tieteellisesti, jälleen kerran.
"Appendix: Relevance to the current climate debate
In our falsification paper [4, 3] we have shown that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects
[5] as taken-for-granted concepts in global climatology do not fit into the scientific framework
of theoretical and applied physics. By showing that
(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
(f) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical
(e) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero
the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects have been refuted within the frame of physics [4, 3].
In other words, the greenhouse models are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative
transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, disregarding the other forms of heat
transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, latent heat exchange et cetera. Some of
these simplistic descriptions define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind” and are therefore
inadmissable as a physical concept.
In the speculative discussion around the existence of an atmospheric natural greenhouse
effect [6] or the existence of an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect it is sometimes stated that
the greenhouse effect could modify the temperature profile of the Earth’s atmosphere. This
conjecture is related to another popular but incorrect idea communicated by some proponents
of the global warming hypothesis, namely the hypothesis that the temperatures of the Venus
are due to a greenhouse effect. For instance, in their book “Der Klimawandel. Diagnose,
Prognose, Therapie” (Climate Change. Diagnosis, Prognosis, Therapy) “two leading international
experts”, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf, present a “compact
and understandable review” of “climate change” to the general public [8]. On page 32 they
explicitly refer to the “power” of the “greenhouse effect” on the Venus.
The claim of Rahmstorf and Schellhuber is that the high venusian surface temperatures
somewhere between 400 and 500 Celsius degrees are due to an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse
effect [8]. Of course, they are not. On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, On The Barometric Formulas . . . 13
opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.
On the other hand, if one compares the temperature and pressure profiles of Venus and
Earth, one immediately will see that they are both very similar. An important difference is
the atmospheric pressure on the ground, which is approximately two orders higher than on
the Earth. At 50 km altitude the venusian atmospheric pressure corresponds to the normal
pressure on the Earth with temperatures at approximately 37 Celsius degrees. However,
things are extremely complex (volcanic activities, clouds of sulfuric acid), such that we do
not go in details here [9].
Acknowledgement
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.1508v2.pdf
"Appendix: Relevance to the current climate debate
In our falsification paper [4, 3] we have shown that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects
[5] as taken-for-granted concepts in global climatology do not fit into the scientific framework
of theoretical and applied physics. By showing that
(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
(f) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical
(e) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero
the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects have been refuted within the frame of physics [4, 3].
In other words, the greenhouse models are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative
transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, disregarding the other forms of heat
transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, latent heat exchange et cetera. Some of
these simplistic descriptions define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind” and are therefore
inadmissable as a physical concept.
In the speculative discussion around the existence of an atmospheric natural greenhouse
effect [6] or the existence of an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect it is sometimes stated that
the greenhouse effect could modify the temperature profile of the Earth’s atmosphere. This
conjecture is related to another popular but incorrect idea communicated by some proponents
of the global warming hypothesis, namely the hypothesis that the temperatures of the Venus
are due to a greenhouse effect. For instance, in their book “Der Klimawandel. Diagnose,
Prognose, Therapie” (Climate Change. Diagnosis, Prognosis, Therapy) “two leading international
experts”, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf, present a “compact
and understandable review” of “climate change” to the general public [8]. On page 32 they
explicitly refer to the “power” of the “greenhouse effect” on the Venus.
The claim of Rahmstorf and Schellhuber is that the high venusian surface temperatures
somewhere between 400 and 500 Celsius degrees are due to an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse
effect [8]. Of course, they are not. On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, On The Barometric Formulas . . . 13
opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.
On the other hand, if one compares the temperature and pressure profiles of Venus and
Earth, one immediately will see that they are both very similar. An important difference is
the atmospheric pressure on the ground, which is approximately two orders higher than on
the Earth. At 50 km altitude the venusian atmospheric pressure corresponds to the normal
pressure on the Earth with temperatures at approximately 37 Celsius degrees. However,
things are extremely complex (volcanic activities, clouds of sulfuric acid), such that we do
not go in details here [9].
Acknowledgement
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.1508v2.pdf
Vastaukset 10
Vanhimmat
Vanhaa roskaa, debunkattu julkisesti lukemattomia kertoja.
Aika erikoista että joku tietämätön tollo jaksaa vielä tuotakin linkata, mutta meitähän on moneksi.
No mikset debunkkaa fysiikan lakeja, pöljä.
Kuten hiilidioksidi absorboi lämpösäteilyä
Ei tarvitse, mutta tuolle sinänsä asialliselle julkaisusarjalle sattuneen nolon munauksen jälkikaikuja voi lueskella tuolta:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/14/on-having-a-laugh-by-gerlich-and-tscheuschner-2009/
Gerhard Gerlich on päässyt jo versioon 2.0 laskelmissaan ja edelleenkin laskee väärin. Toivottavasti versiossa 2.1 Gerlich pystyisi laskemaan oikein - mutta epäilen. Milloikohan Gerlich alkaisi ymmärtää termodynamiikan 2. lakia oikein?
Milloin itte alat ymmärtämään ettei lämpene, vaikka IPCC ilmastohihhulit on lämmittäneet jo 30 vuotta.
Mitä tulee avaukseen, sunhan ei tarvitse kuin esittää omat laskusi ja kumota
tuo linkki.
Samalla voisit antaa laskukaavan miten säteilypakote lasketaan, ja näyttää se fysiikankirjoista.
Kai AGW teorian perusteena olevalle säteilypakotteelle on joku
tieteellinen formulointi?
Laitas nyt se rohkeasti vain esille, älä yhtään ujostele.
En löytänyt näppäimistöstä sigma-merkkiä, joten en voi laittaa tähän kaavaa, mutta ilmastotieteen peruskurssissa tätä asiaa käsitellään laajasti - jos kiinnostaa!
Sigmoja käsitellään laajasti myös teologiassa. Molemmat saman arvoisia tieteitä.
Molemmissa pääasiallinen todistelu konteksti on kielioppi ei matematiikka tai fysiikka.
Kyllä se sigma-merkki löytyy jos haluaa.
Vaikka näin: Ʃ
Kopioi tuosta, jos et muuten osaa.
Lisää kiistettävää kröönmannille.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N1/C2.php