• Home
  • Current News
  • Webcast at 12 Noon (EST) Jan 10: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect

Webcast at 12 Noon (EST) Jan 10: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect

Written by Joe Postma

[STICKY POST] In this live webcast I will be giving a slideshow presentation which demonstrates that the radiative greenhouse effect, upon which climate alarm and even the field of climate science itself is based, does not exist. On both scientific requirements of having theoretical & empirical support, the radiative greenhouse effect is proven to have neither: it is based in false physics and paradox, violates the laws of thermodynamics, and doesn’t produce the empirical observables it predicts and claims responsibility for.

It isn’t just that climate alarm isn’t as bad as the alarmists say it is, it is that the very foundation of the science – the radiative greenhouse effect – is in error, does not exist, and hence the alarmism and the policy surrounding it is completely, 100% in error.

Not merely slightly wrong, not mostly wrong, but completely 100% wrong.

If you start with false premises, everything you subsequently extrapolate from those premises will likewise carry along the original error and thus exhibit error within themselves.

LIVE BROADCAST TIME ZONE CONVERSION:

5pm, Tuesday, Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), LONDON

Noon, Tuesday, Eastern Time (EST), NEW YORK

4am, Wednesday, in Sydney NSW, AUSTRALIA

 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    nickreality65

    |

    It was simple observation that the sun orbits the earth – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that Vulcan orbited between Mercury and the sun – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that life occurred from spontaneous generation – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that the earth was expanding – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that combustible objects contained phlogiston – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that water filled canal existed on Mars – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that light propagated through luminiferous aether – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that people were blank slates, tabula rasa, at birth – but that was wrong.
    It was simple observation that people could be analyzed from their bumpy heads, phrenology – but it was wrong.
    It was simple observation that the universe was static – but it was wrong.
    It’s a simple observation that Fleischmann and Pons’s cold fusion apparatus puts out more energy than it takes in – but it’s wrong.
    It’s a simple observation to point an IR instrument at the sky and measure hundreds of W/m^2 of downwelling radiation – but it’s wrong.
    If this incorrect application and interpretation of IR instrumentation is all that “proves” “downwelling” radiation, then that is bupkis.
    Guess where GHG/GHE theory is headed?
    http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      300 W/m2 downwelling radiation is the emission from a blackbody at about minus 3°C – ~270 K.

      The interesting part of “measuring” this downwelling radiation begins when you investigate the blackbody laws used to devise these instruments and “certify” them.

      The equations used in pyrgeometers are dubious at best and involve assuming it is possible to “calibrate” an instrument to E(net) = E(in) – E(out) where E(net) is equal to U(emf)/S where S is some calibration formula.

      They then re-arrange the formula to E(in) = downwelling radiation = E(net) + sigmaT^4.

      Personally I find such algebra truly belongs in the realm of science fiction.

      We can’t even specify the peak emissions from a blackbody.

      Firstly a blackbody at 270 K emits radiation which has a peak emission at ~10.8 micron.

      Secondly a blackbody at 270 K emits radiation which has a peak emission at ~529.5 cm-1 which equals ~18.9 micron.

      I know both are right but …?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      Hi Nick,

      Yes, you are right. One should not take a single observation and build castle from it. One must observe all that one can about the issue at hand. Copernicus knew, I am reasonably sure, that from a single observation that one could reason that the earth could stand still and the sun revolve it with a period of a day or!! that from the same single observation that the sun could stand still and the earth revolve about its axis with a period of a day. Copernicus also knew, I am reasonably sure, that the sun, as it rose above the eastern horizon in the morning that position of its rising moved from south to north and back to south with a period of about 365 days. Copernicus, I have read, was born in Royal Prussia and lived during his youth years, far north and then moved to Italy and it is said visited Athens. Hence, he observed a quite different range of the sun’s movement back and forth across the horizon in the north than he observed in the south. I have never read how Copernicus concluded that the heliocentric model of our solar system was a better model for what he observed than the geocentric model of the universe concluded by Aristotle and other philosophers of that time. But am sure that Copernicus could see how simple it would be incline the axis of the rotating earth as it revolved about the sun to simply account for the three observations that he clearly observed, as I can see (imagine this simple system at work). I can see (imagine) it the earth stood still, the sun had to have two motions at once. One daily motion plus a yearly motion as it had to wobble above and below the plane it defined by its daily revolution at the equinoxes. Or, the plane of its daily’s revolution had to be constantly changing. And, of course, there was the matter of the moon which I have never read being introduced to the mix.

      But you are very right, one should not bet one’s house on a single observation.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      Hi Nick,

      About observations Einstein said it well, if not best: “No amount of experimentation [observation] can ever prove me right; a single experiment [observation] can prove me wrong.”

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    nickreality65

    |

    References:

    Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10

    This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.

    An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h follows. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the earth’s cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC/heat flow/balance/insulation problem.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373

    “Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”

    ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That’s not just thin, that’s ludicrous thin.

    The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 LWIR and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.

    The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy aka created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.

    ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.

    But let’s press on.

    The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.

    The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.

    Except they aren’t.

    The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, an evenly distributed average or weighted by layers from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable, 45% to 75% of, shortfall from 333.

    (99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)

    But wait!

    The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer way away from 333, 15% to 24% of.

    But wait!

    Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333, 1.5% to 2.4% of.

    But wait!

    All of the above really doesn’t even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.

    BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (i.e. water board the data until it gives up the “right” answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Obviously, those seven data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can’t possibly be any flaw in the GHE theory.

    The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, it doesn’t even apply to warming a real greenhouse. (“The Discovery of Global Warming” Spencer Weart) It’s the physical barrier of walls, glass, plastic that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium glassy transparent radiative thermal diode.

    The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that energy flow, i.e. heat requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.

    The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.

    Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy as she has posted a challenge for such an explanation.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Watts

    |

    “This thing” is the entire mass delusion global warming hysteria phenomenon. The debate was about the validity of the science by which “this thing” is justified. Science applied to policy is about a hell of a lot more than observation, it’s corrupted science driving nefarious policy with enormous negative political, social and economic consequences. That it took place on radio is neither hear nor there.
    Do you think “science” is above public airing? Isn’t that the sort of unaccountable arrogance that helped to nurture “this thing” into the entrenched monstrosity it is today?

    A public statement coming from a high profile and visible political figure, a respected advocate of the AGW agenda, without any repercussions or loss of credibility is something I find astonishing, if you don’t.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      Hi Watts,

      I assume much of your comment is relative to my previous comment. “Science applied to policy is about a hell of a lot more than observation, it’s corrupted science driving nefarious policy with enormous negative political, social and economic consequences.”

      How do you consider the science founded by Galileo, Brahe, Kepler, Newton and others of that early time became corrupted? Their fundamental science was based solely upon observation and the analysis of observation. Yes, Galileo illustrated the foolishness of dismissing Brahe’s observations and Kepler’s analysis of them as he refused to accept that the orbits of the planets were not perfect circles.

      By answer is to my question is because people love to argue and debate as the Aristotle and his contemporaries. But one cannot argue about an observation; one can only argue the observation isn’t what one thinks it is. But many actual observations are very difficult to twist about like this.

      Take a look at (http://principia-scientific.org/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/. It has not generated many comments. Which I consider is because it is solely based upon observation and even if one does not agree with my conclusion about the result of the observation, what can be argued?

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson

    |

    History of the rigged, Alarmist/Luke fake debate at FauxScienceSlayer site….

    “Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami”…. ICCC-9 Luke Love Fest in Vegas

    “Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas”….GISS disinformation agent Roy….

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Watts

    |

    In 2015 during a radio debate with Tim Ball, Canadian Green Party leader and MP Elizabeth May, with emphatic settled scientific conviction, stated that, but for human CO2 contributions we would be in global cooling right now and headed to the coming ice age. I emailed her to ask her why, if she truly believed that, why has she spent a lifetime, and is still tirelessly continuing the effort to hasten the coming of a global climate that might see her country and mine back under 2 miles of ice as in the last one. I also thanked her for forcing me into the company of those whose politics and philosophy I detest, though happily there are many on this side whose political judgement is as sound as their scientific judgement and BS detection abilities. Strange bedfellows, a case in point. Such absurdity as May’s assertion revealed is hardly rare and I am at a total loss to figure out how this thing still exists at all, let alone with the strength it still possesses.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      Hi Watts,

      You state: ” I am at a total loss to figure out how this thing still exists at all, let alone with the strength it still possesses.”

      While I am not certain what “this thing” is, I can state that the reason is: “during a radio debate”. Science is based upon observations and not debate.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jeff Greenwell

        |

        Science is based upon observations and not debate.

        And what are the observations of RGHE telling you?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jerry L Krause

          |

          Hi Jeff,

          I am not too modern, so I have no idea what RGHE is.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Jeff Greenwell

            |

            Jerry,
            Did you watch the video? .. Perhaps you read the headline?

            I assume you know what the GHE is, yes? …. what do you suppose the RGHE is? … hint: It’s in the headline, it’s in the video.

            Cheers!

          • Avatar

            Jerry L Krause

            |

            Hi Jeff,

            At first I asked what video? But after scanning your previous comments I realized you were possibly referring to Joe’s video. No I did not but I admit to actually reading the title. Which was the reason I did not waste my time because I considered had done this by simple observations supplied by Carl Brehmer. I referred to this article in my previous comment to Watts. (above if you have not read it)

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            Jeff Greenwell

            |

            So, let me get this straight. You are making comment on something you haven’t watched. You were not aware the entire subject of this article is about Joseph’s video, indeed, this article is the video. You read the title, but could not deduce the origins of my reference to the RGHE?

            WOW … mmmm kaaaay …

            Cheers…

          • Avatar

            Jerry L Krause

            |

            Hi Jeff,

            I admit to being slow, but I sometimes get there. I admit to not doing a good job of proofing what I write.

            “Which [the title] was the reason I did not waste my time because I considered [I] had done this by simple observations supplied by Carl Brehmer. ”

            “Radiative Greenhouse Effect”, from the title, I considered to be redundant for the GHE of GHG to my understanding is about the absorption of radiation by GHG and the emission of radiation from (by) GHG .

            “So, let me get this straight. You are making comment on something you haven’t watched.”

            Where did I make any comment about the content of Joe’s video.?

            “You were not aware the entire subject of this article is about Joseph’s video, indeed, this article is the video.”

            What is this article you are talking about? After some pondering I have concluded it probably is Nick’s comment which I only scanned. As soon I begin to read the word– model–I now stop reading. For it takes an actual observation to refute an idea; not a bunch of words and mathematical calculations.

            So, have a good day, Jerry

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.