What is the Standard Model Greenhouse Gas Theory?
In this short article we identify what is meant by the ‘Standard Model’ greenhouse gas theory. We see climatologists have never formulated an agreed theory of the supposed greenhouse gas effect. Ironically, it took critics of the consensus to finally put together, from all the disparate models, a single unified version that could be practically examined and refuted.
So why is this now such an issue?
Frankly, more and more scientists are now beginning to accept that the so-called greenhouse gas theory of global warming appears to be in trouble. Despite atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) up more than 40 percent in recent decades global temperatures have stubbornly remained flat for more than 15 years.
In a recent article on Principia Scientific International (PSI) independent analysts highlighted long-overlooked flaws. Among the flaws is the absence of ANY internationally agreed standard model of the GHE.
The closest to an ‘official’ version would be that provided by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their Fourth Report. [1]
The IPCC provide an even more simplistic version that is bereft of any actual numbers. What the IPCC offer up would be inadquate for a science lesson for schoolchildren let alone as a reference source for serious authorities. As such, it may be regarded as the least informative of them all (see below).
Despite billions spent on climate research by governments the world over, only crude and simplistic versions have ever been shown to the public; all these ‘toy models’ depicts a flat earth with no night or day with the powerful cooling effects of the oceans (via latent heat) apparently excluded from the mix. (See IPCC diagram)
This IPCC diagram shows added so-called “back radiation” heating. This, in effect, gives the air of our atmosphere a higher heating value than sunlight, as exposed by Joseph Postma in his recent article ‘What is Energy?‘.
It is this “back radiation” from “greenhouse gases” to the Earth surface that is then supposedly absorbed by the surface (warming it additionally). A similar false picture appears also in the IPCC 2nd report on page 58 here: http://imgur.com/gDRQL15
As was pointed out in the peer-reviewed paper of Dr. Gerhard Gerlich ( Institute of Mathematical Physics at the TechnicalUniversity Carolo-Wilhelmina, Germany) and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner (2007):
“Mathematically, even within the most simplified models you cannot predict anything, because all these ones crudely approximate non-linear partial differential equations with unknown boundary conditions. There is simply no physical foundation of the computer models with and without CO2.” [2]
Failure to Agree on a Single Theory
With no agreed standard theory of how the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect’ (GHE) operates skeptics have had nothing definitive to get their teeth into to set about unpicking how the various gases involved may generate added heat in our climate system. Incredibly, no scientist or scientific body has backed their ‘theory’ with a detailed and published account of precisely CO2 can cause added heating. Because of this bizarre oversight critics have been faced with no less than 50+ differing models put forward by a multitude of universities, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself and various national science associations.
Even to a non-scientist this already suggests that what we are dealing with here is hardly ‘settled science.’ But this is precisely how government-funded climatology has operated over the last 30 years. It is a lamentable state of affairs to those trained in the ‘hard’ sciences used to being held to the toughest standards of empirical proof.
Outside of the infant field of climatology other branches of science demand more rigorous application of what is known as the traditional scientific method. The scientidic method has been codified by Karl Popper whereby it is the duty of any scientist (or scientists) proposing a new hypothesis to state precisely how it works, how it may make predictions and be tested by repeatable experiments confirming its validity. When a hypothesis is shown to be valid after repeated tests then it becomes accepted as a theory. Unfortunately, this now appears not to be the case for those who claim more atmospheric CO2 causes more warming.
The Standard Model Greenhouse Effect
In 2011 PSI determined that the best approach to rationally address the problem was to consider all 50+ official versions of the GHE and from them identify a common ground that could then be formed into a synthezised ‘standard model’ that encompassed most, if not all, the divergent pet theories.
Thereafter PSI devised and published such a ‘standard model’ in a paper authored by astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma titled ‘ The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect. The paper was peer-reviewed among the 300+ members of PSI and claims to “…physically negate the requirement for a postulation of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect.” Postma showed that all GHE models agree upon set boundary conditions in creating the paradigm from which increasing model complexity can then be devised.
When seeking to rebut this new standard model even hardcore defenders of the GHE, such as the blog, ‘SkepticalScience’ agree that “Most of Postma’s first 6 pages are actually correct. “
SkepticalScience affirm that:
“He [Postma] describes the greenhouse effect through the so-called layer model, which is a simple way to break up the planet into a “surface” and an “atmosphere,” with outer space overlying the top layer [see diagram above]. This model is described in many climate books such as Dennis Hartmann’s Global Physical Climatology, David Archer’s Understanding the Forecast, Marshall and Plumb’s Atmosphere, Ocean and Climate Dynamics, and radiation books like Grant Petty’s First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. “
Therefore, it is reasonable to address Postma’s ‘Standard Model GHE’ as a fair and accurate representation of the consensus position, even if some commenters argue that it oversimplifies what the ‘real’ climate models actually do.
However, those who claim more ‘sophisticated’ GHE models are in existence have failed to submit them to full public examination. All we can say for sure is that climate computer modelers have all failed to predict the 15 years of flatlining global temperatures since 1998. As such, PSI argues that the community needs to get its house in order, come out and openly debate this flat earth cornerstone of alarmist claims and allow the world to judge whether it is really junk science after all.
So, for a better understanding of the flaws of the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ and why PSI is adamant it is now utterly discredited, we recommend readers study Joseph E Postma’s ‘The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.‘
——
[1] Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis; FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html
[2] Gerlich G & Tscheuschner R D., “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics.”http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Trackback from your site.