flogger

Global warming fanatics insist that "the science is settled" regarding this contentious issue and they're right — two German scientist have settled it once and for all by proving conclusively that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in global climate.

They've also proven that there can be no way of accurately measuring average global temperature in the way it is now done. CO2 cannot play the role attributed to it by the supporters of the global warming theory, and the very idea violates the laws of thermodynamics.

In an exhaustive 113 page report, "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics," released in July, professors Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner used the science of physics to once and for all disprove such claims by the promoters of the global warming hoax.

The greenhouse effect refers to what happens when sunlight penetrates the glass in a greenhouse and then traps the heat inside. The proponents of the global warming theory claim that the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plays the same role as the glass in allowing heat to do come through to the earth's surface and then blocks it from radiating back into space, thus heating the globe.


Global Warming: Pure Fiction

Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Germany and his colleague professor, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, examined the so-called "greenhouse effect" and found it to be pure fiction as an instrument of alleged global warming. In 113 pages laden with complicated equations, citations from the scientific literature, examinations of various experiments and conclusions based on physics and the laws of physics, the researchers expose the fraudulent grounds upon which the global warming theory rests.

"It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious," the report states, adding that "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [manmade] climate changes has no physical basis."

Noting that "there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects" the report adds "there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet," disproving the contention that a fictional average global temperature proves that the planet is warming.

The report is based on hard facts, written by scientists for scientists: "The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in 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 a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation," The report affirms.

The report pokes holes in the shaky global warming theory: "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, and (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet."


The report makes it clear that the greenhouse effect and the propaganda surrounding the miniscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are based on fraudulent science.

According to the report, "It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.

"For years, the warming mechanism in real greenhouses, paraphrased as ‘the greenhouse effect,' has been commonly misused to explain the conjectured atmospheric greenhouse effect. In school books, in popular scientific articles, and even in high-level scientific debates, it has been stated that the mechanism observed within a glass house bears some similarity to the [human caused] global warming. Meanwhile, even mainstream climatologists admit that the warming mechanism in real glass houses has to be distinguished strictly from the claimed CO2 greenhouse effect."

One section of the report deals with prior evidence of scientific skullduggery: "Recently, the German climatologist Grabl emphasized that errors in science are unavoidable, even in climate research. And the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] weights most of its official statements with a kind of a ‘probability measure.'

"However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis is not based on an error ..."

As early as 1990, the Australian movie "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" lays bare the case for the greenhouse effect:


the factual evidence, i.e., the climate records, that supposedly suggest that a global warming has been observed and is exceptional

the assumption that carbon dioxide is the cause of these changes

the predictions of climate models that claim that a doubling of CO2 leads to a predictable global warming

In the movie, these were disputed. The speaker states: "In a recent paper on the effects of carbon dioxide, professor Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, a major U.S. research establishment in California, concluded that a doubling of carbon dioxide would have little or no effect on the temperature at the surface and, if anything, might cause the surface to cool."

Another movie was shown recently in the U.K. entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" supporting the thesis that the supposed CO2 induced global warming has no scientific basis.


In his paper "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time," the eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski made a well-founded statement: "... Sir David King, the science advisor of the British government, stated that ‘global warming is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism' ...

"In an uncountable number of contributions to newspapers and TV shows in Germany the popular climatologist Latif continues to warn the public about the consequences of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But until today, it is impossible to find a book on non-equilibrium thermodynamics or radiation transfer where this effect is derived from first principles."


Average Global Temperature Debunked

The report also addresses the impossibility of calculating an average global temperature: "In global climatology temperatures are computed from given radiation intensities, and this exchanges cause and effect. The current local temperatures determine the radiation intensities and not vice versa. If the soil is warmed up by the solar radiation, many different local processes are triggered, which depend on the local movement of the air, rain, evaporation, moistness, and on the local ground conditions as water, ice, rock, sand, forests, meadows, etc.

"One square meter of a meadow does not know anything of the rest of the Earth's surface, which determine the global mean value. Thus, the radiation is locally determined by the local temperature. Neither is there a global radiation balance, nor a global radiation budget, even in the mean-yield limit.

"Regardless of any ambiguities, a global mean temperature could only emerge out of many local temperatures. Without knowledge of any science everybody can see, how such a changing average near-ground temperature is constructed: There is more or less sunshine on the ground due to the distribution of clouds. This determines a yield of local near-ground temperatures, which in turn determines the change of the distribution of clouds and, hence, the change of the temperature average, which is evidently independent of the carbon dioxide concentration."

The report quotes physicist Freeman J. Dyson about relying on computer modeling to predict climate change: "'The models ... do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in ... It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.'

"Making such predictions nevertheless may be interpreted as an escape out of the department of sciences..."

The report's conclusions: "Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model."

The report aptly states, "There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems ... and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations ... "The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences . . . The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training."

One statement, above all, sums up this hoax perpetrated on its gullible followers: "statements ... induced [from] global warming out of the computer simulations lie outside any science."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives.../6/104929.shtml


That all rather sums it up frankly. Once you knock the CO 2 prop from beneath the global warming debate then its whole 'human driven' edifice collapses and the sinister politics behind it really gets exposed.


The PRO AGW case starts with the contention that we MUST be responsible for global warming and then cobbles a dodgy case around that to fit that contention.

One can see this in even some of the much lauded IPCC climate modelling which cherry pick the factors likely to allude to human causation and omit those that do not. For instance it was recently pointed out to them that they had exaggerated human climate impact by a factor of 20 by omitting water vapour from its greenhouse gas models. This was eventually corrected but not until the figures had been released into the public domain and made it into Gores dodgy documentary unamended ratcheting up the hysteria.

For instance we are told to ignore solar variability which by some estimates can vary by as much as 3% in favour of blaming the 0.054% of atmospheric gases caused by humans (0.28% of global CO 2). Obviously common sense would suggest the former will have considerably more impact on temperature than the latter. Here is some food for thought .

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

We are also told to regard CO 2 as some kind of pollutant, when in reality it is a component absolutely vital for life on this Earth. Historically more CO 2 equates to greater biomass which surely benefits rather than hinders us.

We are told to dismiss climate history altogether in favour of surveys taken over the last 30 years or so. Indeed things like the Holocene Maximum 2,500 years ago and the Medieval warming period 800 years ago no longer exist despite written anecdotal evidence from those times supporting physical evidence that they did.

The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science

We are told there is consensus amongst the scientific community that we are responsible yet when one concentrates on surveying the ACTUAL climate scientists world wide there is a greater number that tend to the view that mankind is NOT primarily responsible for climate change. And if these experts cannot be certain why should we be ? There are huge financial incentives for the less scrupulous amongst the scientific community to jump onto this bandwagon and keep the momentum going with ever more alarmist pronouncements hence we get 'consensus'.

http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material...lbourne%203.rtf

Finally the political aspect of the current AGW climate change agenda cannot be overstated . One can virtually date the emergence of the climate change agenda with the demise of communism. The old left have quite successfully hijacked the environmental guilt and idealism of the more naieve Western middle classes and harnessed it very successfully to its own ends in its fight against capitalism and globalization. Climate change is the new poster boy of the left since communism failed and like communism its message is monolithic and unchallengeable whatever its rights and wrongs. They said back then they could save the world with communist ideology now its with addressing alleged AGW. In both instances of course that meant the fragmentation or replacement of Western values and capitalism..... the real agenda. Everybody wants to save the world but its a message as seductive as it is unneccessary. How deep this has penetrated the collective psyche of the idealistically gulible is witnessed by the vehement defence of totally indefensible positions in the face of irrefutable scientific fact. The world has been through far worse before this and no doubt it will do afterwards too. I'll bet the polar bears STILL dont drown

JAD_333

flogger: this should be posted on the thread on gobal warming...see a moderator on how to move it...it's sure to generate some comment

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

brokensickle

Where's TANQ when you need him. Al's just a melting ice cube in a sea of sunshine. You doubt? Watch him when he heats up on global warming world tour. He's sweating and sinking into the rising water.





Ivan

__________________
"Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

Gumshoe-Mystery

I'm sorry but the findings of this report are just not true. Firstly the mechanism for 'greenhouse warming' is simple and thermodynamically sound. Electromagnetic radiation enters the atmosphere. Some is reflected back into space, the rest is absorbed and turned into heat energy. Some things are simply better absorbers of heat, while other things, such as polar ice, better reflecters. I haven't studied the absorption characteristics of carbon dioxide since I was at school, but there's nothing fancy here, it's basic stuff.

As far as measuring average temperatures there's many ways this could be done. I don't know precisely how quoted temperatures are being validated, but it's not rocket science. Not only that there are many means of cross-correlating readings. Finally, you must surely be aware of the retreat of polar ice in the last 50 years, and if it's not rising temperature thats doing that then atmospheric pressure must be increasing at an enormously worrying rate!

gunnut

So the science is NOT settled. Some people think one way and some people think another way. Just because the mechanism makes sense on paper doesn't translate to the real world. Too many variables for our puny minds to handle. If we could have models to predict how things interact on a planetary scale, we would be far more accurate at predicting local weather patterns. As of now, our record is probably 50/50 on weather prediction.

Quoted temperature are measured from weather stations, at least in the US.

Here's the problem, those weather stations are located near heat islands, like a big city. Some instrumentation at those weather stations were improperly placed, like next to an air conditioner or at a corner of a building or on top of a black top parking lot. Those readings will tend to be higher than the true temperature.

Some weather stations have correct instrumentation. For example, the one in Albany, NY, the oldest continuous operating weather station in the US, reported the average temperature in a recent year (forgot which) the same as the year it became operational, nearly 200 years ago. But you'll never hear this from Rev. Al and the Global Warming Cult. They still believe 5 of the hottest years in the last century were in the 2000's. In fact, 1930s were far warmer than what we are right now.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

dalem

The facts?

Comin' up!

-dale

reasonmclucus

They are right and you are wrong. The ground and water are heated by solar radiation, but they transfer heat to the atmosphere through conduction rather than radiation. Only the ground produces any significant radiation because water which covers 70% of the earth's surface doesn't radiate well. Generally radiation heat transfer requires that the source be much hotter than the recipient because the source converts only a small amount of its heat energy to radiation. Heat lamps for example only provide heating while they are turned on even though they produce radiation even when they are turned off.

Even if the air were heated by radiation from the ground, it could not heat the ground in return because each molecule only produces a quantum of energy when it emits radiation according to the Nobel winning research done by Niels Bohr.

Incidentally as is note in the essay physicist R.W. Wood proved that greenhouses don't become hot be trapping radiation but by trapping heated air.

__________________
There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. R. Oppenheimer

rat

Interesting point of view flogger. Can you please quote the source of your article?

Greenhouse effect is thought to be one of the reasons of climate change, on which man has some control over. One cannot regulate solar activity. Hence there is an effort to reduce the greenhouse gas emission.

Actually, the presence of atmosphere on earth leads to the weather conditons we have. For example, on Moon there is no atmosphere and hence there is a prevalence of extreme climate in there. The sunfacing side is extremely hot and the dark side is extremely cold.

In the same way, Mars which has a very high percentage of CO2 int its atmosphere, is very hot. Different gases have different properties and hence they affect the weather in a different way too.

There is still a scientific debate going on in this area, and the scientific community will accept an alternate view if someone can prove it with data. Scientific community is quite ready to accept new ideas, for example look at the theory about atomic models we have now. If you compare it with what existed 100 years back, it will not make any sense now. But any good theory takes time to develop. Imagine that Newton's laws were developed only 350 odd years back.

gunnut

There are more and more studies coming out that challenge the "global warming" scenario. We have hundreds of them listed under various global warming threads on this forum.

dalem

I think you mean Venus. Mars' atmosphere is so thin that it traps heat very poorly no matter what its constituents.

-dale

rat

Thanks for the correction, Dale and gunnut. I meant Venus. Venus' atmosphere shows one of the most terrible effects of Greenhouse effect.

Bob Jones

Like most things posted on the forum, they are somebodys elses opinions no doubt someone will disagree with them,

__________________
Ex1 RTR MIB

dalem

Mmm, Venus shows one of the most "terrible" effects of being Venus.

Venus is much closer to the sun than the Earth. "Runaway" Venusian greenhouse has not been a worry here on Earth for 4.5 billion years, I doubt it's suddenly going to crop up over the last century.

-dale

Wooglin

.

Sadly, it seems the issue has become too politicized for new data to be easily accepted. It's already been shown that models, built upon the hypothesis of co2 forcing, are not consistent with actual observation (Douglass, et al 2007, Spencer, et al 2007, Monaghan, et al 2008).

If this is not something that is taken into account, then I hardly think an alternate theory, whether backed by evidence or not, will be given due consideration.

Parihaka

Wooglin, have I ever mentioned how much I love your sources?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz