Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'German Physicists Trash Global Warming


ExpandMyMind

Recommended Posts

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    36

  • MARAB0D

    23

  • Mattshark

    22

  • Startraveler

    20

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :lol:

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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. :lol:

I gave you papers, you didn't like, your problem not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Papers (plural)? could you point me to some 'cause I only found one and several "allusions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Actually the abstract did make that point but never mind.

Not doing you work for you. If you send me the data you used already for putting in SPSS I will, if not do it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Papers (plural)? could you point me to some 'cause I only found one and several "allusions".

What paper are you talking about, to be honest only Smiths seems to have actually been published so far the other(s) were rejected as incorrect at the review stage, and what allusions ?

Like I said, contact the authors for clarity or the journal, who would be happy to publish your rebuttal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the abstract did make that point but never mind.

Not doing you work for you. If you send me the data you used already for putting in SPSS I will, if not do it yourself.

The absract was nothing to do with the anomaly, it mentioned a logarithmic relationship but never provided it and neither did any of the subsequent papers by the same authors.

Doing my work for me ? What do you need me to send you the data for ? On Dec 19th you claimed to have plotted the data and found it met the logarithmic relationship. Ok, if you need it to make a relationship up now, it is here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html

Just give me the relationship you claimed exists. It will be a mathematical equation. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very relaxed about this prospect and do not share your emotions, OK we would die.

Do you believe I've been making an emotional argument?

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.

I'm not sure what you consider to be a "field defining paper" (I hope you're not implying the paper in the original post is such a paper), but you can start with the original seminal paper on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you consider to be a "field defining paper" (I hope you're not implying the paper in the original post is such a paper), but you can start with the original seminal paper on this.

I mean a paper that puts any questions to bed. Like I said, if the authors are wrong...tell them or the journal where they went wrong. Let us know how you get on.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean a paper that puts any questions to bed.

So you want a "field-defining" paper tailored exactly to respond point-by-point to the one in the OP? Anything else I can conjure to satisfy your whims?

Like I said, if the authors are wrong...tell them or the journal where they went wrong. Let us know how you get on.

It's not all that difficult. Exhibit A: this planet (see above conversation). Exhibit B: the planet Venus. If surface temperature magnitudes aren't impacted by atmospheric thermodynamics than it's puzzling that the surface temperature of Venus should be higher than that of Mercury, despite the fact that its perihelion is about .4 AU further from the Sun than is Mercury's (all while having a significantly higher albedo).

Edited by Startraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you want a "field-defining" paper tailored exactly to respond point-by-point to the one in the OP? Anything else I can conjure to satisfy your whims?

Nothing to do with my whims, do as you like. However if a paper I am reading has made a mistake(s) and no correction has been published I would put one together. As it seems from what I am hearing in this thread that they have made simple, obvious high school physics mistakes it should be an easy publication.

Why not quickly whack one together where you can show any or all of their points as incorrect, its your choice. You could simply copy and paste most of your discussion posted here to make up a sizeable chunk ? Let us know how you get on.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean a paper that puts any questions to bed. Like I said, if the authors are wrong...tell them or the journal where they went wrong. Let us know how you get on.

Peer reviewed does not mean automatically right, as you can see by this

Link to comment
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.

Besides, G&T actually proved something quite important in their section 3.7.4 - the average temperature is always lower than the "effective" temperature. This follows from a simple inequality: ((T1+T2)/2)^4 is less than or equal to (T1^4 + T2^4)/2; ie. the fourth power of the average temperature is always less than the average fourth-power of temperatures.

Concluding to the contrary of Gerlich/Teuschner there is a remaining power of 33 Kelvin not re-radiated.

Pretty awful that despite this little mathematical incongruity it got published.

But there are several papers on the way to sink them... it will be fun when people who know alittle more than I do taking them apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe I've been making an emotional argument?

I do not believe anything. Your argument was irrational and thus cannot originate from the rational approach, the only other approach we have is emotional, irrational, originating from our peripheral nervous system, not from the central one. I would be fully satisfied with this discussion if you demonstrate yourself as entitled to hold authority in this type of conversations. This is comparatively easily done. Say, on the basis of the below quote from your post I can maintain that you have NEVER read any university level textbook on Physics:

As was pointed out to you in another thread, the earth is not a gray body in this context (nor is it a blackbody).

To prove me wrong, and that you in fact did read such textbook, please use it to provide the definitions of Black and Grey bodies and forms of the Stefan-Boltzman law applied to them. You can also use this opportunity to find in it the explanation for your thesis that Moon and Earth are neither black nor grey bodies, what sort of bodies they are then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be fully satisfied with this discussion if you demonstrate yourself as entitled to hold authority in this type of conversations.

I don't claim to be an authority, nor is it clear to me why I should. All I've done so far in this thread is ask a few questions and point out fairly obvious things. The fact that you seem to be spending more time trying to figure out what my CV looks like (you want "proof" that I've read a book? are you joking?) instead of thinking through the implications of what you're saying is revealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't claim to be an authority, nor is it clear to me why I should. All I've done so far in this thread is ask a few questions and point out fairly obvious things. The fact that you seem to be spending more time trying to figure out what my CV looks like (you want "proof" that I've read a book? are you joking?) instead of thinking through the implications of what you're saying is revealing.

The "fairly obvious things" you pointed to are PHYSICALLY WRONG! Particularly they cannot be backed up with any of the existing university text books - and if you initiate the exchange like that and provide expert opinions in it about "fairly obvious things" this means you PRETEND to have read this textbook.

I did not ask you to prove you read the textbook, I asked you to publish the definitions from it [assuming you read it]. You refuse, creating a strawman argument that I ask for the proof that you read it. I am also not interested in your CV in any sense, for me your CV may contain Doctors degree in Theoretical Physics, who cares, I would never be seeking to employ you as I already know what you practically know! The definitions were only asked to help you figure out what the terms mean, which you use to explain "fairly obvious things" - and give you better answers on the questions you claim you were asking. By trying to be evasive you are turning this quite interesting exchange into a complete clownade. It is a lot of these Doctors in Wikisics here, but to your bad luck exactly the terms you proudly use are defined WRONGLY in it, and I purposely do not try to correct the article, as this helps catching the fraudsters and pretenders. :sk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Startrav, I am in a good mood and can really explain to you whats wrong with all your planetary examples and why they are irrelevant to greenhouse effect. This is simple: if a planet lacks atmosphere, then its surface is in direct contact with vacuum and all heat-exchange happens directly to this vacuum, which heat capacity is practically infinite. (do you know what is heat capacity? - its amount of heat absorbed which raises temperature for 1 degree centigrade). Infinite means you feel free heating it no matter how well it would still stay cold. Because vacuum has no temperature in our common sense of this word, there is practically no molecules in it. As soon as the sunlight disappears it shortly radiates the whole lot what the surface had, while in sunlight it only heats up, hence +100 to -200 on the Moon.

When a planet has an atmosphere (of ANY gas!), the surface stops radiating, or practically stops. Instead another mechanisms are enabled, as the atmosphere is a so-called Working Body, kept in one piece under its own pressure. The gas in the lowest levels is in CONTACT with the surface, so it heats directly by Heat Conductance mechanism, this causes the expansion, and as the expanded gas is LIGHTER than a colder one, so it floats up in accordance with Archimedes' Law, this is called Convection. When in the very top layers the gas starts to radiate into open space (vacuum), I am a bit simplifying for you, because there are distinctive layers within atmosphere, but all except the lower Troposphere have minimum pressure and gas content, hence the radiation role increases. Some 90% of gas in in the Earth Troposphere anyway...including 90% of CO2 (which is 1.5 times HEAVIER than air) - so what is above has few hundred molecules of this CO2 per cubic meter and it cannot affect anything at all! Any atmosphere works as a transparent for light and IR heat-insulating layer, which has nothing to do with any greenhouse effect and simply delayes the heat transfer enough to allow the planet not to radiate all its surface heat while still this heated side is on the night side. But the heat balance (incoming and outgoing heat) remains the SAME as for a planet with no atmosphere. Atmosphere only SLOWS the heat-exchange down, also it increases the albedo and reduces the incoming heat, by reflecting part of it. This would work exactly like that if our entire atmosphere would be CO2, as there is no difference which gas it is.

In the practical cases it maybe important how many atoms the main atmospheric gas has - NOT the nature of this gas. Regarding the IR emission issues all 2-atomic gases are the same and all 3-atomic gases are the same. CO2 behaves exactly like H2O and even absorbs/emits IR in the same range - which is the main household-level proof of the insanity of AGW theories, as water then must do the same "greenhouse" as CO2, but we have not ppm level of it but the oceans full. Same effect would be demonstrated by Sulphur Dioxide SO2, Nitrogen Dioxide NO2, Hydrogen Sulphide H2S, Selenium and Tellurium Hydrides SeH2 and TeH2 etc etc. Control of CO2 provides nothing without control on water vapours. But the "greenhouse" effect is not in any way a global factor at all, but a LOCAL factor, which cannot affect the entire system because if one component of the heat exchange is delayed (radiation) then the other two would increase (Conduction, Convection), this follows from Principle of Le Chatelier, known for already 250 years, the very early start of Thermodynamics! This Principle is applied to ALL system in the state of equilibrium, and the Earth is in such state for many millions of years.

Feel free to comment if you again disagree with Physics, I am collecting this type of comments hoping to write a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way - if the AGW whoo-whaa was a fraction true, then the solution would be very easy. Instead of paying trillions for stuffing up the world industry, it would be possible to invest in calculated amount of ultra-thin Aluminium foil (perhaps from few hundred to few thousand tons of it) and disperse microscopic pieces of it in the top layers of atmosphere; this would increase albedo overnight and provide us with the desired temperatures as the planet would start receiving less heat. Or to start releasing Ammonia at the altitude of 1-2 km, this would rapidly scavenge all CO2, the micro-generators can be installed right on the planes. What Copenhagen offered was removing a tooth via the anal opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The absract was nothing to do with the anomaly, it mentioned a logarithmic relationship but never provided it and neither did any of the subsequent papers by the same authors.

You haven't shown any anomaly, showing a graph is not showing an anomaly.

Doing my work for me ? What do you need me to send you the data for ? On Dec 19th you claimed to have plotted the data and found it met the logarithmic relationship. Ok, if you need it to make a relationship up now, it is here:

Nope, I plotted a rise in temp and gave you the rsquared value. I looked up the relationship which is shown in numerous sources to be logarithmic

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html

Just give me the relationship you claimed exists. It will be a mathematical equation. Thank you.

No, it would an rsquared value, an F value and a p value, giving you the equation would be an exercise in pointlessness.

And I told you, I cannot be bothered to format the data from the two sets, you do that and I'll happily plot for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the heat balance (incoming and outgoing heat) remains the SAME as for a planet with no atmosphere.

What a long-winded and condescending post that boils down to a repetition of what I said a page ago. Let me repeat that bit: "The radiating temperature we calculate to satisfy equilibrium constraints is not the surface temperature of the planet." Yes, the energy balance is the same with or without an atmosphere. But the temperature of the planet's surface is higher in the former case because that radiating temperature is associated with a pressure level in the atmosphere instead of the planet's surface itself.

Which, again, is why Mars might well have had a warmer and wetter past, why the Earth's average surface temperature is as high as it is, and why the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury. When it comes to surface temperatures, atmospheres matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peer reviewed does not mean automatically right, as you can see by this

Oh don't worry I know...thats been one of my bug bears with Mattsharks unshakeable faith in papers, I have come across work that was wrong many times and even slipped a couple of 'inaccuracies' of my own through the 'peer review' net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't shown any anomaly, showing a graph is not showing an anomaly.

Nope, I plotted a rise in temp and gave you the rsquared value. I looked up the relationship which is shown in numerous sources to be logarithmic

No, it would an rsquared value, an F value and a p value, giving you the equation would be an exercise in pointlessness.

And I told you, I cannot be bothered to format the data from the two sets, you do that and I'll happily plot for you.

The anomaly is well known. Even authors you have linked me to have published on it.

You are a BS-er and I am tired of this dance, it seems the scientific procedure to you means 'grind the guy down with BS and never give a straight answer'. I will be referencing this (and the other threads) ever time you condescend to someone that they are unscientific.

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty awful that despite this little mathematical incongruity it got published.

But there are several papers on the way to sink them... it will be fun when people who know alittle more than I do taking them apart.

It seems that it has taken a while for these people to take them apart. This is version 4 which has been around for a year and was probably known about for 6 months prior to publishment, particularly in their own institution, however version 1 goes back over 3 years. How can these simple mathematical and high school physics mistakes have gotten through ? This is particularly strange for a paper that many would like 'taking apart' for reasons other than acedemic.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.