A. Does Science Support the Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis?

The Greenhouse Effect Hypothesis appears to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Cold cannot warm something hot.  Those who support the Greenhouse Effect argue that radiation is different.  The fact that something is different or more complex does not change the basic laws of physics.  A cart doesn’t roll faster uphill, a lower voltage doesn’t increase a higher voltage, water does not flow faster by turning down the pressure, etc.  These are all different fundamental properties of nature but all follow natural laws of physics.  Radiation is no different.  Kirchhoff’s Radiation Theory agrees that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies stating:

 “This law must be also valid in order to satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” 

 “The case of different emissivities is solved by the Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal radiation, which states that object with low emissivity have also low absorptivity.  As a result, heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold system to hot system and the second law is still satisfied.Emphasis added.  [https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-kirchhoffs-law-of-thermal-radiation-definition/]

The basic equation taught in every college course on radiation heat transfer is:

This equation shows that heat travels via radiation from T2 (hot source) to T1 (cold source).  If it travelled from cold to hot, then it would result in a negative energy that does not exist. 

In Gerlich & Tscheuschner, (2009) Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects With the Frame of Physics, Electronic Version published in International Journal of Modern Physics, 23, No 3 pgs. 275-365 reported on an exhaustive study of the scientific literature relating to Greenhouse Effect, performed extensive mathematical and data analysis and concluded:

“that until today the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not appear

— in any fundamental work of thermodynamics,

—in any fundamental work of physical kinetics,

—in any fundamental work of radiation theory;”

“8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.” Pg. 92

 “9. Infrared absorption does not imply backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.”  Pg. 93

 “In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality.”  Emphasis added.  Pg. 93.

The study cited 205 references in support of the study.  The comment by the IPCC that there was a consensus of the scientific principles of the Greenhouse Effect resides more in propaganda than in fact.  Voting is a political process and not a scientific one.  There was a consensus that the earth was flat until it wasn’t.  Changes in scientific laws and principals do not change by roll calls.

The IPCC does not mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics in any of its many Assessment Reports.  A fundamental law of nature that is directly contrary to the Greenhouse Effect should merit at least a mention.  

In Allmendinger T, (2017) The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative, Environmental Pollution and Climate Change Vo. 1, Issue 2, 1000123, pg. 1-19 the author concluded that:

“As a consequence, it is absolutely certain that the atmospheric temperature is not at all influenced by trace gases such as carbon dioxide.”  Pg. 19. 

Hertzberg, M, et al (2017) Role of greenhouse gases in climate change, Energy & Environment, DOI: 10.1177/0958305X17706177 concluded at page 8:

“The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were found to be unreal, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit.”  Emphasis Added.

Martin Hertzberg has his PhD in Physical Chemistry at Stanford University and served as a Fulbright Professor.  Alan Siddons was a radio chemist and leading climate researcher.  Hans Schreuder is an analytical chemist and studied greenhouse gas theory.  

Joseph Postma published an article on Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect in 2011. He provided extensive mathematical support for his conclusion:

“We see that in every single instance of comparison, the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect appears to contradict what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about the exact same physical situation. This is very curious because as a scientific theory, it should be in agreement with the pre-established laws of physics.”  Pg. 31.

The author, Joseph Postma, was criticized contending that his mathematical analysis was based on a flat earth analysis.  Name calling is an emotional shamming and a classic example of propaganda.  Almost all investigations of complicated physical events starts with two dimensional mathematical assessments, aka flat earth analysis, because three dimensional evaluations are usually impossible to solve.  The IPCC uses two dimensional analysis almost exclusively when mathematics are involved with most figures being two dimensional. 

In the article by Nikolov N and Zeller K, (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Mode, Environmental Pollution and Climate Change,Vol 1, Issue 2, 1000112, pgs. 1-22 the authors studied numerous terrestrial bodies, (Earth, Venus, Mars, Moon, Titan and Triton) and used extensive mathematical analysis and actual data.  They cited 136 references to support their opinions.  Their conclusion is reflected as follows:

  • The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed, but a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition;

 The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure;” Pg. 17.