Study blows 'greenhouse theory out of the water'

wnd.com ^ | 7/8/2017 | Alex Newman

[rktman]

A new scientific paper contends the entire foundation of the man-made global-warming theory – the assumption that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping heat – is wrong.

If confirmed, the study’s findings would crush the entire “climate change” movement to restrict CO2 emissions, the authors assert

Some experts contacted by WND criticized the paper, while others advised caution.

Still others suggested that the claimed discovery represents a massive leap forward in human understanding – a “new paradigm.”

The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.

They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.

Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.

The same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA.

So precise is the formula, the authors of the paper told WND, that, by using it, they were able to correctly predict the temperature of other celestial bodies not included in their original analysis.

[SomeCallMeTim]

I see it like this: there is NO closed system. But, there is a limiting force. The atmosphere can expand, or contract as it needs to... Restrained only by gravitational force. So, if composition changes, Volume changes... In balance with gravity. It totally makes sense.

[Teacher317]

Atmospheric CO2 was 200 ppm in the Permian Era.
Atmospheric CO2 was 7,000 ppm in the Cambrian Period.
Atmospheric CO2 is near 370 ppm today.

Liberals and those who desperately want a global government are insisting that the planet cannot survive if we go to 400 ppm.

[SomeCallMeTim]

I see it like this: there is NO closed system. But, there is a limiting force. The atmosphere can expand, or contract as it needs to... Restrained only by gravitational force. So, if composition changes, Volume changes... In balance with gravity. It totally makes sense.

[lurked_for_a_decade]

I’m not a chemist or scientist but I did get an MS degree in Computer Science last century and I worked at NOAA/NWS and I stayed at a holiday in express last night, so I would assume a closed system also.

I could tell stories about how the satellite data - especially sea surface temperature - is quote “calibrated” that would add further doubt to AGW theory. But I value my time left on this planet, so I don’t care to visit Civil War Parks unless I’m still breathing so I’ll keep my mouth shut.

A FOIA request however for the algorithm ( hint hint wink wink, nod nod say no more, say no more .... ) would yield interesting insights into the state of the “Science” and reveal my doubts for at least one “major” data sets validity.

[Cboldt]

-- So then you disagree with this new study. --

All I disagree with is the proposition that the mechanism the study advances is an example of the working of PV=nRT.

The mechanism they describe is pretty easy to get with engineering and heat transfer principles. On any given planetary body, some distance from a heat source, the more massive the atmosphere, the hotter the atmosphere. A more massive atmosphere is thicker, able to absorb and hold more heat just by dint of its mass.

PV=nRT is manipulated by holding "n" to a constant value. This study takes a planetary body, varies "n", and concludes that as "n" increases, so does T (and so does "P," and so does "V").

PV=nRT of course works all the time. To be repetitive, I've never asserted that PV=nRT is invalid. My remark was that this principle is not the principle these fellows are describing.

[Mr. Lucky]

Exactamundo.

[Cboldt]

-- Even if the energy absorption of all that Nitrogen and Oxygen simply causes the molecules to rise higher in the atmosphere, then gravity is still going to cause it to impart more pressure on the system as a whole than when all that Nitrogen and Oxygen in the air is cooler. --

I disagree with that. The mental picture I have is a 1" square on the earth, and all the atmosphere that bears down on it on account of gravity holding the atmosphere to the earth. I picture a totally calm atmosphere for this, no weather. This is often imaged or imagined as a 1" square column of air, 50 miles tall, weighing about 14.7 pounds. Density of the column goes from dense to not very dense, the farther away one gets from the surface.

That column has a fixed mass, yes? So if the atmosphere was gone (no mass of air), and we used a block of steel about 52" tall, we'd have the same 14.7 pounds bearing on the 1" square. Or going the other way, we can imagine the column of atmosphere hotter and occupy more volume (taller, since we're constraining the column to a 1" square section), and as long as that column weighs 14.7 pounds, the pressure on the earth is the same.

I know that simplifies things, because the effect of gravity (and hence force due to mass) is diminished as one moves the objects farther apart. Given the actual mass concentration of atmosphere (a few miles thick is most of the mass), compared with the diameter of the earth, the approximation is probably "close enough".

One more example, if the earth was more distant from the sun, all other things being equal, it would be colder. But even though T was lower, P would be the same, even if the atmosphere was liquid nitrogen of whatever depth that works out to, to get 14.7 PSI. The "atmosphereic pressure" varies with the mass of atmosphere, not with the temperature of atmosphere.

[TexasTransplant]

oh yeah... BUMP

[CutePuppy]

Here's the great collection of summaries (with links to the actual research publications) of scientific findings on "CO2 / greenhouse effect" theory of global warming / climate change:

17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change - NoTricksZone.com, [compiled] by Kenneth Richard, 2017 June 08

"[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts." — Allmendinger, 2017
"[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system's energy transfers." — Blaauw, 2017

"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." -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017

Interesting comments section as well.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Wonderful. That is music to my ears. Tuly.

I cant wait for the day AGW theory is exposed as the hoax it is.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

You completely lost me in the context of the article, with your saying the more massive the atmosphere, the hotter.

OK, I agree that is true. But that is not the point of the article. They did not focus on earths atmosphere being hotter than the moon.

The focus of the study was to try to explain why observed temperatures on all 6 planets and moons were observed to be increasing over the past decades. Their conclusion was that the atmospheric pressure was increasing on all 6 bodies, wether the atmosphere was thick and heavy here on earth or thin and light as on our moon.

The study found that increased atmospheric pressure was the cause of rising temperature on all 6 planets and moons. That has nothing to do with the relative density ov tne atmosphere on earth vs our moon.

Their conclusion was crystal clear. Increased atmospheric pressure on any celestial causes increased temperature. Period. It is that simple.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

The alaemists are doubling down the more the hoax is being exposed. They are desperate.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Well, great minds think alike. Lol

[Cboldt]

Did you read the study? I see no delta-P for any given body, and no delta-T over time, either.

Plus, as I argued, the only way to get increased pressure on a celestial body is to increase the mass of the atmosphere around that body.

Climate stability: Our semi-empirical model (Equations 4a, 10b and 11) suggests that, as long as the mean annual TOA solar flux and the total atmospheric mass of a planet are stationary, the equilibrium GMAT will remain stable. Inter-annual and decadal variations of global temperature forced by fluctuations of cloud cover, for example, are expected to be small compared to the magnitude of the background atmospheric warming because of strong negative feedbacks limiting the albedo changes. This implies a relatively stable climate for a planet such as Earth absent significant shifts in the total atmospheric mass and the planet's orbital distance to the Sun. ...

The presence of liquid water on the surface of a planet requires an air pressure greater than 612 Pa and an ambient temperature above 273.2 K. These conditions are provided by the planet's size and gravity, its distance to the Sun, and the mass of the atmosphere. Hence, the water oceans on Earth seem to be a thermodynamic consequence of particular physical conditions set by cosmic arrangements rather than an active controller of the global climate. Similarly, the hydrocarbon lakes on the surface of Titan [115,116] are the result of a high atmospheric pressure and an extremely cold environment found on that moon. Thus, our analysis did not reveal evidence for the existence of a feedback between planetary GMAT and a precipitable liquid solvent on the surface as predicted by the current climate theory. Consequently, the hypothesized runaway greenhouse, which requires a net positive feedback between global surface temperature and the atmospheric LW opacity controlled by water vapor [117], appears to be a model artifact rather than an actual physical possibility. Indeed, as illustrated in Figure 4, the hot temperature of Venus often cited as a product of a `runaway greenhouse' scenario [117,118] fits perfectly within the pressure- dependent climate continuum described by Equations (10b) and (11).

I feel obliged to repeat that I am not arguing that PV=nRT is invalid. Nor am I arguing that the study ignores adiabatic gas law. The point I am making is that the effect described by the study is not the effect one gets by running PV=nRT experiments, which hold "n" as a constant.