Greenhouse-Gas Theory Dissipates

In Nasif S. Nahle’s “Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse”, at Biology Cabinet Online, he demonstrates:

that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the building, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.

See, at Climate Realists,  John O’Sullivan’s “Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment”:

Results mean epic fail for doom-saying cult and climate taxes.

Professor Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico, backed by a team of international scientists, has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.
Astonishingly, the 1909 greenhouse gas experiment first performed by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University hadn’t been replicated for a century.  This despite over $100 billion spent by the man-made global warming industry trying to prove its case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous atmospheric pollutant.
The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO₂) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.
At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along.  After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained, i.e., as in this case, a lab flask.

UPDATE I (6 August):  See also John O’Sullivan’s “New NASA Satellite Data Study Undermines Greenhouse Gas Effect”, and UPDATE II (26 December) see his Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed as Dissenters Build Compelling Case.

Greenhouse-Gas Theory Discredited, II

John O’Sullivan, on his own site, has “Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps”:

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess.  But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind the man-made global warming new research shows the numbers were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

The Risk of CAGW Is So Low

Dr. Alan Carlin, one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s senior research analysts, has determined that the low risk of CAGW means “that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it”;  see “A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change”, in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health:

Economic analyses of environmental mitigation and other interdisciplinary public policy issues can be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower-cost alternatives to the change proposed.  These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses [...].

The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geo-engineering.  [...]

According to Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4 report all the IPCC climate models predict that there should be a hot spot in the upper troposphere about 5–12 km above the Earth’s surface in the tropics caused by increased evaporation from warmer oceans leading to the accumulation of higher concentrations of water vapor in the upper troposphere [...].  The feedback creates the hotspot and is responsible for much of the temperature rises predicted by the IPCC models.  If non-water vapour greenhouse gases are significantly warming the Earth, the first signs of it are supposed to appear above the tropics.  Since no such hotspot has been found, the models and therefore the UN’s hypothesis concerning feedback are wrong.  [...]

Although it is not always necessary for environmental economists to understand the physical science aspects of the proposed environmental control measures proposed and to determine whether there may be lower-cost means to achieve the benefits desired from the proposed mitigation, it certainly never does any harm and in most cases involving multidisciplinary issues it is vital if economists are to provide realistic and useful advice to decision makers.  Some may object that in this specialized world economists should leave such matters to physical scientists since it is believed that they will know more about them.  The danger, of course, is that economists may place their trust in physical scientists who are either not sufficiently knowledgeable or have a prior bias towards particular physical science hypotheses or mitigation methods to the exclusion of others.  What is needed on the part of economists is an inquiring and open mind, insistence on use of the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and technical curiosity so as to determine whether there may be lower cost or more efficient alternative methods to achieve whatever the environmental control measures they are evaluating are supposed to achieve.  Economists do not have to carry out the physical science research involved or invent the lower cost control measures, but they do need to recognize which research and control measures meet their needs in these respects and particularly which have been validated by use of the most relevant observational data and the scientific method.

Greenhouse-Gas Theory Discredited, I

John O’Sullivan, co-author of Slaying the Sky Dragon:  Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, has a new article, “Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by ‘Coolant’ Carbon Dioxide” at suite101.com:

In his new paper, “Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands” [Nasif Nahle] proves that in nature, [carbon dioxide] and water vapour mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air.  This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years.  [...]
Dr. Nahle completed his controversial study with the assistance of American physicist, Dr. Charles Anderson.  [...]
Nasif’s study looked at how well gases in our atmosphere convert energy from the sun to raise temperatures on the ground.  He went on, “In the case of carbon dioxide, its emissivity consists of its potential to emit the energy absorbed because it is not a primary source of heat.”
Nasif added, “the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide is equal to its emissivity coefficient, the gas can absorb only a limited amount of the energy received from other sources and then emit a limited amount of the energy absorbed.”  In simple terms, this means carbon dioxide cannot ‘store’ more energy than it emits.

The paper concludes:

Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.
Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when Oxygen is included into the mixture [...] which is lower than the value [...] obtained by considering only the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide.

As John O’Sullivan observes, the paper by Dr. Nahle and Dr. Anderson—if verified—refutes the  doom-saying, global-warming orthodoxy.

See also Paul Clark’s  “Summary Disproving AGW”, and “The Fallacy of the Greenhouse Effect,” Part 1 and Part 2.

UPDATE:  John O’Sullivan, on his own site, adds “Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps”.