Greenhouse effect is just a bluff
Thanks to one of the readers on my Swedish blog, I found this interesting paper by Gerhard Gerlich och Ralf D. Tscheuschner:
“Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics”
Download the entire text document here - arXiv:0707.1161v3
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 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.
20 comments
Sorry, Maggie, you are three days too late. Papers like this should be written about on April 1st. I know you don’t know anything about science so why pretend by writing about a 100 pages long paper that you have neither read nor understood? It’s the blind belief you have in any pseudoscience that seems to support your side that makes the word “sceptic” so misplaced for contrarians, they are far too gullible for that.
[...] Greenhouse effect is just a bluff By maggie 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 … The Climate Scam - http://www.theclimatescam.com [...]
Thomas: Actually you are quite right about one thing. Since you also read my Swedish blog, you know that I came by this paper only yesterday. Thus I have not yet had the time to read it.
I hadn’t read the Swedish verson while making this comment, but I must say that I think it is common that you read something before recommending it and proclaiming it to be true.
Thomas: “You teach best what you most need to learn.” Richard David Bach
Thank you!
At last you have proved where you do really stand!
You question on of the most long-lived and fundamental theories without explaining how? why? or give an alternative theory.
This is nothing but a pure joke!
Not a good paper to reference. It is like using “An Inconvenient Truth” or Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick as proof for the hypothesis of AGW. Well, not quite that bad!
Jeffrey B: You may very well be right. Even the skeptic side tends to ignore it. However, I think it illustrates one thing - the need to question. Perhaps GT could not prove that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. But perhaps someone else will.
At least, GT tried instead of accepting what “the majority os the world’s leading scientists” agree upon.
I whole heartedly agree. The debate is still open on the hypothesis (not theory) of AGW.
By the way, what single malt is your favorite? Mine are the Islay’s.
My current favorite is Balvenie.
Jeffrey B: Yep, I agree. Laphroig, Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Bowmore at al. are the best.
Jeffrey B. is right. Of course, there is always the possibility that the greenhouse effect theory is wrong. But if you can prove why AND give an alternative explanation, you’ll recieve the Nobel Prize for sure. Good luck! I’ll be glad to read your results after the Nobel Prize Award dinner!
I’d vote for Bowmore too
Again, the AGW is not theory but hypothesis. The hypothesis remains such until it can verified through empirical observation and /or being tested by experimentation.
Let AGW first meet what is required for it to be a Theory. Then we’ll work on the dinner.
Bowmore is a good choice! I prefer Laphroig 10yr-cask strength.
Ya gotta love the effects of peat fired barley malt! Cheers to all and love the discussion.
Jeffrey B:
“Not a good paper to reference. It is like using “An Inconvenient Truth” or Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick as proof for the hypothesis of AGW. Well, not quite that bad!”
I also miss an alternative explanation, but otherwise the paper looked pretty well worked trough ?!
Of course it is just a couple of loose endas wihtout a new theory, but given the references and calculations, anyone with time and knowledge should be able to dissaprove the paper if it isnt true - and if it is true - it really says taht we do not have a clue today about how our climate is working. Thus AGW cannot be true. Maybe we OD affect cliamte as much as the current theory claims, but then again maybe not. And all the scenarios are more or lessa flse if co2 is NOT driving temperature - and in this case we are running a very high risk of actually worsening climate changes if we do not know how we affect them…
/K
I agree with some of what you say Klas. There is much that we do not understand with respect the the primary variables that drive our climate. But we should not focus all of our attention (and billions of dollars) on just the possible CO2 connection. I believe that man can effect microclilmates on a regional scale to some extent but not to where it is irreversible and not on a global scale. Hell, we are just now able to somewhat measure the earths temperature on the global scale yet still lack adequate time scales with these new and not yet fool proof methods. Money should be spent on a wide range of possibilities of factors that influence climate.
I believe that “man” can contribute very little to effecting CLIMATE on the global scale. However, “man” can effect his bio-ENVIRONMENT to the extent of causing disasterous consequences. Water quality, air quality(not CO2), soil fertility, wildlife habitat(terrestrial and marine). This is were our efforts should lie with respect to the natural state of our world.
Thanks K
Klas,terribly sorry about misspelling your name.
Jeffrey B: Sorry about all my misspelling - these blogg comments you know
“However, “man” can effect his bio-ENVIRONMENT to the extent of causing disasterous consequences. Water quality, air quality(not CO2), soil fertility, wildlife habitat(terrestrial and marine)”
Absolutely !!
The problem here as I see it, is that spending too much effort on carbon dioxide reductions regardless of cost, may have negative effects on our environment.
Take biofuels as an example: Biodiesel can be made of palm tree oil. Tese fuels have a very low carbon dioxide emission. BUT palm tree oil is distasterous for the local environment where they grow. The natural djungle is cut down and palm trees are planted instead. That is not good at all for the natural flora and fauna.
/K
That is true along with the absurd notion of soybeans for biodiesel and corn or other food crops for ethynol production creating world-wide food shortages/higher prices impacting the world’s hungry.
Mis-guided efforts to fight a phantom foe.
THE CENTRAL SUBJECT OF CLIMATOLOGY
In my opinion the researchers in climatology should put aside their work for a moment and focus their attention on the central and decisive subject of climatology. This is the extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm), which has been ignored by the mainstream climatologists.
Since temperature cannot influence rotation to the observed degree and vice verca, a third agent must be driving the two. The solution is given in http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf .
The paper declaring the ‘greenhouse effect’ as being ficticious is very interesting. I am not a scientist or mathematician, so really do not understand this paper. But I have the confidence of knowing the paper is in the public domain, and there to be challenged if it can be. And I suspect it cannot (I’ve searched, and cannot find any rebuttal).
Of course, even this kind of supposed mathematical ‘proof’ will not be enough for most of the pro-warmists. As with all religions, AGW is faith based, and does not require proof, only threats of hellfire if we do not comply.
Leave a Comment