Physicist Falsifies GH gas theory

[reasonmclucus]

Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner of the Institute for Mathematical Physics at the Carolo-Wilhelmina Technical University, Germany, demonstrate the falsity of the greenhouse gas theory in lengthy technical discussion.

The process that greenhouse gas advocates support doesn't exist.

Of particular interest is his discussion on page 31 using a car as an example to demonstrate that greenhouses work by preventing heated air from escaping rather than by blocking radiation. Gerlich also discusses the different versions of the greenhouse gas theory including the one by Svante Arrhenius whose calculations were rejected at the time.


On page 66 he begins a discussion on the impossibility of a global average temperature which if it existed would require use of differential equations. On page 74 he provides an example of a pot on a stove showing that heating by radiation does not result in heat going back to the source of the radiation.



The article is in PDF format in small type. I've found on my computer that it is easier to read by saving a copy of the file to disk and then reading it outside the browser using the Adobe Acrobat reader. You can follow the discussion without having to work through the equations he provides for actual calculations.

It's been quite a few years since I did anything with such equations and I'm not ambitious enough to work through them to check their accuracy.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf

Those who think only climatologists can talk about climate need to keep in mind that climate must obey the same physical "laws" as other physical phenomena.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Those who find Gerlich's essay hard to understand, may find some of Heinz Thieme's essays useful. Thieme doesn't have the credentials of Gerlich, but his essays are directed to a more general audience.

Scientists take two approaches to determining the validity of theories. One approach involves efforts to prove the theory is valid which sometimes is difficult to do. The other approach attempts to disprove the theory, or falsify it. If the theory can be falsified,then there is no need to attempt to prove it.



Heinze Thieme has published several essays demonstrating that the greenhouse gas theory is false. In "On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation" he shows that "An assessment conducted in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of vector algebra of the key greenhouse theory concept of 'atmospheric backradiation' suggests that it is simply a mirage. The only 'Backradiation Phenomenon' that needs explaining is how this physical nonsense maintains its place in numerous Earth sciences textbooks at both school and university level."

Greenhouse gas devotees believe the such back radiation by CO2 is supposed to heat the ground and water.

http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/backrad.htm

In the article "Does Man really affect Weather and Climate? Are the Interactions really understood? "


http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm


he discusses how humans may be affecting climate by adding water rather than by adding CO2. This affect occurs because of the thermal characteristics of water, especially water vapor rather than radiation.



The third article "The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - explained stepwise"

http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm

he demonstrates that atmospheric pressure is more important in determining temperature than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the case of Venus he provides data indicating it would actually be warmer if the atmosphere was comprised of gases other than CO2. "To avoid misunderstandings in the future it would be wise not to use the term 'greenhouse effect' anymore for the description of conditions within an atmosphere. It would be more correct to speak of an 'atmosphere Effect' [6], to describe and explain the thermodynamic temperature effects of an atmosphere."

 

[reasonmclucus]

The decline in Arctic Ice is sometimes cited as an example of warming air temperatures. A recently published study indicates that much of the older, thicker ice has floated out through the Fram Strait between Greenland and Norway.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_07216_Sea_Ice.html

http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/GEO/Geochem/Fram.htm

the ice has been pushed out by the pressure wave that circles the region. The wind is currently blowing from the west pushing the ice east.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020807seaice.html

Although new ice forms in the Arctic each winter, this new ice is more likely to melt the next year because it is thinner than ice that has built up over several years. the loss of the old thick ice by floating out of the Arctic likely explains the drop in ARctic sea levels (sea levels elsewhere are rising). If the ice had melted sea level would have remained constant because the amount of water would have remained constant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm

As the sea level falls, warmer water is drawn in through the Bering STrait on the west.

http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst-070826.gif

AS the following indicates Sea Surface Temperatures in the area are much warmer than normal.

http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-070826.gif




i

 

[Skyhunter]

I found the paper to be a little hard to swallow. He is suggesting that the Earth's blackbody temperature would be greater with a pure nitrogen oxygen atmosphere.

Are you really taking this seriously?

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is the http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf" of that silly paper.

 

[WeatherRusty]

Greenhouse gas devotees believe the such back radiation by CO2 is supposed to heat the ground and water.

No they do not. This is a misconception. The energy absorbed by greenhouse gases warms the atmospheric gases. The thus warmer atmosphere irradiates the surface more intensely than the otherwise cooler atmosphere would have. All bulk matter radiates proportionally as a function of it's temperature. See Planck's Law and Stephan-Boltzmann Law. The atmosphere radiates because it has a temperature just the same way as the photosphere of the Sun, the atmosphere mostly in the infrared, the Sun mostly in the visible wavelengths.

 

[Mike Davis]

No they do not. This is a misconception. The energy absorbed by greenhouse gases warms the atmospheric gases. The thus warmer atmosphere irradiates the surface more intensely than the otherwise cooler atmosphere would have. All bulk matter radiates proportionally as a function of it's temperature. See Planck's Law and Stephan-Boltzmann Law. The atmosphere radiates because it has a temperature just the same way as the photosphere of the Sun, the atmosphere mostly in the infrared, the Sun mostly in the visible wavelengths.

Could you please provide a picture of this occurring. There are thermal imaging cameras to photograph IR emissions available as I have seen the pictures but have not seen what you are discribeing.

 

[Mammo]

Fantastic thread. Someone should post this on the new 'Highlighted Threads' forum.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yikes, no way! The thread ought to be locked for being in violation of current Earth forum rules.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yikes, no way! The thread ought to be locked for being in violation of current Earth forum rules.

LOL

It is a mishmash of bizarre physics.

 

[Andre]

There is indeed something wrong with this thread, claiming a refutation from a non-peer reviewed source:

Here is the http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf" of that silly paper.

 

[Skyhunter]

There is indeed something wrong with this thread, claiming a refutation from a non-peer reviewed source:

They are both published in the same archives of Ocean/Atmosphric physics.

The paper I linked is a direct refutation of the OP paper.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Neither one of them has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Locked pending moderation.