Astrophysicist Debunks Mainstream Global Warming Alarm
Canadian astrophysicist Joseph E Postma gives a stunning youtube video interview exposing the greatest error in modern science.
The greenhouse gas theory is based on a false premise that Earth has an average temperature obtained by simply assuming our planet is a flat surface that is lit by a dim sun that provides sunlight too weak to melt ice. Isn’t that stupid?
Watch the video here:
Question: Do climate models actually use the model of solar irradiation averaged over the earth’s surface?
Postma answers:
“Well, yes the references are in my book…the references are found in the universal derivation of their alternative greenhouse effect, and the references are found in their universal description of their version greenhouse effect which is not how a real greenhouse actually functions, and which behaviour of a real greenhouse actually refutes their alternative invention.
The point is that whatever modelling they do afterwards, they write in the physics predicated upon this alternative version of the greenhouse effect. It’s written in to the code, even if the code is now trying to do, say, 3D real-time modelling, or whatever.
The logic here is to extrapolate back to the basis, and the basis of course is their alternative greenhouse effect. Of course, few people actually know that it is an alternative, and they don’t go out of their way to tell you either.
Their alternative greenhouse effect is inserted into the climate models. They simply did it all without thinking about it, without any real analysis, and actively rejected anyone doing any analysis on the whole approach.”
No wonder climate science models are useless at predicting climate change!
To post a comment please visit: climateofsophistry.com
John O’Sullivan is CEO of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Nick Schroeder
| #
Allow me to summarize this once more.
1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere is rubbish. The 288 K is a WAG pulled from WMO’s butt. NOAA/Trenberth use 289 K. The 255 K is a theoretical S-B temperature calculation for a 240 W/m^2 ToA ASR/OLR balance (1,368/4 *.7) based on a 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} albedo. By definition no atmosphere includes no clouds, no water vapor, no oceans, no vegetation, no ice, no snow an albedo perhaps much like the moon’s 0.15. 60{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the lit side would be above freezing, over the year 100 {154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} due to the seasonal tilt, not that it matters since there will be no water to freeze. Without the atmosphere the earth will get 20{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} to 40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} more kJ/h depending on its naked albedo. That means hotter w/o not colder. The atmosphere is like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6473732020483743744
2) 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” GHG energy loop is thermodynamic nonsense, i.e. energy appearing out of nowhere, a 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} efficient perpetual energy loop, energy from cold to hot without work. “Net” radiation is total BS.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6457980707988922368
3) 396 W/m^2 upwelling ideal BB LWIR that powers 1) & 2) is, as demonstrated by experiment, not possible. If this upwelling energy does not work – none of it works.
https://principia-scientific.com/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
1) + 2) + 3) = 0 GHE & 0 GHG warming & 0 man caused climate change.
Reply
Leslie Davis
| #
So, for novices like me, what’s the bottom line on all the carbon opposition?
[email protected]
Reply