New Paper: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects

[Gill]

A new peer reviewed paper by Physicists Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. In this paper, Dr. Gerlich, et al examine the theory of global warming and the climate models that are the sole predictors of AGW from the physics perspective. The AGW theory doesn't fare well.

From the abstract:

“(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 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 falsified.”

and it concludes with....

“The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.”
...
“The derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.”

This paper is obviously very critical of the current theory of global warming.

 

[Renae]

A new peer reviewed paper by Physicists Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. In this paper, Dr. Gerlich, et al examine the theory of global warming and the climate models that are the sole predictors of AGW from the physics perspective. The AGW theory doesn't fare well.

From the abstract:



and it concludes with....



This paper is obviously very critical of the current theory of global warming.

EXCELLENT FIND my friend. I expect MDM will come here with some Youtube videos explaining how all AGW critical science is really funded by Exxon.

Because that totally debunks peer reviewed science... :roll:

 

[Frank Talk]

This paper looks pretty poorly done, although I just skimmed over it. A couple quick criticisms:

From the abstract:

raditional 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.

I've never heard of the greenhouse effect being described as heat pump. The greenhouse effect works by slowing the dissipation of heat, it seems they have a misunderstanding of the effect.

From section 3.9.1:

Second law of thermodynamics: Heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one. A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation.

The authors seem to be confused here as well. Any body above absolute zero is going to radiate heat and if put next to a warmer body it is likely that some of the heat radiated from the cooler body will be absorbed by the warmer body. It is extremely unlikely (although possible) that the amount of heat that flows from the colder to the warmer body will exceed the amount of heat that flows in the reverse direction. Hence, the second law claims that the net flow of heat will go from the warmer body to the cooler body not that heat will not flow from a cooler body to a warmer one.

Also, if they're going to publish a paper that attempts to dispute a theory that has been accepted for 150+ years then why are they publishing in a journal of rather low impact?

 

[Frank Talk]

This paper also isn't new. It's a revision of a paper published in 2007 (the original paper is refuted here). While the original paper is peer-reviewed, revision papers generally aren't.

 

[MDM]

EXCELLENT FIND my friend. I expect MDM will come here with some Youtube videos explaining how all AGW critical science is really funded by Exxon.

Because that totally debunks peer reviewed science... :roll:

Don't be silly! I'm putting the Youtube videos here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/Envir...imate-change-hedging-bets.html#post1057969792

And claiming that "all AGW critical science is really funded by Exxon" would be disingenuous. I wouldn't hurt my credibility by making a universal claim like that.


I would instead bolster my credibility by reiterating that the *worldwide* consensus among *all* respected scientific academies and societies support my arguments.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have a nice day.

 

[Renae]

Don't be silly! I'm putting the Youtube videos here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/Envir...imate-change-hedging-bets.html#post1057969792

And claiming that "all AGW critical science is really funded by Exxon" would be disingenuous. I wouldn't hurt my credibility by making a universal claim like that.


I would instead bolster my credibility by reiterating that the *worldwide* consensus among *all* respected scientific academies and societies support my arguments.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have a nice day.

Wikipedia and a pro AGW blogger hall endorsed by political activist sites like "Realclimate.org".

Obviously you only choose the most select of the biased and easily changed sites.

 

[Middleground]

Wikipedia and a pro AGW blogger hall endorsed by political activist sites like "Realclimate.org".

Obviously you only choose the most select of the biased and easily changed sites.

Says Mr Vicchio who watches Fox and reads Worldnetdaily. :roll:

 

[Renae]

Says Mr Vicchio who watches Fox and reads Worldnetdaily. :roll:

I watch Foxnews, and I occasionally read WND, mostly for the fun sensationalism. Have you seen me post WND here in the Climate forum very often as an authoritative source? No.


Nice try attempting to change the discussion from MDM using poor sources to me... cute, but fail.

 

[Frank Talk]

Wikipedia and a pro AGW blogger hall endorsed by political activist sites like "Realclimate.org".

Obviously you only choose the most select of the biased and easily changed sites.

I did give specific criticisms of the paper as well as posting a published refutation of the paper. I don't know if you missed those posts.

 

[Renae]

I did give specific criticisms of the paper as well as posting a published refutation of the paper. I don't know if you missed those posts.

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your using Wikipedia and a blog from realclimate.

 

[winston53660]

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your using Wikipedia and a blog from realclimate.

Oh so you are just going to ignore what else Frank posted:roll:

 

[Frank Talk]

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your using Wikipedia and a blog from realclimate.

That wasn't me.

 

[Middleground]

Have you seen me post WND here in the Climate forum very often as an authoritative source? No.

Ah, yes, you have.

 

[Renae]

Oh so you are just going to ignore what else Frank posted:roll:

He posted a critique. I'm not ignoreing it. We're discussing a revision, he's discussing a critique of the older paper... he posted old news.

 

[Frank Talk]

He posted a critique. I'm not ignoreing it. We're discussing a revision, he's discussing a critique of the older paper... he posted old news.

My criticisms are of the new paper. The fact that the paper was published, critiqued and then revised and republished is troublesome because revised papers generally aren't peer-reviewed.

But just to take another shot at their credibility:

[197] Anonymous, \Science", Wikipedia, 2007, Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[198] Anonymous, \Demarcation Problem", Wikipedia, 2007, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wiki/Demarcation problem

It appears they cited Wikipedia under their references.

 

[MDM]

Wikipedia and a pro AGW blogger hall endorsed by political activist sites like "Realclimate.org".

Obviously you only choose the most select of the biased and easily changed sites.

Doesn't change the fact that the information contained there is true.
Credibility low, yes, but accuracy high.

So are you going to continue to criticize the sources or are you going to try to refute the claims?
If the sources are so biased, they might have posted incorrect information.
Would you like to point out any incorrect information contained in those sources,
or would you rather just STFU?

 

[MDM]

This paper looks pretty poorly done, ...

I've never heard of the greenhouse effect being described as heat pump. The greenhouse effect works by slowing the dissipation of heat, it seems they have a misunderstanding of the effect.
...

Yes, there is a lot of confused ideas in that paper, it inexplicably looks like it was written by someone with knowledge of the mathematics of physics, but not its concepts. There are a lot of climatological systems that are described with some physics equations, but they barely get past first approximations (when they are even appropriate models in the first place).

Heat pump? WTF is Mr. Gerlich talking about?! He even says that a heat transfer is not the same as an energy transfer. ?!? Is something lost in the translation from German?

"Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" - sure, but without the frame of actual climate data or reality.


This is silly. The consensus is in, Global Climate Change Theory as it is currently understood is nearly universally accepted (~90%), the mechanisms are understood, there is evidence across multiple disciplines - meteorology, chemistry, geology, biology, ...

The debate is over. Discussions like these are at best entertainment - a diversion - but more like a distraction. It's a delay tactic to slow progress toward taking necessary action.

Let's stop playing 'armchair scientist,' debating all these little papers and start talking about what to do in light of what we *do know.*

Effing ridiculous!

 

[Frank Talk]

As expected Gill and Vicchio can't hold their own in the discussion.

 

[Renae]

As expected Gill and Vicchio can't hold their own in the discussion.

We can hold our own just fine...

You guys refuse to accept ANY debate showing any facet of AGW to be false.

You guys accept, as holy writ the "fact" man is producing so much CO2 that in 100 years models are showing massive heating to the EARTH!!!! Oh woes us. We've posted numerous studies, which are debunked as being from big oil or some other such silliness, scientific papers, which someone either posts a critique that is taken as the word without debate or a youtube video from an activist group and told we're wrong...

What do you expect? We to keep bashing against your arrogance?

None of you question AGW, you all believe it's real. We present opposing information, in hopes that you'll see that hey.. it's not so simple as you try to think it is... but it's often for not.

I thought Frank, you might have some promise of actually wishing to discuss the matter, and I was looking forward to future discussions with you on the issue, but if you're gonna go down the personal attack/insult route so many other AGW proponents resort too, I won't waste my time.

MDM's number one contribution to this forum so far has been to use activist drivel as an excuse be arrogantly insulting. MG is just going with the flow because well, she's a liberal, and liberals have to believe in AGW so she just parrots...

I was hoping you were a different breed...

 

[Frank Talk]

We can hold our own just fine...

You guys refuse to accept ANY debate showing any facet of AGW to be false.

You guys accept, as holy writ the "fact" man is producing so much CO2 that in 100 years models are showing massive heating to the EARTH!!!! Oh woes us. We've posted numerous studies, which are debunked as being from big oil or some other such silliness, scientific papers, which someone either posts a critique that is taken as the word without debate or a youtube video from an activist group and told we're wrong...

What do you expect? We to keep bashing against your arrogance?

None of you question AGW, you all believe it's real. We present opposing information, in hopes that you'll see that hey.. it's not so simple as you try to think it is... but it's often for not.

I thought Frank, you might have some promise of actually wishing to discuss the matter, and I was looking forward to future discussions with you on the issue, but if you're gonna go down the personal attack/insult route so many other AGW proponents resort too, I won't waste my time.

MDM's number one contribution to this forum so far has been to use activist drivel as an excuse be arrogantly insulting. MG is just going with the flow because well, she's a liberal, and liberals have to believe in AGW so she just parrots...

I was hoping you were a different breed...

I made that attack for one reason, too get you and Gill to come back to the thread to discuss the paper, and it looks like it worked. So if your really want to discuss the matter then let's discuss this paper. Why did you think it was such an excellent find? What do you think of my criticisms?

 

[MDM]

We can hold our own just fine...

Yes, I think you're doing quite well.

You guys refuse to accept ANY debate showing any facet of AGW to be false.

Not exactly.. I accept the debate as a form of entertainment - it is intellectually stimulating, but ultimately useless.

You guys accept, as holy writ the "fact" ...

Nope.

...man is producing so much CO2 that in 100 years models are showing massive heating to the EARTH!!!!

Well, the models do show that (and the historic data), so there are some facts involved.

We've posted numerous studies, ...

Numerous, yes, but still few in comparison to the mountains of data, analysis, evidence, models, and research that supports Climate Change Theory.

which are debunked as being from big oil ...

Some are.

..., scientific papers, which someone either posts a critique that is taken as the word without debate or a youtube video from an activist group and told we're wrong...

Frankly, we don't need to try very hard to counter whatever you bring up since it's pretty weak compared to the scientific consensus. It tends to be repeats of the same old arguments that have been debunked and refuted time and time again.

I don't feel like reinventing the wheel, beating a dead horse, or [insert other cliche here].

What do you expect? We to keep bashing against your arrogance?

You're right. We're just too arrogant and stubborn to debate; you should just give up.

None of you question AGW, you all believe it's real. We present opposing information, in hopes that you'll see that hey.. it's not so simple as you try to think it is... but it's often for [naught].

I can't speak for others, but I believe it's real because there is *a lot* of good science to back it up. I question it - and you're right, it is terribly complex - and the answers I receive are satisfactory (though undesirable! I would love to eventually find out that Global Warming was just a big scare, and we're really going to be alright. It would probably feel good to delude myself into thinking all those scientists might be way wrong. It would probably feel good to believe in angels and an afterlife too, but I don't. I'd rather accept reality as demonstrated to me with a preponderance of evidence than to see a couple odd things here and there and use that to deny the more probable explanation because it would make me feel better).

MDM's number one contribution to this forum so far has been to use activist drivel as an excuse be arrogantly insulting. MG is just going with the flow because well, she's a liberal, and liberals have to believe in AGW so she just parrots...

Oh yeah, well you're just a big fatty dummy! :2razz:

:: Stamps off in a self-righteous huff ::

 

[Gill]

As expected Gill and Vicchio can't hold their own in the discussion.

Post something worthy of a response and I'll be glad to.

 

[Frank Talk]

Post something worthy of a response and I'll be glad to.

Was post 3 not good enough?

 

[Gill]

Was post 3 not good enough?

No, I pretty much stopped when I got to this:

The authors seem to be confused here as well. Any body above absolute zero is going to radiate heat and if put next to a warmer body it is likely that some of the heat radiated from the cooler body will be absorbed by the warmer body. It is extremely unlikely (although possible) that the amount of heat that flows from the colder to the warmer body will exceed the amount of heat that flows in the reverse direction. Hence, the second law claims that the net flow of heat will go from the warmer body to the cooler body not that heat will not flow from a cooler body to a warmer one.

For your further education:

Also, due to Rudolf Clausius, is the simplest formulation of the second law, the heat formulation or Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

Informally, "Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (without work input)", which is obviously true from everyday experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when aided by an external agent (i.e. the compressor). Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This can happen in a non-isolated system if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.

The exception to this is in statistically unlikely events where hot particles will "steal" the energy of cold particles enough that the cold side gets colder and the hot side gets hotter, for an instant. Such events have been observed at a small enough scale where the likelihood of such a thing happening is large enough.[2] The mathematics involved in such an event are described by fluctuation theorem.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(note: I only use Wiki as a source for the most basic of information.)

 

[Frank Talk]

No, I pretty much stopped when I got to this:



For your further education:



Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(note: I only use Wiki as a source for the most basic of information.)

That pretty much backs up what I said, although it could be written better. If you take body at 30K alone it will radiate heat, just because you put it next to a body that is at 40K does not mean it will magically stop radiating heat. Hence why Clausius statement refers to net heat flow not any heat flow. When Gerlich writes things such as:

Fig. 32. A machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir (e.g., stratosphere) to a high temperature reservoir (e.g., atmosphere) without external work applied, cannot exist — even if it is radiatively coupled to an environment, to which it is radiatively balanced. A modern climate model is supposed to be such a variant of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.

When Gerlich writes this he is isolating half the system and applying the second law to any flow of heat, where the law does not hold true.