The Greenhouse effect does not exist...

Nahle, Nasif S.    Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse, July 5, 2011. Biology Cabinet Online-Academic Resources and Principia Scientific
International. Monterrey, N. L.  (LINK pdf)

Through a series of controlled experiments, I demonstrate that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the greenhouse, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.
Read more at link above for all six experiments.

The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.
The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable.
See also Pricipia Scientific - Alberto Miatello


Why Wood and Nahle were correct and Pratt was in error.
h/t Derek A.


  1. One published paper is hardly proof of anything, implying so shows a ignorance of basic scientific principals. Next time publish a peer review of the paper to go with it.

    1. As you say, nick, "one published paper is hardly proof of anything.."

      Mann Bradley and Hughes successfully demonstated that, didn't they?

      It is the weight of papers that should give some idea.

    2. No it's not the number of "peer reviews" or indeed the "weight" of papers that is relevant. These are both Aristotlean Fallacies, The Appeal to Authority and The Headcount Fallacy.

      It is the repeatability of the "experiment" and the reproducible results. This is the Empirical Evidence which proves his theory. You can easily do the Woods experiment yourself in your own greenhouse, or even in a glass case. The results will be the same as Woods obtained. Check it out for yourself.

  2. i'm sorry what are you saying? Bradley and Hughes both support the theory of human induced global warming and have had over 12 000 published peer reviews on their work.

    1. 12000 sounds impressive but, as William F Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, puts it in his philosophical review of Peer Review and Proof :

      "A proof means that the truth of a theorem has been demonstrated. Quot erat demonstradum, and so forth.

      Specifically, it does not matter one whit whether you believe the result, nor does it matter whether scores of people believe it. Even stronger, it does not matter whether experts in the field know of, approve of, or have reviewed the result.

      We operate under a simple tautology: either my proof is valid or it is not. Whether that proof has been vetted is irrelevant. The theorem is true or not. Moreover, it has always been true or not. It was even true before I discovered a proof of its validity. Human agency does not—and cannot—change the truth status of the theorem.

      Obviously, then, where a valid proof appeared is irrelevant to the proof’s validity. Another way to say this is that it is a logical fallacy to claim, “Because this result was not peer reviewed and published in an academic journal, it is false.”

      This fallacy is routinely used by academics who cannot refute a distasteful result." - William F Briggs

  3. Oh and please don't all shout at once, but remember this book and this interview? There is NO CO2 Greenhouse Effect at all. That is to say it has not been proved empirically that there is such an effect, says Ball and colleagues.

    Slaying the Sky Dragon
    Kim Greenhouse & Dr.Tim Ball
    (this is a "radio show" so just a still image)


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!