The new paper is published on arXiv and the link page can be found here. PDF here:
A Note on Fourier and the Greenhouse Effect
The False Basis of Climate Alarm
“In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct, beyond all need of checking, is the mistake.”
-Finagle’s 3rd Law
Theories have foundations, starting points, or pillars upon which everything else is dependent. These are called “axioms”. From Wiki:
“An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning.”
The paradigm of Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarm (ACCA) depends specifically, and singularly, on a mechanism called the “radiative greenhouse effect”.
Also from Wiki on axioms:
“As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.”
This is the attitude and approach taken by climate alarmists and the entire field of climate science to its postulate of a radiative greenhouse effect. But in fact, the (radiative) greenhouse effect of climate science is not how an actual greenhouse functions, and, their new definition of the phrase “greenhouse effect” contradicts the traditional meaning of the term greenhouse effect as it exists in an actual greenhouse. The thing is, a real greenhouse should function by the new mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science, but, it doesn’t. And if the mechanism doesn’t exist in a real greenhouse, where it should exist, then it can’t exist in the atmosphere either since the laws of physics are universal.
There is something wrong with the following diagram and its blurb. Can you spot it?
“…the top layer of the atmosphere must emit 239.7 W/m2 of infrared radiation to space (same amount of solar radiation that enters the atmosphere: what goes in must go out). The bottom layer of the atmosphere will emit an equal amount downward to the surface of the planet. Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law: constant x T4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.” From http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
The answer is in the paper.
“Once you have assumed the wrong ontology and epistemology, everything you subsequently say is automatically in error.”
–Hockney, Mike (2015-06-02). The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28) (Kindle Locations 655-656). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.
Do you want to take down scientific materialism, the scientific anti-philosophical paradigm? Do you want philosophy to use mathematics and physics better than science can, and to make philosophy once more reign supreme in intellectualism and to assert its supremacy over science? Perhaps something more current, more part of the social zeitgeist, will help. Unless you have an event more interesting.
By the by, anyone who’s educated enough and has enough intellectual merit can publish articles on the “History and Philosophy of Science” section of arXiv, hosted at Cornell University Library. It would be nice to see it populated with a certain ontological class of philosophy papers analyzing the myriad paradoxes and inconsistencies of modern science.
******
As it turns out, my own thermodynamics partial differential equations professor outlined the same fundamental error of climate science and its greenhouse effect over 10 years ago, and wrote about it in his book!
Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming
It’s no wonder he discovered the problem too, given that he taught me the Fourier mathematics I myself used to confirm that there is indeed a fundamental, irreducible, fatal error at the very basis of climate alarm, thereby rendering climate alarm totally wrong from the very ground up! Great stuff!
BTW, this is my old professor’s take on the situation, after discussing it with him today:
Me:
“Don’t you think the situation is a little insane? That the fundamentals can be totally, and even obviously and very simply wrong, yet they continue on and ignore such fundamental criticism? Doesn’t this say something about the health of science, or about a fundamental problem with it? It’s bizarro land.
They say it is about social justice…but how is wanting to make the weather more equal about social justice?!
There is a real problem at work here.”
Dr. Essex:
“I have been at this for more than 30 years. I got to madness as a conclusion long ago. But now I have accepted that humans are inherently limited. On technical subjects they may be able to be much smarter than they are in practice, but they are so very distracted that they cannot think about even simple things despite their potential. This is the only subject I know of where the subject matter is out of bounds to any debate about the topic. On things like this people behave like drunks whose ignorance is above .08 but there is no social pressure to make them refrain from driving. To the contrary they insist on driving. It would not be so bad if they would just sit things out, but here we are listening to all manner of benighted fools in positions of power or authority pontificating about what they know nothing about, from journalists to academics and politicians, while simultaneously working to silence anyone who tries to push the actual subject matter into the discussion.”
Climate of Sophistry 
What’s wrong with the diagram & blurb? How about everything.
The principal error is double counting, what is emitted from the surface IS what’s emitted from the atmosphere to space – is the same ‘lot’ of energy. The atmosphere cannot magic up another 239.7 whatevers out of thin air!
As it turns out, my own thermodynamics partial differential equations professor outlined the same fundamental error of climate science and its greenhouse effect over 10 years ago, and wrote about it in his book!
Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming
It’s no wonder he discovered the problem too, given that he taught me the Fourier mathematics I myself used to confirm that there is indeed a fundamental, irreducible, fatal error at the very basis of climate alarm, thereby rendering climate alarm totally wrong from the very ground up! Great stuff!
BTW, this is my old professor’s take on the situation, after discussing it with him today:
Me:
Dr. Essex:
Oh man … AWESOME paper Joseph!!! … I am so glad you are doing more writing on this subject!
Keep up that GREAT work Joseph! … Super!
Thanks Joe, you are a TRUE MEGA STAR!!!
When will the so-called skeptics realise that they have been barking up the wrong tree?
Pingback: New Paper on the Radiative Greenhouse Effect | ajmarciniak
Good essay today. Thanks.
It is nice to document how easy it is to see the problem and have that documentation published on the net for the generations to come. Someday, mother nature will prove beyond any doubt that CO2 is not warming the planet — and when that happens many are going to claim that there was no way to know that. But there was. There is.
Brilliant as always! This new paper illustrates why Joe Postma’s analysis forms the backbone of much of the science we promote at Principia Scientific International refuting the so-called greenhouse gas ‘theory.’
Many thanks Joe!
Just now got a chance to read the linked pdf of the paper. Absolutely great.
[JP: snip…Quokka, a cooler blackbody beside a warmer blackbody does not heat the warmer blackbody hence does not raise its temperature. This is about the basic definition of heat. The outer wall does not lose energy to the interior, only to the exterior, so it is not emitting twice as much energy as it gets. No more comments allowed here with the sophistry that a blackbody has to absorb all frequencies and thus will be heated by a cooler object…because that simple definition is too simple, thus allowing sophistry, and is simply not true, because you have to also apply the laws of heat transfer. Cool does not transfer heat energy to hot. And in any case, Fourier and de Saussure already demonstrated the results 200 years ago.]
Actually yes, thanks Quokka the one comment about adding the energies the other way was helpful. Shouldn’t have snipped that part but oh well.
Here is the updated diagram:
Of course it doesn’t change the findings or conclusion of the paper. The paper has been updated on arXiv too…or will be once the update gets through their system. Thanks for the help. Always nice when a review correction still makes the same point!
Pingback: The Thermodynamic Mind | Climate of Sophistry
The point to understand here is that at no point can the power being expressed inside the device exceed that of the input power source to the device itself. Only the insulative scenario is true, valid, reality.
Excellent. The “greenhouse effect” proponents cannot even get their story straight. Mostly they claim back radiation equals incoming solar radiation (e.g. the Boston University statement), but when, convection, evaporation and the atmospheric window are taken into account, KT have back radiation approximately twice the incoming solar radiation.
Pingback: Leibniz & the Human Mind | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Mental Boundary Conditions | Climate of Sophistry
What I find amazing is that the only thing all of the models prove is that the people who subscribe to them can add up – something I learnt to do in Grade 1.
The inescapable conclusion from all of these models is that the “heating power” of the solar radiation is equivalent to the “heating power” of the atmospheric back radiation.
And that claim is patently absurd !
I conducted a simple experiment to illustrate just how absurd that claim is.
At about 7:am on June 20 I used a small magnifying glass to start a fire on a piece of exposed timber. It took about 2 minutes before it began to smoulder.
At that time the incident solar radiation normal to the surface is of the order of ~300 W/sqm.
Obviously no method of concentrating atmospheric back radiation can achieve this result.
Surely that on its own exposes the absurdity of the whole hypothesis ?
Yes exactly. If you can put a magnifying glass under their average power sun and light a fire, why can’t you put a magnifying glass in IR from ice and light a fire? These people represent the absolute worst failure of science.
I’ve been doing some reading on back radiation and found this…
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
The portion of the article that was of interest to me was the last two paragraphs which claims to explain why there isn’t a perpetual build up of energy/heat with back radiation. There is also a seemingly more complicated visualization provided that looks different than the one I’ve seen you use here. Is this a newer approach by “warming mongers” or just the same old thing? I can’t tell. Hope you can help make sense of this.
“Why doesn’t the natural greenhouse effect cause a runaway increase in surface temperature? Remember that the amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than its temperature rises—outgoing energy increases with the fourth power of temperature. As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow, then, is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).
Some of the heat escapes directly to space, and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earth’s distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
I have a question for Rosco, concerning his last post.
The magnifying glass obviously would have no effect on a cloudy day, or at night when dark.
From your reply, i get the simple maths of, atmosphere amplifying the sun’s radiation by 100%.
So ergo no sun, either cloud or darkness, the magnifying glass should still work if back radiation had any foot in reality, in other words on a cloudy day, it should just take twice as long to smoulder the paper as it is only getting half the imput if the GHGE theory, really existed.
I am a layman Rosco that retort may be so simplistic as to be sophistical, but the people i debate are laymen, would you or any of the good folk here frame this simplistic argument/retort better than i have.
The reason i ask is in anticipation of the sophistry i will recieve when i publish Joseph’s post and paper to my local facebook political group, i am lucky the local government flunkies and ministers that use the group regularly are george monbiot/skeptical science/IPCC parrots, it sickens me in to the bottom of my stomach that these people have the power to tax me at will, their own will, because their intuitive rationale hooked them into climate alarm so firmly, that they dont even realise how well hooked they are, they are obsessed by authority, and simply handwave away any point made against what is akin to a religious belief system, i am sure one or 2 of them would jail ordinary people like me, who believe and say the sun heats the earth just fine all on its own, they get bent so out of shape about it, i used to think they were just political sophists, doing what political sophists do, and some of it may be that, but mostly its much deeper than that, lucky enough its a small island and i’m a well known big bloke, i just tell them we will be discussing it in person face to face within 10 minutes if they step to far out of line.,
See Joseph your professor was right, it is to complicated to grasp, simple ways to explain the absurdity are what i need, framed correctly.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOMNewspolitics/permalink/846025925504136/
Appreciate the effort Gary, but I am sorry for the onslaught this is going to cost you. I should have stopped you from doing it.
It doesn’t matter what you say or do – no one is interested. People are interested in hearing themselves only, that’s it.
Given what you linked, it might be better to try to get people onto Ontological Mathematics via this fellow: http://www.amazon.com/Mike-Hockney/e/B004KHR7DC
Thanks, chin up m8, dont give up on people, keep doing what you do, its only a matter of time, you will still be alive to see ‘climate change’ crash and burn, i wont, keep chipping away at them.
Pingback: How a Magnifying Glass DEBUNKED Climate Alarm | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: The Ducks | Climate of Sophistry