Topic: The Environment
A Theoretical Physicist rips the 'Greenhouse Theory' to shreds Some scientific knowledge required, but this guy's paper will make an excellent glove with which to beat back the psuedo-science peddling fear mongers.by Edward Townes
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
This is a copy of his conclusions at the bottom of the paper.
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms "greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet • with or without an atmosphere, • with or without rotation, • with or without infrared light absorbing gases. The frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦ C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identified with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature’s fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.
6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the "average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.
9. Infrared absorption does not imply "backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly." (cf. Ref. [185].)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental differ from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butterfly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth.
In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth albeit any physical reality. The CO2 -greenhouse effect, however is a "mirage" [204]. The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2 -greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2 -greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of "questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday". In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though, even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulation.
"Global warming is good . . . The net effect of a modest global warming is positive." (Singer). In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term fluctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to get into all aspects of the climate variability debate. The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. 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.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Edward Townes only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Edward Townes is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Gerlich&Tscheurschner would be an excellent paper if it were written by a law student. However they do not even really understand how glass greenhouses work, and I would not hire them to design a new industrial LASER, because they do not understand interactions between CO2 and photons. They make some very good points about computer models, but the points that they score are against strawmen, and not actual elements of AGW theory. Over all it is nonsense, and by posting it, the host shows that he has not done his homework.
Thank you for another great article. And it's obvious that your research has been extensive, based on this and previous writings.
We can't read or watch a tube without being fed the GW bullshit. Once a mind has been implanted with disinformation, no matter how inane, it's nearly impossible to penetrate the pseudo reason and enlighten the dimness therein. Attempts to educate the conditioned mind are scorned and ridiculed. Ignorance is fiercely defended.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
