27 July 2011
New science papers discrediting greenhouse gas effect fit with findings of top climatologist. Emerging group of skeptics re-ignite debate.
The fledgling new organization, Principia Scientific International (PSI) this week publishes the second of what may be a devastating series of new papers dissecting the traditional greenhouse gas effect and exposing the misuse of equations by climatologists. The new findings fit neatly with those of leading skeptic climatologist, Richard Lindzen, of MIT.
Canadian physicist, Joe Postma presents compelling evidence that equations used by government climate researchers are not valid because they incorrectly treat Earth as is if were a star constantly emitting and receiving its own energy.
Night & Day Cooling Process Never Considered
Postma's paper lays out in detail how a model that had originally been devised by astrophysicists to model the energy output of stars have wrongly become the foundation of terrestrial climate models for over twenty years.
A qualified astrophysicist, Postma says climate researchers incorrectly applied such models to the Earth, a planet receiving solar energy only during daylight. It is this omission of the time element from climate models that has led to Earth effectively being modeled as if it were a constantly radiating sun. Thereby the cooling effect of night time has never been factored into the official numbers, and the solar heating input had been artificially decreased to far-below freezing temperatures!
The study comes fast on the heels of another recent epic paper from Professor Nasif Nahle working at the Mexican laboratory, the Biology Cabinet. Postma, Nahle and other greenhouse effect (GHE) critics say cognitive inertia has set in among many of their fellow skeptics who refuse to even countenance addressing any such anomalies in the models.
As astrophysicist Joe Postma says, “climate modellers swear by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, yet they violate it so openly. The point being, the S-B Law says that radiative output is directly proportional to temperature...meaning that they change in the same direction: if temperature goes up, radiation goes up, and if temperature goes down, radiation goes down.”
He continues,“This is one of the most fundamental laws of physics known to man. Yet look at these model plots (see diagram): temperature goes up, and radiation goes down. That violates the laws of physics.”
Fellow GHE critic, Alan Siddons adds: “Experience teaches that what a body radiates is a function of its temperature. By contrast, greenhouse theory teaches that a body’s temperature is a function of what it’s allowed to radiate.”
Good Match with Lindzen's Data
Below is the plot by Lindzen from 2009 that exposes the flaw in what the models are trying to say. Leading analysts Lindzen and Choi also highlight a significant discrepancy, that satellites show the atmosphere accommodating the earth’s temperature fluctuations, i.e., releasing spikes of extra heat, whereas every model shows the atmosphere suppressing them.
If we then look at Lindzen’s real-world data in the center of the chart we see that temperatures are going up, and radiation going up, just what the laws of physics says should happen. Simply put, this is because these models assume that fluctuations must be caused by ‘forcing’ variations; in other words, the atmosphere temporarily blocking more IR, thus making the earth hotter. (This gas model being a mutated form of the original glass model, and neither of them works).
Pick an Explanation and Stick to it, Say Critics
Along with many other critics Siddons argues 'climate experts' fail to behave like real scientists because they don't lay out in plain terms what it is they believe in. Now highly qualified critics are increasingly eager to pin down those hand waving 'experts' who, for years, have merely alluded to their beloved yet amorphous hypothesis. Like Professor Nahle, and astrophysicist Joe Postma, Siddons echoes a growing perception: the 'greenhousers' are running scared.
Siddons, who has been investigating the 'greenhouse defect' for over six years says,“Greenhousers are as slippery as an eel.“ He appears to have a point because neither the IPCC, NAS, Royal Society nor any national science institute commits itself to one particular explanation of what they mean by a 'greenhouse effect.'
Come what may, the authors of these compelling new papers are adamant they will continue to root out junk science. Their mood is that until it's properly exposed the well-funded gravy train will keep rolling while self-serving academics think they can get away with climate fraud. With these new papers to chew over perhaps Professor Lindzen will also get the message at which his own findings are pointing.