Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Principia Scientific International Publishes Ground breaking Paper refuting the Greenhouse Gas Theory

                          The new scientific paper by the PSI`s Joseph E Postma is the most coherent and complete analysis any of the 120 plus members of Principia Scientific International (including a Nobel Science prize nominee) has seen on the greenhouse gas theory.   This paper completely refutes the claims by some "luke warmists" that the so called greenhouse effect must cause "some" warming.   Principia Scientific International is pioneering a new kind of peer review in open media(PROM).  As such PSI welcomes full and open public examination of Postma`s work.  PSI are adamant that they have compellingly debunked what a generation of government climatologists incorrectly assumed ie  that the flow of radiation in the Earth atmosphere is indicative of the flow of heat.   PSI scientists confirm that the issue was never really about whether radiation moves freely about in the atmosphere (it does), the big question should have been whether once it has arrived at the surface: does it get more than one go at generating heat(ie" back radiation" heating)?    Postma and his PSI colleagues say "no" because no such phenomenon as "back radiation heating" is cited in any thermodynamics textbooks nor has any such effect been measured empirically.   Also all "back radiation" graphics have been removed from Nasa publications.


  1. Since (1) Stefan-Boltzmann identifies that all objects radiate when above absolute zero, (2) Kirchhoff's Law identifies that any object which emits at a given wavelength also absorbs at that wavelength, (3) atmospheric molecules which absorb will emit in all directions, not just "up", and (4) those facts mean that some percentage of IR emitted by the surface will be re-emitted back to the surface, thus slowing surface cooling -- not making hotter, as the clownish straw-man "refutation" insists is the claim -- why does a paper which claims there is no IR radiative transfer affect to account for considered in the least bit credible? It is, after all, a matter of physical law that such transfers occur, and transfer energy.

  2. None of the emission from the colder CO2 in the atmosphere can go back to the warmer earth surface below(2nd law of thermodynamics) the only place it can go is to the void of free space above the atmosphere. thus atmospheric CO2 blocks nothing but simply continues that natural cooling!

    1. Terri: Oh, my, the straw man 2nd law argument rises yet again. Are you prepared to be corrected?

      1) Emissions of IR cannot be directed by temperature: they are omnidirectional, and know nothing about future collisions with absorptive mass.

      2) Radiative emissions exist BECAUSE of temperature, but have no temperature themselves (they have no mass). Their energy will be absorbed by whatever they impact, if it is not reflective (surface emits, therefore must absorb).

      3) The effect of absorption by the surface of such fractional (about half) of atmospheric absorptions of OLR is slower cooling by the surface, not warming past insolation (a straw man complaint).

      4) If the radiative emissions from the earth's surface were not slowed by such action, then (a) the cooling rate of the surface of the earth would be as large as the cooling rate for the surface of the moon (at the same temperature), and (b) the cooling rate of the surface of the earth would not differ with cloud cover or humidity. Neither of those things are observed.

      5) 2nd law requires no decrease in entropy without intervention in the process. Whether the surface is cooling fast (dry air above) or slowly (wet air above), entropy is still increasing (energy is still departing into space, just not as quickly.

      6) Straw man restatement of the 2nd law is a deliberately deceptive, by claiming that so-called "back radiation" WARMS the surface: it's not the cooler atmosphere warming the warmer surface, it's the cooler atmosphere slowing the cooling of the warmer surface.

  3. Back radiation "heating" however seems to exist. Just go out on a cloudy night or cloudless night - no wind. Note the difference. Easily 10 degrees. If you happen to have a radiation thermometer, that is revealing, Anyway, it's not that the clouds heat the surface, its because the sum of all photons in the IR spectrum that leave the earth surface per time unit is smaller when it also receives photons back from the clouds. It's not about heat flow it's about photons.

    Also what we need is a better null hypothesis than the refuted black-grey body model.

  4. 6) The most common descriptions and models of the GHE, such at KT98, do indeed show that the backradiaiton causes actual heating. Backradiation heats the surface up some more above what the insolation can provide, because the standard GHE models deceptively dilute the the power of sunshine to 240 W/m^2, which is fraudulent. To say that "slowed cooling" causes "increased temperature" is where the doublespeak and deceptive language is found. Beside, in my paper we actually measured the effect, and found it didn't exist.

    4) a) In my paper we did indeed measure the cooling rate of the Earth, and we found it to be 10-times the value expected. So, cooling is enhanced at the surface no delayed. b) humidity effect on cooling and clouds have nothing to do with the GHE.

    3) Warming past insolation is exactly what the GHE is said by K&T, and the numerous list of references found in the Appendix of my paper. It is a complete lie and denial to state that warming past insolation is not what the GHE is - that is exactly what it is. Since we have dis-proven that last year with my work and this year's new work, now the argument is switching to delayed cooling; however, this is doublespeak, because cooling rates are easily determined by internal energy storage and known output, and these indicate cooling is enhanced at the surface. Data proves it.

    2) Indeed, radiative emission in the Earth system is a consequence of temperature. Therefore it is not a cause. A warmer object receiving colder radiation does not cause heating, although the statement that colder radiation will be absorbed by whatever they impact is usually used to infer that cold radiation will indeed warm up a warmer target, which is of course false. Such is the avenue to doublespeak and strawmen. Indeed, present ambient sources determine the baseline temperature to which will cool. Indeed ambient effects are real. However, delayed cooling by backradiation is not observed for the surface, because sensible and radiative cooling of the surface itself is so much stronger than the effect of backradiation. Cooling at the surface is not delayed at all, or it may be but in a totally negligible manner. Surface cooling is 10-times the expected value.

    1) Omni-directionality of emission is usually used to suggest that cold will heat hot, which is of course a totally sophist argument used by most promoters of the GHE.

    From Joseph Postma