Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A little light reading for your weekend
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, June 28, 2008

Gee, I wonder if Al Gore's read this yet:
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Entitled "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics", the paper is by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. You can peruse the whole thing here (pdf, 114 pages).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
It doesn’t matter much. We have an entire generation that has been brought to believe in man-made global warming, because it’s been taught to them as fact all their lives. That might be reversed if the left-leaning educational establishment came clean about the whole thing, but they haven’t even admitted they were wrong about communism yet. (Instead, they’re putting up Che posters.)

The narrative on communism became "well, it wasn’t that dangerous at all, was it?" Over a billion people ruthlessly ruled by it, over 100,000,000 deaths, and it just wasn’t that big a threat, don’t you know.

Here’s what I think will probably happen with the global warming narrative, depending on how things turn out.

If we discover that we are indeed in a long term warming trend, but that natural forces are responsible, that will never change the narrative. It will always be our fault, and it will always be an excuse for more government action and control.

If we discover that there’s no long term warming, but just random variation, the narrative will strain to find ways that enlightened leftist environmentalists kept us from going over the precipice. Just as the historical accomplishments of Susan B. Anthony have now grown to dwarf those of Thomas Jefferson in the mind ofthe left, the historical facts will be bent to support that narrative. Contrary views will simply be ignored.

If we turn around and start a long-term cooling trend, I predict that the prevailing narrative will be that there was some sort of rebound effect from man-made warming, and that the answer to it will be - you guessed it - more government action and control.

If, as looks increasingly unlikely, we discover that we are in a long term warming trend and human activity contributes signficantly to it, the narrative will be that it’s all bad (despite the face that the Earth has been much warmer in the past and that warming helps some areas - there’s some evidence that the greatest periods in mankind’s history correspond to warming periods), and it will be necessary to have complete and total government control over the economy to prevent utter cataclysm.

It just doesn’t matter. The left wants control, and they will rationalize that control with any set of facts you hand to them.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I haven’t read it yet (still waiting on a slow connection) but my initial feeling is skepticism. Most AGW critics accept the greenhouse gas theory but attack the idea that the warming is anthropogenic.

And I really can’t see how it violates the 2nd law. I mean, the Earth is being warmed from within and without, so it’s not exactly a closed system.
 
Written By: Ben
URL: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=7695
If you want to skip past a lot of the math and charts, at pages 31 through 33 he’s got a very readable explanation of why a car (or greenhouse) gets so hot in summer.

Anyway, so far he’s convinced me that the term "greenhouse effect" is wrong.
 
Written By: Ben
URL: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=7695
Apparently Gerlich has been making these arguments since the nineties and hasn’t got traction. Gerhard_Gerlich

For a dismissive discussion of Gerlich: Loons

I don’t have the background to assess Gerlich’s technical paper, but I remain quite skeptical that Gerlich has refuted the C02 greenhouse effect. If his refutation is as absolute as claimed, it would seem to me that there would be other scientists, critical of AGW, following him up, but there aren’t. I don’t think that the AGW proponents have their models locked down as tight as they make out, but I doubt they and everyone else have missed something this fundamental.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
And yet .. will none call this suicide ?

US halts solar energy projects over environment fears

Wow ! The Bureau of Land Management is putting a moratorium on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants.

And then they came for nuclear energy,
And I didn’t speak up because we saw The Day After and feared the atom,
And then they came for offshore oil drilling,
And I didn’t speak up because we saw The Pelican Brief and feared "big oil",
And then they came for offshore wind,
And I didn’t speak up because Ted Kennedy was afraid his view would be obscured,
And then they came for solar energy,
And I didn’t speak up because I was too cold and in the dark to do anything


The New Politics of Fear
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I like this part on page 35 ..
Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse e ect is introduced
in harmony with the scientic standards of theoretical physics. As already emphasized, the
\supplement" to Kittel’s book on thermal physics [92] only refers to the IPCC assessments
[23, 25]. Prominent global climatologists (as well as \climate sceptics") often present their
ideas in handbooks, encyclopedias, and in secondary and tertiary literature.
If this is true, then every grantee of federal research money should return it or be a subject of a scientific fraud investigation.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
While we feel there’s a debate on several issues, schools have been busy ingraining the Leftist view of things. Not all schools, but you have a core of cultists who will believe everything from the US is the biggest force of evil, to the US stole its wealth, to solid belief in AGW.

AGW would take a snap cold spell of -15F to make some people question their faith. Otherwise we’ll be fighting this BS for centuries to come now.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
AGW would take a snap cold spell of -15F to make some people question their faith. Otherwise we’ll be fighting this BS for centuries to come now.

Now you know how Galileo felt.

How long did they believe the earth was flat ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
No one has been charged yet for Global Warming, so all this worry is unfounded. Just as we see support for drilling go up with high oil prices, you will see support for carbon taxes or green regulation go down when you are only allowed to fly once per year, or have to pay huge surcharges, etc. Right now its free to claim you want to save the planet. Once it hits your pocketbook, all bets are off.

Then you will see technologies and moderate amelioration plans like Lomborg’s take off and massive carbon tax regimes fade. Unless they are revenue neutral. But that’s not likely is it?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Idk. People tolerate gas taxes in the face of high gas prices. A good portion of the population are sheeple when it comes to the government and taxes.

Something too I don’t doubt they ingrain in them in school, a sense of obligation to pay your government taxes despite how onerous or ridiculous they are.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
And then they came for nuclear energy,
And I didn’t speak up because we saw The Day After and feared the atom,
And then they came for offshore oil drilling,
And I didn’t speak up because we saw The Pelican Brief and feared "big oil",
And then they came for offshore wind,
And I didn’t speak up because Ted Kennedy was afraid his view would be obscured,
And then they came for solar energy,
And I didn’t speak up because I was too cold and in the dark to do anything

that’s brilliant NEO, I am going to steal it (but I’ll give you credit)
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Thank you so much for an example of your irrational sort of global warming denial on the day I posted a link to Q&O and talked about it:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/new-media-new-thinking/

The sad thing is, I think you guys have convinced yourself you’re right and everyone else is wrong.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Thank you so much for an example of your irrational sort of global warming denial on the day I posted a link to Q&O and talked about it. Please come over there to my blog and argue with me. Come on, you know you want to. For goodness sake, I’m dissing QandO over there. Won’t you come on over and defend it? Please?

The sad thing is, I think you guys have convinced yourself you’re right and everyone else is wrong. I can’t believe your nerve. You dense righties have no right to believe you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Only we wise leftists with godlike powers of political science can do that.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Prof. Erb — Not unlike the reflexive, irrational thinking of those like you who believe that the Iraq War and everything about it is an absolute failure, eh?

The sad thing is, I think guys like you have convinced yourself you’re right and everyone else is wrong.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Interesting, one respondent says up front, I haven’t yet read the paper but I know I disagree and he is wrong. Another invokes character attacks, he has been saying this for some time and serious AGW zeolots dismiss him — but still no substantive discussion of the points. And then, bless his heart, Scott comes along and says its all irrational, but offers no specifics.

The sad part is that beliefs are not susceptible to change by exposure to facts.

So someone, in this case Gerlich and Tscheuschner (note there are two authors, not one), present a reasoned argument from their perspective as physicists. Now their points may have errors, could be weak logically or have false assumptions — all points they make about AGW theory — in which case it is up to others to demonstrate specifically, where and how the propositions made by Gerlich and Tscheuschner are in error.

But that would mean reading it first and deconstructing their points and making a cogent response. Few, if any will do this, even within academia — far easier to dismiss the paper out of hand as irrelevant, denialism, "clearly false" and/or as lacking in traction. Its all just so, so...inconvenient.

Wait long enough and someone will show how one or both of the authors are only six degrees away from running Exxon or some other equally villainous enterprise....

Does anyone have any substantive disagreement with what is in the pdf?

These same issues with AGW theory are also available in Essex and McKittrick’s book Taken by Storm — no one successfully refuted them then either.
 
Written By: graham smith
URL: http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/
reading this brief snippet was enough for me to realize this guy is full of crap. As someone with a phd in nuclear physics, I get really angry when people use physics terminology they don’t understand to make an argument. I am also a little perturbed by the blind faith on this message board, a simple google search of words like heat pump, and second law of thermo should have been enough to make anyone see this guy is an idiot. Here is why:

"a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system."

so, an atmosphere acts like a heat pump (or something that moves heat from a to b). In order for this to be true, then there needs to be an a, something with an elevated temperature, and b, a place with a lower temperature. here he states that the planets atmosphere is the heat pump between the hot environment, and the coolor atmosphere? but the atmosphere was also the heat pump? where is the system he is describing? he only has two elements? also his description does not even come close to the ideas of fourier, tyndall and Arrhenius.

he goes on to say that his imagined heat pump idea violates the second law of thermo. well but he hasn’t described a heat pump, he hasn’t described anything. there is no system here.

I have gone on to read some of the article, which I find hilarious. lets start with this statement

"These numbers lie within the range of the measuring inaccuracy and other
uncertainties such as rounding errors and therefore have no significance at all."


but he never defines what this range is, he just dismisses it. No reputable scientist would ever make such a statement. He never discusses measuring inaccuracies. Also, attributing rounding errors to uncertainties is a joke. You mean to tell me that you can have a round error that would get you from 0.03% to 0.07%, that is some rounding. obviously this guy has never taken an introductory physics course, where they teach you all about significant digits.


I also love the knock on "scientific consensus," this is a mainstay of the science illiterate. I find it interesting that he often ranges into ideas of quantum electrodynamics, a field that has much less "scientific consensus" than global warming.

I stopped here, although I am going to read more. i am also going to take this to work. we love reading the work of crack-pots.




 
Written By: nuclear physicist
URL: http://
he goes on to say that his imagined heat pump idea violates the second law of thermo
The same reason is often given for why evolution could never happen. The earth isn’t an isolated system.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
Why yes, glad you asked, there is a quite nice demonstration of the central error in Gerlich and Tscheuschner by Arthur Smith
"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect".

Contrary to the claims of G&T, I show here that:
1. An average surface temperature for a planet is perfectly well defined with or without rotation, and with or without infrared absorbing gases.

2. This average temperature is mathematically constrained to be less than the fourth root of the average fourth power of the temperature, and can in some circumstances (a planet with no or very slow rotation, and low surface thermal inertia) be much less. . . .

5. The measured average temperature of Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C higher than the limit determined by items (2) and (3). Therefore, Earth is proved to have a greenhouse effect of at least 33K.


However, what makes G&T a true classic are the preliminary fulmination, many pages full of claim that people who know what they are doing are idiots and badly done demonstrations better left in kindergarten books than in a supposedly scholarly paper. That dear reader is the mark of the loon.

You can also read the G&T related comments at dotearth which lay out the issues in words.
 
Written By: Eli Rabett
URL: http://rabett.blogspot.com
vo5HX0 tnxmspdvqljc, [url=http://ggkfhrduqmhw.com/]ggkfhrduqmhw[/url], [link=http://lylgmvskeuwk.com/]lylgmvskeuwk[/link], http://otptpqzyepzt.com/
 
Written By: 7
URL: http://fbdbcfcmuphi.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider