We present results from a new critical review of the atmospheric Greenhouse (GH) concept. Three main problems are identified with the current GH theory. It is demonstrated that thermodynamic principles based on the Gas Law need be invoked to fully explain the Natural Greenhouse Effect. We show via a novel analysis of planetary climates in the solar system that the physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a new Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.
Recent studies revealed that Global Climate Models (GCMs) have significantly overestimated the Planet’s warming since 1979 failing to predict the observed halt of global temperature rise over the past 13 years. (e.g. McKitrick et al. 2010). No consensus currently exists as to why the warming trend ceased in 1998 despite a continued increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Moreover, the CO2-temperature relationship shows large inconsistencies across time scales. In addition, GCM projections heavily depend on positive feedbacks, while satellite observations indicate that the climate system is likely governed by strong negative feedbacks (Lindzen & Choi 2009; Spencer & Braswell 2010). At the same time, there is a mounting political pressure for Cap-and-Trade legislation and a global carbon tax, while scientists and entrepreneurs propose geo-engineering solutions to cool the Planet that involve large-scale physical manipulation of the upper atmosphere. This unsettling situation calls for a thorough reexamination of the present climate-change paradigm; hence the reason for this study.
It is quite scientific. The climate system is so very complex that attempts to analyse it scientifically can be no less than complex. This, I think, is the main issue. IMHO, the variables are really variables, numerous, mostly not unknowns but, in the global picture, impossible to quantify with any significant degree of accuracy.
Still no harm done in trying. This attempt has some hint of validity, seemingly much greater than the IPCC models, and it does cover some obvious deficiencies in the IPCC “science”.
- Sense and sensitivity (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Howler: Santer says ‘Never engage in science by assertion’ (junkscience.com)
- What Climategate 2.0 Says About The Prediction Of Multi-Decadal Regional Climate Change (pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com)
- Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard Blasts IPCC And Alarmists’ “Intellectual Bullying” (papundits.wordpress.com)