The whole thing is a diversion of human resources for purposes other than remediation of climate. It matters not,we cannot control solar output with dollars or prayer. It's a political issue and nothing but. I'm very sure the greenhouse gas theory was junk from day one and there is loads of science to support my thinking in that case.
IPCC Officially Erases The MWP
Posted on
October 1, 2013 by
stevengoddardIPCC participant Jay Overpeck said in his email to Professor Deming, “
We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
http://drtimball.com/
They have done just that, and renamed it the
Medieval Climate AnomalyNew paleoclimate reconstruction efforts since AR4 (Figure 5.7; Table 5.4; Table 5.A.1) have provided further insights into the characteristics of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA; Table 5.1)
almost all reconstructions agree that each 30-year (50-year) period from 1200 to 1899 was very likely colder in the NH than the 1983–2012 (1963–2012)
instrumental temperature.
FinalDraft_Chapter05.pdf
Greenhouse Gas Effect and the 2nd Law.
Posted on
May 15, 2011 by
Louis Hissink
John Ray posted an interesting comment today: Oddly, though, any comprehensive defence from Warmists against that view is very hard to find. They seem very much afraid of opening that can of worms. So it is mainly a subgroup of …
Continue reading →
Posted in
Climate,
Geophysics,
Plasma Universe
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas
Posted on
May 11, 2011 by
Louis Hissink
Hilton Ratcliffe (Astronomer Astrophysicist) writes: I had a most amazing, serendipitous meeting with Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria. He is a world authority on hydroponic culture, hydrology, and greenhouses. He acts as a consultant all over the …
Continue reading →
My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.” Posted in
Climate,
Science |
1 Comment
Earth Greenhouse Gas Fallacy
Posted on
April 24, 2011 by
Louis Hissink
Astronomer V.A. FIRSOFF’S OBJECTIONS Let us examine several other interesting problems with Sagan’s greenhouse theory. V.A.Firsoff, the British astronomer, raised the following objection to Sagan’s hypothesis:“Increasing the mass of the atmosphere (Venus has 91 Earth atmospheres) may intensifythe greenhouse effect, …
Continue reading →
Posted in
Climate,
Science
As I said previously, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, let along a greenhouse gas effect
Posted on
May 28, 2010 by
Louis Hissink
The Shattered Greenhouse – How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
Posted on
May 21, 2011 by
Louis Hissink
Helps to repeat this basic fact – there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect
Abstract
This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism is identified as a key aspect of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its original proposition by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.