|
Post by steve on Mar 18, 2009 10:54:53 GMT
Pooh, That's the article being discussed in this thread. See the short hand reference "G+T" in the posts. Thanks, Steve. I missed the G+T code. None of the links in this thread had the same document ID as the one I posted; I should have chased all of the links before I posted mine. I guess that's why I try to post a full cite and a chunk of the abstract. All the best, Pooh That's a good practice. I always try and include at least title, authors and dates which is also insurance against the link being broken.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 18, 2009 10:56:32 GMT
Steve says: "You should find that whatever method you use, the rise in each will be about 0.5 degrees showing that the method doesn't affect the result significantly."Steve. Steve. I already did that calculation some time ago. Good for you. So you agree that the G+T claim is bunkum.
|
|
radun
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 152
|
Post by radun on Mar 18, 2009 18:48:59 GMT
An interesting contribution to the debate. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner (Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4)) Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many 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 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. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius 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 falsified. arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 19, 2009 7:54:28 GMT
Steve says: "You should find that whatever method you use, the rise in each will be about 0.5 degrees showing that the method doesn't affect the result significantly."Steve. Steve. I already did that calculation some time ago. Good for you. So you agree that the G+T claim is bunkum. No, I agree with the other posters here that your argument is weak if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on others. What is bunkum, is your attempt to use fallacies instead of logic.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 19, 2009 13:52:08 GMT
Good for you. So you agree that the G+T claim is bunkum. No, I agree with the other posters here that your argument is weak if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on others. What is bunkum, is your attempt to use fallacies instead of logic. Look up ad hominem in the dictionary. Examples of ad hominem are "Al Gore is a fat hypocrite who lives in a big house", "Jim Hansen is a loony fraud who advocates criminal behaviour". I might have been a bit rude about McKitrick, but then again I've had a few run-ins with him so I'm just giving as good as I've got. I've pointed out what I regard as specific errors and problems with what is written in the paper. I don't know who G+T (the people) are and I've never commented on them personally. I've only commented on what they've written in this document. For all I know, they could be a Turing machine (that's as close to ad hominem as I'll get.) I did initially refuse to get involved in this discussion unless anyone could present pages 80-90 of G+T in layman's language. So far I've had no answers to my challenge.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 19, 2009 14:14:15 GMT
No, I agree with the other posters here that your argument is weak if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on others. What is bunkum, is your attempt to use fallacies instead of logic. Look up ad hominem in the dictionary. Examples of ad hominem are "Al Gore is a fat hypocrite who lives in a big house", "Jim Hansen is a loony fraud who advocates criminal behaviour". I might have been a bit rude about McKitrick, but then again I've had a few run-ins with him so I'm just giving as good as I've got. I've pointed out what I regard as specific errors and problems with what is written in the paper. I don't know who G+T (the people) are and I've never commented on them personally. I've only commented on what they've written in this document. For all I know, they could be a Turing machine (that's as close to ad hominem as I'll get.) I did initially refuse to get involved in this discussion unless anyone could present pages 80-90 of G+T in layman's language. So far I've had no answers to my challenge. Email Gehrlich. I did, and he replied. Further, if it layman's language you wish, read the following. It is very much the same concept. Prove it wrong, or find a source that has. Once beyond the introduction, even the most astute in this forum and likely the vast majority anywhere will get lost in the depths of the complexities. Reality does not agree with CO2 AGW. We have been told climate models contain all the necessary physics, and once one understands just how these models are created, claims made by the modelers and true believers that GCM's are modeled representations of the physical world is in fact, a lie. My challenge to you then is to present evidence that GCM's are little more than very complicated engineering code with the outputs being untested assumptions and tuned parameters to match the programmer's preconceived instructions. Prove me wrong. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 19, 2009 15:30:15 GMT
This is a pretty insulting reply!
ie. "show them this and that'll confuse 'em enough to shut 'em up".
This section interested me. For Miskolczi's theory to work he has to prove that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with itself and with the ground. I'd hope that a priori you would agree with me that that sounds very suspect.
In this section he tries to prove it with observations from a tower. However, his interpretation, that the air is in equilibrium with the ground, is unproven given that he is using temperature at 2 metres as his ground temperature - the whole point of measuring temperature at 2 metres is to limit the impact of direct longwave radiation from the ground.
Furthermore, a) what is the error in his measurement, and what is the diversion from equilibrium one would expect from b) natural variation and c) the action of an increase in the greenhouse effect according to the theory.
I would lay large bets that both a) and b) are much bigger than c) indicating that the experiment doesn't disprove the greenhouse effect.
The upshot of Miskolczi's assumption is (obviously) that outgoing longwave radiation at the top of atmosphere is going to be closely tied to the heating of the atmosphere at the surface. Essentially he believes the atmosphere is a "super-conductor" of heat - have a look at equations 5 and 6 in his well blogosphered paper. Such an atmosphere can never demonstrate the greenhouse effect. But, it's an impossible atmosphere.
PS. I know that other people have more issues with this paper, but this is my analysis - not anyone elses that I've copied off the web, so I'm happy to be advised of faults in it.
is of course another example of ad hominem as it states that modellers are liars.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 19, 2009 16:42:59 GMT
This is a pretty insulting reply! ie. "show them this and that'll confuse 'em enough to shut 'em up". This section interested me. For Miskolczi's theory to work he has to prove that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with itself and with the ground. I'd hope that a priori you would agree with me that that sounds very suspect. In this section he tries to prove it with observations from a tower. However, his interpretation, that the air is in equilibrium with the ground, is unproven given that he is using temperature at 2 metres as his ground temperature - the whole point of measuring temperature at 2 metres is to limit the impact of direct longwave radiation from the ground. Furthermore, a) what is the error in his measurement, and what is the diversion from equilibrium one would expect from b) natural variation and c) the action of an increase in the greenhouse effect according to the theory. I would lay large bets that both a) and b) are much bigger than c) indicating that the experiment doesn't disprove the greenhouse effect. The upshot of Miskolczi's assumption is (obviously) that outgoing longwave radiation at the top of atmosphere is going to be closely tied to the heating of the atmosphere at the surface. Essentially he believes the atmosphere is a "super-conductor" of heat - have a look at equations 5 and 6 in his well blogosphered paper. Such an atmosphere can never demonstrate the greenhouse effect. But, it's an impossible atmosphere. PS. I know that other people have more issues with this paper, but this is my analysis - not anyone elses that I've copied off the web, so I'm happy to be advised of faults in it. is of course another example of ad hominem as it states that modellers are liars. I read your posts up to a point, but as most of it is prestigious jargon, the time to reply to each point becomes a waste of time. When you have been directly challenged with empirical evidence, we get lectures. You said nothing to refute Miskolczi or Gehrlich, but rather delved into more babbling rhetoric. Statements such as Such an atmosphere can never demonstrate the greenhouse effect. But, it's an impossible atmosphere.is gibberish. PS. I know that other people have more issues with this paper, but this is my analysis - not anyone elses that I've copied off the web, so I'm happy to be advised of faults in it.
Oh please, honor us and point out the errors based on your analysis. That you claim to have the knowledge to refute Miskolczi, which involves high level physics and mathematics, but can't grasp the very basic premise put forth at wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-major-climate-scientist/ speaks volumes. Modelers who claim GCM's correctly represent the physical world, contain all the necessary physics in them, and are not forced to match reality, are liars. If you don't like that, too bad. Gavin Schmidt has been challenged on multiple occasions to present evidence to the contrary, and has refused. The best you'll get is banned from RC.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 20, 2009 9:12:20 GMT
Magellan, I misunderstood your last post - I thought you were quoting an email reply from Gerlich. I now realise you were trying to divert from my request for a layman's discussion of pages 80-90 of G+T's paper. I don't want it from G+T, I want it from you. Throwing a few basic equations together - such as Maxwell's equations, trying to make them look a bit complicated, and then saying "I can't see the term for CO2 therefore CO2 is not relevant" is not convincing to me. My belief is that G+T included it to enhance the "appeal to authority" value of the paper. After all, their equations on the global temperature issue are overcomplicated eg. by not calculating TSI as a separate step. This is a pretty insulting reply! ie. "show them this and that'll confuse 'em enough to shut 'em up". This section interested me. For Miskolczi's theory to work he has to prove that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with itself and with the ground. I'd hope that a priori you would agree with me that that sounds very suspect. In this section he tries to prove it with observations from a tower. However, his interpretation, that the air is in equilibrium with the ground, is unproven given that he is using temperature at 2 metres as his ground temperature - the whole point of measuring temperature at 2 metres is to limit the impact of direct longwave radiation from the ground. Furthermore, a) what is the error in his measurement, and what is the diversion from equilibrium one would expect from b) natural variation and c) the action of an increase in the greenhouse effect according to the theory. I would lay large bets that both a) and b) are much bigger than c) indicating that the experiment doesn't disprove the greenhouse effect. The upshot of Miskolczi's assumption is (obviously) that outgoing longwave radiation at the top of atmosphere is going to be closely tied to the heating of the atmosphere at the surface. Essentially he believes the atmosphere is a "super-conductor" of heat - have a look at equations 5 and 6 in his well blogosphered paper. Such an atmosphere can never demonstrate the greenhouse effect. But, it's an impossible atmosphere. PS. I know that other people have more issues with this paper, but this is my analysis - not anyone elses that I've copied off the web, so I'm happy to be advised of faults in it. is of course another example of ad hominem as it states that modellers are liars. I read your posts up to a point, but as most of it is prestigious jargon, the time to reply to each point becomes a waste of time. When you have been directly challenged with empirical evidence, we get lectures. You said nothing to refute Miskolczi or Gehrlich, but rather delved into more babbling rhetoric. Statements such as Such an atmosphere can never demonstrate the greenhouse effect. But, it's an impossible atmosphere.is gibberish. PS. I know that other people have more issues with this paper, but this is my analysis - not anyone elses that I've copied off the web, so I'm happy to be advised of faults in it.
Oh please, honor us and point out the errors based on your analysis. That you claim to have the knowledge to refute Miskolczi, which involves high level physics and mathematics, but can't grasp the very basic premise put forth at wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/finally-an-honest-quantification-of-urban-warming-by-a-major-climate-scientist/ speaks volumes. Modelers who claim GCM's correctly represent the physical world, contain all the necessary physics in them, and are not forced to match reality, are liars. If you don't like that, too bad. Gavin Schmidt has been challenged on multiple occasions to present evidence to the contrary, and has refused. The best you'll get is banned from RC. It's not babbling rhetoric. It's a bald statement of Miskolczi's claim. Dig out Miskolczi's paper and work through the calculations to equations 5 and 6. That's all you need to do to see my point. He has, through approximations, "demonstrated" that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with itself and with the ground. The approximation is, I think unjustifiable. Leaving aside that he has used air temperature at 2 metres as a proxy for ground temperature, he has no error bars in the experimental evidence, no indication what error bars are required to falsify an anthropogenic CO2-induced imbalance. It is a secondary matter that he has not considered natural variability. The equations state that if IR from the ground increases it will immediately be directly matched by IR from top of atmosphere into space. But that is a model of a superconducting atmosphere.
|
|