 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
dhudlud
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 11th, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3637 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 8th, 2007 04:05 am |
|
http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml?s=us
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Global Warming at Odds With Science
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 6, 2007 Global warming fanatics insist that "the science is settled" regarding this contentious issue and they're right — two German scientist have settled it once and for all by proving conclusively that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in global climate.
They've also proven that there can be no way of accurately measuring average global temperature in the way it is now done. CO2 cannot play the role attributed to it by the supporters of the global warming theory, and the very idea violates the laws of thermodynamics.
In an exhaustive 113 page report, "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics," released in July, professors Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner used the science of physics to once and for all disprove such claims by the promoters of the global warming hoax.
The greenhouse effect refers to what happens when sunlight penetrates the glass in a greenhouse and then traps the heat inside. The proponents of the global warming theory claim that the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plays the same role as the glass in allowing heat to do come through to the earth's surface and then blocks it from radiating back into space, thus heating the globe.
Global Warming: Pure Fiction
Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Germany and his colleague professor, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, examined the so-called "greenhouse effect" and found it to be pure fiction as an instrument of alleged global warming. In 113 pages laden with complicated equations, citations from the scientific literature, examinations of various experiments and conclusions based on physics and the laws of physics, the researchers expose the fraudulent grounds upon which the global warming theory rests.
"It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious," the report states, adding that "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [manmade] climate changes has no physical basis."
Noting that "there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects" the report adds "there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet," disproving the contention that a fictional average global temperature proves that the planet is warming.
The report is based on hard facts, written by scientists for scientists: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with, but radiatively equilibrated to, the atmospheric system.
"According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation," The report affirms.
The report pokes holes in the shaky global warming theory: "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, and (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet."
The report makes it clear that the greenhouse effect and the propaganda surrounding the miniscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are based on fraudulent science.
According to the report, "It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.
"For years, the warming mechanism in real greenhouses, paraphrased as ‘the greenhouse effect,' has been commonly misused to explain the conjectured atmospheric greenhouse effect. In school books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that the mechanism observed within a glass house bears some similarity to the [human caused] global warming. Meanwhile, even mainstream climatologists admit that the warming mechanism in real glass houses has to be distinguished strictly from the claimed CO2 greenhouse effect."
One section of the report deals with prior evidence of scientific skullduggery: "Recently, the German climatologist Grabl emphasized that errors in science are unavoidable, even in climate research. And the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] weights most of its official statements with a kind of a ‘probability measure.'
"However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis is not based on an error ..."
As early as 1990, the Australian movie "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" lays bare the case for the greenhouse effect:
the factual evidence, i.e., the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global warming has been observed and is exceptional
the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes
the predictions of climate models that claim that a doubling of CO2 leads to a predictable global warming
In the movie, these were disputed. The speaker states: "In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, professor Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major U.S. research establishment in California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool."
Another movie was shown recently in the U.K. entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" supporting the thesis that the supposed CO2 induced global warming has no scientific basis.
In his paper "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time," the eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski made a well-founded statement: "... Sir David King, the science advisor of the British government, stated that ‘global warming is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism' ...
"In an uncountable number of contributions to newspapers and TV shows in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continues to warn the public about the consequences of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But until today, it is impossible to find a book on non-equilibrium thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this effect is derived from first principles."
Average Global Temperature Debunked
The report also addresses the impossibility of calculating an average global temperature: "In global climatology temperatures are computed from given radiation intensities, and this exchanges cause and effect. The current local temperatures determine the radiation intensities and not vice versa. If the soil is warmed up by the solar radiation, many different local processes are triggered, which depend on the local movement of the air, rain, evaporation, moistness, and on the local ground conditions as water, ice, rock, sand, forests, meadows, etc.
"One square meter of a meadow does not know anything of the rest of the Earth's surface, which determine the global mean value. Thus, the radiation is locally determined by the local temperature. Neither is there a global radiation balance, nor a global radiation budget, even in the mean-yield limit.
"Regardless of any ambiguities, a global mean temperature could only emerge out of many local temperatures. Without knowledge of any science everybody can see, how such a changing average near-ground temperature is constructed: There is more or less sunshine on the ground due to the distribution of clouds. This determines a yield of local near-ground temperatures, which in turn determines the change of the distribution of clouds and, hence, the change of the temperature average, which is evidently independent of the carbon dioxide concentration."
The report quotes physicist Freeman J. Dyson about relying on computer modeling to predict climate change: "'The models ... do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in ... It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.'
"Making such predictions nevertheless may be interpreted as an escape out of the department of sciences..."
The report's conclusions: "Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model."
The report aptly states, "There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems ... and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations ... "The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences . . . The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training."
One statement, above all, sums up this hoax perpetrated on its gullible followers: "statements ... induced [from] global warming out of the computer simulations lie outside any science."
The full report can be read at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
|
x x x
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7344 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 8th, 2007 10:05 pm |
|
Since when was newsmax.com a prominent science journal!
![[fallingdown]](/forums/themes/default/laughing.gif)
Thanx for the good laugh!
|
Eiei0
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Planet Earth |
| Posts: | 5777 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 8th, 2007 11:47 pm |
|
x x x wrote: Since when was newsmax.com a prominent science journal!
Thanx for the good laugh!
It is no more or no less a valid source than any you have posted. 
One who does not know what a valid or invalid scientific journal is should not laugh at those who create posts using sources that are just as reliable as their own.
|
x x x
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7344 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 12:07 am |
|
Eiei0 wrote: x x x wrote: Since when was newsmax.com a prominent science journal!
Thanx for the good laugh!
It is no more or no less a valid source than any you have posted.
One who does not know what a valid or invalid scientific journal is should not laugh at those who create posts using sources that are just as reliable as their own.
Another lie by Eiei0..I do know what the difference between a prominent science journal and a blog like NewsMax.com is.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Claiming NewsMax.com is as valid a source for scientific topics as the journal as the AAAS is too funny for words.
|
Eiei0
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Planet Earth |
| Posts: | 5777 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 02:00 am |
|
x x x wrote: Eiei0 wrote: x x x wrote: Since when was newsmax.com a prominent science journal!
Thanx for the good laugh!
It is no more or no less a valid source than any you have posted.
One who does not know what a valid or invalid scientific journal is should not laugh at those who create posts using sources that are just as reliable as their own.
Another lie by Eiei0..I do know what the difference between a prominent science journal and a blog like NewsMax.com is.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Claiming NewsMax.com is as valid a source for scientific topics as the journal as the AAAS is too funny for words.
You know Science and Nature. In fact you stated on a topic here that something I posted, from a very well known peer reviewed magazine, was not peer reviewed because it was not Science or Nature. You had Scim tell you that this was the case before you would let up. Why not simply give it up and admit that you truly do not know the difference?
By the way, this is the first time I have seen you post anything from one of these magazines and you opt for an opinion piece.
|
Eiei0
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Planet Earth |
| Posts: | 5777 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 02:04 am |
|
| Double Last edited on Thu Aug 9th, 2007 02:04 am by Eiei0
|
4Liberty
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Orlando, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 2212 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 04:19 pm |
|
dhudlud wrote: http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml?s=us
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Global Warming at Odds With Science
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 6, 2007 Global warming fanatics insist that "the science is settled" regarding this contentious issue and they're right — two German scientist have settled it once and for all by proving conclusively that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in global climate.
They've also proven that there can be no way of accurately measuring average global temperature in the way it is now done. CO2 cannot play the role attributed to it by the supporters of the global warming theory, and the very idea violates the laws of thermodynamics.
In an exhaustive 113 page report, "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics," released in July, professors Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner used the science of physics to once and for all disprove such claims by the promoters of the global warming hoax.
The greenhouse effect refers to what happens when sunlight penetrates the glass in a greenhouse and then traps the heat inside. The proponents of the global warming theory claim that the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plays the same role as the glass in allowing heat to do come through to the earth's surface and then blocks it from radiating back into space, thus heating the globe.
Global Warming: Pure Fiction
Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Germany and his colleague professor, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, examined the so-called "greenhouse effect" and found it to be pure fiction as an instrument of alleged global warming. In 113 pages laden with complicated equations, citations from the scientific literature, examinations of various experiments and conclusions based on physics and the laws of physics, the researchers expose the fraudulent grounds upon which the global warming theory rests.
"It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious," the report states, adding that "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [manmade] climate changes has no physical basis."
Noting that "there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects" the report adds "there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet," disproving the contention that a fictional average global temperature proves that the planet is warming.
The report is based on hard facts, written by scientists for scientists: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with, but radiatively equilibrated to, the atmospheric system.
"According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation," The report affirms.
The report pokes holes in the shaky global warming theory: "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, and (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet."
The report makes it clear that the greenhouse effect and the propaganda surrounding the miniscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are based on fraudulent science.
According to the report, "It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.
"For years, the warming mechanism in real greenhouses, paraphrased as ‘the greenhouse effect,' has been commonly misused to explain the conjectured atmospheric greenhouse effect. In school books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that the mechanism observed within a glass house bears some similarity to the [human caused] global warming. Meanwhile, even mainstream climatologists admit that the warming mechanism in real glass houses has to be distinguished strictly from the claimed CO2 greenhouse effect."
One section of the report deals with prior evidence of scientific skullduggery: "Recently, the German climatologist Grabl emphasized that errors in science are unavoidable, even in climate research. And the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] weights most of its official statements with a kind of a ‘probability measure.'
"However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis is not based on an error ..."
As early as 1990, the Australian movie "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" lays bare the case for the greenhouse effect:
the factual evidence, i.e., the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global warming has been observed and is exceptional
the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes
the predictions of climate models that claim that a doubling of CO2 leads to a predictable global warming
In the movie, these were disputed. The speaker states: "In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, professor Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major U.S. research establishment in California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool."
Another movie was shown recently in the U.K. entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" supporting the thesis that the supposed CO2 induced global warming has no scientific basis.
In his paper "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time," the eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski made a well-founded statement: "... Sir David King, the science advisor of the British government, stated that ‘global warming is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism' ...
"In an uncountable number of contributions to newspapers and TV shows in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continues to warn the public about the consequences of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But until today, it is impossible to find a book on non-equilibrium thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this effect is derived from first principles."
Average Global Temperature Debunked
The report also addresses the impossibility of calculating an average global temperature: "In global climatology temperatures are computed from given radiation intensities, and this exchanges cause and effect. The current local temperatures determine the radiation intensities and not vice versa. If the soil is warmed up by the solar radiation, many different local processes are triggered, which depend on the local movement of the air, rain, evaporation, moistness, and on the local ground conditions as water, ice, rock, sand, forests, meadows, etc.
"One square meter of a meadow does not know anything of the rest of the Earth's surface, which determine the global mean value. Thus, the radiation is locally determined by the local temperature. Neither is there a global radiation balance, nor a global radiation budget, even in the mean-yield limit.
"Regardless of any ambiguities, a global mean temperature could only emerge out of many local temperatures. Without knowledge of any science everybody can see, how such a changing average near-ground temperature is constructed: There is more or less sunshine on the ground due to the distribution of clouds. This determines a yield of local near-ground temperatures, which in turn determines the change of the distribution of clouds and, hence, the change of the temperature average, which is evidently independent of the carbon dioxide concentration."
The report quotes physicist Freeman J. Dyson about relying on computer modeling to predict climate change: "'The models ... do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in ... It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.'
"Making such predictions nevertheless may be interpreted as an escape out of the department of sciences..."
The report's conclusions: "Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model."
The report aptly states, "There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems ... and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations ... "The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences . . . The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training."
One statement, above all, sums up this hoax perpetrated on its gullible followers: "statements ... induced [from] global warming out of the computer simulations lie outside any science."
The full report can be read at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Two more scientists who don't buy into the AGW mess, and they're bound to be labelled heretics.
This is one of the most troubling parts of the advocates' actions on this matter---the ad hominem attacks against anyone (scientist or otherwise) who even questions either the science or the alleged imminent catastrophe (assuming humans do nothing) behind all the Global Warming talk. Given what we do know about the greenhouse effect (so-called), it's only a possibility that human industry is having an impact, not a probability, let alone the proven fact that advocates say it is.
xxx, I've posted peer-reviewed science that disputes both the science behind the advocating theory and the supposedly imminent danger that the advocates claim is the cause of their push for abatement---which (given those severe questions) would be of dubious value at great cost.
|
Scim
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 04:49 pm |
|
The link to the report doesn't work; do you have another one?
I can't see how the second law forbids current climate theory. Unless they're assuming there's a giant wall isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the universe.
|
Eiei0
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Planet Earth |
| Posts: | 5777 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 9th, 2007 08:00 pm |
|
4Liberty wrote: dhudlud wrote: http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml?s=us
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Global Warming at Odds With Science
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 6, 2007 Global warming fanatics insist that "the science is settled" regarding this contentious issue and they're right — two German scientist have settled it once and for all by proving conclusively that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in global climate.
They've also proven that there can be no way of accurately measuring average global temperature in the way it is now done. CO2 cannot play the role attributed to it by the supporters of the global warming theory, and the very idea violates the laws of thermodynamics.
In an exhaustive 113 page report, "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics," released in July, professors Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner used the science of physics to once and for all disprove such claims by the promoters of the global warming hoax.
The greenhouse effect refers to what happens when sunlight penetrates the glass in a greenhouse and then traps the heat inside. The proponents of the global warming theory claim that the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plays the same role as the glass in allowing heat to do come through to the earth's surface and then blocks it from radiating back into space, thus heating the globe.
Global Warming: Pure Fiction
Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Germany and his colleague professor, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, examined the so-called "greenhouse effect" and found it to be pure fiction as an instrument of alleged global warming. In 113 pages laden with complicated equations, citations from the scientific literature, examinations of various experiments and conclusions based on physics and the laws of physics, the researchers expose the fraudulent grounds upon which the global warming theory rests.
"It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious," the report states, adding that "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [manmade] climate changes has no physical basis."
Noting that "there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects" the report adds "there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet," disproving the contention that a fictional average global temperature proves that the planet is warming.
The report is based on hard facts, written by scientists for scientists: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with, but radiatively equilibrated to, the atmospheric system.
"According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation," The report affirms.
The report pokes holes in the shaky global warming theory: "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, and (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet."
The report makes it clear that the greenhouse effect and the propaganda surrounding the miniscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are based on fraudulent science.
According to the report, "It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.
"For years, the warming mechanism in real greenhouses, paraphrased as ‘the greenhouse effect,' has been commonly misused to explain the conjectured atmospheric greenhouse effect. In school books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that the mechanism observed within a glass house bears some similarity to the [human caused] global warming. Meanwhile, even mainstream climatologists admit that the warming mechanism in real glass houses has to be distinguished strictly from the claimed CO2 greenhouse effect."
One section of the report deals with prior evidence of scientific skullduggery: "Recently, the German climatologist Grabl emphasized that errors in science are unavoidable, even in climate research. And the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] weights most of its official statements with a kind of a ‘probability measure.'
"However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis is not based on an error ..."
As early as 1990, the Australian movie "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" lays bare the case for the greenhouse effect:
the factual evidence, i.e., the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global warming has been observed and is exceptional
the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes
the predictions of climate models that claim that a doubling of CO2 leads to a predictable global warming
In the movie, these were disputed. The speaker states: "In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, professor Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major U.S. research establishment in California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool."
Another movie was shown recently in the U.K. entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" supporting the thesis that the supposed CO2 induced global warming has no scientific basis.
In his paper "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time," the eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski made a well-founded statement: "... Sir David King, the science advisor of the British government, stated that ‘global warming is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism' ...
"In an uncountable number of contributions to newspapers and TV shows in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continues to warn the public about the consequences of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But until today, it is impossible to find a book on non-equilibrium thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this effect is derived from first principles."
Average Global Temperature Debunked
The report also addresses the impossibility of calculating an average global temperature: "In global climatology temperatures are computed from given radiation intensities, and this exchanges cause and effect. The current local temperatures determine the radiation intensities and not vice versa. If the soil is warmed up by the solar radiation, many different local processes are triggered, which depend on the local movement of the air, rain, evaporation, moistness, and on the local ground conditions as water, ice, rock, sand, forests, meadows, etc.
"One square meter of a meadow does not know anything of the rest of the Earth's surface, which determine the global mean value. Thus, the radiation is locally determined by the local temperature. Neither is there a global radiation balance, nor a global radiation budget, even in the mean-yield limit.
"Regardless of any ambiguities, a global mean temperature could only emerge out of many local temperatures. Without knowledge of any science everybody can see, how such a changing average near-ground temperature is constructed: There is more or less sunshine on the ground due to the distribution of clouds. This determines a yield of local near-ground temperatures, which in turn determines the change of the distribution of clouds and, hence, the change of the temperature average, which is evidently independent of the carbon dioxide concentration."
The report quotes physicist Freeman J. Dyson about relying on computer modeling to predict climate change: "'The models ... do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in ... It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.'
"Making such predictions nevertheless may be interpreted as an escape out of the department of sciences..."
The report's conclusions: "Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model."
The report aptly states, "There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems ... and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations ... "The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences . . . The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training."
One statement, above all, sums up this hoax perpetrated on its gullible followers: "statements ... induced [from] global warming out of the computer simulations lie outside any science."
The full report can be read at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Two more scientists who don't buy into the AGW mess, and they're bound to be labelled heretics.
This is one of the most troubling parts of the advocates' actions on this matter---the ad hominem attacks against anyone (scientist or otherwise) who even questions either the science or the alleged imminent catastrophe (assuming humans do nothing) behind all the Global Warming talk. Given what we do know about the greenhouse effect (so-called), it's only a possibility that human industry is having an impact, not a probability, let alone the proven fact that advocates say it is.
xxx, I've posted peer-reviewed science that disputes both the science behind the advocating theory and the supposedly imminent danger that the advocates claim is the cause of their push for abatement---which (given those severe questions) would be of dubious value at great cost.
Many people have posted many peer reviewed journal entries. XXX simply ignores them and leaves the post. He will then return with his usual mantras about "every scientific organizations backs anthropogenic global warming" and be proved wrong again, onto the "peer reviewed papers only" and will be proven wrong again and lastly onto "Exxon has bought off all scientists who do not agree with the hypothesis" and be proven wrong again. He goes in cycles, much like the climate here on Earth.
|
BuckFan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 3rd, 2004 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 14098 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 11:42 pm |
|
I wonder if they each get the $10,000 that the denier community is paying for these "reports" or if they have to split it.
|
dhudlud
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 11th, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3637 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 11:59 pm |
|
Scim wrote: The link to the report doesn't work; do you have another one?
I can't see how the second law forbids current climate theory. Unless they're assuming there's a giant wall isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the universe.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 2.0 (July 24, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007)
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
arXiv:0707.1161v2 [physics.ao-ph] 26 Jul 2007
2 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scienti c foundation.
In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clari ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse e ects, (b) thereare no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di erence of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi ed.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects : : : 3
Contents
Abstract 2
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Problem background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 The greenhouse e ect hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 This paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 The warming mechanism in real greenhouses 16
2.1 Radiation Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.2 The in nitesimal speci c intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.3 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.4 The Stefan-Boltzmann law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 The Sun as a black body radiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3 The radiation on a very nice day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.1 The phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.2 The sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.3 The radiation of the ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.4 Sunshine versus ground radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4 High School Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.5 Experiment by Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.6 Glass house summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3 The ctitious atmospheric greenhouse e ects 35
3.1 Problem de nition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.2 Scienti c error versus scienti c fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3 Di erent versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.1 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Moller (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.2 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Meyer's encyclopedia (1974) . . . . 38
3.3.3 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Schonwiese (1987) . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.4 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Stichel (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Anonymous 1 (1995) . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.6 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Anonymous 2 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.7 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Anonymous 3 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.8 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after German Meteorological Society (1995) 40
4 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
3.3.9 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Gral (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.10 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Ahrens (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.11 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics,
and Astronomy (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.12 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and
Astrophysics (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.13 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
(2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.14 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Rahmstorf (2007) . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.15 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4 The conclusion of the US Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5 Absorption/Emission is not Re
ection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5.1 An inconvenient popularization of physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5.2 Re
ection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.5.3 Absorption and Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.5.4 Re-emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.5.5 Two approaches of Radiative Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.6 The hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.6.1 The traditional works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.6.2 Modern works of climatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.7 The assumption of radiative balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.7.2 A note on \radiation balance" diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.7.3 The case of purely radiative balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.7.4 The average temperature of a radiation-exposed globe . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.7.5 Non-existence of the natural greenhouse e ect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.7.6 A numerical example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.7.7 Non-existence of a global temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.7.8 The rotating globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.7.9 The obliquely rotating globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.7.10 The radiating bulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.7.11 The comprehensive work of Schack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.8 Thermal conductivity versus radiative transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.8.1 The heat equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.8.2 Heat transfer across and near interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.8.3 In the kitchen: Physics-obsessed housewife versus IPCC . . . . . . . . . 74
3.9 The laws of thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects : : : 5
3.9.2 Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.9.3 A paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.9.4 Possible resolution of the paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4 Physical Foundations of Climate Science 80
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2 The conservation laws of magnetohydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.2 Electric charge conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2.3 Mass conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2.4 Maxwell's equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2.5 Ohm's law for moving media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.6 Momentum balance equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.7 Total energy balance equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.8 Poynting's theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.9 Consequences of the conservation laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.2.10 General heat equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.2.11 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.3 Science and Global Climate Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.3.1 Science and the Problem of Demarcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.3.2 Evaluation of Climatology and Climate Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5 Physicist's Summary 92
Acknowledgement 95
List of Figures 96
List of Tables 99
References 100
6 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
|
Eiei0
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Planet Earth |
| Posts: | 5777 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 08:12 pm |
|
BuckFan wrote: I wonder if they each get the $10,000 that the denier community is paying for these "reports" or if they have to split it.
All you have left is a conspiracy theory? Tsk, tsk, I thought you and your crowd were better than that?
You can't abandon the religion now I see. Now explain to us how you are different than the religious zealots you make fun of on a regular basis?
|
Breek
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnydale |
| Posts: | 694 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11th, 2007 08:37 pm |
|
BuckFan wrote: I wonder if they each get the $10,000 that the denier community is paying for these "reports" or if they have to split it.
I assume you're referring to The Guardian's accusation of the American Enterprise Institute? In which case, I would ask that you please check your facts before you go and spew vitriol across this forum and its patrons. Thank you.
|
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 02:39 am |
|
dhudlud wrote: Scim wrote: The link to the report doesn't work; do you have another one?
I can't see how the second law forbids current climate theory. Unless they're assuming there's a giant wall isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the universe.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 2.0 (July 24, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007)
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
arXiv:0707.1161v2 [physics.ao-ph] 26 Jul 2007
2 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scienti c foundation.
In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clari ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse e ects, (b) thereare no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di erence of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi ed.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects : : : 3
Contents
Abstract 2
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Problem background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 The greenhouse e ect hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 This paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 The warming mechanism in real greenhouses 16
2.1 Radiation Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.2 The in nitesimal speci c intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.3 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.4 The Stefan-Boltzmann law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 The Sun as a black body radiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3 The radiation on a very nice day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.1 The phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.2 The sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.3 The radiation of the ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.4 Sunshine versus ground radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4 High School Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.5 Experiment by Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.6 Glass house summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3 The ctitious atmospheric greenhouse e ects 35
3.1 Problem de nition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.2 Scienti c error versus scienti c fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3 Di erent versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.1 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Moller (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.2 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Meyer's encyclopedia (1974) . . . . 38
3.3.3 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Schonwiese (1987) . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.4 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Stichel (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Anonymous 1 (1995) . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.6 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Anonymous 2 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.7 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Anonymous 3 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.8 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after German Meteorological Society (1995) 40
4 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
3.3.9 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Gral (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.10 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Ahrens (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.11 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics,
and Astronomy (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.12 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and
Astrophysics (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.13 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
(2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.14 Atmospheric greenhouse e ect after Rahmstorf (2007) . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.15 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4 The conclusion of the US Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5 Absorption/Emission is not Re
ection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5.1 An inconvenient popularization of physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5.2 Re
ection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.5.3 Absorption and Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.5.4 Re-emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.5.5 Two approaches of Radiative Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.6 The hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.6.1 The traditional works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.6.2 Modern works of climatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.7 The assumption of radiative balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.7.2 A note on radiation balance" diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.7.3 The case of purely radiative balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.7.4 The average temperature of a radiation-exposed globe . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.7.5 Non-existence of the natural greenhouse e ect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.7.6 A numerical example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.7.7 Non-existence of a global temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.7.8 The rotating globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.7.9 The obliquely rotating globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.7.10 The radiating bulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.7.11 The comprehensive work of Schack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.8 Thermal conductivity versus radiative transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.8.1 The heat equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.8.2 Heat transfer across and near interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.8.3 In the kitchen: Physics-obsessed housewife versus IPCC . . . . . . . . . 74
3.9 The laws of thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects : : : 5
3.9.2 Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.9.3 A paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.9.4 Possible resolution of the paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4 Physical Foundations of Climate Science 80
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2 The conservation laws of magnetohydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.2 Electric charge conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2.3 Mass conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2.4 Maxwell's equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2.5 Ohm's law for moving media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.6 Momentum balance equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.7 Total energy balance equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.8 Poynting's theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.9 Consequences of the conservation laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.2.10 General heat equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.2.11 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.3 Science and Global Climate Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.3.1 Science and the Problem of Demarcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.3.2 Evaluation of Climatology and Climate Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5 Physicist's Summary 92
Acknowledgement 95
List of Figures 96
List of Tables 99
References 100
6 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Sheeesh! Planetary thermodynamics. Wonderful (not).
Ok.
i'll try to read some of this. My German is awful. And i have reservations about applying the 2nd "Law" to anything in life, but i intend to look at it at some point. Really.
Just not now. Please.
The 2nd law is wonderful and yet it's a problem.
In an important way it defines time. And i love the subject of time. Yet... ("yet" is a time reference...get it)?
Pronouncements like, "NO work is done," are pretty much useless when all the work you expect is to heat your home.
Or i love, "Heat moves to cold." But architects say "No! Cold moves to heat." Put your cup of coffee on a granite counter top and it gets cold.
Also, there is a fundamental problem with the whole issue of the 2nd law.
It is this:
If you put a quadrillion protons in a bucket at 100 Kelvins and place it in an extremely well insulated safe, and then come back 10 billion years from now, there will still be a quadrillion protons at 100 Kelvins. They won't get hot. None will decay. There will be no entropy. The bucket of protons will experimentally give the lie to the 2nd law. Not my fault. Blame protons. "OH sure!" YOu might reply, "Those protons are in equilibrium." Ok. If you don't think that's a cop out...fine. Who am i to criticize the 2nd law.
Anyway, the 2nd law is experimentally derived. It is not mathematically proved. Some might call it a "law" or an "axiom" of physics but it hasn't been proved for protons. Significantly, protons make up a major part of what we call "matter." Now who am i to point out that protons are the exception? Just me, that's all.
"So what's the matter," you might ask.
i don't know. A planet can be looked at as a closed system or not. Entropy only defined vis a vis closed systems. Frankly, the quote, "According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist." bothers me. Closed systems are idealized hypothetical. Mostly. If the earth is such a closed system then how does the sun heat it? And how could it radiate heat? Applying the 2nd law to a planet......mmmmm.....you know i might be a stickler but a "closed system" lets no heat in and no heat out, by definition.
We "know" that we've had ice ages. Most of us assume this corresponds to global cooling.
We know "for sure" that the northern hemisphere gets hot in summer and cold in winter. It's not hard to imagine both hemispheres enduring winter at the same time and that that would be like an ice age, both enduring summer would be like warming. Kind of.
Sheesh! i already said that di'int i?
Planetary thermodynamics....uh, sure...sounds easy.
But later please.
[By the by, "ctitious" is not a word. Probably the word, "fictitious" is meant.]
-0
Last edited on Sun Aug 12th, 2007 02:44 am by
|
jcscuba07
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12th, 2007 06:48 pm |
|
Here's something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Active volcanoes represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteri a.blogspot.com
I'm not a scientist, I am a scuba diving instructor and know the figures above to be accurate, but in lay terms I wonder if somebody can explain to me why the main GHG water vapor is left out of the discussion? Is it because we can't tax it? We are being hosed big time by those that are putting this nonsense before us. Remember, A lie repeated often enough is often accepted as the truth. Global Warming is theory based on flawed mathematical models, and can't stand up to the rigor of the scientific method.
Also,But what would happen if we had evidence of glaciers melting and massive flooding that occurred 10,000 years ago - long before man burned fossil fuels to any significant degree ? Such evidence would certainly be considered evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon - as opposed to man-made.
Well - this evidence actually exists and was reported in a Yahoo News article (via LiveScience.com) titled "Stone Age Settlement Found Under English Channel." http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070810/sc_livescience/stoneagesettlementfoundunderenglishchannel;_ylt=AsF.5ZIOoCSv09YpSdlI21Ws0NUE #
Thanks, Jim
|
Scim
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13th, 2007 06:50 pm |
|
negativzero wrote:Mostly. If the earth is such a closed system then how does the sun heat it? And how could it radiate heat? Applying the 2nd law to a planet......mmmmm.....you know i might be a stickler but a "closed system" lets no heat in and no heat out, by definition.
That's what confused me. Statements of the second law of thermodynamics include:
'No system cna take energy as heat from a single reservoir and convert it entirely into work without additional net changes in the system or its surroundings'
- Kelvin
'A process whose only net result is to transfer energy as heat from a cooler object to a hotter one is impossible'
- Clausius
'Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 5e' (2003) - p596, Paul Tipler & Gene Mosca
Generally I find it summarised as 'entropy in a closed system cannot decrease'.
I'm struggling to make the link between the second law and the impossibility of climate change.
|
Scim
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13th, 2007 07:19 pm |
|
jcscuba07 wrote:
Here's something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Active volcanoes represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteri a.blogspot.com
If you read my reply here, I attempt to explain why, as far as I can see, this is grossly misleading.
'It's small so couldn't have any effect!' isn't scientific. I could challenge you to survive after swallowing 0.0000000001% of your body mass in polonium-210, for example.
I'm not a scientist, I am a scuba diving instructor and know the figures above to be accurate, but in lay terms I wonder if somebody can explain to me why the main GHG water vapor is left out of the discussion? Is it because we can't tax it?
Carbon dioxide evaporates & condenses at a far lower temperature than water does.
When we combust fossil fuels, water vapour is produced along with CO2 (the 'hydro' in hydrocarbon). However, in the narrow range of temperatures we're working in, water vapour will condense out if there is too much of it in any area. Accumulating water vapour is difficult, accumulating CO2 is much easier.
However, I remember reading papers talking about how water vapour concentration in the atmosphere is increasing slightly due to the higher temperatures.
Water vapour is what's known as a 'feedback', not a 'forcing'.
Global Warming is theory based on flawed mathematical models, and can't stand up to the rigor of the scientific method.
Reams of technical papers would disagree here.
Also,But what would happen if we had evidence of glaciers melting and massive flooding that occurred 10,000 years ago - long before man burned fossil fuels to any significant degree ? Such evidence would certainly be considered evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon - as opposed to man-made.
There is evidence to suggest that deaths occured hundreds of years ago, long before guns existed. Such evidence would certainly suggest that deaths are natural and can't be gun made?
Obviously not.
All that evidence shows is that climate can & has changed without human influence.
Unfortunately, recent study of the primary historic drivers has failed to find evidence that natural causes are dominant.
'Recent oppositely directed trends in solar forcing and mean surface air temperature' published in proceedings of the royal society A, found that over the last 30 years, there has been negligible change in solar activity. The decadal trend for magnetic flux, neutron count & energy arriving from the Sun are all basically straight, horizontal lines (well, the energy arriving from the Sun is currently at its lowest average in the past 3 cycles). Temperature is the only graph tending upwards.
The IPCC's conclusion based on published literature is that solar forcings are approximately an order of magnitude smaller than anthropogenic ones, and that volcanic ones aren't major either.
|
Tentavo
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13th, 2007 07:39 pm |
|
Anything you find on NewsMax is certain to be false or misleading. The german scientists' paper is a joke. It is a purchased document with demonstrably false conclusions that is meant to be waived in the face of laymen who can't tell the difference between science and pseudoscience so that industries can continue to ignore global warming for few more years or decades while a propoganda campaign is waged.
The Earth is not a closed system - obviously. The second law in no way disproves global warming. It doesn't even make it less probable.
|
Eiei0
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Planet Earth |
| Posts: | 5777 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13th, 2007 08:22 pm |
|
Tentavo wrote: Anything you find on NewsMax is certain to be false or misleading. The german scientists' paper is a joke. It is a purchased document with demonstrably false conclusions that is meant to be waived in the face of laymen who can't tell the difference between science and pseudoscience so that industries can continue to ignore global warming for few more years or decades while a propoganda campaign is waged.
The Earth is not a closed system - obviously. The second law in no way disproves global warming. It doesn't even make it less probable.
Is it the type of propoganda machine that is currently in place in regards to science understanding climate? They have put in place a propoganda machine that Hitler would have been proud of.
If anthropogenic global warming turns out to be factual no one is stating that we should not find a solution; however, the models are obviously flawed in that they have a 0% accuracy rate in predictions and do not have the capability to reproduce past, known, climates. Not to mention, scienctists have made catostrophic predictions many, many, many times in the past and all have had the exact same accuracy rate as the models currently being used. Why do you think we should believe?
It has recently been revealed that NASA, like Michael Mann, does not permit others in the science field to view their programming code. Is there a reason why you accept scientists not having to show their data or programming code to others in order for their "peer reviewed" papers to be accepted? Is there a reason why NASA, and other organizations, do not need to show there data and programming code to others in order to ensure accuracy for science sake? Doesn't these facts make you at least a little uncomfortable?
Last edited on Mon Aug 13th, 2007 08:23 pm by Eiei0
|
Eiei0
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Planet Earth |
| Posts: | 5777 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13th, 2007 08:24 pm |
|
Scim wrote: jcscuba07 wrote:
Here's something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Active volcanoes represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteri a.blogspot.com
If you read my reply here, I attempt to explain why, as far as I can see, this is grossly misleading.
'It's small so couldn't have any effect!' isn't scientific. I could challenge you to survive after swallowing 0.0000000001% of your body mass in polonium-210, for example.
I'm not a scientist, I am a scuba diving instructor and know the figures above to be accurate, but in lay terms I wonder if somebody can explain to me why the main GHG water vapor is left out of the discussion? Is it because we can't tax it?
Carbon dioxide evaporates & condenses at a far lower temperature than water does.
When we combust fossil fuels, water vapour is produced along with CO2 (the 'hydro' in hydrocarbon). However, in the narrow range of temperatures we're working in, water vapour will condense out if there is too much of it in any area. Accumulating water vapour is difficult, accumulating CO2 is much easier.
However, I remember reading papers talking about how water vapour concentration in the atmosphere is increasing slightly due to the higher temperatures.
Water vapour is what's known as a 'feedback', not a 'forcing'.
Global Warming is theory based on flawed mathematical models, and can't stand up to the rigor of the scientific method.
Reams of technical papers would disagree here.
Also,But what would happen if we had evidence of glaciers melting and massive flooding that occurred 10,000 years ago - long before man burned fossil fuels to any significant degree ? Such evidence would certainly be considered evidence that global warming is a natural phenomenon - as opposed to man-made.
There is evidence to suggest that deaths occured hundreds of years ago, long before guns existed. Such evidence would certainly suggest that deaths are natural and can't be gun made?
Obviously not.
All that evidence shows is that climate can & has changed without human influence.
Unfortunately, recent study of the primary historic drivers has failed to find evidence that natural causes are dominant.
'Recent oppositely directed trends in solar forcing and mean surface air temperature' published in proceedings of the royal society A, found that over the last 30 years, there has been negligible change in solar activity. The decadal trend for magnetic flux, neutron count & energy arriving from the Sun are all basically straight, horizontal lines (well, the energy arriving from the Sun is currently at its lowest average in the past 3 cycles). Temperature is the only graph tending upwards.
The IPCC's conclusion based on published literature is that solar forcings are approximately an order of magnitude smaller than anthropogenic ones, and that volcanic ones aren't major either.
You have some very good points within most, if not all of your posts; however, you are one of the worst people at bringing up anologies. You should really stop it as it constantly weakens your arguement.
|
Current time is 10:15 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
