[RC2]

I believe that this statement “Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically correct manner”, should be changed to read “Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically wealth distribution manner”.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Experimental evidence shows a greenhouse interior warms merely because the glass physically traps interior rising air, which then becomes warmer and warmer relative to air outside the greenhouse, which conversely can rise and cool unimpeded.

I think I proved this to myself a couple of years ago when I built a backyard shed. Rather than closing in the soffits, I simply used window screen fabric between every other set of rafters. Based on experience with closed sheds, I expected the structure to get very hot in the summertime. I was surprised, however, to find that the interior never got hotter than the outside temperature. No doubt it's due to the air circulation cased by the open soffit space.

[DrDavid]

"Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws," the authors conclude (their emphasis). "Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate."

The computer models created by CRU are attempts to fit the historical temperature data statistically. Then they extrapolate the fit into the future.

[neverdem]

In other words, there's probably more fraudulent science here than just the fudging of data in the CRU's climategate.

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

BBC's paleo-news site finally runs a real scoop story on Climategate's Michael Mann

Will Climate Scandal Be a Tipping Point?

Climategate: White House Involvement in Scandal Will Make It Harder for MSM to Ignore

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[maryz]

Gerlich and Tscheuschner sound like my idea of scientists! Wonder if AlGore would like to challenge them to a debate?

Oh, wait -- they're physicists, not climatologists . . . does that disqualify them from this discussion??? ;-)

[bereanway]

Gerlich and Tscheuschner next show that even the simplest forms of the special equations needed for a true analysis of magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) relationships involved in planetary atmospheric heating cannot be solved — even for small-space regions and small-time intervals — because of the inhomogenities of each fluid involved and relevant solid, liquid, and gaseous phases to be considered. The real world is just too complex.

However, they are able to show that MHD-type equations offer no terms corresponding to absorption of electromagnetic radiation, do not include equations for “radiative transfer,” and give no indication of the point where the concentration of carbon dioxide would even enter into the computations. Further, they go on to show that any mechanism whereby CO2 in the cooler upper atmosphere could exert any thermal enhancing or “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.”

*******

Well clearly these two upstarts didn’t get the memo that the science is settled. And the rest of us are just ignorant deniers who are hopelessly lost so what would be the point of releasing the sacred data and models. That would only confuse the unenlightened.

[PapaBear3625]

One trouble with the papers on global warming that I've seen is that the theories focus on static behavior.

I haven't seen anything in the climate models that I've seen that go into the effects of hurricanes and thunderstorms. An average hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (10¹⁸ J) per day, transporting heat from the ocean surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated away. The warmer the oceans get, the more hurricanes we'll have, and the more heat gets radiated away in a negative-feedback system.

To put this in perspective, wiki says the total solar energy the earth gets is 1.7 * 10¹⁷ Watts. A watt is 1 joule/sec, so the daily energy is 3600 * 24 * 1.7 * 10¹⁷ = 1.5 * 10²². If a hurricane transports between 5 * 10¹⁹ and 2 * 10²⁰ joules/day to be radiated away in the upper atmosphere, this seems to be a pretty decent amount of energy, on the order of 1% of the total the earth receives. I would think that honest global warming theories would need to take into account this negative feedback system?

Does anybody want to check my math above?

[denydenydeny]

In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

The reaction from the AGW cult will be that the authors are "only" physicists, not *cue heavenly choirs* climatologists.

Essentially the response is "It's a climatologist thing, you wouldn't understand."

[GOPJ]

Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined(pdf) that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.

LOL - great find, neverdem.

[maryz]

Thanks for posting this! The original paper apparently came out last January . . . but I guess it didn’t pass the
AGW “peer review” test . . . :(

[Just mythoughts]

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.htm

Interesting that all this was birthed back in 1988 by the UN and to follow the evolution of where liberals intend to make this world become.

[FreedomPoster]

Very, very interesting.

I came across the technical article by the Germans that is referenced here about a year ago. While I haven’t been active in the heavy duty aspects of their paper for some years, I do have a strong background in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and thermophysical properties of materials, enough to at least follow along with the paper (versus being totally overwhelmed, as I’m sure most are).

It was my take at the time that it was a compelling arrow to the heart of AGW theories based on CO2 emissions. I have been linking others to it, especially those pushing AGW nonsense, though I doubt many even attempted to read it.

I am glad to see they are continuing their work despite the opprobrium I am sure they have been getting from some quarters.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Awesome.

BTTT

[AndyJackson]

I hate to bear bad news, but Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner are self-evidently a couple of cranks, writing nonsense.

In their referenced paper, they state: From known thermal conductivities (Table 5), isochoric heat capacities, and mass densities the isochoric thermal diusivities of the components of the air are determined (Table 6). This allows to estimate the change of the eective thermal conductivity of the air in dependence of a doubling of the CO2 concentration, expected to happen within the next 300 years (Table 7). It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas CO2, whose thermal conductivity is approximately one half than that of nitrogen and oxygen, does change the thermal conductivity at the most by 0; 03% and the isochoric thermal diusivity at the most by 0:07 %

This is sophistry. There are three mechanisms of heat transfer, conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction in the atmosphere is irrelevant. Convection gives us weather. It is radiation that determines the heat transfer between space, earth, and clouds or CO2. Conductivity has nothing to do with it, and computing the change in the thermal conductivity of air with the change in C02 is a meaningless and irrelevant calculation.

In fact, here is a plot as seen from space of the earth's atmospheric opacity.

What is important is that gases in the atmosphere block the radiation to empty space of nearly 100% of the infrared. THAT is the greenhouse effect that this author claims does not exist.

That does not stop these idiots from going on to say Furthermore it is implied that the spectral transmissivity of a medium determines its thermal conductivity straightforwardly. This is a physical nonsense as well

These authors are speaking nonsense. The thermal conductivity and spectral transmissivity of a medium are two entirely unrelated phenomenon, and it is these authors who, as quoted above, choose to conflate the two.

The problem is that the conjecture of human generated greenhouse gases on climate is an open scientific question. The physical basis for concern is real enough. The only question is whether the magnitude of the effect, in comparison with all the complex offsetting phenomena, is significant in comparison with other sources of variation. The hypothesis is neither established by overwhelming evidence, nor is it refuted by overwhelming evidence.

For Freepers to claim that the question is anything other than open is to engage in the charlattanism, sophistry and self-delusion of the GCC advocates.

[AndyJackson]

A technically correct discussion of solar irradiation, atmosphereic absorbtion, the "greenhouse" effect, and so forth is in this article by a ME professor at Drexel Monitoring Solar Radiation and Its Transmission Through the Atmosphere

Unlike the swindling gobbledygook of the subject article, this is readily comprehended by anyone with a couple of semesters of physics or engineering. [hint, the ability to explain something simply in science and engineering is a sign that the author knows what he is talking about]