I have just fund this. It is a rather complex piece of work. I know I won't understand all of it, anyone else want to read it?
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
114 page PDF file.
WC is right and 1000s of scientists and 1000s of reports are wrong.
Who pays you? BigOil? BigAuto?
What's your environment policy?
Do nothing,
wait with you head up ass,
and see what happens?
There are so many major, planetary problems to be worked and you're ing around pissing into the wind, starting threads proving GW is BS and man is responsible for nothing.
.
WC is right and 1000s of scientists and 1000s of reports are wrong.
Who pays you? BigOil? BigAuto?
What's your environment policy?
Do nothing,
wait with you head up ass,
and see what happens?
There are so many major, planetary problems to be worked and you're ing around pissing into the wind, starting threads proving GW is BS and man is responsible for nothing.
.
Hey boutons, you know things are actually cooling off.
So who has who's head in the wrong place? And putting
water into the wind. You seemed to buy into every
dumb thing the communist and socialist say. For someone
of your intelligence you don't seem to demonstrate it
very much.
no you don't understand! THERE'S AN UNSPOKEN LAW THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TO BE QUESTIONED! just like evolution. See: Expelled, the Movie.
- Mars
Bump
See if you understand the PDF file in post #1.
114 pp.? Lord son, please do your own homework.
Anyone else WANT to READ it.
I put it out there for everyone. I suggest that you try to read the content. I understand most of it. I'm hoping some of you believers will too.
Ok. Fine.
Who cares about the laws of physics, there's a freakin CONSENSUS! Don't you understand, you ignorant flat-Earther?
A trace gas that makes up less than four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere is going to kill us all.
LOL, really boutons?WC is right and 1000s of scientists and 1000s of reports are wrong.
Who pays you? BigOil? BigAuto?
.
There are 1000s of scientists who know all of this is bull . The Goracle won't even debate anyone.
Your scientists are taking liberal funding to spew their bull so stfu.
You should know better than to just be another tool for the left-wing agenda.
I don’t actually recommend reading this. But one gem that they propose is that there isn’t a thing called an average temperature. Of course there is. When attempting to derive such a temperature, Gerlich and Tscheuschner arrive at a value of 87.6 C. This is clearly wrong. If the Earth were that warm, humans wouldn’t exist. They then “explain” how climatologists get their value to explain the greenhouse effect as follows:
[Added August 7, 2007: This post has been linked from a comment in a Scienceblogs.com post. For those who don't believe in the greenhouse effect, please explain how the average temperature on the moon is lower, in spite of the fact that it has a lower albedo.]This fic ious [greenhouse] effect is based on the assumption that one should have an average effective temperature of -18 [degrees] C. One will get this if one weights the solar constant with a factor of 0.7 and inserts a quarter of the solar constant into the “radiative balance” equation. The factor of a quarter is introduced by “distributing” the incoming solar radiation seeing a cross section σEarth over the global surface ΩEarth.
Actually, the value of -18 C falls right out of the equations, not the other way around. Assume that the sun radiates at a certain temperature such that it can reasonably be modeled by the blackbody curve for some effective temperature. This shouldn’t be that hard to do, even Gerlich and Tscheuschner do so in their paper. By the time this radiation reaches the Earth, it’s intensity has decreased according to the 1/R2 law. Again, this is exactly what Gerlich and Tscheuschner do. At the Earth, this value is roughly constant - 1367 W/m2. Gerlich and Tscheuschner do not use this number, they keep their equation in terms of the temperature of the sun, radius of the sun, and distance from the Earth to the sun. It doesn’t matter, the finals answers will end up the same.
Therefore, the total energy absorbed by the Earth is related to its albedo and its radius.
EA = (1-A)S0πR2
The term 1-A is the percentage of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth; the albedo (A) is the percentage reflected. S0 is the solar constant. And πR2 is the cross-sectional area of the Earth that absorbs radiation. The dark side of the Earth cannot absorb radiation from the sun.
The total energy emitted by the Earth is related to its temperature and its radius.
EE = σT44πR2
Because the Earth emits radiation from its entire surface and not just the side facing the sun, the surface area of the Earth is used (4πR2) is used instead of the cross-sectional area. The σT4 term is the blackbody emission for an object at a given temperature.
Setting the two equations equal - assuming the energy absorbed equals the energy emitted - and simplifying, we see that
(1-A)S0 = 4σT4
So, for a given A and S0, we can find the effective temperature. In the case of the Earth, the albedo (A) is about 0.3, so 1-A is 0.7, which magically explains where that factor comes from that Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t explain. The factor of 4 is just a consequence of the fact that the Earth can only absorb radiation on the side facing the sun, but emits in all directions. When the values are plugged in, we (and Gerlich and Tscheuschner) get a value of -18 C.
So, Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t figure out where the magical values of 0.7 and 0.25 [1/4] came from, but they are just misleading their readers. They [should] know how to compute an effective temperature. And they [should] know that such a value exists, and is physically meaningful.
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/fal...house-effects/
It's the political will that underwrites and seeks to extend the consensus that will be decisive.
The political will behind your POV appears to be weak and fragmented. That does not mean it is wrong. For all I know it will be scientifically vindicated, and we'll have another round of mea culpas for getting smart so late in the game.
So early in the game?
Who knows? Roll them bones!
As usual, doing nothing appears not to be an option.
You should read this --> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
Thanks for the link, DarrinS.
That is the closest thing to actual peer-reviewed science that I have seen you post.
Kudos.
Understand it yet?
Question. Just started reading it.
Is it appropriate for Mr. Jaworowski to recommend nuclear power in his introduction? Are policy recommendations normal in scientific literature?
Here's the abstract:
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Abstract
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 fic ious 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 fic ious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C 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.
I have no way to judge this, 2cents.
What's yer 2cents?
I'm waiting for you genius.
I'll wait for you to copy and paste your opinion.
I'll not do such, thanks. I'm a math cretin. So there. I've admitted it.I'm waiting for you genius.
I'll wait for you to copy and paste your opinion.
You dons of mathematics should lead the discussion.
I'm still waiting for 2cents, like a panhandler.
It says the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. Is that all?
honestly, I was trying to help the thread by posting the abstract from a long pdf file. That should tell people enough about whether they want to continue reading or not. I have chosen to maybe read it another day.
because I like and respect you I've explained myself. Otherwise, I would "pee" on you
btw, the condescension is unbecoming of you.
Actually, it's just like me.
much better.
Is this the policy recommendation you are referring to? Looks like he's posing a hypothetical question. Are any of his assertions about nuclear energy untrue?If this concern is genuine, then why do we not see a storm of enthusiastic environmentalists and United Nations officials demanding to replace all fossil-fuel plants with nuclear plants, which have zero emission of greenhouse gases, are environmentally friendly, more economical, and safer for plant workers and much safer for the general population than other sources of energy?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
