Below is todays email to Australian politicians and others. Dear Prime Minister, MPs, Senators, Climate Council and media representatives I was privileged whilst studying physics at Sydney University (from 1963 to 1967 inclusive) to attend lectures by Profs Harry Messel, Werner Von Braun and notably Julius Sumner Miller who encouraged us to ask Why is it so? Subsequently, over the course of five decades helping students to understand physics, I have often asked the question, because you learn best what you think about best. In these last four or five years I have spent thousands of hours studying and thinking about atmospheric physics and comparing it with the pseudo physics from which has been built the greenhouse conjecture. My ground-breaking work is published in a paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and my book Why Its Not Carbon Dioxide After All and below is a summary of what valid physics tells us about Earth (and the Solar System) and what went wrong in the minds of climatologists. What is always glossed over is the fact that, around 1981, Hansen and Co (maybe NASA also) must have realised that the mere 161W/m^2 of direct solar radiation cannot possibly raise the surface temperature to what it is: it could only raise an Earth covered in black asphalt (emissivity 0.93) to about 50 degrees less than observed temperatures. So, ignoring the real reason (the gravito-thermal effect) they got the idea that back radiation from water vapour and carbon dioxide etc must be helping the Sun to warm the surface. The only trouble was that a realistic estimate wasnt enough. Hence they made the figures so large that the atmosphere is supposedly delivering far more energy out of its base and into the surface than it is receiving at its top, even including the 30% it reflects straight back to space. But wait, theres less. Even if there really were all that radiation not just striking the surface but having its electro-magnetic energy all converted to thermal energy (which would decrease entropy and thus violate the laws of physics) we do know that most of it passes straight through the thin surface layers of the ocean, being absorbed down in the somewhat colder regions of the ocean thermocline. Hence, what is absorbed down there is not affecting the ocean surface temperature in the regions where most of us live. Yet there is a local maximum temperature at the ocean surface where its warmer than below and warmer than above. Only the gravito-thermal effect with its downward convection (what I called in my book heat creep up the temperature gradient) during the sunlit hours can explain that maximum at the surface. The world has been cooling very slightly since 1998 because there is a 60 year natural cycle (now declining for 30 years) superimposed on a 1,000 year cycle which may still rise about half a degree over the next 100 years, but then decline for 500 years. These are natural cycles and all that all the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere does is to cool by about 0.1 degree. Fortunately the water vapour cools by about 12 degrees - the complete opposite of what climatologists claim, but a fact I have proven both theoretically and from empirical evidence.
Posted on: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 02:54:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015