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

# 'German Physicists Trash Global Warming

133 replies to this topic

### #16 MARAB0D

MARAB0D

Forum Divinity

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

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:19 AM

Startraveler, on 31 December 2009 - 05:39 AM, said:

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.

1. neither earth nor Moon are radiating theoretical black bodies, but grey bodies, so stefan-boltzman in this form is not applicable.

2. Earth does not exist at mean temperature and does not radiate at it, because the solar heat is distributed unevenly between equatorial and polar zones. Some areas radiate more intensively than others. Some areas are more "black" than others too.

3. Radiation from the earth surface is not the main mechanism of cooling at all: the main one is contact heat transfer from soil to the lowest layers of air, which initiates convection in the atmosphere, so the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere (top layers of stratosphere). Any heat transfer goes ONLY from higher temperatures to the lower ones, so the general heat emission always goes to open space.

4. The actual greenhouse is a transparent CLOSED volume in which convection is not allowed by the ROOF, so the hot air does not leave it; "greenhouse effect" makes only a virtual reference to the actual greenhouse and makes sense only LOCALLY when the area has compact cloud coverage (water vapours are the main "greenhouse gas"). Local processes present the mere aberrations in the global heat-exchange, which is always balanced in/out (with some precession which we can see in weather fluctuations).

And many more points (   ) which Copenhagen climatologists failed to substantiate, otherwise the deal would've been struck. Your calculation is an example of a student problem on black body radiation and completely lacks practical value. Meanwhile, AGW is finished, so we are beating a dead donkey.

Edited by marabod, 31 December 2009 - 06:20 AM.

### #17 Startraveler

Startraveler

Fleet Captain

• Member
• 4,420 posts
• Joined:25 Jun 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:New England

• Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:35 AM

Quote

1. neither earth nor Moon are radiating theoretical black bodies, but grey bodies, so stefan-boltzman in this form is not applicable.

As was pointed out to you in another thread, the earth is not a gray body in this context (nor is it a blackbody). That's why we have the albedo term (1-α).

Quote

2. Earth does not exist at mean temperature and does not radiate at it, because the solar heat is distributed unevenly between equatorial and polar zones. Some areas radiate more intensively than others. Some areas are more "black" than others too.

No kidding. This isn't particularly relevant to the point I'm making.

Quote

3. Radiation from the earth surface is not the main mechanism of cooling at all: the main one is contact heat transfer from soil to the lowest layers of air, which initiates convection in the atmosphere, so the actual radiation into open space happens in atmosphere (top layers of stratosphere). Any heat transfer goes ONLY from higher temperatures to the lower ones, so the general heat emission always goes to open space.

4. The actual greenhouse is a transparent CLOSED volume in which convection is not allowed by the ROOF, so the hot air does not leave it; "greenhouse effect" makes only a virtual reference to the actual greenhouse and makes sense only LOCALLY when the area has compact cloud coverage (water vapours are the main "greenhouse gas"). Local processes present the mere aberrations in the global heat-exchange, which is always balanced in/out (with some precession which we can see in weather fluctuations).

Now you're starting to get it. The radiating temperature we calculate to satisfy equilibrium constraints is not the surface temperature of the planet. This is because that temperature is associated with a certain pressure level in the atmosphere (this pressure value is impacted by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). We can extrapolate the surface temperature down along an adiabat from that that radiating pressure level in the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases reduce that pressure level and we have to extrapolate further along the adiabat: that is, the surface temperature is warmer.

In the absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the planet would be cooler. I frankly find it somewhat astonishing that you're disputing this after you posted the numbers that confirm exactly what I'm saying.

### #18 MARAB0D

MARAB0D

Forum Divinity

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

Posted 31 December 2009 - 07:32 AM

Quote

As was pointed out to you in another thread, the earth is not a gray body in this context (nor is it a blackbody). That's why we have the albedo term (1-α).

I am not going into this! I simply do not care, what is written by the idiots in wikipedia, I go by Physics, and in that thread you mention I referred to a university textbook. And Physics only knows 2 types of bodies - black (theoretical) and grey (real). Black body absorbs and emits in all continuous EM spectrum and grey only in some selected parts of spectrum...

But let us consider you have won (I am not ambitious) and in few years we would all die of overheating (as hardly anyone would release funds for cooling the planet) - I am very relaxed about this prospect and do not share your emotions, OK we would die.

### #19 Mattshark

Mattshark

stuff

• Member
• 16,985 posts
• Joined:29 Dec 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Liverpool, UK

• Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 31 December 2009 - 03:16 PM

Startraveler, on 31 December 2009 - 06:35 AM, said:

In the absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the planet would be cooler. I frankly find it somewhat astonishing that you're disputing this after you posted the numbers that confirm exactly what I'm saying.
Mara is good at ignoring bits that don't suit his agenda.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

### #20 Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,884 posts
• Joined:08 Jan 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Manchester or Israel

• All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:15 PM

Mattshark, on 31 December 2009 - 03:16 PM, said:

Mara is good at ignoring bits that don't suit his agenda.
Rather than attack posters' politics, as our resident AGW expert, why not address the paper which is the subject of the thread ? The authors summarise with 16 points, are they wrong ?

Oh and btw, I am still waiting

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=171142

Edited by Moon Monkey, 31 December 2009 - 04:21 PM.

### #21 Mattshark

Mattshark

stuff

• Member
• 16,985 posts
• Joined:29 Dec 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Liverpool, UK

• Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:38 PM

Moon Monkey, on 31 December 2009 - 04:15 PM, said:

Rather than attack posters' politics, as our resident AGW expert, why not address the paper which is the subject of the thread ? The authors summarise with 16 points, are they wrong ?

Oh and btw, I am still waiting

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=171142
Who said I am an expert? I think Startraveller has summed up pretty well why they are wrong. You want an expert speak to Doug1o29. But since mara is wilfully ignorant of a lot of science why should I not point out his approach. He doesn't even understand the concept of a scientific theory and yet is willing to attack QM over a not having a degree.

You can wait as long as you want because you have no argument to counter except "looks at my graph while I ignore everythings".
Tell you what I'll throw you a bone when you put some statistical analyse on you useless plain graph ok?

Edited by Mattshark, 31 December 2009 - 04:40 PM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

### #22 Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,884 posts
• Joined:08 Jan 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Manchester or Israel

• All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 31 December 2009 - 04:44 PM

Mattshark, on 31 December 2009 - 04:38 PM, said:

Who said I am an expert? I think Startraveller has summed up pretty well why they are wrong.

You can wait as long as you want because you have no argument to counter except "looks at my graph while I ignore everythings".
Tell you what I'll throw you a bone when you put some statistical analyse on you useless plain graph ok?
I'll take their paper and subsequent papers backing their claims over a couple of posts in an Unexplained Mysteries thread containing an argument between posters. When Startraveller publishes a field defining paper refuting their claims and links it here I will be happy to accept that they were wrong and that I was wrong to question the physics level in a UM thread.

No bones needed, no statistical analysis needed just post the logarithmic relationship you claim explains the deutrium and CO2 trends in the ice core data or admit you are a BS-er.

Edited by Moon Monkey, 31 December 2009 - 04:49 PM.

### #23 questionmark

questionmark

Cinicus Magnus

• Member
• 32,333 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 - 04:53 PM

Moon Monkey, on 31 December 2009 - 04:44 PM, said:

I'll take their paper and subsequent papers backing their claims over a couple of posts in an Unexplained Mysteries thread. When Startraveller publishes a paper refuting their claims I will be happy to accept they were wrong and that I was wrong to question a UM thread.

No bones needed, no statistical analysis needed just post the logarithmic relationship you claim explains the deutrium and CO2 trends in the ice core data or admit you are a BS-er.

I just wonder where Dr. G and Dr. T come up with an explanation of their assumed magical values of 0.7 and 1/4 came from or if they are just misleading their readers.

I am no physicist but I can already blow a hole in their theory. So can anybody in the know of high-school physics.

That whole paper is bunk...and I am not the only one to see that.

Now, that there may be some holes in the radiating bodies theory (which is not the only warming effect because else the microwave would not work) is certain, but our good doctors are far from demonstrating that.

Edited by questionmark, 31 December 2009 - 04:54 PM.

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

### #24 Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,884 posts
• Joined:08 Jan 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Manchester or Israel

• All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:01 PM

questionmark, on 31 December 2009 - 04:53 PM, said:

I just wonder where Dr. G and Dr. T come up with an explanation of their assumed magical values of 0.7 and 1/4 came from or if they are just misleading their readers.

I am no physicist but I can already blow a hole in their theory. So can anybody in the know of high-school physics.

That whole paper is bunk...and I am not the only one to see that.

Now, that there may be some holes in the radiating bodies theory (which is not the only warming effect because else the microwave would not work) is certain, but our good doctors are far from demonstrating that.
I didn't read it all yet but I have seen a couple of papers attempting to 'blow a hole in their theory' which have subsequently been shown incorrect by other independent authors. Going by what you say I am sure they must be a laughing stock at the institute where they work if they cannot do high school physics...the undergrads must be making their lives a real misery never mind their peers and bosses, who cannot be very happy that their institution has been shown to employ academics who cannot cope with high school physics.

As for any questions why not just mail them ? I have seen a number of physics forums where individual points and queries were raised and the authors were mailed/invited and came on the forum to explain anything asked to the satisfaction of all posters.If you can blow a hole in their theory..do it...publish it or, again, contact them and invite them here as they seem very receptive.

BTW I am not sure about the 1/4 (do you mean the one in the temp calculation? If so that comes from the integration of the energy balance equation to get the temp out) but in response to the 0.7 question their answer was:
The emissivity (e) is related to the albedo (A) describing the reflectivity or the whiteness of an object:
A = 1 - e. In the earlier literature one often finds A = 0.5, in current publications A = 0.3.
In the papers I saw trying to refute their claims it sems this figure is accepted.

Edited by Moon Monkey, 31 December 2009 - 05:41 PM.

### #25 Mattshark

Mattshark

stuff

• Member
• 16,985 posts
• Joined:29 Dec 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Liverpool, UK

• Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:13 PM

Moon Monkey, on 31 December 2009 - 04:44 PM, said:

I'll take their paper and subsequent papers backing their claims over a couple of posts in an Unexplained Mysteries thread containing an argument between posters. When Startraveller publishes a field defining paper refuting their claims and links it here I will be happy to accept that they were wrong and that I was wrong to question the physics level in a UM thread.

No bones needed, no statistical analysis needed just post the logarithmic relationship you claim explains the deutrium and CO2 trends in the ice core data or admit you are a BS-er.
Then you are a fraud and a hypocrite, they have no raw data so how can you accept their claim without looking at that. There is only one bs-er here monkey. The one of use who has fundamentally ignored every piece of evidence given to him, the one of us who tries to make a claim with a plain graph of raw data (something which you wouldn't do in the first year of university).

Oh actually they are. I have given you papers saying that exact thing. You just won't except them so unless you do it yourself you can do one.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

### #26 Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,884 posts
• Joined:08 Jan 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Manchester or Israel

• All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:23 PM

Mattshark, on 31 December 2009 - 05:13 PM, said:

Then you are a fraud and a hypocrite, they have no raw data so how can you accept their claim without looking at that. There is only one bs-er here monkey. The one of use who has fundamentally ignored every piece of evidence given to him, the one of us who tries to make a claim with a plain graph of raw data (something which you wouldn't do in the first year of university).

Oh actually they are. I have given you papers saying that exact thing. You just won't except them so unless you do it yourself you can do one.
They have the equations they use, you can use the equations to conduct your own calculations...they do not rely on anything not contained within their text for their results.

You have not once presented anything that contains the logarithmic relationship you claim exists bewteen the CO2 and deutrium data...whether it is raw or otherwise is unimportant and irrelevent and simply an attempt to go off at a tangent and avoid answering the simple question:

where...is....the...logarithmic...relationship...you...claim...explains...the....trends ? (I don't believe it exists)

### #27 Mattshark

Mattshark

stuff

• Member
• 16,985 posts
• Joined:29 Dec 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Liverpool, UK

• Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:39 PM

Moon Monkey, on 31 December 2009 - 05:23 PM, said:

They have the equations they use, you can use the equations to conduct your own calculations...they do not rely on anything not contained within their text for their results.

You have not once presented anything that contains the logarithmic relationship you claim exists bewteen the CO2 and deutrium data...whether it is raw or otherwise is unimportant and irrelevent and simply an attempt to go off at a tangent and avoid answering the simple question:

where...is....the...logarithmic...relationship...you...claim...explains...the....trends ? (I don't believe it exists)
Yes I have you ignored it, like you have ignored everything else. I gave you an r squared value it too. I have done far more than you. I have posted plenty, you in return have been obstinate and wilfully ignorant.

Actually it does presenting raw data shows you do not know what you are doing. It has no value and is as such worthless unless you do more with it.

Oh and I'm afraid it is you who claimed there was no link (which you have never shown) and then got upset because I won't do your work for you. Sorry. I told you I am not going to go through the data and format it for your convenience.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

### #28 Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,884 posts
• Joined:08 Jan 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Manchester or Israel

• All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:52 PM

Mattshark, on 31 December 2009 - 05:39 PM, said:

Yes I have you ignored it, like you have ignored everything else. I gave you an r squared value it too. I have done far more than you. I have posted plenty, you in return have been obstinate and wilfully ignorant.

Actually it does presenting raw data shows you do not know what you are doing. It has no value and is as such worthless unless you do more with it.

Oh and I'm afraid it is you who claimed there was no link (which you have never shown) and then got upset because I won't do your work for you. Sorry. I told you I am not going to go through the data and format it for your convenience.
Absolute rubbish, but I expect no more from you. The r2 figure is meaningless (especially on its own..what am I supposed to do with it exactly?) and I am not even going to explain to you why it is rubbish until I see the relationship you claim leads you to it. I know where you got this figure from...but we digress.

There was no need for me to preprocess the data, other than to remove means to show the trends on the same scale....even without the graphs the anomaly is well known...forget the graph it was purely for illustration of my question (although I would be interested in the future, after we have dealt with this relationship thing, to know what preprocessing you would recommend, every time I see the Vostock data it is not preprocessed...but this is all by the by)

I did not claim there was no link, I asked if you could explain the anomaly..you said you could as there was no anomaly and the trends fitted the known relationship..(do I need to link you up again?)..something that the field disagrees with you on, including the authors you linked me to and the reason I keep asking as you for this as you would rather continue to embarrass yourself by saying you know what it is but will not post it than admit you were BS-ing.

Edited by Moon Monkey, 31 December 2009 - 05:53 PM.

### #29 Mattshark

Mattshark

stuff

• Member
• 16,985 posts
• Joined:29 Dec 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Liverpool, UK

• Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:07 PM

Moon Monkey, on 31 December 2009 - 05:52 PM, said:

Absolute rubbish, but I expect no more from you. The r2 figure is meaningless (especially on its own..what am I supposed to do with it exactly?) and I am not even going to explain to you why it is rubbish until I see the relationship you claim leads you to it. I know where you got this figure from...but we digress.
Yeah, except I gave you it in context, but never mind.

Quote

There was no need for me to preprocess the data, other than to remove means to show the trends on the same scale....even without the graphs the anomaly is well known...forget the graph it was purely for illustration of my question (although I would be interested in the future, after we have dealt with this relationship thing, to know what preprocessing you would recommend, every time I see the Vostock data it is not preprocessed...but this is all by the by)
Ok then send me your data and I will look at it.

Quote

I did not claim there was no link, I asked if you could explain the anomaly..you said you could as there was no anomaly and the trends fitted the known relationship..(do I need to link you up again?)..something that the field disagrees with you on, including the authors you linked me to and the reason I keep asking as you for this as you would rather continue to embarrass yourself by saying you know what it is but will not post it than admit you were BS-ing.
I gave you papers, you didn't like, your problem not mine.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

### #30 Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,884 posts
• Joined:08 Jan 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:Manchester or Israel

• All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:15 PM

Mattshark, on 31 December 2009 - 06:07 PM, said:

Yeah, except I gave you it in context, but never mind.

Ok then send me your data and I will look at it.

I gave you papers, you didn't like, your problem not mine.
In the context of deflecting away from the question.

It is not my data it is the ice-core data (that you couldn't find) it is still linked in the other thread that is linked again about 8 posts up but if you cannot find it don't worry, I'll link you up.

You gave me a link to an abstract that wasn't related to the question....just post the relationship you claim exists. It has been a month and dozens of posts back and to, surely it would be quicker and easier to just post it (if it exists)

Please don't reply to this question in any other way than a mathematical relationship...I've had my fun and am getting bored. I will just remind you of this from time to time when you are pretending to be 'all about the science' in some thread or other.

Then you can deal with the 16 points in the summary of the paper that this thread is about.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users