06 March 2012
Esteemed German climate experts, Dr. Gerhard Kramm and Dr. Ralph Dlugi have now added their voice to a growing science crescendo asking climatologists to stop modeling Earth as if it were a flat disk greenhouse.
The reason say the Germans is that there is “a lack of tangible evidence” for any atmospheric greenhouse effect because the science is “based on meritless conjectures.”
Evidence reveals the number of official greenhouse gas theories almost matches the number of government climatologists spouting them. With the science in apparent turmoil critics of the theory are claiming the upper hand. The admission by Kramm and Dlugi adds further significance to the scathing studies by Professor Nasif Nahle of Mexico, Dr. Matthais Kleespies of Germany, Canadian astrophysicist, Joe Postma and NASA’s Apollo moon mission veteran, Dr. Pierre R. Latour. All four working seperately in their independent specialisms came to very much the same conclusion: the greenhouse gas hypothesis is wrong.
'Consensus Science' Proven Wrong Again
We all know the story: a small clique of a few dozen government scientists triggered the waste of $100 billion in research monies over 30 years. These “consensus” scientists (those experts believing in dangerous man-made greenhouse gas warming) are a mere 75 researchers from the 2,500 scientists - as proven by a survey conducted by the University of Illinois [1.]
But you don't have to take just their word for it. Even Professor Mike Hulme (a high profile climate change researcher at the University of East Anglia) confirms that greenhouse ghoulishness is the product of a small collective. In a 22-page PDF Hulme asserts that the science behind the greenhouse gas theory is a “consensus judgment…reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies.”
This little group wanted to prove that industrial emissions containing carbon dioxide (CO2) mix to form a potent chemical cocktail ‘trapping’ energy in the atmosphere. By adding even more CO2 into our skies they claimed a global warming blanket effect would disastrously raise Earth’s temperature.
Earth ‘Laboratory’ Proves No Greenhouse Gas Warming
According to these self-styled Greenhouse Gas experts the rapid increase in CO2 emissions from hydrocarbon fuels has resulted in an unprecedented level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They claim the gas build up is preventing thermal energy in the form of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from escaping into space. In turn, they believe this will cause Earth to warm at a rate that is way above natural variation.
But if this was actually the case the 57.1 percent increase in CO2 emissions over the past three decades should have caused a reduction in OLR that would have been detected by 31 years of continuous satellite measurements. Over that period, the extra carbon dioxide was supposed to produce a decrease in OLR of precisely 0.782W/m2.
But instead of this reduction satellite measurements show an increase of over 2W/m2 So what should any self-respecting scientists do when they see the physical measurements conflicting so starkly in both sign and magnitude with model predictions? Well, they should scrap the model. That's if you're working to proper science protocol.
The empirical evidence proves the greenhouse gas story should be consigned to mythology with all the other ghoulish demons and devils of our unproven fears. This cold light of reason is also demonstrated in the following graph from www.climate4you.com. It shows the MSU UAH satellite temperature data demonstrating an overall increase in global temperature. Outgoing longwave radiation can be seen to be increasing in response to this rise in temperature.
A decrease in OLR is what those GHE scientists said would happen if any greenhouse effect from CO2 was going to cause observed warming.
Since the graph shows OLR increasing then this experiment in the “Earth Laboratory” falsifies the greenhouse gas theory and proves, instead, the sun drives our climate.
NASA Apollo Expert blasts former NASA Colleague
Another new challenger to the failed GHE meme is Texan Dr. Pierre Latour who is fast becoming Hansen’s nemesis. Latour has thrown down his gauntlet to challenge his former NASA colleague, septuagenarian, Dr. James Hansen to re-evaluate his failed GHE hypothesis.
Dr. Latour first made his name engineering NASA’s Apollo space mission. He and other experts in thermodynamics have this to say to Hansen, “Chemical engineers design and operate radiant, convection and conduction furnaces, kilns, forges, chemical reactors and boilers for refining petroleum, manufacturing chemicals and generating electricity since 1920. Not once have we seen any GHE”
An increasing number of critics say the time has come to eradicate the word 'greenhouse' and all connotations associated with it from any description of the mechanisms describing atmospheric physics.
Almost As Many Theories as Climate Scientists
Climate catastrophe alarmists have gotten away for too long peddling a ‘settled science’ lie on the issue when in truth there is profound disagreement.
What is truly alarming is that the ‘settled science’ of government climate science proclaims 63 different official versions of the ‘theory.’ Yes, that’s an astonishing 63 different GHE theories to share among those 75 climatologists on record as supporting this increasingly discredited notion.
Climate researcher, Alan Siddons conducted extensive research to identify all the competing versions in top line universities of this ‘consensus’ science. Canadian astrophysicist Joe Postma, then examined all 63 competing ‘theories’ in detail. Postma found fatal conflicts that discredited those GHE models being taught at academic institutions such as Harvard’s Atmospheric Chemistry modeling group, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Washington’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, NASA and a multitude of other government websites.
Postma shows us that with so many modifications on the ‘theory’ we may immediately discern there is no 'consensus' about the actual mechanism of the GHE among academic elites.
No Peer-reviewed Science to Prove Greenhouse ‘Blanket Effect’
But it gets worse - just scratch that surface a little more and you’ll find that there is also not a single peer-reviewed paper substantiating the existence of so-called GHE 'back radiation' heating (a term absent from textbooks on thermodynamics).
One of the endless disagreements is about the incoming solar radiation and whether it can be 'trapped' by carbon dioxide (CO2) to form a gaseous atmospheric 'blanket effect.’
But as Mexico’s Professor Nasif Nahle has experimentally demonstrated, “the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the greenhouse, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings…”
Postma and Nahle rigorously applied the science from the book, Slaying the Sky Dragon. They were then able to further expose the critical flaw whereby reliance is placed on a plane-parallel model in which the ground and atmosphere are treated as “planes” that are “parallel” to each other.
Postma shows that the incoming solar flux is wrongly divided by a factor of “4” so as to average the Solar energy over the entire planet as a chilly twilight. In effect, climate science turns our watery revolving globe into a flat, ice covered disk by utterly discarding the warming and cooling process of day and night. So which side in this debate are now the real “flat earthers?”
In other words, climatologists model Earth as a desolate flat disk planet where Sunshine is perpetually freezing cold and liquid water and vapor are impossible. The modelers then ‘correct’ their error by botching a “33 degrees Centigrade whatchamacallit” they term the greenhouse gas effect.
Twilight Coldness: the Flat Earth of Crumbling Greenhouse Gas Science
Because the GHE Standard Model treats the Earth as having sunlight coming in over all parts of the Earth at once, no part of the planet can receive more than one-quarter the value of the actual incoming solar power.
Climate scientists then commit a very grave error in the numbers: they equate the energy flux density of the incoming power to that of the outgoing power (not a requirement of the Law of Conservation of Energy (LCE)). But then this is one of many irregularities that those 63 eminent institutions with their 63 competing models apply in their mutually contradictory models. The devil, it seems, is always in their details.
Thus we see the experts (always failing to agree) ply their 63 different ways to be wrong and each somehow arriving at a model “average” solar input power of 240 J/s/m2. That provides an equivalent temperature of about –18 degrees Centigrade (255K or -0.4F).
A Better Earth Model: Add Day and Night on a Rotating Planet
But a remedy is at hand. Postma's peer-reviewed analysis then goes on to prove that by treating Earth as a sphere (so that night and day exist) we can suddenly explain it all with standard physics. He shows how daytime gives us the +30 degrees C worth of 'missing' temperature because it covers on average only half of the Earth (that's double the effect of the GHE modeler's figures). That's a telling fact the 'flat Earth 75' would rather you ignored.
To sum up, Latour, Nahle and Postma have compellingly refuted the 63 self-contradictory and idiosyncratic 2-dimensional models of orthodox climate science. They show the models are debunked because Earth was wrongly modeled as a flat, cold twilight planet Hansen. But from the moment Earth is correctly modeled as a 3-dimensional sphere all the incoming solar energy impacts just one hemisphere at a time which in turn makes the climate numbers add up without the contrivance of any unphysical 'greenhouse gas' effect.
[1.] P.T. Doran & M. Kendall Zimmerman, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, EOS, Volume 90, Number 3. January 20, 2009.