Another Independent Paper Confirms Slayer’s Debunk of Alarmist Greenhouse Effect

The paper can be found here: New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Pertinent quote:

Atmospheric back radiation and surface temperature: Since (according to Eq. 10b) the equilibrium GMAT of a planet is mainly determined by the TOA solar irradiance and surface atmospheric pressure, the down-welling LW radiation appears to be globally a product of the air temperature rather than a driver of the surface warming. In other words, on a planetary scale, the so-called back radiation is a consequence of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. This explains the broad variation in the size of the observed downwelling LW flux among celestial bodies irrespective of the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Therefore, a change in this thermal flux brought about by a shift in atmospheric LW emissivity cannot be expected to impact the global surface temperature.

Among other things, this is what the Slayers have said as well, long ago: the thermal energy in the atmosphere and the atmosphere’s radiation is a consequence of its temperature, not its cause! There’s no independent internal source of radiation in or from the atmosphere, therefore any such radiation from the atmosphere is a consequence, not a cause.  The Slayers had also pointed out long ago that atmospheric pressure and the temperature gradient is what determines near-surface-air temperature.  It is great to see our original work reproduced with mathematical rigor.

My approach has been to simply show the fundamentals of where things go wrong with the basis of climate alarm and its radiative greenhouse effect, because it is actually quite simple, and you learn some real physics and logic in the process!

The radiative greenhouse effect is finished.  Climate alarm and the brand of politics that supported it is finished.  Great work and kudos to the authors!

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Another Independent Paper Confirms Slayer’s Debunk of Alarmist Greenhouse Effect

  1. Pingback: The Guardian Just Noticed Greens are Losing the Climate Debate – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

  2. wildeco2014 says:

    Did the ‘slayers’ ever simply assert that the greenhouse effect is a product of atmospheric mass or describe the means by which a raised surface temperature could be caused by atmospheric mass?

  3. Yes. As simple as such a thing can be said in scientific language. Not as simple as your sentence. But yes.

  4. Except we don’t call that a greenhouse effect as a caveat.

  5. We debunked the radiative GHE of climate alarmism science, and then explained what you summarize but made the point throughout that this is not a GHE. We didn’t bother naming it anything. Oh, actually, I just called it an “atmosphere effect”.

  6. wildeco2014 says:

    That is what put me off the slayer viewpoint. The denial that there was a greenhouse effect and thus the implied denial that the enhanced surface temperature could be the product of atmospheric mass conducting and convecting within a gravitational field.
    For that reason I don’t think the slayers did enough to now claim any credit.

  7. Your belief that there should be something called a “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere is causing a problem in your comprehension of things. People are still using that term including Nikolov and Zeller but the term is quite imprecise, or totally imprecise. There is no a-priori that there should be something called a “greenhouse effect” that is present in an open atmosphere…no requirement whatsoever.
    In climate science and climate alarm, there is something called a greenhouse effect which when you look into it is a supposed mechanism due to radiation. The Slayers debunked this concept by pointing out how it violates thermodynamic law. Note that this supposed alarmist greenhouse effect is entirely different from Nikolov and Zellers greenhouse effect, and also how a real greenhouse’s actual greenhouse effect is yet again different from both previous. Therefore, this shows that the term “greenhouse effect” lacks any form of precision, and hence we recommended to dispense with it, or, clarify it by calling the climate alarm version a “radiative greenhouse effect”.
    Therefore “denying” a greenhouse effect is the rational position, since the term “greenhouse effect” can mean anything, and in this discussion alone has 3 different forms. A greenhouse effect is something that happens in a real greenhouse. The way that this real greenhouse effect functions is entirely a different phenomenon than the climate alarmist greenhouse effect (and Nikolov and Zellers is yet different again). This obfuscation of language has been part and parcel of the sophistry of alarmist reasoning.
    We quite directly showed that the near-surface air temperature must be warmer than any expected average temperature, with the reason being the gravitational field and atmospheric mass. There is no logical reason to call this a greenhouse effect, since this mechanism is not how a real greenhouse operates. We called it the atmosphere effect instead, since that at least refers to the actual object in question.

  8. Truthseeker says:

    Wildeco2014 it is just wrong to use the term “greenhouse” when discussing a planetary atmosphere.

    The term “greenhouse” is prejudicial and incorrect. It is prejudicial because it has been proven around the world by thousands of actual greenhouses that inside a greenhouse is warmer than outside of it. Therefore the term “greenhouse” immediately implies additional warmth when that term is communicated.

    It is incorrect because a greenhouse achieves that additional warmth by blocking the natural convection upwards of the air warmed by the surface which would otherwise rise and be replaced by cooler air. An actual greenhouse is a physical barrier not a radiative one. I can make an effective greenhouse out of cling film (plastic wrap) which does not block IR radiation to any significant degree.

    No free flowing gas blocks the convection of any other free flowing gas. Therefore no gas in a free flowing atmosphere acts like a greenhouse.

    Using the term “greenhouse” is prejudicial and incorrect which is why Joseph and the Slayers do not use it when describing what actually goes on with a planetary atmosphere. Stop using it.

  9. wildeco2014 says:

    The term ‘greenhouse effect’ is very apt for the mass induced phenomenon for two reasons.
    The surface temperature enhancement is a result of descending air in high pressure cells warming adiabatically.
    The descending air inhibits convection as does a greenhouse.
    It also dissipates clouds so as to let sunlight in as does the transparent greenhouse roof.
    That is where the slayers lost it IMHO.

  10. Firstly, the Slayer’s were the one of if not the first to talk about the adiabatic effect causing the lower atmosphere to be higher in temperature. So, we went right there, not lost, since we’re in-line with what you’re now advocating. This is not a greenhouse effect of a real greenhouse and it is not about stopping convection – repeat, the adiabatic effect is NOT about stopping convection.

    Secondly, a real greenhouse effect is what occurs in a real greenhouse, and this is not what the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarm was nor is it about an adiabatic effect, and so it is illogical to use the term “greenhouse effect” 1) for things that it is not, 2) for multiple different things at the same time. The adiabatic effect is not about inhibiting convection.

    Please see Truthseeker’s comment above and my previous. And thanks for confirming that the Slayers were in fact on target from the beginning. I hope your understanding of this has now been clarified.

  11. wildeco2014 says:

    Descending air under high pressure cells (half the atmosphere) does suppress convection.
    Just like the physical barrier of a greenhouse roof.

  12. But unlike the barrier of a greenhouse roof in its role of causing the interior to rise in temperature to match the solar insolation, that does not lead to a temperature increase of the lower atmosphere since neither N & Z, the Slayers, nor even climate alarm, require it to explain the lower atmospheric temperature. Hence, what you describe is not a greenhouse effect occurring and having effect in the atmosphere.

    There is no greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Time to break the addiction.

    It is not as if descending air presents an impenetrable physical barrier…there’s lots of room for molecules to move through, mix, etc.

    Not “just like the physical barrier of a greenhouse roof” at all.

    Gases are not like solids.

  13. wildeco2014 says:

    I don’t expect you to agree so I thank you for the opportunity to express my views on the matter.
    Others will be the final arbiter

  14. Carl says:

    “The radiative greenhouse effect is finished. Climate alarm and the brand of politics that supported it is finished.”
    If only. Both are alive and well within the minds of those who believe in it. Just read these position statements by the worlds leading climate “experts”
    1. Joint Science Academies Statement on Climate Change:
    2. Climate statement on behalf of 18 U.S.-based scientific associations:
    3. Climate change and scientific integrity, on behalf of 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences:
    4. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies paper on atmospheric CO₂:
    5. Climate Change Evidence & Causes. An Overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences:
    6. NASA Earth Observatory, Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle:

  15. Pingback: Another Independent Paper Confirms Slayer’s Debunk of Alarmist Greenhouse Effect | Principia Scientific International

  16. “There is no such thing as a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere”.

    This is how I now start any conversation on the subject. I continue with “so CO2 can’t cause it to ‘runaway’ anywhere with your ‘global warming’

  17. Truthseeker says:


    You say in your post …

    “The Slayers had also pointed out long ago that atmospheric pressure and the temperature gradient is what determines near-surface-air temperature. It is great to see our original work reproduced with mathematical rigour.”

    Can you point to the specific article where this was first made public?

    John Warby

  18. wildeco2014 says:

    A denser descending gas will inhibit upward convection of less dense rising gas. That is why surfaces become hot under high pressure cells.
    Additionally that warming descending dry air dissipates condensation which is why there are usually clear skies under high pressure.
    All well known meteorology.
    The greenhouse analogy was initially coined for the mass related phenomenon many decades ago and is very apt.
    The radiative theorists simply hijacked the term.
    The slayers then denied any greenhouse effect at all which was an error.
    As far as I know the slayers have never propounded any mechanism whereby the observed surface warmth could be caused by atmospheric mass.

  19. @wildeco2014 2017/06/02 at 9:52 pm

    I disagree for the logical rational reasons related to the physical conditions as explained. Nothing needs to be arbitrated. All the concepts and conditions which you have brought up demonstrate that there is no greenhouse effect in the open atmosphere.

  20. @Truthseeker

    Hans Jelbring had this paper from 2003: H. Jelbring, “The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass,” Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 2 & 3, 2003. He was an original Slayer.

    I also explained it in several papers: (2011, pg 18) (2011, pg 15) (2012, pg 7)

    That being said, N & Z’s analysis is much more mathematically grounded and completes the paradigm shift where a new robust model replaces the old one, whereas my approach was more about demonstrating that the RGHE is wrong and that there are basic alternative considerations which need to be made, such as the lapse rate and “atmosphere effect”, etc. I demonstrated how to derive the wet lapse rate after deriving the dry rate, for example.

    People would always say to us: “If you have debunked the radiative greenhouse effect, then where’s your replacement model!?”

    My response was always that we do not need to demonstrate a complete replacement model or any replacement model at all in order for people to understand that the RGHE and climate alarm based on it are totally wrong and need to be abandoned, but, we did indeed provide the basics for a replacement model to be developed later which would have to include such things as the lapse rate caused by gravity and atmospheric mass, and for real-time modelling the actual insolation instead of averaged insolation, etc.

  21. No, wildeco2014 (2017/06/03 at 5:25 pm), the Slayers debunked the radiative greenhouse effect of climate alarmism. Please stop trying to change history and accuse the Slayers of things we never did or said, as has been explained to you with the several previous replies to you. And also see this reply again, which covers your similar commentary, again.

  22. Allen Eltor says:

    Wildeco the atmosphere doesn’t function as a green house. A green house is a solid object that allows one class of energy to pass – photonic – and stops another type: kinetic.

    When the electromagnetic energy that was packaged as visible or otherwise, free radiant photonic energy is entangled and resonates with electrons, the electrons’ enhanced energy load creates rise due to their altered mass/energy relationship.

    It’s the fact the electromagnetic energy – photonic energy when it’s in free flight – is tied to the electrons that stops it from leaving.

    The atmosphere on the other hand is a cold bath of turbulent, compressible fluids.

    The nitrogen oxygen atmosphere is a cold fluid bath: sapping energy from the surface from contact with it. The overall atmosphere is a cold bath: not a hot box.

    There’s nothing about it that traps heat. In fact – it’s the green house gases, that CREATE the largest contribution to convection. Water pulls more heat from the surface than other gases by a factor of about half again as much.

    Again Wildeco: a freezing cold thermally conductive, heat robbing bath,

    creating the mode of cooling named conduction due to it’s existence,

    is not a heat trapping box.

    Even if some of the heat in the bath lingers longer
    than if the bath were the perfect conductor –

    the amount of energy on the planet at any given instant, is drastically smaller than it would be,

    without the main body of frigid, turbulent, compressed nitrogen/oxygen – with it’s own light blocking properties -remember daylight blue-sky conditions overhead? That’s the light scattering COOLING of the oxygen being there.

    Ok that light scattering is also done by the green house gases, on a many, many times larger scale. In fact – a green house, traps light near an object that is entangled on and resonant with electrons of gas molecules right?

    Ok – the green house gases – are responsible for scattering – losing to space so it never reaches earth – 20% of total available sunlight.

    This scattering occurs, before the light is even able to REACH Earth.

    It refracts the light diminishing the amount reaching the surface,

    and a small portion of it thermalizes. Not much: the overwhelming effect is that well known ‘scattered reflection’ effect that would BE reflection if the light scattered evenly.

    Reflection and refraction, both have a minor thermalized loss. The overwhelming effect is re-emission without thermalization:

    refracted light loses it’s coherence-
    reflected light has the light leave very closely aligned molecular facets: so it leaves the surface, ordered much like the way it arrived. The molecules, painted onto a pane of glass, have facets aligned very tightly – very flat. This light is not refracted: it’s reflected.

    Stopping light from ever reaching a rock is not, making more heat reside on the rock overall.

    Putting a box over a rock is in fact making more heat reside in, on the rock, overall. When the rock is in the green house, a thermal sensor shows more energy leaving the rock,

    when the rock has refractive insulation stop 20% of the energy to it, that is not causing sensors to show more energy arriving nor can it possibly show more leaving. As much as your ”Green House Gas Warming Exists” church claims.

    There is no such thing as a ”green house effect” working around a can of beer in a cooler when water – a green house gas, -many degrees colder than the beer – just as the overall atmosphere and green house gases that comprise part of it are many degrees colder than the earth.

    That’s not ”Green House Gaissiness in action warming our beer, Uncle Eugene,”

    when the bath of cold turbulent fluids is washing more heat off the beer than when the bath isn’t there.

    No cold bath of cold water incompressible fluid
    turbulently washing heat from beer: hot beer.

    No cold bath of nitrogen/oxygen compressible fluids
    turbulently washing heat from Earth: hotter Earth.

    Addition of light refracting media into bath of cold water around beer = less light reaching beer
    = colder beer.

    Addition of light refracting media into bath of cold compressible nitrogen/oxygen bath = less light

    reaching yon rocky planet. = colder planet.

    None of this – none of it at all – implies any form of warming

    due to any gases being present

    including and most especially the green house gases.

    The Green House Gases not only STOP – by FAR – the MOST light from ever ARRIVING-


    Green House parts do not create said phase change refrigeration
    of the overall air bath inside the green house.

    No part of this resembles a warming apparatus.

    If you care to claim you see magical warming, then

    you answer this question for me so we can all check your sanity:





    When insulation is placed between the fire
    and the rock
    so less firelight
    warms the rock,

    the sensor will show –
    more and MORE firelight leaving the rock,
    less and LESS firelight reach it,

    or, (in your world)

    as less and LESS firelight
    ever REACHES it
    more and MORE

    Tell me Wildeco. Why won’t any of you people

    ever answer even the most BASIC of questions

    about your quack-o-dynamics story?

    A class of gases stops 20% total energy from ever reaching a rock,
    it creates it’s own unique phase change refrigeration cycle
    for the cold bath of compressible fluids it’s part of,

    but – Oh ! It’s a HEATER ! It’s HOT it’s makin my head HOT!

    If you still claim you believe green house gases warm the rock

    they stop 20% total energy from ever even reaching,

    and that they subsequently set up a

    phase change refrigeration system within the cold bath

    they help conduction strip

    heat from the rock –

    the one they stopped 20% energy from ever even arriving at –

    I don’t believe you.

    I think you’re willingly claiming

    SIMPLY because it HELPS YOU and/or YOUR FAMILY
    pretending to TEACH it

  23. Allen Eltor says:

    LoL I’m constantly writing these long posts, and hitting enter before cleaning them up it’s shameful!

    But what’s really shameful

    is being a grown man

    who has to be told repeatedly that a cold fluid bath isn’t a heater.

    And that the refrigeration system for the bath, isn’t the heating element of the magical heater.

    The grammar thing’s just a matter of careless editing: a few words gone here and there doesn’t change the fact,

    that there are adult human beings swearing on actual degrees in math and physics

    that a cold fluid bath
    of thermally conductive fluid
    is a heater.
    And that the light blocking insulation
    making less light get through the bath
    to the light warmed rock,
    is making more and more light
    leak out of the rock,
    it’s making less
    ever get to.

    THAT – is what’s a CRYING SHAME.

  24. Indeed. And that’s much more succinct!

  25. I just want a cold beer now.

  26. Read all about it in our book, from November 2010: and before the book there was from November 2009 and before that there was a related essay debunking the role of human produced atmospheric carbon dioxide from September 2007.

  27. squid2112 says:

    wildeco2014 says:
    2017/06/03 at 5:25 PM
    A denser descending gas will inhibit upward convection of less dense rising gas.

    Still nothing like a “greenhouse” … the open atmosphere, under all conditions still has mixing, but vertically and horizontally. A “greenhouse” has none of this.

    There is absolutely no phenomena within our atmosphere that mimics the characteristics of an actual “greenhouse”. Joseph and the Slayers are exactly 100% correct on this point. Why people like you insist on clinging to this falsehood can only be explained one way .. SOPHISTRY! .. You are actively attempting to deceive others. There is no other explanation.

  28. P. S. Clark says:

    Denser cooled dry gases descending and somehow blocking convective upcasting of warmed and lighter humid air from the Tropical oceans which are 75 percent of the globe? Where do you wildeco2014 think your cold air which has condensed its moisture content and radiated its energy out to space returns to the surface? Yes, it’s now heavier in density but it has already travelled away from the area from which it originally upcasted.

  29. I started a Facebook page a few weeks ago to address the Greenhouse Effect myth and the economics and politics that surround it. It’s designed to educate lay persons like myself. I credit Joseph in quite a few posts as mostly I’m just taking what I’ve learned from him and trying to make sure anyone can understand it.

    Have a look and give feedback if you can. If doing a good job and you use Facebook then obviously pleas like and share so more people have a chance of seeing it

  30. Max™ says:

    I can personally find posts from 2012 on various forums where I was being dismissed and mocked when I pointed out that “long tube containing a column of gas in zero gravity will tend to spread out evenly, if there is an energy input at one end and a rocket at the other, upon firing the rocket you should get some change in the distribution of gas in the tube, with a certain profile, and the more densely packed end of the tube will end up warmer due to the the accelerated gas being compressed against the ‘bottom’ end” and it was treated as if I was saying “dude there is something pumping the atmosphere with a big bike pump and that makes it hot cause pressure=hot” because beliefs are awful things.

    I remember toying with the idea beforehand but never specifically phrased it like that until ~2012, and it wasn’t until 2014 that I started getting annoyed at seeing the ~480 W/m^2 input across the dayside artificially weakened because–again–beliefs are awful things.

  31. Rosco says:

    Am I wrong when I read that atmospheric density and pressure decreases with altitude ?

  32. Pingback: Average Temperature is Meaningless | Climate of Sophistry

  33. One thing I noticed in the Robinson Catling paper is that an assumption of a “Greenhouse Effect” is still put forward but is once again not defined or quantified. The authors conflate direct absorption properties of gasses with the Greenhouse Effect. I find this rather dishonest as their model is all to do with direct solar absorption acting on gasses in a gravitationally distributed column of atmosphere. Where for example is the “back radiation” on Jupiter? Where is it on Venus?

  34. P. S. Clark says:

    N & Z’s paper gets a tick from Occam’s Razor as the simplest option.

  35. gallopingcamel says:

    Thanks for giving Nikolov & Zeller some respect. I believe they are onto something although I sometimes disagree on details. For example we disagree about the effect that rotation has on the surface temperature of airless bodies:

    While many people have excellent models for the surface temperature of airless bodies there does not seem to be much that works well for bodies with atmospheres. The N&Z paper you cite works for surfaces but not at an arbitrary altitude.

    I am impressed by the model presented by Robinson and Catling here:

    Click to access Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf

    I tested their code here:

    Your comments would be appreciated.

  36. tom0mason says:

    @ gallopingcamel says:
    2017/07/02 at 12:35 AM

    One thing that irks me, and I see it all to often on blogs, is the thoughtless idea that IR (infra red radiation) is heat. It is not! It is merely a range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.
    Heat, as I understand it, is the vibrational action of matter, thus without matter there is no heat.
    The blog you refer to ( has many instances of commenters freely exchanging IR for heat and vise versa, surely they are all in error.

  37. gallopingcamel says:

    The major comments concerning my Titan post were made by Robert G. Brown an esteemed colleague for many years. However, you will note that we disagreed on some issues.

    Robert’s criticism was mainly based on thermodynamics with a little HITRAN thrown in. You will find Joesph Postma disagreeing with Robert in the video at the head of this thread on thermodynamic issues. While I can’t say flat out that Robert is wrong (as Joseph Postma does) it is encouraging to find I am not the only person who disagrees with him!

    When it comes to physics theory, I usually defer to Robert. However in this case the R&C numerical analysis corresponds very closely to what is observed while Robert’s theory does not, so I contend that his theory is wrong or misapplied.

  38. gallopingcamel says:

    @wickedwenchfan, 2017/07/01 at 7:22 PM
    “Where for example is the “back radiation” on Jupiter? Where is it on Venus?”

    On Venus the atmosphere is ~97% CO2 which means that radiation around 15 microns is strongly absorbed in the stratosphere despite the low pressure. Thus radiation provides a means to distribute energy throughout the stratosphere leading to an anomalous (negative) lapse rate. Using the R&C model you can vary the gas composition. If you replace the Venusian CO2 with nitrogen, the R&C model says the surface temperature will change by less than 10 K but the lapse rate in the stratosphere will become positive. So much for the myth that CO2 caused a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” on Venus.

    You should not be surprised by this given that Carl Sagan predicted it in 1968 when he made a correction to an earlier paper based on the realization that the Cp of gases is somewhat pressure dependent:…152.1119S

    Jupiter is an interesting case because the probe data is an excellent match for the R&C model with “alpha” set to equal 1. This means the R&C model works on Jupiter with no fiddle factors at all!

  39. I have no problem with their model, I have a problem with them saying that their model has anything whatsoever to do with the Greenhouse Effect. Something that they do repeatedly in their paper.

  40. I also have a serious gripe with Carl Sagan’s ethics, for saying that not only was the surface temperature due to “a runaway greenhouse effect” on his show Cosmos (he was the person who introduced the concept), but also the surface pressure was due to it as well. It was that comment by him when I googled his show to prove to a “denier” that the global warming was due to man, that caused me to become a “denier” myself. Another childhood hero down in flames!

  41. On Venus re Sagan

  42. gallopingcamel says:

    “Another childhood hero down in flames!”
    I feel your pain!

    It is a shame that Carl Sagan bought the James Hansen myth of a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” before he did the Cosmos series. However that does not invalidate Sagan’s early work on Venus.

    In spite of its faults I am still a big fan of Sagan’s Cosmos, so I was hoping Neil deGrasse Tyson would set things straight. Instead he was much worse especially on the issue of “Climate Change”. What a wasted opportunity……..almost as bad as Bill Nye the non-science (nonsense) guy.

  43. I can’t be so forgiving. Saying the CO2 concentration on Venus caused the temperature is one thing and it’s bad enough. Saying it caused the surface pressure as well I can’t see as anything other than a deliberate fraud. Which then gets you to asking what else did he push in the show? Certainly De Grase Tyson is much less subtle in the dogma he pushes, but maybe that’s only because I’m an adult now. I was 11 when Sagan’s show came out and I simply took everything he said as gospel at the time.

  44. gallopingcamel says:

    ” I have a problem with them saying that their model has anything whatsoever to do with the Greenhouse Effect.”

    A sad commentary on the realities of scientific research today. I spent 12 years feeding at the federal government’s research trough so I understand what it is like to “sing for your supper” and to “go along to get along”. I respect people like Nikolov & Zeller but it never crossed my mind to display their kind of courage when seeking to be published or funded.

    I know Tyler Robinson personally and David Catling through correspondence. They have my respect for the excellent work they do but they are not about to pick a fight with the “Climate Mafia”. To illustrate this point here is a slide presentation that is mostly R&C:

    Click to access Catling.pdf

    Slide 35 is a piece of James Hansen BS from this paper:

  45. “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.”

  46. Brett Keane says:

    I would like to thank the original Slayers and others who brought us back to gas physics. My eyes were opened after they caused me to re-open my physics textbooks, and think real hard, along with a lot of discussion on Tallblokes Blog, PSI etc.. In time I learnt Maxwell had it figured in ‘Theory of heat’ too (gas laws and Poisson relation, H/Schtick). Things are happening fast now, and Mann faces jail for contempt. The structure crumbles and I might live to see it go, even. Good on you all.

  47. Pingback: Nikolov and Zeller Math Backs Greenhouse Gas Theory Debunk | PSI Intl

  48. Concerning Nikolov and Zeller’s paper. It is great to realize that our atmosphere’s temperature is not only influenced by our Sun’s solar irradiance but it is also influenced by a P-T relation as Nikolov and Zeller show.

    What they failed to realize is that P-T relations cannot be explained by traditional thermodynamics and this is why they never explained the mechanism for increasing temperature with pressure. The mechanism has been written by me and published in peer review i.e. my rewriting of kinetic theory [1,2] .

    In order to understand why P-T relations exist is required is the understanding that intermolecular collisions are not elastic as is traditionally heralded i.e. entropy based ensembles (statistical) are wrongly based upon elastic collisions. Specifically, inelastic intermolecular collisions mean that photons (thermal?) are a result of the collisions in order to maintain the first law of thermodynamics (AKA conservation of energy).

    Accordingly higher pressure means and/or:
    1) More collisions hence more thermal energy
    2) More energetic collisions hence more thermal energy

    Of course the more thermal energy/radiation results in higher temperatures.

    1) Mayhew, K.W.,“A new perspective for kinetic theory and heat capacity”. Prog. In Phys vol 13 issue 3 2017
    2) Mayhew, K.W.,“Kinetic Theory: Flatlining of Polyatomic Gases”. Prog. In Phys vol 14 issue 2 2018
    Links for above via internet:

    Specifically concerning climate change. Nikolov and Zeller are right in saying that climate change based upon greenhouse gases is not scientific. I agree but I also say this. Our atmosphere ois primarily diatomic gases which adsorb and re-radiated thermal energy as part of their vibrational energy. Now gases that are considered as greenhouse (i.e. CO2) do adsorb in the near infra red
    but the majority of what is considered as being heat/thermal infra-red is actually in the thermal infra-red. So like O2, N2 and other atmosphere gases CO2 all adsorb and re-radiate in the thermal infra-red.

    Point becomes that man’s contribution to heat from cars etc are located on Earth’s surface and the atmosphere as a whole acts as a thermal blanket. Moreover global warming is all about a few unnatural degrees measured on Earth’s surface and man’s contribution to this heat is created on the Earth’s surface!! Accordingly even though man’s contribution in a yr equates to the solar input in 1.5 hrs (at top of atmosphere), all models do not take into account that the haet from man is generated at the same location as measured climate change, and the fact that the whole atmosphere is a thermal blanket.

    Kent Mayhew

  49. Barry bartzen says:

    What a great website and wonderful youtubes I now am semi retired and have more time to follow the debunking of the whole climate change hoax. I’ve always equated ghg to a greenhouse blanket not a greenhouse shielding us from the intensity of incoming sunshine and slowing the release of the trapped heat . When you look at the moon that is equal distance from the sun but less an atmosphere it would seem that the sun indeed has a lot more than -18 to offer.

    Thank you so much for all your wonderful explanations, I will be watching all of your youtubes as time permits . Keep up the great work

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s