Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse...

[ab6pn]

Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse CO2 Effects Within the Frame of Physics

To AGW skeptics this is a landmark paper. The view on global warming or climate change, or whatever their calling it this week is finally starting to turn the corner to sanity.

For the entire 114 page paper click on the following pdf link.


www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf

In summary the paper says:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(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.

This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad to see an opposing point of view. Late the debate rage!!!!
Is this paper a game changer??

[curiousgeorge]

I just have never understood what all the panic is about. Life on this rock is carbon based and thrives at higher levels of CO2 and warmth. Cold and low CO2=Death. So what if we lose some beach front property? Think of all the new construction (and jobs ) that would engender further inland, and in places where we currently can't build or farm because of the crappy weather. Natural warmth means less energy needed to stay warm thru artificial means. And on and on. I just don't see a downside to more CO2 and warmth.

[scpg02]

Jan 1, 2010 11:23:05 GMT curiousgeorge said:

I just have never understood what all the panic is about.

The panic is meant to induce public out cry and acceptance of the new controls placed on their lives. AGW is all about politics, nothing more.

[curiousgeorge]

Jan 1, 2010 16:42:40 GMT scpg02 said:

Jan 1, 2010 11:23:05 GMT curiousgeorge said:

I just have never understood what all the panic is about.

The panic is meant to induce public out cry and acceptance of the new controls placed on their lives. AGW is all about politics, nothing more.

The whole thing reminds me of the first Ghostbusters movie in a way. Especially the line: "Lenni, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters."

[sentient]

Yeah, this is a very good paper. It took them several years to get it published. I downloaded my first copy of a draft in early 2007. Took some time to work through it. For almost two years I had figured with the censorship obvious at the "professional" journals it might never get published. But it got around pretty well on the web. Even so, often I would send someone to where I had last seen it and it was gone. Wonderful to see it make it!

[trbixler]

Be helpful like I was and send a link to the EPA.

[scpg02]

Jan 1, 2010 22:00:13 GMT curiousgeorge said:

The whole thing reminds me of the first Ghostbusters movie in a way. Especially the line: "Lenni, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters."

Can't argue with that though my favorite movie line comes from Men in Black.

Gentleman,Congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training.

Carried that as a tag line for a while.

[Ratty]

I've just annoyed my Aussie pollies as well.

[aj1983]

I haven't read the full paper yet, but I'm interested, so maybe I will read it later. (Just back from work, so I'm really tired at the moment.)

One thing I don't get from the conclusions is their comparison with a perpetual-motion-machine.
There is always heat transferred in all directions, however, there is never NET heat transferred (without external work) from a colder to a warmer object. However, if you heat the colder object (by increasing the temperature from stronger absorption for example), the warmer object will receive more heat from that object than it initially did, so the NET heat transfer is lower, until that object has reached a new equilibrium.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've been taught some time ago I thought.

[aj1983]

Jan 2, 2010 12:54:34 GMT aj1983 said:

I haven't read the full paper yet, but I'm interested, so maybe I will read it later. (Just back from work, so I'm really tired at the moment.)

One thing I don't get from the conclusions is their comparison with a perpetual-motion-machine.
There is always heat transferred in all directions, however, there is never NET heat transferred (without external work) from a colder to a warmer object. However, if you heat the colder object (by increasing the temperature from stronger absorption for example), the warmer object will receive more heat from that object than it initially did, so the NET heat transfer is lower, until that object has reached a new equilibrium at a higher temperature.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I've been taught some time ago I thought.

[jurinko]

The simplest falsification of the whole CO2 scam is Arctic. Increased CO2 should predominantly warm Arctic/Antarctic, since there is very low humidity and CO2 makes rather big part of the "greenhouse" effect. More, in cold air the absorption/emission should work more efficiently than in warmer air.

The reality is as follows:



CRUTEM3+HadSST2 data north of 66th N-latitude. Almost no increase since forties. You can see AMO cycle, but not much more; less cold recent years are consistent with modern solar maximum and accumulated solar energy in the oceans.

Watch as Greenland temps go down again:



Ever saw historical Greenland HadCRUT data in any of the hysterical articles about unprecedented Greenland warming? Not?


Sorry for hijacking thread, but that KNMI site rocks.
climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

[glc]

The G&T paprer makes some rather questionable points, i.e.

In summary the paper says:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

This is well recognised. We know the 'greenhouse' effect
is a misnomer. This part of the G&T analysis is meaningless.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

They are incorrect here. Any body with a temperature above 0K emits radiation. The body does not check whether the surrounding atmosphere is warmer or colder than itself. The effect of absorbing gases in the atmosphere is, not to warm the surface directly, but to slow the rate of cooling.

G&T need to explain how the surface of the earth has an average temperature of ~15 deg C (288K) when the energy received from the sun should only result in a surface temperature of -18 deg C (255K).

[steve]

Jan 1, 2010 1:36:51 GMT ab6pn said:

Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse CO2 Effects Within the Frame of Physics

To AGW skeptics this is a landmark paper. The view on global warming or climate change, or whatever their calling it this week is finally starting to turn the corner to sanity.

Most sceptic scientists properly disregard this pile of overly complicated science which includes a lot of utter nonsense. I read it a couple of years ago, and my own debunking parallels a lot of similar efforts elsewhere so I won't repeat it.

As aj1983 said, the references to a perpetual motion machine are wrong. I think it is more correct to say that heat transport is indeed always from warm to cold (because heat is a measure of net energy). But energy transport from cold to warm is not disallowed by thermodynamics otherwise you would not be able to detect the radiation emitted by colder objects such as Mars or outer space!

[poitsplace]

Jan 2, 2010 13:59:07 GMT glc said:

They are incorrect here. Any body with a temperature above 0K emits radiation. The body does not check whether the surrounding atmosphere is warmer or colder than itself. The effect of absorbing gases in the atmosphere is, not to warm the surface directly, but to slow the rate of cooling.

Ah...but the problem there is that the models indicate a significant increase in the gradient. While it is entirely possible that something like this could occur...it can't happen without paying the fine for breaking the thermodynamic laws (just making a pun). The "tax" is in the form of inefficiency. The larger the increase in the gradient, the more the rest of the system fights to compensate. Higher gradients mean higher convection rates...plain and simple. Higher gradients mean a higher ratio of forward to back radiation...plain and simple.

To suggest that the raw math on CO2 absorption would tell you how much warming to expect is like suggesting that all cars get the same mileage per unit of mass because there is the same amount of energy theoretically available from the gasoline they use. The laws of thermodynamics mean there will be LESS initial driving from CO2 than the theoretical maximum you get from the absorption math...probably a LOT less.

Of course, I'm aware that YOU know this. I'm just pointing out something most people in the AGW camp miss completely. Personally...as a "lukewarmer" (I assume you're still more or less in that group)... I couldn't stand the thought that anyone would EVER misinterpret my stance as being remotely in line with that of the AGW groups. That's why I always try to point that out.

The impact of CO2 on climate is obviously not anywhere near as pronounced (if its detectable at all in these ranges) as the propaganda says. The climate is CLEARLY not responding in a way that I would consider "catastrophic". And even if the earth did warm by the highest of the IPCC's estimates...there would be far, far less death and destruction (IF ANY) than suggested by alarmists. In fact, it's quite possible that discouraging the developing nations from simply using (cleaner) coal burning technologies (and premature conversion in developed nations)...may do more harm.

[icefisher]

Jan 2, 2010 13:59:07 GMT glc said:

The G&T paprer makes some rather questionable points, i.e.

In summary the paper says:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

This is well recognised. We know the 'greenhouse' effect
is a misnomer. This part of the G&T analysis is meaningless.

I disagree. We are talking about communications of ideas here. The "Greenhouse Theory" is a lie. Our atmosphere is getting warmer but it is not acting in ways that gases in a greenhouse act.

Jan 2, 2010 13:59:07 GMT glc said:

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

They are incorrect here. Any body with a temperature above 0K emits radiation. The body does not check whether the surrounding atmosphere is warmer or colder than itself. The effect of absorbing gases in the atmosphere is, not to warm the surface directly, but to slow the rate of cooling.

Complete nonsense! You say on one hand that the cool atmosphere is not warming the surface but instead slowing down its cooling then you turn right around and say that the cold atmosphere emits photons which shoot back to the surface and warm the surface.

Which is it?

You can't claim what the models do or do not do as you cannot produce the code of the models so people can actually see how they work.

Jan 2, 2010 13:59:07 GMT glc said:

G&T need to explain how the surface of the earth has an average temperature of ~15 deg C (288K) when the energy received from the sun should only result in a surface temperature of -18 deg C (255K).

The surface stores heat in the atmosphere via conduction, convection, and radiation.

Winds and water are the primary vehicles.

The little teensy amount of CO2 (1 part in 2600) acts to add a small amount of warming as well.

I don't buy the secret models. I have heard folks here argue they are not parameterized to produce the desired results but I can't seem to get anybody to show the experimental evidence of how photons operate complete with speeds and conversion rates. The entire body of science appears built on untested theory.

Auditors have to deal with such matters constantly where a lot of numbers and calculations are available but no real assurance that the asset is going to perform in accordance with the calculations because of the unknown and/or uncontrollable variables.

However, like AGW that has never stopped "anybody" from claiming they know the answer.