Replies

The paper is mostly spot-on, IMO. One little problem:

“In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse
effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.”

There actually is an atmospheric greenhouse effect. The atmosphere works exactly like the walls of a real greenhouse - as an insulator. Spontaneous or Anthropogenic CO2 based warming is total BS, though IMO. CO2 gas is not some kind of super-insulator - and statistically speaking - too small to count. Most of their theory revolves around IR absorption and retransmittance altering flux. Problem is, all that happens nearly real time. How much can it really alter the energy balance in terms of atmospheric heat retention?

The IPCC models also contain a (badly) flawed assumption - that warming effects are lasting and precipitate more warming effects. Nah. Any heat not absorbed by the ocean or into the earth itself is radiated off quickly into an immense vacuum with infinitely more power to absorb heat than than the atmosphere has the capacity to store it. The upper atmosphere acts like the glass walls of the greenhouse limiting the percentage of the atmosphere in direct contact with space available as a medium for heat exchange. Heat in the lower atmosphere is effectively sequestered. The only way that changes is if the insulating properties (heat conductance) of the upper atmosphere, or the physical size of the atmosphere, or the rate of convective exchange with the lower atmospher is being changed. Not enough CO2 to substantially alter any of that. CO2 could kill us - it’s poisonous at high enough concentrations.

I think there’s evidence that the water cycle including albedo, cloud albedo (ignored by IPCC), ice, and rates of oceanic circulation (turnover) have the ability to alter global climate - but really they ARE global climate. Can we alter them? Maybe. But that’s not the question the AGW hypothesis poses.

I guess if someone hypothesized that all the climatologists running around in icebreakers taking global temps are causing some small amount of warming by affecting albedo - it would be very hard to dispute on the basis of physical chemistry or pure physics.

So yeah, it’s the Sun. And the water cycle. And the IPCC’s hypothesis can be falsified, IMO. And yes the model attempts to solve an unsolvable equation with too many data points and variables to be plugged into a hypothetical computer with enough processing power. Even if the whole human race were set to the task immediately. And the values of other unsolvable flux equations are fed into it as raw inputs. About as scientific, accurate, and useful as a Ouija board or stopped clock. GIGO. The perfect grant-monkey project.

“When a thing defies physical law, there’s usually politics involved.”

-P.J. O’Rourke

I see a problem in either your reading comprehension or interpreting summation.

The authors say that such ***effects*** as defined as reprducible and measurable are not admissible in law, i.e not possible to explain and ***admit*** into the body of the theoretical LAW.

You on the other hand claim EXISTANCE of the effect because of a crudely reflected extrapolation of a simple human construction, a ‘greenhouse’ or glass house.

The rest of your commentary appears to raise good questions.

And now for the sucker-punch which is appropriate as this is a conservative and therefore superior forum for mainly political discourse. I would say that Gerlich amd Tscheuschner are major league players. You on the other hand appear as a promisng minor leaguer but will need to work more on your thought process precision if you want to make it to the major leagues.

Perhaps because English isn’t their first language, the terms used can confuse.

To me, what they were saying was that the laws of thermodynamics demand that heat flow (unaided) from hot to cold; never from cold to hot.

Sure, the atmosphere acts as a blanket, slowing heat transfer from Earth to Space, but no, the blanket isn’t radiating heat back to the Earth itself (their point, as such would violate the laws of thermodynamics).

So since we know that the atmosphere isn’t getting thicker...and since CO2 is such a rare trace gas in the upper atmosphere...

...then we know that either CO2 must have super-amazing insulating ability...or that the so-called “Greenhouse Effect” is in error.

http://www.esnips.com/web/climate

I will only say this much on this one. I was asked by another FReeper to have my elder brother a research scientist who's specialties have been in spectroscopy across the board as well as NMR, with a PHD in chemistry, peer review if you would this article. He gave a general thumbs up. I cannot repeat the hour long talk he gave me on some aspects of the article he was not in agreement with or that he felt he simply could not give an honest answer on.
But the issue suggesting CO2 somehow being a major player in absorption then forcing of heat into associated water molecules etc., he felt was solid.
That is. Carbon Dioxide has little over all effect on the total heat transfer mechanisms within the various levels of our atmosphere.
His problems where with how the authors introduced the concepts of electro magnetic radiation and in using Maxwell's equations. And at that level I am going to leave it go at that. He went into some very complicated things which I would totally botch if I attempted to explain.
Electron spin theories, verse molecular flexing, and a host of quantum mechanic modeling left me in the dark, beyond my basic general chemistry understandings of how various molecules work and can absorb and transfer heat, and other wavelengths of energy.
I am not going to put my foot in my mouth and have to eat yet another hat this month. I am injured.... But again. CO2 being any form of at most slight player in heat transfer mechanisms within the troposphere etc., is simply wrong.

I thought the idea of the greenhouse effect was nothing to do with the incoming solar radiation (IR near or far or visible spectrum) but had to do with the reduction of radiant cooling where C02 and water vapor etc. absorb longer wave earth cooling and reflect it back. This article seems to say it is all about the incoming IR being absorbed.

“In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.” There actually is an atmospheric greenhouse effect. The atmosphere works exactly like the walls of a real greenhouse - as an insulator.

I suspect that you didn't fully grasp the article.
.