Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Physics and global warming

In Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner take the global warmists to task.

For the Al Gore ilk, this is truly an inconvenient read.

Note: For those adhering to scientism, note the lack of unanimity within science itself. The only things that are truly settled are those which are trivial (I know, I know, that was a tautology -- forgive me).

Abstract (from The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics)

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by 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 widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles 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 °C is a meaningless number calculated
(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.


Anonymous said...

Regarding your comment about the lack of unanimity in science: Yet, you have said previously that the only truth is in the Bible. There is certainly a lack of unanimity in religious interpretations as well. Shouldn't your religious faith be subject to the same scrutiny as well? For any religious view you hold, I'm sure you can find another self-professing and possibly even academically-credentialed Christian (no matter how much of an outlier they may be) who would disagree.

Jim Fedako said...

9:46 --

The Bible is truth, regardless of disagreements.

There are always disagreements -- you can find an outlier opinion for everthing. But disagreement does not mean that the Bible is not truth.

Yes, reasoned folks disagree on certain aspect of the Bible. And I suggest that you are correct about scrutiny.

As Paul noted, the Bereans checked out his claims on a daily basis.

Acts 17:11 (New International Version)

11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.