Slingshots Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
SSF Founder
Joined
·
5,225 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.climategate.com/german-physicis...-warming-theory
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.
Here is the link to the paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
I just read that Mars is warming too. Must be that Mars rover we have up there. Every scientific fact that I have read debunks the global warming theory. There is much more behind this push of global warming than global warming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
I have been questioning the global warming hype for a long time.

It is out of the question that the constant burning of fossile material does heat up our athmosphere. The question is how severe that effect is.

Our planet is constantly changing its average surface temperature, and violently so. In Germany, we had glaciers covering the entire country, and we had decades with California like weather - all in less than 20 k years.

Three hundred years ago, we had a drastic temperature fall that was called the "little ice age". Ten degrees centigrade colder than standard!

I think the human race is not a very significant factor in the ever changing climate of the planet earth.

A bigger problem is pollution, here I do say that something has to be done in order to not mess up.

Jörg
 

·
SSF Founder
Joined
·
5,225 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I have been questioning the global warming hype for a long time.

It is out of the question that the constant burning of fossile material does heat up our athmosphere. The question is how severe that effect is.

Our planet is constantly changing its average surface temperature, and violently so. In Germany, we had glaciers covering the entire country, and we had decades with California like weather - all in less than 20 k years.

Three hundred years ago, we had a drastic temperature fall that was called the "little ice age". Ten degrees centigrade colder than standard!

I think the human race is not a very significant factor in the ever changing climate of the planet earth.

A bigger problem is pollution, here I do say that something has to be done in order to not mess up.

Jörg
I couldn't have put it better myself Jörg! These are my thoughts exactly.

I actually saw an interesting cartoon about this, because I think that we need to get better, even if Global Warming is a hoax.
 

Attachments

1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top