• Home
  • Current News
  • Greenhouse Theory Computer Fail: Real Evidence Slays Carbon ‘Science’

Greenhouse Theory Computer Fail: Real Evidence Slays Carbon ‘Science’

Written by Alberto Miatello & John O'Sullivan

So what gives with the climate theory that says more emissions of carbon dioxide means more warming? 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. Indeed, in the mainstream UK press global cooling is fast becoming the big news story with Arctic ice growing 60% in 2013 and Antarctic sea ice extent breaking an all-time maximum (September 14, 2013)Arctic Ice Growth in 2013

Alarmists have long insisted increased human industrialisation was a dangerous ‘experiment’ and we should stop adding more ‘greenhouse gases’ to the atmosphere. But the planet’s stubborn refusal to get hotter has confounded expectations. At last, even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its upcoming Fifth Report admits the models may have exagerrated the impact of CO2.

The Myth of ‘Cold’ Outer Space Debunked

To understand where it all went awry let’s start with one of the biggest errors committed within the infant science of climatology; starting from the false assumption that outer space is ‘cold’ and that heat-trapping ‘greenhouse gases’ have always kept our planet warmer than it would otherwise be. To believe this nonsense is to then make other false assumptions, as we shall see below.

I criticized (with John O’ Sullivan) the wrongheaded and widespread idea that our outer vacuum space is “cold” (background “fossile” radiation from Big Bang, is indeed 2 degrees Kelvin, but this is NOT a real “temperature”). This is because outer vacuum space is neither cold nor hot. Space scientists at NASA confirm this. [1]

A vacuum is emptiness and as such can have NO TEMPERATURE. Temperature is only a thermodynamic feature of MACROSCOPIC bodies, and in the outer vacuum space you only find a few microscopic atoms/molecules per cubic meter. And therefore our atmosphere does not “protect” our surface from an alleged “cold” outer space. In actual fact, outer space provides the best possible insulation.

Laboratory Physics Shows Vacuum Space Inhibits Cooling

Moreover, you may find here, another experiment, conducted by Professor Colm O’Sullivan of Cork University, Ireland [no relation] showing exactly with graphics how a body is cooling in a vacuum chamber and the difference with forced (convective) cooling, and natural cooling. [2]

In O’Sullivan’s experiment, as you can clearly see, the body was always cooling LESS, when it was kept in the vacuum chamber. Thus the near perfect vacuum of outer space inhibits, not enhances, the loss of energy from our planet. As such, actual physics proves that ‘greenhouse gases’ do not keep our planet warmer.

But don’t just take anyone’s word for it. Check yourself in simple terms any non-science understands. Contrast and compare the scolding daytime temperatures of our moon (100 °C (212 °F)) with those of our planet (56.7 °C (134 °F)). That’s a whopping difference! In daytime earth’s atmosphere, with all that “warming” CO2, is clearly keeping our planet’s surface cooler than daytime lunar temperatures, where there are no such ‘greenhouse gases.’ See what I wrote about the lunar cooling here. [3]

Greenhouse Disarray among Spencer, Lindzen and Monckton

So often in our private and public discourses we have repeatedly shown climatologists such as Roy Spencer that they are wrong to repeat the myth about the “cold vacuum of outer space.” But Spencer and other climatologists (with careers premised on this nonsense) are not for turning. Instead, you will find them now reduced to cobbling together homespun kitchen table ‘experiments’ to ‘prove’ their greenhouse gas effect (GHE). But even on this they can’t agree: Roy Spencer insists his GHE causes added heating from the ground upwards, yet Richard Lindzen says the opposite (the added heat is from the atmosphere downwards). They both can’t be right!

When questioned on the apparent fatally contradictory assertions between Spencer and Lindzen their good friend Lord Monckton dived for cover insisting, “If he [O’Sullivan] has concerns about their results, he should address his concerns to them, not to me.” [4]

So we don’t think more rigorously conceived lab experiments will change such fixed and untested ideas. Certainly, if Spencer and Lindzen have for years refused to sort out their own contradictions, what chance have outsiders got in persuading these climate ‘experts’ to get their heads out of the sand?

But for the more objectively minded, Professor O’Sullivan’s robust laboratory test comes as fresh food for thought.

Professors Wood and Nahle versus Hansen’s Fallacy

Indeed, for those interested in the back story of the demise of the GHE a good starting point is to re-visit the famous 1909 experiment of Professor R Wood, repeated (and validated) by Professor Nasif Nahle in 2011. [5]

Nahle’s stringent replication proving that Wood’s experiment debunking the greenhouse hypothesis was correct. Wood showed the ‘theory’ relies on convective cooling being obstructed by the glass of greenhouses, but in nature no such barriers exist. For decades the ‘theory’ was then abandoned.

The Greenhouse Gas Effect (1980 onwards)

But perhaps the greatest error was perpetrated in the 1980’s when a clique of government climate researchers took the known climate moderating effects of latent heat (via the water cycle) and wrongly attributed them to CO2. In this dawn of the computer model era they falsely ‘proved’ this benign trace gas is a warming, not a cooling, factor in earth’s climate. 

The chief architect of this sleight of hand was NASA’s James Hansen who devised the notion of the ‘greenhouse effect of gases and clouds to deftly subsume the powerful effects of our planet’s watercycle into the computer models.

Hansen adopted the term, “greenhouse effect” from Carl Sagan, who first popularized it in the scientific community upon television broadcasts attacking Velikovsky and trumpeting a “runaway” catastrophic effect on Venus, then selling it as “science.” 

Crassly, Hansen et al gave Sagan’s conjecture mathematic gloss by fudging their calculations and ignoring the reality that earth is a gray body. Instead, in the equations they allocated our planet a black body value of 1.0 (in effect, telling their models to regard our planet as consuming more sunlight than a blackhole!). 

But as pre-1980’s climate researchers such as T. C. Chamberlin had long seen, CO2 was always the “innocent party.” [6]

So much so, that pre-computer era science held this widespread view that CO2 was innocent. This assessment memorialized for posterity in 1951 by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). The AMS went on record to declare that the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ was not accepted by mainstream science.

In their Compendium of Meteorology the AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is absorbed by water vapor.” [7]

Now do you see how Hansen muddied the scientific waters by ‘developing’ his ‘greenhouse effect of gases and clouds?

When we debated this with the alleged skeptic (but pro-greenhouse gas supporter), Lord Monckton, the otherwise loquacious lord omitted to identify ANY post-1950’s scientific discovery about CO2 to reverse this widely held judgment. [id.]

Chemistry Proves Carbon Dioxide is a Coolant

The key point here is that GHE believers can point to no modern discoveries (only models) to overturn what has long been known to chemical scientists – carbon dioxide is an extremely efficient cooling gas.

Indeed, the inescapable truth is that the Specific Heat of CO2 is 0.80.  It seems climatologists have ignored this critical number. But chemical scientists haven’t, they accept as a hard and fast fact: because CO2 has a specific heat of 0.80 it means it absorbs and releases heat faster than standard air.” In mainstream science “Standard Air” is given an assigned Specific Heat value of 1.00 and individual gases are empirically measured. This is a unit-less coefficient which accurately quantifies the behavior of mixtures of gases based on ratios of components.

In fact, it is a tried and tested known empirical fact that a CO2 molecule absorbs outward longwave radiation (OLR) for a mere one billionth of a second. Then, due to Conservation of Energy, it emits a lower energy, longer wavelength photon. The vibrational energy is given off to adjoining N2 & O2 molecules which is then only held for 4 billionths of a second per molecule. The resulting convective wave travels away from gravity, cooling the Earth surface, NOT warming.

As such, by applying accepted Chemistry it is known carbon dioxide can only enhance cooling, not warming. For more debunkery of nonsense climatology, as uncovered by experts from the ‘hard’ sciences, read Dr. Pierre Latour’s concise debunk here. [8]

PSI’s independent researchers have been fighting so much misinformation stemming from overfunded government junk science, and it has been unbelievably difficult. At least the wider scientific community is now beginning to recognize that climatologists have not now, nor ever have, put their greenhouse gas hypothesis to stringent tests.

As we see the evidence ourselves, from the world’s greatest open laboratory of them all (our atmosphere), more CO2 does NOT generate higher global temperatures. We may have to wait another decade in what many scientists now see as a natural cooling cycle, before the diehards finally admit that carbon dioxide is innocent, before we see the complete abandonment of the discredited greenhouse gas effect.


[1] http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html#void

[2] O’Sullivan, C., ‘A simple experiment to study cooling by convection and radiation,’ Dept, of Physics, University of Cork, Eire, (www.physics.ucc.ie)

[3] Maitello, A., ‘Roy Spencer and the Vacuum Bottle Flask,’ (February,2012), www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com

[4] O’Sullivan, J., ‘Lord Monckton Replies to John O’Sullivan’s Open Letter,’ (April, 23, 2013), www.principia-scientific.org (accessed online: September 16, 2013)

[5] Nahle, N., ‘Repeatability of Professor R W Wood’s 1909 Experiment on the Hypothesis of a Greenhouse Effect,’ www.biocab.org, (accessed online: September 16, 2013).

[5] Hansen, J., Science, (Aug 28, 1981), incorrectly assumed Earth radiates as a black body with emissivity = 1.0, took satellite readings of its average intensity, 239 w/m2 of surface, and deduced from Boltzmann equation, K = 100(P/5.67e)0.25, it radiates at -18°C. K = 100(239/5.67(1.0))0.25 = 254.8K – 273.1K = -18.3°C.

[6] ‘Global Warming? The Early Twentieth Century,’ www.colby.edu (accessed online: September 16, 2013)

[7] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association

[8] Latour, P R., ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory is False,’ (July 13, 2013), principia-scientific.org


Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (8)

  • Avatar



    Try Googling ‘Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment'(LCVG) and ‘Extravehicular Mobility Unit’ (EMU). You will see overheating, not getting cold, is the greatest challenge in space exploration.

  • Avatar



    Hmmm, so if a the vacuum of space is not cold, how come astronauts require artificial heating? If their heating unit goes they freeze. As the previous poster said, the vacuum of space has virtually zero conductivity but is very cold from a strictly thermal viewpoint.

  • Avatar

    Ollie Hughes


    I criticized (with John O’ Sullivan) the wrongheaded and widespread idea that our outer vacuum space is “cold” (background “fossile” radiation from Big Bang, is indeed 2 degrees Kelvin, but this is NOT a real “temperature”). This is because outer vacuum space is neither cold nor hot. Space scientists at NASA confirm this. [1]

    You are correct fom a conductive heatn transfe standpoint. space hase (measurably) zero thermal conductivity, and little sensible heat to convect. From a thermal radiation POV space is very cold. space have little thermak radiative potential.
    This means that space cannot restrict the radiatine flux as most real surfaces with a temperature always do. Where the thermal radiative energy goes, I do not know. I suspect it goes to the giant entropy dump out back. Do not look there!! The entropy will eat your face off.

  • Avatar



    Perhaps I should make my point clearer. I agree with you that a planet doesn’t need greenhouse gases to stay warm. I think it is the “Neanderthalian e ffect” at work

    See Gerlich and Tscheuschner:


    page 6

    • Avatar



      Anders, I totally agree with Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Alberto will add his own comments when his priorities allow. Thanks.

  • Avatar



    I don’t quite follow this.

    You say that the object was cooling LESS in vacuum, but if vacuum had no effective temperature I guess the object would maintain a constant temperature. The temperature difference is not the only factor that determines the rate of cooling, you need to take into account transport coefficients.

    Secondly, the shadow side of the moon doesn’t seem to have any problem cooling.

    Thirdly, don’t you think that astronauts feel a little warmer inside their suits and spacecrafts?

  • Avatar

    John Marshall


    The evapouration of surface water cools the surface by carrying aloft latent heat to be released as clouds form. This heat radiates to space.

    • Avatar



      indeed, the water cycle is the key because of the extraordinary energy moving capacity delivered by latent heat when driven by convection.

Comments are closed