most important point that JohnWho made.
Thank you JohnWho, you have got to the crux of the matter.

Maybe I'm just a bit naive, but from what I've gathered regarding "GW" conversations, most real "skeptics" simply want honest, quality science and where it takes us and what it shows simply is what it is.

No misrepresentations, no manipulations, no falsifying of data, no half-truths, no misleading statements - just findings that "actually follows the laws of physics".

If we are warming, then we are warming. If we are cooling, we are cooling. If we are putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere, then we are putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere. If CO2 in the atmosphere has any influence - either cooling or warming - then it does. If it is a measurable influence, then measure it.

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#7
JohnWho, I agree with your comment in Post:#6 above.

Derek, your most admirable graphics depicting the different energy bands into and out of 1m^2 of the earth's surface succeeds in pointing out the complexity of the problem. Can you imagine the equation that carries all those parameters?

Joe Postma has a elegant method. He uses the full depth of the atmosphere, 10 tons or so, two metres depth of surface, another 4 tons, and using the heat capacity of all ingedients arrives at a point in the atmosphere where balancing energy out occurs. No "greenhouse effect" needed. Cool

I have a thought currently screwing up my poor brain all due to your day side/night side queries. It still involves my favourite element, carbon dioxide and its wonderfull ability to absorb/emit just three bands of infrared radiation. Just look at the two shortest wavebands, 2.7 and 4.3 microns. To have any radiation in the 4.3 band from the surface the temperature will need to be approaching 200C or so! And the 2.7 band will need much, much more than that so carbon dioxide DOES NOT SEE ANY RADIATION FROM SURFACE OF THE EARTH IN THE 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands.

BUT CO2 does see radiation in those bands from the sun! (On the day side only of course. Wink ) So, if CO2 is absorbing incoming radiation from the sun it is SHIELDING the earth FROM some of the sun's energy. The possibility of CO2 re-radiating at those energy levels strikes me as pretty remote as the atmospheric temperature is way, way lower than the sun.

So to summarise my argument, CO2 shields the earth from two high intensity bands of sunlight but only blocks one band of low intensity outgoing radiation. Since radiation energy is proportional to the fourth power of temperature of the source then CO2 is a far more effective shield of incoming energy than a blocker of out going energy.

How can CO2 be defined as a "greenhouse" gas?

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#8
I have recently posted this link,
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Site...dered.html
Greenhouse In A Bottle-Reconsidered
written and produced by Carl Brehmer


on this thread.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...-1466.html
Home experiments to test the CO2 warms hypothesis

Whilst watching the video in the first above link I was reminded of how I misunderstood, at first, Joe Postma's original paper.
The video explains, at some length that, compression heating explains the temperature rise from
the earth's effective surface of emission (-18C) to earth's dirt and water surface, near surface air temperature (+15C).
This is incorrect because the pressure and gravity changes only explain in part (and a very small part at that) the observed temperature changes.

The commonly used "example" to illustrate the power of compression heating is a bicycle hand pump.
This is not appropriate though because the bicycle pumps atmosphere is rigidly contained, earth's atmosphere is not.
Note - Gravity does not "rigidly confine" earth's atmosphere, at any altitude, as the video later implies.
This FACT is proven by the shape of the diurnal bulge, which is egg, or tear drop shaped
- gravity does not rigidly constrain earth's atmosphere.

This is illustrated by the hole being pierced in the cap early in the video.
When the atmosphere being compressed or heated is not rigidly contained it expands, and therefore convects.
The motive power for the convection is gravity as previously explained in Alan Siddons piece,
Learning by Candlelight. - attached to post 4 in this thread.
The compression heating effect in earth's atmosphere, because it is not rigidly contained is
far less than the bicycle hand pump "example" seems to illustrate.
Applying an Avogadro's constant approach, ie energy density,
to the temperature profile from earth's dirt and water surface to the height of the effective surface of emission,
soon reveals pressure and gravity changes alone do not even nearly explain what is observed.

That temperature falls as altitude above earth's dirt and water surface increases in the troposphere is correct though, so
what is causing the temperature gradient if it not solely, or even largely pressure and gravity decreases?

The answer is what Joe's first paper is all about thermodynamics.
Namely, in this case, the dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is mostly the effect of convection of sensible heat from earth's dirt and water surfaces.
The wet adiabatic lapse rate is the sum of the sensible and latent heat convected aloft from earth's dirt and water surfaces.

It took me a long time to understand this, and that is why Joe Postma in his second paper
included, towards the end of the paper, the image I am credited for.

Compression heating, as far as the dry and wet adiabatic lapse rates are concerned, is only but a small and minor player.
But, the adiabatic lapse rates do describe how thermodynamics does (mostly) move heat and energy vertically upwards in earth's atmosphere.

The relative cold (sensible and latent) brought down through the atmosphere by precipitation is mostly omitted however,
as it must reduce the dirt and water surface temperature, and therefore
precipitation will also reduce the reported near surface averaged global mean temperature.
Put simply, without rain, mist, sleet, snow, hailstone, etc, etc, then we would be warmer than we are.


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#9
Hi All,
I would like to thank (but not enter into conversation, discussion, or debate with) JohnWho for
his beautifully worded, and exquisitely timed "Nothing to see here - move along please" post 6 in this thread.

I am also grateful for Joe Postma's specific permission to use the following quote he posted elsewhere recently.
Namely,
" A real greenhouse doesn't have a greenhouse effect, they admit;
Venus can't be explained by a greenhouse effect, they admit;
experiments cannot demonstrate there's a GHE, they admit;
the model we use to teach the greenhouse effect is tautologous and not actually descriptive of the GHE, they admit.

So tell me:
JUST WHERE IS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????
"

As has also been said, several times recently, but it is worth repeating,
just where is the GH effect, or the need for P/4, in explaining the following,
real, live, actual, observed measurements / data?
Milford Haven Port Authority live weather station
I suggest "the equation" my 3rd and 4th plots in Post 5 attempt to illustrate is a far better approach. ie, Thermodynamics.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What is the greenhouse effect ??? Derek 15 17,464 08-19-2016, 09:30 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Venus: No Greenhouse Effect Harry Dale Huffman Derek 0 4,979 05-17-2011, 12:55 PM
Last Post: Derek
  Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse gas theory. Derek 4 11,298 05-05-2011, 11:30 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)