A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect

“A contextual flaw underlying the interpretation of a back-radiative greenhouse effect is identified. Real-time empirical data from a climate measurement station is used to observe the influence of the “greenhouse effect” on the temperature profiles. The conservation of heat energy ordinary differential equation with the inclusion of the “greenhouse effect” is developed, which informs us of the temperature profile we expect to see when a “greenhouse effect” is present. No “greenhouse effect” is observed in the measured data. The latent heats of H2O are identified as the only real heat-trapping phenomenon and are modelled. A discussion on the existence of universal principles is used to explain why simplistic arguments cannot be used as justification for the greenhouse effect.”



4 thoughts on “A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect

  1. Larsed
    #1: WV is not a greenhouse gas – WV makes nigh temp warmer / but day temp cooler BUT WV has given the inspiration for CO2 theory that is a greenhouse gas.

    #2: normal ”greenhouse” has solid roof, for trapping the heat; CO2 is only 270-450ppm – if a farmer was building a greenhouse and put a fishnet or a postage stamp as a roof -> neighbors would have called the man with the straitjacket.
    There is NO ‘global” warming and will not be one in 100 years from now; proven beyond any reasonable doubt – if you are interested in real proofs, read every sentence of it – otherwise: both emperors are naked: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Using another blog as a source, isn’t really a source at all. And I did not search the blog for wherever in that long paper, in the blog, the graph you ahve here is, since I do not have the time to look through a source, for a real soruce for the information. But, based on the measurments by NASA, it is wrong. Well, actually, no, it is not wrong, but you have taken the average of 5 months and divided it by 12 (only looked on the 2015 data, not the other years) and then you get 0,3. That means, that if you measure the rest of the year as normal, and this isn’t a trend for the whole year, it is correct. But then again, that is the incorrect menthod to measure the average temperature for 5 months. So if plus together the 5 months, and divide by 5, you get above 7,6. Way above your scale.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s