• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Greenhouse effect theory is pulverized in new study

CharlesDavenport

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
9,583
Reaction score
5,866
Points
113
Short version of https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

The radiative greenhouse theory cannot explain this apparent paradox considering the fact that infrared-absorbing gases such as CO2, water vapor and methane only re-radiate available LW emissions and do not constitute significant heat storage or a net source of additional energy to the system. This raises a fundamental question about the origin of the observed energy surplus in the lower troposphere of terrestrial planets with respect to the solar input. The above inconsistencies between theory and observations prompted us to take a new look at the mechanisms controlling the atmospheric thermal effect.

Conclusions -

For 190 years the atmosphere has been thought to warm Earth by absorbing a portion of the outgoing LW infrared radiation and reemitting it back toward the surface, thus augmenting the incident solar flux. This conceptualized continuous absorption and downward reemission of thermal radiation enabled by certain trace gases known to be transparent to solar rays while opaque to electromagnetic long-wavelengths has been likened to the trapping of heat by glass greenhouses, hence the term ‘atmospheric greenhouse effect’. Of course, we now know that real greenhouses preserve warmth not by trapping infrared radiation but by physically obstructing the convective heat exchange between a greenhouse interior and the exterior environment. Nevertheless, the term ‘greenhouse effect’ stuck in science.

The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally. It is important to note in this regard that the well-documented enhanced absorption of thermal radiation by certain gases does not imply an ability of such gases to trap heat in an open atmospheric environment. This is because, in gaseous systems, heat is primarily transferred (dissipated) by convection (i.e. through fluid motion) rather than radiative exchange. If gases of high LW absorptivity/emissivity such as CO , methane and water vapor were indeed capable of trapping radiant heat, they could be used as insulators. However, practical experience has taught us that thermal radiation losses can only be reduced by using materials of very low LW absorptivity/emissivity and correspondingly high thermal reflectivity such as aluminum foil. These materials are known among engineers at NASA and in the construction industry as radiant barriers [129]. It is also known that high-emissivity materials promote radiative cooling. Yet, all climate models proposed since 1800s are built on the premise that the atmosphere warms Earth by limiting radiant heat losses of the surface through the action of infrared absorbing gases aloft.

First clue, greenhouses don't actually work like the eponymous theory describes.

So, they came up with a model that does predict planetary temperature using only two variables - solar radiation and atmospheric pressure.

To our knowledge, this is the first model accurately describing the average surface temperatures of planetary bodies throughout the Solar System in the context of a thermodynamic continuum using a common set of drivers.
- and
greenhouse-gas concentrations and/or partial pressures did not show any meaningful relationship to surface temperatures across a broad span of planetary environments considered in our study (see Figures 1 and 2 and Table 5).

Summary -

• The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed, but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition;

• The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure;

• The albedo of planetary bodies with tangible atmospheres is not an independent driver of climate but an intrinsic property (a byproduct) of the climate system itself. This does not mean that the cloud albedo cannot be influenced by external forcing such as solar wind or galactic cosmic rays. However, the magnitude of such influences is expected to be small due to the stabilizing effect of negative feedbacks operating within the system. This understanding explains the observed remarkable stability of planetary albedos;

• The equilibrium surface temperature of a planet is bound to remain stable (i.e. within ± 1 K) as long as the atmospheric mass and the TOA mean solar irradiance are stationary. Hence, Earth’s climate system is well buffered against sudden changes and has no tipping points;

• The proposed net positive feedback between surface temperature and the atmospheric infrared opacity controlled by water vapor appears to be a model artifact resulting from a mathematical decoupling of the radiative-convective heat transfer rather than a physical reality.

The hereto reported findings point toward the need for a paradigm shift in our understanding of key macro-scale atmospheric properties and processes. The implications of the discovered planetary thermodynamic relationship (Figure 4, Eq. 10a) are fundamental in nature and require careful consideration by future research. We ask the scientific community to keep an open mind and to view the results presented herein as a possible foundation of a new theoretical framework for future exploration of climates on Earth and other worlds.

Wow, a model that sort of works. Maybe now we can have the scientific community actually use the scientific method to inspect this bullshit greenhouse-gas/AGW theory.
 
You wanna know what what affects the earth more than puny humans?


giphy.gif
 
Short version of https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf



Conclusions -



First clue, greenhouses don't actually work like the eponymous theory describes.

So, they came up with a model that does predict planetary temperature using only two variables - solar radiation and atmospheric pressure.

- and

Summary -



Wow, a model that sort of works. Maybe now we can have the scientific community actually use the scientific method to inspect this bullshit greenhouse-gas/AGW theory.

Damn I'm glad Zeller and Nikolov cleared that up for us...almost 200 years of knowledge used in everything from designing infrared homing missles to callibrating satellite sensors for agricultural maps.

I'll anxiously wait for their next paper....maybe they can destroy that whole "earth is round" nonsense these idiotic scientists have been throwing around.

Oh and I'd better call the U.S. Air Force and let them know none of their fox two's are going to work properly anymore...........

I mean really?? Is there any denier nonsense that will not fool you clowns?

Atmospheric pressure.........lol
 
Short version of https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf



Conclusions -



First clue, greenhouses don't actually work like the eponymous theory describes.

So, they came up with a model that does predict planetary temperature using only two variables - solar radiation and atmospheric pressure.

- and

Summary -



Wow, a model that sort of works. Maybe now we can have the scientific community actually use the scientific method to inspect this bullshit greenhouse-gas/AGW theory.
Boom!

A rational explanation complete with a simplified model and the expectation of future improvements to same.

No political statements, no fear mongering.

Simple observation with causes and effects.

Thank you!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Boom!

A rational explanation complete with a simplified model and the expectation of future improvements to same.

No political statements, no fear mongering.

Simple observation with causes and effects.

Thank you!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Steeler Nation mobile app

WAIT!..........I thought models didn't work?

Oh silly me, this one does work because it fits your agenda.......
 
GLOBAL COOLING ALERT!




Arctic Global Warming Study Canceled Because There’s Too Much Ice

In May, an expedition that set out to gather global warming evidence in the Arctic was forced to call it off. Why? Because the ice was too thick and the icebreaker was needed to rescue other ships.The research vessel Amundsen was redirected by the Canadian Coast Guard to clear fishing lanes for boats and supply vessels. That includes the dreaded ‘oil tankers’.

“The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has canceled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice,” the news site Science Daily reported.

“It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions,” Dr. David Barber, the lead scientist on the study. “We were finding thick multi-year sea ice floes which on level ice were five meters thick … it was much, much thicker and much, much heavier than anything you would expect at that latitude and at that time of year.”

story-global-warming-e1499617851221.jpg



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170613150651.htm
 
WAIT!..........I thought models didn't work?

Oh silly me, this one does work because it fits your agenda.......
What a stupid comment. Your models don't work, and everyone agrees. This one works because it works.
 
I keep telling you guys incorrect uneven biasing of data can make models look however one wants, which is why any study must include all data and methods used not just generalities and end results... i can go over the math again if you all want, but one can severely bias data if it fits an agenda... rather easily
 
I keep telling you guys incorrect uneven biasing of data can make models look however one wants, which is why any study must include all data and methods used not just generalities and end results... i can go over the math again if you all want, but one can severely bias data if it fits an agenda... rather easily

For a good model that even remotely comes close to being accurate, I can't imagine all of the possible inputs that should be considered, much less trying to figure out which ones can be discarded.
 
If California was under water your food bill would double. They produce about 40% of our food supply.
 
If California was under water your food bill would double. They produce about 40% of our food supply.

Not for long if the Greenies don't let the farmers keep their water.
 
Ecosystems change.... farms move.

The technology of farming, the genetics of seed production, pest control isn't going away. Jesus... liberals make it sound like food can only be produced in one god damn place on earth.

Adaptation is the key to all of this. Natural disasters are going to happen. Who are the liberals going to blame when the San Andreas fault really lets loose? Or Mt. Renier blows? Those (and others) are going to be much more catastrophic events with much greater loss of life and economic production than "Global Warming", which can be easily adapted too if we so choose (and devote time/energy to think it through).

Nothing is going to "stop" climate change. The idea we can agree as a global economy to make energy more expensive and have the richest countries subsidize that extra cost to poorer countries (which likely will NEVER use the money efficiently or legally), is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. And its effects will be marginal at best.

The richer the country, the more environmentally friendly they become. Richer countries also produce less people (which is the underlying reason for pollution in the first place). So the goal should be to make rich countries. You can't do that by stifling energy consumption or restricting energy production. That's silliness.
 
The climate changed today. We are in the middle of a thunderstorm and it's a little cooler right now. Tomorrow is going to be hot and sunny. They say this coming December is going to be cold. I don't blame humans for any of it. Climate change is strictly a money grab by the left.
 
The climate changed today. We are in the middle of a thunderstorm and it's a little cooler right now. Tomorrow is going to be hot and sunny. They say this coming December is going to be cold. I don't blame humans for any of it. Climate change is strictly a money grab by the left.

97 percent of scientists say it will get dark later tonight.
 
97 percent of doctors say Tibs gets his period every 28 days.
 
97 percent of doctors say Tibs gets his period every 28 days.

Confluence, oh Confluence where art thou? Completely unprovoked attacks on members of the board. I haven't even posted in this thread, for ****'s sake. Oh, the civility!
 
Confluence, oh Confluence where art thou? Completely unprovoked attacks on members of the board. I haven't even posted in this thread, for ****'s sake. Oh, the civility!

That was an observation.
 
WAIT!..........I thought models didn't work?

Oh silly me, this one does work because it fits your agenda.......
No....it works because it uses fact and scientific rationale. Not made up numbers and temperatures so the rest of the world can punish America for becoming the greatest beacon for prosperity and freedom the world has ever seen in only 240 years.

Sent from my VS987 using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Top