Re: German Physicists Trash Global Warming
Tom P
> For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is
> nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the
> complexities of atmospheric physics � the �hardest� science of
> climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard
> Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory
> of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
>
> Before going further, it�s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist
> ever completed any university course in climatology�that�s how new
> this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back
> position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded �appeal to
> authority� where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will
> say, �Well, professor so-and-so says it�s true � so it must be true.�
> Don�t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter�s gambit any longer. Here
> is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
>
> In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW
> and shows that the IPCC �consensus� atmospheric physics model tying
> CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates
> basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of
> Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper
> appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of
> Modern Physics.
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
> The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf
> Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
>
> 1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than
> the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a
> �greenhouse� effect and should be called something else.
>
> 2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also
> result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the
> warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics.
>
> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work
> applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a �perpetual motion
> machine� � the realm of pure sci-fi.
>
> Gerlich�s and Tscheuschner�s independent theoretical study is detailed
> in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13
> data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205
> references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2
> concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit
> is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change
> more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass
> greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth�s climate.
> They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a �closed� system while
> the planet works as an �open� system and the term �atmospheric
> greenhouse effect� does not occur in any fundamental work involving
> thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through
> their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory
> relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to
> �calculate� the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable
> array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most
> powerful of modern supercomputers.
>
> The paper�s introduction states it neatly:
>
> (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.
>
> This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves
> that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler
> upper atmosphere exerts any thermal �forcing� effect on the warmer
> surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws
> of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the
> excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that
> the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean,
> the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
> http://tinyurl.com/ya4ew58
I suppose no-one ever told you that the "Greenhouse Effect" in the
atmosphere has nothing to do with greenhouse at the bottom of your garden.
leona...@gmail.com
> First Post wrote:
> > For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is
> > nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the
> > climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard
> > Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory
> > of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
>
> > ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new
> > this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back
> > authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will
> > say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.”
> > Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here
> > is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
>
> > In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW
> > CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates
> > basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of
> > Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper
> > appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of
> > Modern Physics.
> >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
> > The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf
> > Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
>
> > 1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than
> > the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a
>
> > 2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also
> > result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the
> > warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of
> > thermodynamics.
>
> > Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
> > reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work
> > machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
>
> > Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed
> > in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13
> > data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205
> > references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2
> > concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit
> > is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change
> > more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass
> > They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while
> > the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric
> > greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving
> > thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through
> > their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory
> > relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to
> > array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most
> > powerful of modern supercomputers.
>
>
> > (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.
>
> > This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves
> > that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler
> > surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws
> > of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the
> > excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that
> > the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean,
> > the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
> >http://tinyurl.com/ya4ew58
>
> I suppose no-one ever told you that the "Greenhouse Effect" in the
> atmosphere has nothing to do with greenhouse at the bottom of your garden.
• Tom Putz: You are great at non-sequitors, but a
failure at science just like the rest of the AGW
Fascist Fools
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Ouroboros Rex
SilentOtto
wrote:
> For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is
> nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the
> complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of
> climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard
> Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory
> of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
>
> Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist
> ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new
> this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back
> position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to
> authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will
> say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.”
> Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here
> is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
>
> In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW
> and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying
> CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates
> basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of
> Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper
> appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of
>
> The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf
> Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
>
> 1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than
> the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a
> “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
Correct.
>
> 2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also
> result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the
> warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics.
>
> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work
> applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion
> machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
Wrong.
It's a matter of re-radiation, not flow.
Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that
heat back to the ground.
Any object will absorb radiated energy, irrespective of it's
temperature.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
That glaring little error is probably why nobody in the climate
science community takes this paper seriously.
Heh heh...
Rightard climate change deniers...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single one of you.
Claudius Denk
Supposedly.
>
> Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that
> heat back to the ground.
This has never been measured experimentally. It's all vague theory.
>
> Any object will absorb radiated energy, irrespective of it's
> temperature.
I suppose. Does that also include particles of Nitrogen and Oxygen?
>
> There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Actually there is. Read this paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
> That glaring little error is probably why nobody in the climate
> science community takes this paper seriously.
It's funny how you whackos reveal yourself as stooges with your own
words. Real scientists would never state that their thinking was in
lockstep with other's because that would indicate that they arrived at
their thinking by following the crowd.
> > the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.http://tinyurl.com/ya4ew58- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rav1ng rabbit
> For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is
> nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the
> complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of
> climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard
> Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory
> of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
For more details see the comments on:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner
so G&T is ditched by all serious scientists.
Q
>
> Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist
> ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new
> this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back
> position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to
> authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will
> say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.”
> Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here
> is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
>
> In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW
> and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying
> CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates
> basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of
> Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper
> appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of
> Modern Physics.
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
> The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf
> Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
>
> 1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than
> the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a
> “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
>
> 2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also
> result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the
> warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics.
>
> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work
> applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion
> machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.
>
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
leona...@gmail.com
> On Dec 29, 9:42 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> wrote:
> > For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is
> > nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the
> > complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of
> > climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard
> > Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory
> > of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
>
> > Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist
> > ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new
> > this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back
> > position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to
> > authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will
> > say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.”
> > Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here
> > is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.
>
> > In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW
> > and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying
> > CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates
> > basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of
> > Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper
> > appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of
> > Modern Physics.
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
>
> > The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf
> > Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:
>
> > 1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than
> > the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a
> > “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.
>
> Correct.
> > 2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also
> > result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the
> > warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of
> > thermodynamics.
> Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that
> heat back to the ground.
• Wrong
Tyndall found (in his lab)
1- CO2 molecules absorb heat
2 - H2O molecules do not
3 - Since virtually all atmospheric CO2 is
embedded in H2O molecules, it cannot
absorb heat to're-radiate' to the ground
4 - Since all atmospheric CO2 is elevated
by
convection from the waters it comes with
heat when it forms into clouds and when
the clouds meet a cold front we get precip.
• When the warm precip hits the deck Voila:
fertilizer. Nothing on earth can grow without it.
The world's oceans are being heated by
underwater tectonic activity - underwater
volcanic eruptions and blisteringly hot magma
seeping up from cracks in the sea floor.
The heated ocean water creates high levels of
CO2 that it sends aloft along with huge amounts
of moisture. That moisture becomes precipitation
— rain in the spring, summer, and fall, and snow
in the winter. Increased amounts of moisture in
the upper atmosphere equals increased amounts
of precipitation.
The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
heavenward and the heavier the precipitation.
When that warm air coming north from the tropics
meets the frigid air coming south from the pole, it
creates violence. And the hotter the air from the south
and the colder the air from the north, the more violent
the collision will be. Tornadoes, violent storms, and
blizzards are some of the results.
This process feeds on itself. As the amount of
atmospheric moisture increases more precipitation is
sent poleward, resulting in more snowfall to build
heavier and heavier polar ice packs which fail to
decrease in summertime because the cloud cover
created by the moisture-laden air transported from the
tropics prevents any thawing.
As the ice packs grow deeper and heavier, more
magma is squeezed out and sent toward the equators,
creating more volcanic activity, which spews more
and more volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere,
along with enormous quantities of greenhouse gasses.
This results in greater and greater amounts of
moisture-laden clouds being sent poleward.
> > The paper’s introduction states it neatly:
>
> > (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.
>
> > This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves
> > that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler
> > upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer
> > surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws
> > of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the
> > excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that
> > the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean,
> > the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.
— —
leona...@gmail.com
> On Dec 30, 9:16 am, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that
> > heat back to the ground.
>
> This has never been measured experimentally. It's all vague theory.
• True
> > Any object will absorb radiated energy, irrespective of it's
> > temperature.
• Tyndall: water vapour molecules do NOT absorb
radiated energy.
> I suppose. Does that also include particles of Nitrogen and Oxygen?
> > There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> Actually there is. Read this paper:
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
> > That glaring little error is probably why nobody in the climate
> > science community takes this paper seriously.
>
> It's funny how you whackos reveal yourself as stooges with your own
> words. Real scientists would never state that their thinking was in
> lockstep with other's because that would indicate that they arrived at
> their thinking by following the crowd.
>
Marvin the Martian
> On Dec 29, 9:42 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
>> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied
>> cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the
>> realm of pure sci-fi.
>
> Wrong.
>
> It's a matter of re-radiation, not flow.
>
> Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that heat
> back to the ground.
>
> Any object will absorb radiated energy, irrespective of it's
> temperature.
>
> There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> That glaring little error is probably why nobody in the climate science
> community takes this paper seriously.
>
> Heh heh...
>
> Rightard climate change deniers...
>
> Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single one of you.
There is never a net heat flow from a low temp to a high temp, even using
IR, even claiming "re-radiation". That's just physics.
Yes, the colder body radiates to the warmer body, but the warmer body
radiates even more energy to the colder body. Net heat follow is always
from colder temp to warmer temp.
AGWer "science" denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as equilibrium
chemistry.
Childish, immature name calling doesn't change that.
Marvin the Martian
> • Tyndall: water vapour molecules do NOT absorb
> radiated energy.
The CRC handbook shows whomever this "Tyndall" guy is to be wrong.
I saw this myself in lower division chemistry.
Tom P
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:16:47 -0800, SilentOtto wrote:
>
>> On Dec 29, 9:42 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>
>>> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
>>> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied
>>> realm of pure sci-fi.
>> Wrong.
>>
>> It's a matter of re-radiation, not flow.
>>
>> Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that heat
>> back to the ground.
>>
>> Any object will absorb radiated energy, irrespective of it's
>> temperature.
>>
>> There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
>>
>> That glaring little error is probably why nobody in the climate science
>> community takes this paper seriously.
>>
>> Heh heh...
>>
>> Rightard climate change deniers...
>>
>> Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single one of you.
>
> There is never a net heat flow from a low temp to a high temp, even using
> IR, even claiming "re-radiation". That's just physics.
>
> Yes, the colder body radiates to the warmer body, but the warmer body
> radiates even more energy to the colder body. Net heat follow is always
> from colder temp to warmer temp.
>
> AGWer "science" denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as equilibrium
> chemistry.
>
> Childish, immature name calling doesn't change that.
I haven't got time to plow through the entire thing right now, but one
thing that strikes me (apart from the polemic) is that on pp 61-63 he
calculates the surface temperature by incorrect use of the
Stefann-Boltzmann equation (omitting the factor 4), announces proudly
that this is obviously wrong, then introduces a completely superfluous
factor which he applies to his incorrect result to get yet another
incorrect result.
Is it really worth reading the rest of it?
leona...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:10:01 -0800, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > • Tyndall: water vapour molecules do NOT absorb
> > radiated energy.
>
> The CRC handbook shows whomever this "Tyndall" guy is to be wrong.
>
> I saw this myself in lower division chemistry.
• Are you absolutely certain that CRC can do no wrong
Then you are a fool.
Tyndall was a brilliant physicist in the late 19th cent
His work was pioneering and laid the groundwork for
many others
His problem was, as a laboratory scientist he was not
equipped to test his theories in the real world.
Nevertheless the two items I cited are accepted widely
leona...@gmail.com
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:16:47 -0800, SilentOtto wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 29, 9:42 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>
> >>> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
> >>> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied
> >>> realm of pure sci-fi.
> >> Wrong.
>
> >> It's a matter of re-radiation, not flow.
>
> >> Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that heat
> >> back to the ground.
• Not true. None of the CO2 in the real world is free.
Rather it is encased in H2O vapour. H2O does not
absorb radiated heat. (Tyndall) The 'radiated heat'
is actually warm water rising by convection to the
clouds with it is perhaps 3% of CO2 and a trace of
NO2. When the warm clouds hits cold air the H2O+
CO2+NO2 hit the deck and become fertilizer.
> >> Any object will absorb radiated energy, irrespective of it's
> >> temperature.
Not true -- see above
>
> >> There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
— —
SilentOtto
Nitrogen and Oxygen are invisible to IR radiation.
They don't absorb it, so they don't re-radiate it back to the ground.
> > > the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.http://tinyurl.com/ya4ew58-Hide quoted text -
SilentOtto
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:16:47 -0800, SilentOtto wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 9:42 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> >> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
> >> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied
> >> cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the
> >> realm of pure sci-fi.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > It's a matter of re-radiation, not flow.
>
> > Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that heat
> > back to the ground.
>
> > Any object will absorb radiated energy, irrespective of it's
> > temperature.
>
> > There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
>
> > That glaring little error is probably why nobody in the climate science
> > community takes this paper seriously.
>
> > Heh heh...
>
> > Rightard climate change deniers...
>
> > Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single one of you.
>
> There is never a net heat flow from a low temp to a high temp, even using
> IR, even claiming "re-radiation". That's just physics.
Yes there is.
If you shine a laser beam on the sun, the sun will absorb the energy.
It doesn't matter one bit that the sun is hotter than the laser beam.
The sun will, in tern, re-radiate that energy back into space.
>
> Yes, the colder body radiates to the warmer body,
Thanks for making my point, rightard.
Because, the point you made above is the -only point that matters-.
> but the warmer body
> radiates even more energy to the colder body.
So?
>Net heat follow is always
> from colder temp to warmer temp.
Learn the difference between convection and radiation.
>
> AGWer "science" denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as equilibrium
> chemistry.
>
> Childish, immature name calling doesn't change that.
Heh heh...
Rightard climate deniers...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
SilentOtto
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:03 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
> > Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:16:47 -0800, SilentOtto wrote:
>
> > >> On Dec 29, 9:42 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
>
> > >>> Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature
> > >>> reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied
> > >>> cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the
> > >>> realm of pure sci-fi.
> > >> Wrong.
>
> > >> It's a matter of re-radiation, not flow.
>
> > >> Co2 absorbs heat radiated by the Earth and re-radiates some of that heat
> > >> back to the ground.
>
> • Not true. None of the CO2 in the real world is free.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it would be irrelevant.
> Rather it is encased in H2O vapour. H2O does not
> absorb radiated heat.
But, CO2 does absorb IR radiation. So, even were a CO2 molecule
encased it H2O vapor, it would -still- absorb IR radiation.
>(Tyndall) The 'radiated heat'
> is actually warm water rising by convection to the
> clouds with it is perhaps 3% of CO2 and a trace of
> NO2. When the warm clouds hits cold air the H2O+
> CO2+NO2 hit the deck and become fertilizer.
You're describing convection.
Convection isn't the process driving AGW.
Heh heh...
Rightard climate change deniers...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Marvin the Martian
> On Dec 30, 2:32 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> There is never a net heat flow from a low temp to a high temp, even
>> using IR, even claiming "re-radiation". That's just physics.
>
> Yes there is.
>
> If you shine a laser beam on the sun, the sun will absorb the energy. It
> doesn't matter one bit that the sun is hotter than the laser beam.
>
> The sun will, in tern, re-radiate that energy back into space.
Yes, yes. I should have added "... without work."
>> Yes, the colder body radiates to the warmer body,
>
> Thanks for making my point, rightard.
>
> Because, the point you made above is the -only point that matters-.
>
>> but the warmer body
>> radiates even more energy to the colder body.
>
> So?
You've just proven you don't understand the physics. Thermo is a
statistical science. Net follow is from hotter to colder.
< snip monkey chatter >
Marvin the Martian
> On Dec 30, 2:34 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:10:01 -0800, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > • Tyndall: water vapour molecules do NOT absorb
>> > radiated energy.
>>
>> The CRC handbook shows whomever this "Tyndall" guy is to be wrong.
>>
>> I saw this myself in lower division chemistry.
>
> • Are you absolutely certain that CRC can do no wrong
> Then you are a fool.
I said that the CRC handbook is quite clear on water vapor absorbing IR.
I also pointed out that this experiment is done in lower division
undergrad chemistry.
You can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_absorption
Quite frankly, if it comes to rejecting the claims of a bunch of rude
Marxist or rejecting the claims of the CRC Handbook, most common
Chemistry texts, and the results of experiments I, myself, have done,
then the rude Marxist will lose out ever time.
I M @ good guy
Stop right there, there is no good evidence that
any GHG radiates IR back to the ground from more
than a few meters above the ground, or that the
ground radiates IR which is absorbed by GHGs
more than a few meters above the ground.
The ground is usually cooler than the air,
most places, the AGW nuts seem to think the
moist Earth and wetlands are as warm as the
tarmac where they board private jets to go to
climate conferences in tropical paradises,
If you knew any climate science, your
head might swell.
SilentOtto
You're the one who doesn't understand physics, rightard.
The Law of Thermodynamics deals with -convection-, not radiation.
It's not the same thing.
When one shines a laser on the sun, the sun is much hotter than the
laser.
What's the sun going to do, refuse to accept the energy because it's
hotter than the laser? Send it's own energy back along the path of
the laser?
No.
It absorbs it an then re-radiates it.
Really, rightard...
It's not that complicated.
I bet you think the law of thermodynamics also invalidates the Theory
of Evolution too, don't you?
Heh heh...
Rightard climate change deniers...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
> < snip monkey chatter >
Chaos out of Order
<last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote:
> For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is
> nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the
> complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of
> climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard
> Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory
> of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
>
> Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist
> ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new
> this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back
> position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to
And you don't see the hypocrisy of relying upon a "respected German
Physicist" to make your point?
Marvin the Martian
> On Dec 30 2009, 11:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:15:09 -0800, SilentOtto wrote:
>> > On Dec 30, 2:32 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> There is never a net heat flow from a low temp to a high temp, even
>> >> using IR, even claiming "re-radiation". That's just physics.
>>
>> > Yes there is.
>>
>> > If you shine a laser beam on the sun, the sun will absorb the energy.
>> > It doesn't matter one bit that the sun is hotter than the laser beam.
>>
>> > The sun will, in tern, re-radiate that energy back into space.
>>
>> Yes, yes. I should have added "... without work."
>>
>> >> Yes, the colder body radiates to the warmer body,
>>
>> > Thanks for making my point, rightard.
>>
>> > Because, the point you made above is the -only point that matters-.
>>
>> >> but the warmer body
>> >> radiates even more energy to the colder body.
>>
>> > So?
>>
>> You've just proven you don't understand the physics. Thermo is a
>> statistical science. Net follow is from hotter to colder.
>
> You're the one who doesn't understand physics, rightard.
>
> The Law of Thermodynamics deals with -convection-, not radiation.
See, for example, Sears, Zemansky and Young; or my favorite, Halliday and
Resnick for a good text on lower division intro physics. Radiation and
all mechanisms for heat transfer.
> It's not the same thing.
Different mechanisms of heat transfer are all part of thermo. If you take
a grad level class in thermo, like out of Morris, you'll find even
magnetic aspects included in thermo.
> When one shines a laser on the sun, the sun is much hotter than the
> laser.
And the laser does work. The laser itself consumes MUCH more energy to
create the laser light than the laser light comes out of it. Unless you
can show how CO2 in the atmosphere is a CO2 laser, all you're doing is
showing you don't understand physics, particularly thermo.
< snip rant of angry troll. >
SilentOtto
You're not going to worm your way out of this by name dropping,
rightard.
> > It's not the same thing.
>
> Different mechanisms of heat transfer are all part of thermo. If you take
> a grad level class in thermo, like out of Morris, you'll find even
> magnetic aspects included in thermo.
We're specifically discussing the claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law
of Thermodynamics.
The example given dealt with convection.
It was wrong.
Convection isn't the mechanism involved.
> > When one shines a laser on the sun, the sun is much hotter than the
> > laser.
>
> And the laser does work. The laser itself consumes MUCH more energy to
> create the laser light than the laser light comes out of it.
Totally and completely irrelevant.
No matter how much energy it took to create the laser beam, the Sun
will still absorb what ever radiation strikes it.
It's true that more energy went into creating the laser beam than
arrived at the sun, but so what?
That's not what we're talking about.
I'm not contesting the Laws of Thermodynamics.
We're talking about whether not not bodies absorb radiation, not
entropy.
I'm pointing out that nothing in AGW runs counter to the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics, as was claimed..
That you're accepting the claim that AGW runs counter to the 2nd Law
of Thermodynamics makes you a liar or an idiot.
Which is it?
>Unless you
> can show how CO2 in the atmosphere is a CO2 laser, all you're doing is
> showing you don't understand physics, particularly thermo.
Are you claiming that CO2 in the atmosphere can't absorb energy
radiated from the Earth?
Are you claiming that CO2 in the atmosphere can't re-radiate the
energy it absorbs back to the Earth?
Are you claiming that the Earth can't absorb that energy?
Unless you're making one of the above claims, and can support it,
you've lost.
Heh heh...
Rightard climate change deniers...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
> < snip rant of angry troll. >