07-26-2011, 02:40 AM
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.
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.
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.”
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”.
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.
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?!