Breaking Climate Science News not to be missed.

[Derek]

I have just received the following email from Hans Schreuder.

To All,

I am delighted to present to you a scientific paper that illustrates how our atmosphere interacts with the Sun and
how the temperatures throughout the atmosphere as well as on the surface are
in perfect harmony with basic physics and the laws of thermodynamics.

Not only is our Earth's atmosphere and its ground temperature explained,
planet Venus is also shown to comply with the same laws of physics and thermodynamics.

Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect by Joseph Postma.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understa...Effect.pdf
alternatively:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/...Effect.pdf

Due to the size of the paper, 32 pages and over 600KB, I have only sent you the URL.

In scientific tradition comments are invited so that the paper can be presented for peer review in time to come.
Ad hominem comments will be ignored.

Posting of this paper on blogs is encouraged and any links to such blogs much appreciated so the author can take part in the discussions.

Best regards,

Hans Schreuder

[Richard111]

Many thanks for this Derek. That Joe Postma paper is perfect for the average layman. I have printed it out and added it to my coffee table collection.

Nice diagram. Waiting to see how you weave the M-B effect into later versions to show the miniscule effect of "backradiation" from "greenhouse" gases.

[Derek]

Thank you Richard111.

I think most reading the paper will realize the gravity of it's contents when they read Joe Poastma's description of the minus 18 degrees lie.

The minus 18 degrees lie is not a lie about the temperature at the top of the troposphere.
Everyone agrees that the (average, or mean weighted) temperature for earth's troposphere is -18 degrees Celsius.
The tropopause, or top of the troposphere, is far colder, -55C on "average".
The lie is about WHY, and WHERE (OR WOULD SUPPOSEDLY BE WITHOUT AN ATMOSPHERE / GREENHOUSE EFFECT) it is minus 18, and the processes causing it.
It is subtle, and seemingly must be a deliberate misdirect by AGW pseudo science.
"Misdirects" are rarely that good by accident, nor can they be maintained for decades as this "misdirect" has been,
without knowing support of the supporters, who must know it is a "misdirect", AND why.

There is, no greenhouse effect (GH effect), nor is such a "theory" needed to explain why the earth is hotter than it would otherwise be,
because "warmer than it would otherwise be" is a completely false Greenhouse effect theory premise in the first place.

In actual fact, the earth's surface is, on the lite side of the planet, cooler than it would be, without an atmosphere.
As the (very) basic and easily understandable real physics Joe Postma uses to describe, and the moon's lite side temperatures, so clearly demonstrate.

On the dark side of planet earth the near surface air temperatures ARE warmer than they would otherwise be without an atmosphere.
This is the retention of, released surface prior heating, and geothermal heat input, by clouds mostly, acting as a blanket.
A "blanket" that merely reduces the rate at which heat from earth's surface escapes to space.

The temperatures, when and where we observe them on the lite and the dark sides of the planet explained, without a GH effect at all.
AND,
Without resorting to meaningless "whole globe" averages for solar input. when only half the planet is permanently illuminated by our single sun.

Any "answers" (ie GH "theory") in earth's case derived from dividing solar input received by 4 (ie 1365.2W/m2 / 4 = 341.3W/m2) are obviously, equally meaningless.
Literally, maths can not determine the physics, maths can only describe the physics,
when applied correctly to a given situation.

Dividing the sun's power received at the top of the atmosphere*, by 4 is unphysical, it does not happen.
The starting point, at the top of the atmosphere" for GH "theory" is a meaningless, unphysical, and non existent "average".


* = No such thing exists, as the term "top of the atmosphere" as used by AGW because,
not all of the planet's atmosphere is illuminated at a quarter solar power permanently,
as required by the definition of the timeless power figure used, namely Watts per meter squared (W/m2).

[Richard111]

Quote:"Misdirects" are rarely that good by accident, nor can they be maintained for decades as this "misdirect" has been,
without knowing support of the supporters, who must know it is a "misdirect", AND why..

Exactly! Hence my loss of interest in commenting on the "science". I have reverted to "lurking" and prowl forums that tend to publish more strident arguments hoping to see some clues as to the source of the "misdirect".

Agenda 21, Sierra Club sort off stuff. The people pushing the money are pushing the agenda. What are they trying to achieve? (don't answer, very O/T !!! )

[Derek]

OK, as I think I now have a good handle on Joe Postma's paper and work,
does anyone have any questions related to the paper, that I may be able to help with.

[Climate Realist]

Could you PM me Joe Postma's e-mail?

I would like to ask him the question I e-mailled to Nasif Nahle.

It may be that my question is more in Joe's area of expertise than Nasif's field.

[Derek]

Hi All,
I will add this here, because I am not sure where else to add it.

A geyser is very hot, yet a mountain stream is very cold.
This seems to show that the earth's surface is cooled,
and that it is cooled well above the amount of solar input.

Today "we" are supposed to (only) view the earth as an object receiving solar input in space,
and that it is therefore at an equilibrium temperature, or trying to achieve such an equilibrium temperature.
In effect, "the physics" says,

Earth = + "X" HEAT = "Y" Temperature.

I think this is way too simplified, and misses the fact there is no equilibrium.
Earth's temperature is the result of a natural (robust) and complex system.
Any such complex system has numerous ups and downs, or rather pluses and minuses. The above view does not.

The latent heat removed from the earth's surface by the vapourisation of water is such a transport of positively viewed heat.
But this has an opposite.
The cold of rain transported back down is a negative at the earth's surface, to "neutralise" within the system heat.
The cold of rain being transported down is completely omitted in the above and presently dominant (consensus) view.
I also would contend that much of the latent heat movements upwards are also not in the present view (they are grossly underestimated / undervalued).
The difference between the omitted upwards latent heat transfer, and the cold brought down by rain would leave a large negative figure at the earth's surface.

What could explain this missing number?
I would suggest the ignored (and varying) geothermal input from the earth's hot and variable core.

My view would be, as a starting point, and assuming no equilibrium.

Earth = ("X1" solar input + "X2" geothermal input) - "Z" cold = "Y" temperature.

It is relatively easy to "see" that at the earth's surface "Z" cold could vary with the sum of ("X1" solar input + "X2" geothermal input),
mainly by the water cycle,
therefore an equilibrium is a misinterpretation of "the physics" always getting, and how, the "right answer" for the overall temperature of earth.

We know the right answer is, by means "we" understand or not, and that "we" take into account or not, an overall temperature of -18C for the object in space we call earth.
The assumption of an equilibrium ONLY related, or calculated, to solar input received by earth - that is one of our many mistakes at present.

4 is the answer, which does not mean 2+2 is THE sum.

[Derek]

Hi All,
The latest, and quite short PSI paper from Joe Postma.
Enjoy.