Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics


Editor:
Once you understand that Global Warming is a scam, you have freed your mind from the Bull.
Global warming is about fear and you giving up your rights.
Global Warming is a scam. Therefore there is no reason to be trampling the rights of people in a rush to install wind farms, with the promise of saving the environment. Your Govt. is complicit in this scam. Will you wake up in time, or will  you spend your time on the planet sleeping. Help your friends and neighbors  fight the scourge of wind farms.

Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics

By OnTheWeb Tuesday, February 12, 2008

It is my sincere wish that climate alarmism has finally hit the buffers with the definitive and scientific deathknell administered by two German physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, co-author of a July 7, 2007 paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”.

The full story is online here, with all relevant links within the document:
Allow me to quote some highlights, so you can decide whether or not to read the whole document.

“The main results of our paper are:
– the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist;
– computer aided global climatology will not be science, if science is defined as a method to verify or falsify conjectures, according to the usual definition of science.”

“Due to research grants, huge amount of financial support, virtual global climatologists suffer from a kind of omnipotence delusion comparable to the state of highness of the early super string community. However, physics is different. “Physics is where the action is”, I.e., finally, reproducible results in the lab. We cannot overemphasize that science is a method to prove conjectures, and not to go on-stage like the pop star Al Gore performing what-if-when-scenarios beyond any reality and scaring kids.”

“We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are very sorry that we cannot reply to all statements published in Internet blogs since our “times on-line” are rather limited. Especially, we do not reply to semi-anonymous virtual climate pets like Eli Rabett and other Internet geniusses such as Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf and others at “Real Climate” or “Atmoz Blog” anti-scientific smear sites. Most of them do know so little about physics such that they quote the second law of thermodynamics incorrectly in order to falsify our work. Even the difference between energy, work and heat seems to be unknown to these experts. This cannot be the basis of a scientific discussion.”

“To put it bluntly, virtual climate research (Pierrhumbert and his buddies may call it “real climate” research) is nonsense (non-science). The thousands of publications reviewing the results of these computer games are not worth the papers they are printed on, not to mention the hardware, CPU times and memory.”

Do please make the effort to inform yourselves of the contents of this document and pass it around – it is high time that this news got through to the bureaucrats who appear to be stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle of self-delusion induced by elitist green pressure groups who should instead be deeply ashamed of themselves for abusing their alleged intelligence on continuing the hoax that is mankind’s influence on the climate through emissions of carbon dioxide – the very essence of life.

Please prepare for a sudden and sharp u-turn, that will be far less painful than the continuation of this climate change claptrap.

Source CFP

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics

  1. Brad Arnold, you are spewing nonsense. There has been no credible (i.e. peer reviewed academic) refutation of Professor Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper since it was published. However, there has been a concerted smear campaign by various bloggers willing to use any and all tactics presumably to preserve their meal tickets in ‘climate science’. What you fail to appreciate is the simple fact that there is no experimental evidence either for a greenhouse effect or indeed for any kind of atmospheric forcing mechanism involving carbon dioxide.

    The back-radiation popular greenhouse effect hypothesis depends on the Stefan-Bolzmann equation and can be summarized as follows. Thermal radiation from the surface of the planet (or the interior of a greenhouse) is proportional to the fourth root of its absolute temperature. If the surface is surrounded by a substance (i.e. greenhouse gas) capable of absorbing and re-radiating all the radiation emitted, and the incoming radiative energy is represented by W, the radiation emitted must increase to 2W, to compensate for the back radiation of W. Therefore, the ratio of the surface temperatures for an absorptive substance versus a non-absorptive substance equals the fourth root of 2, which is 1.19: the absorbing layer, whether glass or air, will raise the surface temperature by 19%.

    In 1909, the inventor and physicist Robert Williams Wood published the results of a simple experiment that refuted Arrhenius’ greenhouse hypothesis by showing no difference in the internal temperature between a glass greenhouse and a diathermic rock salt greenhouse. The convective effects (suppression of) were equivalent. Woods was looking for the additional heating expected from Arrhenius’ back radiation. He did not find it (the additional warming of about 19%) because it was not there.

    The greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat (as distinct from energy) cannot be transfered from a colder to a warmer body. In other words, the atmosphere (a sink) of energy W cannot to transfered as heat back to the earth (a source) radiating at 2W.

    Woods experiment is the only practical evidence. To this day there has been no practical confirmation for a greenhouse effect involving carbon dioxide or any other gas. All you will find is abstract and untestable hypotheses and predictive computer models which try and fail to model energetic photon paths.

  2. It is so sad that people who don’t understand science latch onto papers whose only virtue is to reinforce their preconceptions:

    The pro-carbon lobby is looking for gaps in climate science the way creationists are questioning Darwinian evolution. These people are no “skeptics”. Real skepticism, inherent in science, makes no prior assumptions and is evidence based. The view of the atmosphere as a legitimate open sewer for human-generated carbon gases, makes the prior assumption no anthropogenic global warming takes place, then proceeds to look for errors, real or imaginary, in climate science. –Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian National University

    Specifically, just one example of the absurdity of the paper “Falsification…” is the claim that there isn’t a thing called an average temperature. Of course there is. It is obvious that such a value exists, and is physically meaningful.

    The science of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere serving as a greenhouse gas was well established by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, so there is no valid argument that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming.

  3. Thanks! I so hope this madness can be stopped. I read on a couple of blogs during the day that there is going to be a large meeting of several hundred scientist from around the world gathering in NYC March 4-8, 2008 to try to collectively influence our brain dead ‘leaders’ and media about the inaccuracies being forced upon them. Hope good changes are ahead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s