No “Greenhouse Effect” Possible The Way the UN Defines It
Cold things like the exceedingly cold upper atmosphere cannot radiate heat to result in warming much hotter air near the ground that is the climate we live in.
An immense publicity effort by IPCC has managed to mislead nearly everyone (including the Australian Government) that an increase of 0.0105% CO2 in the air has caused 0.8°C rise in average global temperature.
IPCC have projected this increase to alarming levels into the future, but their measurements are all in the rising period of one of our longer-term natural global warming-cooling cycles. There have been seven of these since 1000AD, all without industrial CO2, and apparently, we are now towards the end of a normal change over period with global average temperatures slightly lower.
The climate is already noticeably cooler. ABSTRACT The IPCC definition of “Greenhouse Effect” in Report No. 4, 2007, is wrong and no “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it. Radiant energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is the only source of heat to maintain or vary global climate. Total radiant heat gained must establish equilibrium with total radiant heat lost.
Natural climate change cycles vary in accord with sunspot activity on the side of the Sun facing the Earth and orbital changes in the proximity of the Earth to the Sun. Sunspot activity is related to the “tide-like” gravitational influence of Jupiter which changes in complex uneven cycles as the other heavy planets are grouped on the same or opposite side of the Sun or dispersed more or less evenly round it.
The open atmosphere cannot act like a glasshouse because there is no physical barrier to confine convective recirculation. Air that has been warmed by solar radiation through the glass circulates within a glasshouse.
The cartoon-like IPCC diagram above is redrawn to point out the incorrect concept of radiant heat from the cold upper atmosphere resulting in heating or “trapping” heat in the warmer atmosphere below. No “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it.
The authors of IPCC Reports are predominantly meteorologists who have abandoned the standard scientific method of hypotheses rigorously tested by experiment. Instead they have selected and assembled a large body of scientific opinion that supports the conclusions they are attempting to reach.
Testing a scientific hypothesis is not a matter of consensus, as if scientific truth were something to be voted on. It is either true or not true. Scientific method requires the truth to be established by repeatable experiment. Weather forecasting or predicting future changes in global climate cannot be the result of any precise scientific procedure or measurements.
Climatologists have to consider and “average” large volumes of complex data and make “best estimates”! The IPCC reporting has therefore introduced a scale of “likelihood” that is used to assess the probability of certain outcomes.
With attention focused on the meteorological records and the “likelihood” of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing global warming, the United Nations IPCC reviewers must have missed the simple error in physics or more precisely in the thermodynamics of adiabatic gases that occurs in their definition of “Greenhouse Effect” and diagrams.
That radiant heat from colder objects and substances cannot result in further increasing the temperature of things that are already warmer is well known to everyone. In science this common knowledge is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the IPCC definition contravenes it.
Therefore no “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way the UN IPCC define it and there is no causal link between increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and the recent warming period from 1950 to 1998 when IPCC have found that average global temperatures increased by approximately 0.8°C.
Previous periods of global warming have all occurred without industrial CO2 emissions but periods of “extremes” some 10-15 years duration have accompanied the natural cyclic changes in longer periods of warming and cooling.
We may now look forward to a period of gently declining average global temperatures if Landscheidt’s calculations predicting the orbital paths of the heavy planets are correct. Fortunately, politicians, economists, media attempts to suppress this information, and those with a strong vested interest in maintaining the “Greenhouse Gas” scare, will not be able to prevail against the inevitable cycle of natural changes in global climate.
The climate from 1998 has been extremely variable but presently it is noticeably cooler.
References:
Clausius’ simple Statement of Second Law of Thermodynamics. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
IPCC Report No. 4, 2007. Download from:
Landscheidt, T., 1999. Extrema In Sunspot Cycle Linked To Sun’s Motion. Solar Physics 189 (2): 415-426.
Nahle, Nasif S., Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse, July 5, 2011. Biology Cabinet Online-Academic Resources and Principia Scientific International. Monterrey, N. L.
Download from: https://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Postma, Joseph E., Astrophysicist, Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect, March 2011.
Download from: https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/understanding-the-atmosphere-effect.pdf
Solar variation, 400 years of sunspot observations and Solar cycle variation (suppressed to less than 1percent): – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Solar_variation
About the author: John N Elliston AM, BSc(Chem), BSc(Hons. Geol), FAusIMM(CP) has had a stellar career applying his skills in geology and chemistry and served as senior advisor to the Australian mining industry. For his services to his country John received the prestigious honour of the Order of Australia (AM). Stringent career demands taught John the value of correct scientific method and the need for rigorous testing and scrutiny of new ideas. His current book, “The Origin of Rocks and Mineral Deposits – using current physical chemistry of small particle systems,” is enhanced thanks to John’s access to leading world academic advisers and summarizes ground breaking results not yet widely published.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend the Traditional Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Using bad science to counter bad science is not a valid strategy.
The second top layer of the atmosphere consists of helium and oxygen atoms. This means the energy there is greater than the 320,000 joules/mole needed to split an oxygen molecule. Lower the atmosphere consist of nitrogen oxygen molecules that form when oxygen atoms have combined with partially split nitrogen molecules. In the stratosphere oxygen atoms combine with oxygen molecules to form ozone. The higher the altitude the greater the energy of the matter. The reason it is cold is because there are so little matter transferring energy to the measuring device.
The second law of thermodynamics is false. In the transfer of energy by convection the object with greater velocity will transfer energy to the object with less energy even if that object has greater kinetic energy (conservation of momentum). A small car running into the rear of a large truck will slow down (lose energy) even when the truck has more kinetic energy.
With radiated energy because there is distance between the objects (energy decreases with distance), the absorbing object only absorbs a small portion of the energy being radiated (in all directions), and objects can only absorb certain wavelengths which may not match the wavelengths being radiated by the other object, the energy of the two objects can never become equal. The fact that they do become qual is because the objects are both equalizing with the energy field they’re in, not each other.
Adiabatic heating is nonsense. The atmosphere is created and its volume determined by the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in it. When a gas molecule descends it is because it has lost energy and the loss of energy does not cause it to gain energy. The reason the air at lower altitudes are warmer is because the air is denser and more molecules are transferring energy. than the fewer molecules with greater kinetic energy. The air at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 F warner than their at the top of the Grand Canyon. If the air had more kinetic energy it would expand and rise to the top. It is warmer because it is denser and more energy is being transferred to the thermometer.
Everything about the GHGT is bad science. The first law of thermodynamics dictates that all the gases in the atmosphere absorb energy. O2and N2 absorb UV and concert it into kinetic energy. The Earth is not flat but a hemisphere with an area of 2pir^2. The Stefan-Bozmann law does not apply because the Earth is not a black body in a vacuum where energy is lost only by radiation. The only temperature naturally occurring on Earth where CO2 will absorb radiated energy is at -80C.
The GHGT can be reputed by experiments and accurate science without need to resort to bad science.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
It doesn’t matter since their own bad science already destroys their entire claim since by their own math the warm forcing of CO2 and CH4 claim is very very small to tiny after a doubling thus not a concern.
I posted this in response to a slow thinker,
“Just .11C per doubling, and to wait 347 years for the doubling to occur barely out of statistical noise after a few centuries based on the IPCC values of .36 W/m2
Conclusion:
CO2 is postulated to generate a 1.2C (1.8 W/m2) warming per doubling.
CH4 is postulated to generate a .11C (.50 W/m2) warming per doubling.
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW.”
The AGW conjecture isn’t viable reason to worry about a small slow warming of a few decades which is about to end when the AMO starts its cooling decline when that happens the IPCC and the stupid CO2 sniffers are going to have a hard time explaining why despite many decades long upslope increase of CO2 and a slow ocean warming tread that cooling for the next few decades is going to happen anyway as this is how the planets behaves.
Virtually all the warming since the 1981 El-Nino phase has caused the well-known step up warming events that devolved to a flat trend after it cools back down to a newer warmer level then a flat trend for years which shows that CO2 supposed warm forcing effect isn’t doing a freaking thing thus invalidated as the AGW conjecture isn’t worth a pile of dog shit.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
We all agree that AGW comes from the rear of a dog but the problem is trying to convince those who swallow that shit to wake up and do something about those who are feeding them it.
Have you looked at the third spy of Len’s OOPS? I think that shows that there is a problem with the site, not or computers.
Herb
Reply
Huapakechi
| #
Ignore the “science”. The global warming scam is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme and a power grab by the u.n..This has been admitted by none other than the founder of greenpeace.
Reply