Why the Greenhouse Gas Effect is not needed to Explain Earth’s Climate: a Summary
The consensus science view that man-made global warming is caused by increased emissions of carbon dioxide (the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect’) is under increased attack. The numbers from both thermometer readings and the very latest revised calculations by scientists show that the ‘theory’ has come unstuck. 
Despite decades of higher CO2 emissions allegedly impacting atmospheric temperatures, the thermometers have been stuck on a 16-year plateau. Climate scientists have been at a loss to explain the “pause.”
According to the ‘experts’ more CO2 is supposed to mean more warming, but it just isn’t happening. So then, what gives? Is the ‘theory’ now busted? Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma explains below:
Joe Postma: I, and fellow Principia Scientific International (PSI) researchers, can offer a quick summary of our reasoning why the ‘greenhouse effect’ from atmospheric gases is junk science. Apart from the disproof offered by the thermometers themselves (which show no warming despite ever-rising CO2 levels), judicious examination of the numbers in the physics is needed to explain the flow of energy entering and leaving Earth’s climate system.
The key number for our starting point is the actual energy scientists agree which is measured to be coming from the sun. This is known to be 1370W/m2.
Now we reduce 1370W/m2 for albedo and adsorption effects, this gives 960W/m2
Question: Can you explain in more detail where the figure of 960W/m2 come from?
Joe Postma: The figure of 960 comes from 1370 * 0.7, where 0.7 is the absorptivity (one minus the albedo). As such, 960 equates to 88 degree Celsius of heating directly under the sun, i.e. on the equator plus or minus, say, ~15 degrees.
Question: Now please explain where the IPCC get their ‘33 degrees colder’ assumption (climate scientists assume Earth is 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, because of the supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect.’
Joe Postma: 33 degrees colder’ is simply the difference between the near-surface air temperature, and the effective blackbody temperature of the earth. However the bottom of the atmosphere is always expected to be higher in temperature than the effective blackbody temperature in any case, independent of any greenhouse effect.
This is due to the natural lapse rate in temperature of the atmosphere which puts the average temperature in the middle of the atmosphere, therefore requiring that the bottom of the atmosphere, near the surface, to be warmer than the average.
Question: Thanks for this. But can you explain how one gets from 960w/m2 to 88 degrees Celsius?
Joe Postma: It is via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which gives the temperature of a surface if it is in thermal equilibrium with the radiative input. This is since 960 W/m^2 is what gets absorbed by the surface, and thus what needs to be emitted by the surface, then
960 = sigma*T^4
T = fourth root (960/5.67×10^-8) = 360.7K = ~88C.
This is for a hard surface with 0.3 albedo. A lot of surfaces on the ground have lower albedo than this. Ocean water doesn’t actually have a hard surface and sunlight penetrates ~50m, so the simple equation doesn’t apply as directly as it does on ground surface, but all of the sunlight is absorbed and so ocean water actually has almost 0 albedo, i.e. 100{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} absorption.
Here is the point. In all “climate greenhouse effect” models, climate scientists use an assumption that the effective blackbody temperature of the Earth is the same numerical temperature as the solar heating on the Earth. This is a major error, because these numbers are not actually physically equal at all.
The Sun heats the Earth at much higher forcing temperature than the Earth’s own effective blackbody temperature. The Sun heats the Earth with a temperature approaching 100C, but the Earth actually ends up having an effective blackbody temperature of -18C. See the difference in those numbers?
It’s big, and important. If you assume that the Earth’s temperature is the same as the solar heating, then where does the climate come from? How can the Sun produce a climate, melt ice into water, evaporate water into vapour, etc., if sunlight is only -18C? The “fix” climate science introduces here is what they call their greenhouse effect (although it doesn’t actually work like how a real greenhouse works anyway). The “climate greenhouse effect” is what climate science uses to fix the mistake of assuming that the Earth’s temperature is the same thing as the temperature of sunlight hitting the Earth. This is a major error.
The “climate greenhouse effect” is junk science, a big mistake, or even pseudoscience, that is manufactured to fix a mistake which should simply be corrected. When you use the real power and temperature of sunlight, what it actually is, instead of assuming that it is the same as the temperature of the Earth itself, then you get a whole climate created naturally and driven by sunlight. And when you do it this way, then there’s never a need to invent a “climate greenhouse effect”.
Trackback from your site.