1 year ago

138

Climate Scientist Dr Holmes presents the new science which completely demolishes the very existence of the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" through "Greenhouse Gases".
All our efforts to "stop man-made climate change" through reducing our emissions of so-called "Greenhouse Gases" like CO2 or CH4 are therefore demonstrated to be futile, expensive and a foolish diversion from solving real problems.

Presented here is an interview conducted by Ricky Petersen of 'Climate Realism' in Denmark.
It can be viewed here;

• Interview med Kli...

To cite my published climate papers;

1) Holmes, R. I. (2018). Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change. Earth, 7(3), 107-123. (doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20180703.13)

2) Holmes, R. I. (2019). On the Apparent Relationship Between Total Solar Irradiance and the Atmospheric Temperature at 1 Bar on Three Terrestrial-type Bodies. Earth, 8(6), 346-351. (doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20190806.15)

3) Robert, I. H. (2018). Thermal Gradients on Planetary Bodies and the Molar Mass Ideal Gas Law. J Phys Astron, 6(1), 134.

I see from the comments that some are still pretty confused!

What my papers do is invalidate the "Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis" (the 'Greenhouse Effect') in two very different ways.

It is correct to say that the molar mass version of the ideal gas law cannot be used to determine what causes a warming!
However, it CAN be used (see my 2018 paper) to determine what is NOT causing a warming.

This is where my first invalidation of the 'GHE' comes in - both through a terminal conflict (due to problems with the IPCC's so-called 'equilibration time'), and through the above; that is the non-appearance of a large anomalous change to gas pressure and/or density. This MUST happen if there is such a thing as a separate class of "Greenhouse gases" which cause anomalous warming - and yet it doesn't - and actually it can't, unless the IGL is wrong.

Either the Ideal Gas Law is correct or the Greenhouse Effect is correct - both CANNOT be correct.

My second invalidation of the GHE comes from atmospheric measurements at 1 bar - showing that different atmospheric percentages of 'GHG' do not affect temperature - only insolation does.
See my last paper (2019).

Other references;

Climate cycles from my first paper

HadCRUT 3 data from; https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data//d...

0.1 Bar graph is from; Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. (2014). Common 0.1 [thinsp] bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7(1), 12-15.

Formulas are from my cited papers.

Planetary temps are from my paper 2.

GHG & Albedo graphs are from my paper 2

Multi-climate cycle graph is from; Steinhilber, F., Abreu, J. A., Beer, J., Brunner, I., Christl, M., Fischer, H., . . . McCracken, K. G. (2012). 9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(16), 5967-5971.

Links to support my work;
Patreon support;
https://www.patreon.com/1000Frolly

Loading 1 comment...