Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ExpandMyMind

'German Physicists Trash Global Warming

135 posts in this topic

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.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory

and the paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

an interesting development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-interesting development which again proves science is never settled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ( :sleepy: ) 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :yes:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=171142

Edited by Moon Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :yes:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well,have you read the article?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,have you read the article?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.