Nikolov and Zeller Math Backs Greenhouse Gas Theory Debunk
New mathematical study trashes the greenhouse gas theory as a credible explanation of earth’s climate. Paper adds to work of dissenting scientists who show that SURFRAD data plus strict application of standard physics discredits the accepted global warming narrative.
Joining that growing body of science refuting consensus climate theory is an important peer-reviewed study from Dr Nikolov and Dr Zeller. The compelling new paper backs the findings of a dissenting but growing group of researchers who denounce expensive cuts in human emissions of ‘fossil’ fuels because they are based on junk science.
The greenhouse gas theory has been the cornerstone of man-made global warming fears since the 1980’s. The theory tells us that carbon dioxide (CO2) is our climate control knob. But that claim is being made to look absurd as global temperatures have flatlined this century despite large increases in CO2 emissions.
Canadian astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma remarked:
“Nikolov and Zeller have contributed a really fundamental mathematical proof to the work of the ‘Slayers‘. Alongside the body of work by Principia Scientific International researchers, Nikolov and Zeller have proven that gravity makes the bottom of the atmosphere the warmest part of the atmosphere. Like us, they show there is no need for slowed cooling or a radiative greenhouse gas effect heating to explain earth’s climate. “
Postma posted his detailed support for their compelling study on is blog, climateofsophistry.com.
The Canadian space scientist adds:
“I think that an atmosphere without GHG’s would still basically end up similar to how things are now – the radiation either emits from the surface directly or from surface + atmosphere together. The theoretical derivation of the lapse rate and its empirical measurement shows that the radiative properties of the gas have no effect on the temperature. Nikolov & Zeller’s paper makes sense of the real physics involved.”
Below is the paper’s abstract, authored by Dr Nikolov and Dr Zeller:
‘Unified Theory of Climate Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles: Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change’ Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D
Abstract
We present results from a new critical review of the atmospheric Greenhouse (GH) concept. Three main problems are identified with the current GH theory. It is demonstrated that thermodynamic principles based on the Ideal Gas Law must be invoked to fully explain the Natural Greenhouse Effect, which essence is the boost of global surface temperature above that of an airless planet exposed to the same solar irradiance. We show via a novel analysis of planetary climates in the solar system that the physical nature of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition. Hence, the down-welling infrared radiation (a.k.a. greenhouse- or back-radiation) is a product of the atmospheric temperature (maintained by solar heating and air pressure) rather than a cause for it. In other words, our results suggest that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.
Mathematics Backed by Actual US Government Thermometer Data
After reading the above, we urge readers to study the work of independent American climate researcher, Carl Brehmer, who has meticulous researched US SURFRAD ground thermometer data. See: ‘SURFRAD Data Falsifies The “Greenhouse Effect” Hypothesis.’
What Brehmer shows is that the SURFRAD proves there is no additional heat trapping/delayed cooling effect in humid regions (where there is more ‘greenhouse gas’ concentration) where the ‘theory’ tells us we should expect to find it.
Brehmer explains:
“You can yourself, for example, compare the average yearly surface temperature in arid Desert Rock, Nevada to the average yearly surface temperature in humid Goodwin Creek, Mississippi both of which lie roughly along the same latitude and therefore receive the same amount of sunlight throughout the year. Were you to do this you would see that the arid climate has the higher average yearly temperature. (Goodwin Creek is even slightly lower in altitude.)”
This simple empirical proof contradicts the core claim of the greenhouse gas theory that ‘greenhouse gases’ (especially water vapor) are responsible for a warmer earth climate.
So why did government climate scientists get things so wrong?
Postma explains:
“They got it wrong because the alarmists measure the warmest part of the atmosphere, the part which we know must be warmest, and then compare that to the expected average temperature and then claim that there is some problem. They’re not comparing apples to apples. They’re comparing the warmest part of the ensemble to the average of the ensemble…but an average is made up of warmer and cooler parts in the whole ensemble!”
Postma urges us to think of a Gaussian bell-curve for a distribution – there are parts on either side of the average, and they are supposed to be there. It should not be isolated (cherry-picked) as a proof for a junk science hypothesis about CO2.
Postma laments:
“You don’t measure just the 99’th percentile components and then claim that there’s some problem with the distribution because you didn’t find the average there!”
While alarmists and lukewarmers are happy to debate “CO2 sensitivity” and claim that “this is the only question” – we have been the only ones to truly examine the premises of the radiative greenhouse gas effect and we have found that it is based on flat Earth physics, violations of thermodynamics, illogical premises, illogical measurements, meaningless concepts, etc etc.
As Postma adds:
“We’ve extended the question to where the analysis naturally leads. It is totally natural to go to re-examining the RGHE when the claims of the RGHE and alarmism are not borne out in empirical measurement and when there are such simple and basic questions to pursue about it.”
That so many alarmists and lukewarmers are slow, or reluctant to embrace such irrefutable empirical evidence (the SURFRAD data identified by Brehmer) and the mathematics and physics of the ‘Slayers’ and Nikolov and Zeller, shows bad faith on the part of GHE believers.
We can excuse groupthink up to a point. But the graph below (Scafetta et al. 2017) proves ‘climate sensitivity’ claims are in full retreat.
Now even consensus scientists are finding that ‘Recent CO2 ‘Climate Sensitivity’ Estimates Headed Towards Zero‘. Therefore, it is high time we all embrace the null hypothesis and abandon the failed claims of a greenhouse gas effect of climate change.
****
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.
Francois Stallbom
| #
Why are you referring to Venus? We do not have a clue what is happening on Venus. All guessing and assumptions. We are living on planet earth. Focus on the current inter-glacial period (approx 18,000 years). Holocene, Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. Far more interesting and relevant.
Reply
Peter
| #
Gravity performs work on the atmosphere and compresses it adiabaticially, this increases both the pressure and temperature, as you approach the earths surface.
Reply
Spurwing Plover
| #
So what ever became of Global Cooling and A New Ice Age we were suppost to have been getting back in the 1970’s the same liberal rag TIME and NEWSWEEK were going on about this Global Cooling back in the 1970’s as much as it was going on about Global Warming back in the 1990’s But remember TIME has put out some of the most infamous and notorious front covers ever like the more recent WELCOME TO AMERICA fake cover more reasons to boycott TIME and its sponsors
Reply