Welcome to PatsFans.com

Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect within the Frame of Physics

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,581
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +110 / 7 / -10

    Here is an article from the International Journal of Modern Physics byGerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, the original article was published a couple of years ago. The original article and this were peer reviewed documents.

    here is the abstract for the article:



    My link disappeared? here it is again.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
  2. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    First of all, it's pretty funny that you are trying to point to (or actually believe) a rejection of the greenhouse effect. I can also find peer-reviewed abstracts of crack scientists who claim the world is under 10,000 years old; it doesn't mean it's accepted science.

    Second of all, the premise and first point of the authors isn't even close to what is actually explained for the greenhouse effect. They intentionally pick false points with which to look at.



    Climate change deniers are probably the biggest conspiracy wackos right now.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2009
  3. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    Ummmmm, not by a longshot dude......... Nice try though.

    They have a long way to go to catch up with the "truthers" out there.
  4. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If its cloudy overnight it'll be relatively warmer the following morning. If its clear overnight it'll be colder the following morning. No amount of pseudo scientific bs from agent 13 is gonna change that.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I will not pretend to understand this issue or the following link, which is heavy in math, but a brief search brought me to the refutation of Gerlich and Tscheuschner.

    Ultimately, in my opinion, unless we are highly qualified in the respective sciences, we have to rely on the same sources we always trusted when it comes to science, such as Scientific American, Science Magazine, and so on. It seems to me that, for political reasons, conservatives have rejected the sources they once trusted and instead have turned to politically conservative scientists.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

    Gerlich and Tscheuschner1 state, among more extravagant claims, that “Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.” The above analysis I believe completely establishes, within perfectly simple and appropriate theoretical physics constructs, the main points. Namely that assuming “the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation” leads to “a warming of the Earth’s surface” relative to firm limits established by basic physical principles of energy conservation, for the case of an atmosphere transparent to both visible and infrared.
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,581
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +110 / 7 / -10

    Have read that paper it responded to Rev 1, THe author creates a simple model that he claims refutes G&T. However he runs no simulations, his paper was not submitted for peer review and he does not refute the point that due to the loosness of the mesh (100km) and the undefined boundary conditions a computer simulation cannot model the climate. This is of course why our weather forecast only go out a couple of days using the most poewerful computers.
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,855
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    Big Money in the Global Warming stuff, big headlines for the leaders, Nobel Prizes for the GW King (boob gore) this Planet has gone through a lot of sh!t millions of years before the "Hated SUV" was born.

    His Holiness Tiger Woods drives a big SUV.
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Are you deleting posts that you don't like, that work against your arguement, or that ridicule your behavior here? One of mine is missing- prolly because it was making fun of you. Am I mistaken?
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,855
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +296 / 1 / -9

    Poor Gore...................
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,581
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +110 / 7 / -10

    Some words from the paper on radiative balance one of the things the agw modelers get wrong ( note this text is from a noncommercial source placed in the public domain by the authors):

  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I deleted it. Sent you a PM to explain.
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,581
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +110 / 7 / -10

    A great article summarizing the state of climategate by Lord Monckton a 43 pg PDF.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...n-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf




    Love run on sentences. Great paper.
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I think Climategate is a low-grade scandal that's going nowhere. True, the Washington Times, Fox News, and the WSJ have picked it up, but overall there's just not enough there to show that there's been disinformation. As I said, there are a few tacky emails and a few mistakes by a few scientists, but the scandal so far doesn't appear to have legs, despite the best effort of the oil companies and their champions.

    As far as Lord Monckton goes, he's a right-wing nutcase. When you have to resort to people like him, who believed that all people with AIDS should be quarantined, then you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
  14. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Actually, if it was just the emails, I might agree with you........ But I think this one will pick up some steam. I don't think it will wreak the "green" movement (there is too much $$ in it). But it will certainly put a lot more scrutiny into the science behind it.

    Data was apparently thrown out.......... and not available for individual cross checking. In the science community, that is a pretty significant roadblock. Look for some prominant people to "quietly resign" in the coming weeks/months.

    It's just a slower to develop story. There is big $$ at stake so much will be done to slow this story to break.
  15. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I find this whole debate comedic for both sides...two groups of scientists going head to head trying to get funding for their causes and themselves going after each others data that is woefully incomplete lacking a concise historical backing battling for public opinion that is based entirely on the flavor of the moment.

    Everybody loses and everybody wins...this whole projection and rejection on both sides is pointless because nobody really knows what is actually happening because we simply don't know what the real shifts are as past data beyond actual readings is subjective interpretations of what MAY or MAY NOT have actually happened.

    The more each side fights, the less interested the public will be, the less relevant each side is. :rolleyes:

    When you have to resort to bashing someone for things that have nothing to do with what is being discussed your argument is worthless and worse- detrimental to your case.
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,581
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +110 / 7 / -10



    Of course you can't refute the facts stated in the articles in this thread.


    This does speak very strongly to the shameful bias of the MSM as evidence by Revkin colluding with Mann and discussing the language to be used to dismiss and ignore a claim made by a climate realist.

    It is wise of you to take a political & pr tact and avoid the science.
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Facts? I'm not going to waste my time reading everything he wrote, but virtually everything he wrote applies to both sides.

    Both sides have a tiny clique of politicized scientists paid for by special interests.
    Both sides profit off grant money, though it's harder to collect info about private enterprise. (There is some data, but since not all of it is public, it's not as complete. Just read an article about some Canada green group finally finding evidence of their big oil companies funding skeptics.)
    A few scientists on both sides conspire to generalize about and discredit the other side, just as Lord Monckton is doing is that link.
    The "trick" line has no legs and was used colloquially and was well explained. I already posted at least one link on that.
    ...

    Again, it's Lord Monckton, and he gets as much respect from me as Al Sharpton probably gts from you. Also, if you want a detailed response, then choose you're best point. I'm not going to respond to a 40 page "report."
  18. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Bash the person instead of the data...in other words you can't support anything except a grudge against the person.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>