Gerlich and Tscheuschner? Dear oh dear, we are trawling the bottom of
the barrel.
Full rebuttal here:
(doc)
http://groups.google.com/group/rabett-run-labs/web/G%26T_rebuttal-2-6.doc?hl=en
(pdf)
http://groups.google.com/group/rabett-run-labs/web/G%26T_rebuttal-2-6.pdf?hl=en
The wonder is that the International Journal of Modern Physics B
published this rubbish.
2010/1/8 Nolin, Kenneth M. <[email protected]>:
> German Physicists Trash Global Warming "Theory"
> December 26, 2009 · 236 comments
>
> guest article by John O'Sullivan
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> John O'Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has
> litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and
> Britain. Visit his website.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Alastair
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:33 PM
> To: globalchange
> Subject: [Global Change: 3420] Re: Hansen on runaway warming
>
>
> On Jan 5, 1:06 pm, Tom Adams <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Can you cite something, anything, that claims that Earth protected
>> Venus from icy asteroids?
>
> Following from my previous post, it is not that Earth acted as a backstop. It
> is that the eccentricity only extended the orbits inwards as far Earth.
>
> I have found a paper which may have been the first I read about this:
> Nature 435, 466-469 (26 May 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature03676; Received
> 6 December 2004; Accepted 18 April 2005
>
> Origin of the cataclysmic Late Heavy Bombardment period of the terrestrial
> planets
>
> R. Gomes1,2, H. F. Levison2,3, K. Tsiganis2 & A. Morbidelli2
>
> It says on page 467:
>
> "However, our scheme probably also produced an in flux of material from the
> asteroid belt. As Jupiter and Saturn moved from 1:2 MMR towards their current
> positions, secular resonances (which occur when the orbit of an asteroid
> processes at the same rate as a planet) swept across the entire belt. These
> resonances can drive asteroids onto orbit with eccentricities and
> inclinations large enough to allow them to evolve into the inner Solar System
> and hit the Moon."
>
> From that I assumed that the inclinations were large enough to hit Earth but
> not large enough to hit Venus.
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public,
> moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy
> dimensions of global environmental change.
>
> Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
> submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
> gratuitously rude.
>
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
