Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

'German Physicists Trash Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#1    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 30 December 2009 - 07:20 PM

Quote

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

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.

http://www.climatega...-warming-theory

and the paper http://arxiv.org/PS_...0707.1161v4.pdf

an interesting development?


#2    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 December 2009 - 07:54 PM

Quote

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

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.

Huh, one does not need to be a professor to establish this! It seems so obvious, that any student of Physics would say the same. A colder body cannot transfer heat to a warmer body, to insist on the opposite is completely insane and must take an absolute ignoramus who never heard of Thermodynamics. Laughing stock!


#3    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,536 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 30 December 2009 - 08:51 PM

-interesting development which again proves science is never settled

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#4    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,415 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 December 2009 - 08:52 PM

Very funny... really. Looks like Doctor G. and Dr. T. have never actually checked the climate change theory.

As for greenhouse gases...another name would be more adequate.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#5    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,874 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 30 December 2009 - 09:00 PM

Well from the looks of it, all the math is printed right there in paper if anyone wants to check their work and see if it's false.


#6    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 December 2009 - 10:24 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 30 December 2009 - 08:52 PM, said:

Very funny... really. Looks like Doctor G. and Dr. T. have never actually checked the climate change theory.

As for greenhouse gases...another name would be more adequate.

I know it is hard to get it having no uni degree - but the co2 theory suggests COLDER gas emitting heat towards WARMER Earth surface, which is physically impossible. They base on Gas Kinetics only without taking the Thermodynamics into account. Just make a test - put a cold kettle on your belly (you release a lot of heat routinely!) and try to get it boiled, the heating of it would STOP as soon as its temperature becomes equal to your body temperature (in best case).


#7    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,518 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 30 December 2009 - 11:45 PM

Quote

They base on Gas Kinetics only without taking the Thermodynamics into account.

Just to be clear: you're arguing that greenhouse gases don't raise surface temperatures? Presumably you believe the Earth's surface temperature is the same as it would be in the absence of an atmosphere?


#8    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,415 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 12:08 AM

View Postmarabod, on 30 December 2009 - 10:24 PM, said:

I know it is hard to get it having no uni degree - but the co2 theory suggests COLDER gas emitting heat towards WARMER Earth surface, which is physically impossible. They base on Gas Kinetics only without taking the Thermodynamics into account. Just make a test - put a cold kettle on your belly (you release a lot of heat routinely!) and try to get it boiled, the heating of it would STOP as soon as its temperature becomes equal to your body temperature (in best case).

Saying that it is surprising you have one...except maybe in Philosophy...

As soon as you answer Startravellers question above you will notice that what you are saying is crap.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#9    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 December 2009 - 01:45 AM

View PostStartraveler, on 30 December 2009 - 11:45 PM, said:

Just to be clear: you're arguing that greenhouse gases don't raise surface temperatures? Presumably you believe the Earth's surface temperature is the same as it would be in the absence of an atmosphere?

no, I do not believe this. If there was no atmosphere our daytime temperature would be about hundred degrees above our usual and our night time temperature would be a hundred below. And only the average could be the same. You must force yourself to spend some time and complete school course.


#10    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,518 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 02:11 AM

Quote

And only the average could be the same.

Calculate the effective surface temperature for the earth in the absence of an atmosphere (assume a planetary average albedo of 0.3). If you get a number above the freezing point of water, you're doing it wrong.


#11    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:03 AM

View PostStartraveler, on 31 December 2009 - 02:11 AM, said:

Calculate the effective surface temperature for the earth in the absence of an atmosphere (assume a planetary average albedo of 0.3). If you get a number above the freezing point of water, you're doing it wrong.

I presume you've just visited wiki instead of following the advice... So, how does this clarify your initial question? Have you ever heard of the insulating? Given that you now can operate with such complex things as albedo, please explain what exactly did you mean? I am actually asking without any interest, because as I said the topic belongs to elementary school Study of Nature, not even to Physics. The estimate of what would be with the Earth if it lacks atmosphere provides the Moon:

Visual geometric albedo 0.12
Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C
Maximum surface temperature 123°C
Minimum surface temperature -233°C


#12    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:22 AM

View Postmarabod, on 30 December 2009 - 07:54 PM, said:

Huh, one does not need to be a professor to establish this! It seems so obvious, that any student of Physics would say the same. A colder body cannot transfer heat to a warmer body, to insist on the opposite is completely insane and must take an absolute ignoramus who never heard of Thermodynamics. Laughing stock!
Hi Marabod-- don't you find it interesting that, "The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming" are just that -- 'models'. What I mean is that the claims by 'climatologists' that Man (and I put stress on "Man") is 100% responsible for climate change is based on models ~~~ plus, of course, *assumptions* that the increased global climate changes must be proof that 'Man' is 100% responsible for causing these changes.

The fact that global climate changes have been an on-going process in nature, and will continue to be an on-going process in nature in the future is not denied by scientists. That said -- the publicity machine of propaganda keeps pushing the idea that 'Man' has to reverse this change; and if 'Man' does not succeed in that, "the sky will fall".

Ok, that's a bit of a rave, but I think you will see my point, even though you probably will not agree with the general gist of my views on this.

Cheers,
Karlis


#13    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,518 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:29 AM

That's interesting, you got the correct answer by juxtaposing two (mostly) incorrect posts.

Quote

If there was no atmosphere our daytime temperature would be about hundred degrees above our usual and our night time temperature would be a hundred below. And only the average could be the same.

Quote

The estimate of what would be with the Earth if it lacks atmosphere provides the Moon:

Mean surface temperature (day) 107°C
Mean surface temperature (night) -153°C

Earth at present has the capacity to very quickly smooth out the wrinkles in its energy balance and mix heat from region to another (the uniform temperature approximation). So if you assume no atmospheric influence on the average surface temperature, you have to calculate what the planet's surface temperature ought to be in equilibrium. That's what I asked for in my last--admittedly poorly-worded--post. Your assumption is that this effective surface temperature would be that which we measure now. That's incorrect.

You bring up the example of bodies like the moon that don't operate at the uniform temperature limit. And that's fair, if you want to assume very little heat mixing occurs. In that case your first post is essentially correct: it will average out to be the same. But not the same as the currently observed surface temperature, the same as what you'd calculate the effective surface temperature to be under the uniform temperature approximation. And that's below the freezing point of water, right around 250-255 K.

So the effective (average) surface temperature of the earth if we neglect greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (whether you want to assume heat mixing occurs and calculate in the uniform temperature limit or if you go the opposite route and assume vast swings in temperature but average the day and night averages) is below what we know the average surface temperature to be (i.e. with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).

And, yes, this is very much physics. Thermodynamics, even.

Edited by Startraveler, 31 December 2009 - 04:37 AM.


#14    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:01 AM

View PostKarlis, on 31 December 2009 - 04:22 AM, said:

Hi Marabod-- don't you find it interesting that, "The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming" are just that -- 'models'. What I mean is that the claims by 'climatologists' that Man (and I put stress on "Man") is 100% responsible for climate change is based on models ~~~ plus, of course, *assumptions* that the increased global climate changes must be proof that 'Man' is 100% responsible for causing these changes.

The fact that global climate changes have been an on-going process in nature, and will continue to be an on-going process in nature in the future is not denied by scientists. That said -- the publicity machine of propaganda keeps pushing the idea that 'Man' has to reverse this change; and if 'Man' does not succeed in that, "the sky will fall".

Ok, that's a bit of a rave, but I think you will see my point, even though you probably will not agree with the general gist of my views on this.

Cheers,
Karlis

Earth is not a human being - and the processes on it can be only called "catastrophe" for us, but not for the planet. In a large sense Ice Age was such catastrophe - meanwhile we know that it was far not the only Ice Age ever happening, no, there was man of them before. Similar way there were global warmings after each Ice Age. And the mankind is still here, despite there also were great floods during these warmings.

What is happening with this hysteria, can be derived only from an underdeveloped religious-type mind, which is unable to see the big picture. We are obviously overpopulated - so bugger it, let the excess of us die, there would be more fresh air. Politically-correct do-gooders on one hand want to save the Mankind and allow it to breed up to the moment people would have to stand on one foot supported by the neighbours, while on another hand they deliver the weapons designed to wipe of the same Mankind. We already have no food and water - so let the climate do the things naturally!

If we start throwing around these weapons to force the people to cool the planet, this would be a top of insanity! We would simply do the job instead of the climate, but weaken ourselves before the survival challenge comes. Massive bombing is the simplest way to achieve new Ice Age quickly, but do we need it? In short, I would rather used the money paid to these "climatologists" on fortifying the coastline and dams, if this was done, New Orleans would never felt the lack of funds which caused the tragedy! We need to get rid of all parasites and invest in our own well-being, and let the nations compete who survives better. Everyone would only win! What we achieved so far is every housewife calculates the albedo with the help of wikipedia, while the coastline is getting eroded. Give the idle people shovels and send them to build the dams and wave-breakers, and all would be superb.

All GW studies are SCAM simply because they provide the predictions, which the current generation would never be able to check. We need to simply live and in case of emergency be able to implement some emergency measures, not to assume divine powers and try to chill the planet.

View PostStartraveler, on 31 December 2009 - 04:29 AM, said:

That's interesting, you got the correct answer by juxtaposing two (mostly) incorrect posts.




Earth at present has the capacity to very quickly smooth out the wrinkles in its energy balance and mix heat from region to another (the uniform temperature approximation). So if you assume no atmospheric influence on the average surface temperature, you have to calculate what the planet's surface temperature ought to be in equilibrium. That's what I asked for in my last--admittedly poorly-worded--post. Your assumption is that this effective surface temperature would be that which we measure now. That's incorrect.

You bring up the example of bodies like the moon that don't operate at the uniform temperature limit. And that's fair, if you want to assume very little heat mixing occurs. In that case your first post is essentially correct: it will average out to be the same. But not the same as the currently observed surface temperature, the same as what you'd calculate the effective surface temperature to be under the uniform temperature approximation. And that's below the freezing point of water, right around 250-255 K.

So the effective (average) surface temperature of the earth if we neglect greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (whether you want to assume heat mixing occurs and calculate in the uniform temperature limit or if you go the opposite route and assume vast swings in temperature but average the day and night averages) is below what we know the average surface temperature to be (i.e. with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).

And, yes, this is very much physics. Thermodynamics, even.

Enough already blah-blah! Publish the calculation itself, we would see.


#15    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,518 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:39 AM

Quote

Enough already blah-blah! Publish the calculation itself, we would see.

In equilibrium, the rate of energy loss will equal the energy gained. The solar energy gained is given by the fraction of the total solar luminosity L=4πr2T4 falling on a cross section area of the Earth πa2. The actual energy absorption will depend on the albedo, α; it will be equal to (1-α)πa2L. If we're operating in the uniform temperature limit, the planet loses energy by radiating over its entire surface area 4πa2. Applying a little Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that the rate of energy loss is going to be equal to 4πa2σT4, where T is the planet's surface temperature (i.e. the quantity of interest to us here).

Since we're in equilibrium we simply have to equate the rates of energy loss and gain: σT4 = ¼(1-α)L. Now, it's slightly more interesting to us to write this in terms of the distance r a planet is from the sun (since you've drawn the comparison between the Moon and the Earth, which essentially share a value for r). So we can sub in for the luminosity (using solar and planetary orbital radii and the temperature of the Sun's photosphere, T) and solve for the planet's surface temperature: T = (1/√2)(1-α)¼√(r/r)T.

If you plug in the values of those constants to find the planet's effective surface temperature you'll get about 252K. Lo and behold, that's roughly the average of the night and day temperature averages you posted for the surface of the Moon (107 Celsius or 380 K and -153 Celsius or 120 K; 380 K + 120K / 2 = 250 K). Regardless of whether the planet is in the uniform temperature limit or instead mixes heat as poorly as the Moon, the effective average surface temperature in equilibrium (in the absence of greenhouse gases) is below the freezing point of water. Greenhouse gases do indeed raise the surface temperature of the planet.

Edited by Startraveler, 31 December 2009 - 05:46 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users