Global warming/antiglobal warming=warring religions?

[Buffy]

For AGW to work - and it does not - it must break thermodynamic principles, which it cannot. See - http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf

It may require some knowledge of physics, but if you read the paper carefully, you'll note it makes the typical fatal error of most arguments that invoke the "impossibility" of easily observable effects: the second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system, and this paper assumes that the earth is, when it clearly is not.

 

As a practical datapoint, it's pretty hard to explain the climate of Venus without a Greenhouse Effect.

 

I do recommend that everyone read the paper that Mr. Theo linked because it actually reads as pure parody. In fact Mr. Theo, it might come to light that this paper was a conspiracy to make warming skeptics look foolish because they so aggressively promote an argument that's so obviously wrong that it makes it clear that they don't care about the truth, just their own biased viewpoint.

 

Fools rush in where fools have been before, :eek2:

Buffy

[Theo]

It may require some knowledge of physics, but if you read the paper carefully, you'll note it makes the typical fatal error of most arguments that invoke the "impossibility" of easily observable effects: the second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system, and this paper assumes that the earth is, when it clearly is not.

 

As a practical datapoint, it's pretty hard to explain the climate of Venus without a Greenhouse Effect.

 

I do recommend that everyone read the paper that Mr. Theo linked because it actually reads as pure parody. In fact Mr. Theo, it might come to light that this paper was a conspiracy to make warming skeptics look foolish because they so aggressively promote an argument that's so obviously wrong that it makes it clear that they don't care about the truth, just their own biased viewpoint.

 

Fools rush in where fools have been before, :eek2:

Buffy

 

I am not a fool Buffy. I am also not a "skeptic." I am a climate forecaster, a journalist, and a poly mathematician. You know, I strongly support vigor in debate, but never ideology, or banning people because one does not agree with them, that is plain wrong, and should never be done.

 

When this happens - anywhere - it means that the people doing such things are not intellectually honest enough to stand on their own perspectives without resorting to drum out others, and facts, because it does not lean towards their own predispositions, biases, and ideology.

 

Re/ Venus - for one, Venus is not the Earth. The planet rotates backwards, the Earth does not. The atmospheric mass of Venus is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere, and the pressure at Venus' surface is 92 times that of Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans.

 

The density of Venus' surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water) and its CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide shows it to have the number #1 greenhouse effect in the Solar System with surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).

 

Venus is not the Earth, and no, the Earth is not a "closed" system. The Earth cannot become a planet like Venus, it has none of the qualities that would break the law of thermodynamics. The Earth has water vapor as the MAJOR gas - not sulfur dioxide.

 

For more on Venus, see - https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Planets/venus.htm

 

I continue to ask how AGW breaks the laws of Thermodynamics? It is impossible for CO2 to become the dominate gas on this planet under the geophysical laws that govern our planet.

 

The major greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapor and I have yet to see anyone make this physical fact an imaginary one, and that is what AGW is - an imaginary theory that uses fear to scare the world into believing something that is not only untrue - but is impossible under the Thermodynamic laws that govern the Earth.

[Zythryn]

Deleted, duplicated in another post (Climategate)

[Theo]

Theo, we are all interested in facts and logic. Thank you for confirming that you are too.

So, would you agree that the paper you linked assumes that the earth is a closed system?

 

Come on, let's not lower the level of discussion. The point - again - is how AGW breaks the law of Thermodynamics on Earth - that is not a closed system. Of course the paper proposes this question, and it is a valid question, considering that those who continue to buy into this lie of AGW have not - to this very day - ever proven how man-made global warming, or climate change - is linked to CO2 dominating our atmosphere? Where is the beef? Where is the proof?

 

How is this possible when the great majority of the Earth's atmosphere is water vapor. That is logic. That is a physical fact. So, please, let's not run around from the facts here.

 

Now, we can all play these ideological "games" if you prefer, but that isn't Science, and it surely is not climate science to reject the physical law of thermodynamics.

 

So, again, if you can answer the question please - how does AGW break the law of thermodynamics?

[freeztar]

how does AGW break the law of thermodynamics?

 

It doesn't. It's like asking how the theory of Evolution breaks the law of thermodynamics. Same answer.

 

No need to read through the entire paper, but it might do some good if you can understand it.

 

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/MEPRG.pdf

[Theo]

It doesn't. It's like asking how the theory of Evolution breaks the law of thermodynamics. Same answer.

 

No need to read through the entire paper, but it might do some good if you can understand it.

 

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~rlorenz/MEPRG.pdf

 

Really? In someone's dream. There is no known theory that has ever been shown - definitively - to break the laws of Thermodynamics that govern the Earth. Not one.

 

See - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

[freeztar]

There is no known theory that has ever been shown - definitively - to break the laws of Thermodynamics that govern the Earth. Not one.

 

I agree! (though I would include the Universe)

 

See - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

 

This article does not appear to claim that AGW violates Thermodynamics. The first sentence is not only uncharacteristic of scientific peer-reviewed journal articles, but the first sentence makes an unfounded claim, that global climatology still believes that the "planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is

radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system". If I understand this correctly, I would find it hard to believe that *any* serious climatologist takes such a stance. The "environment" (presumably everything terrestrial), does not "equilibrate" with the atmosphere. Perhaps there are rare places on Earth that this occur due to local conditions, but there is never really an equilibrium (especially when considering the Earth as a whole).

 

I'll spend some more time with the paper to find out what merit it does have, but I don't think you can use this paper as an assertion that AGW does, or doesn't, violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[Essay]

How is this possible when the great majority of the Earth's atmosphere is water vapor. That is logic. That is a physical fact. So, please, let's not run around from the facts here.

 

Now, we can all play these ideological "games" if you prefer, but that isn't Science, and it surely is not climate science to reject the physical law of thermodynamics.

 

So, again, if you can answer the question please - how does AGW break the law of thermodynamics?

You seem to be trying to say that since CO2 is so much less than water vapor, that to claim CO2 is affecting heat retention (instead of water vapor) "must" break the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Is this your reasoning?

 

:eek2:

[Theo]

You seem to be trying to say that since CO2 is so much less than water vapor, that to claim CO2 is affecting heat retention (instead of water vapor) "must" break the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Is this your reasoning?

 

:eek2:

 

My reasoning is clear - the laws of Thermodynamics makes clear that AGW is not valid. It is an impossibility on Earth. It cannot take place. At all.

[Theo]

I agree! (though I would include the Universe)

 

 

 

This article does not appear to claim that AGW violates Thermodynamics. The first sentence is not only uncharacteristic of scientific peer-reviewed journal articles, but the first sentence makes an unfounded claim, that global climatology still believes that the "planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is

radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system". If I understand this correctly, I would find it hard to believe that *any* serious climatologist takes such a stance. The "environment" (presumably everything terrestrial), does not "equilibrate" with the atmosphere. Perhaps there are rare places on Earth that this occur due to local conditions, but there is never really an equilibrium (especially when considering the Earth as a whole).

 

I'll spend some more time with the paper to find out what merit it does have, but I don't think you can use this paper as an assertion that AGW does, or doesn't, violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Yes, that would be nice. For you to read the entire paper so as to clearly understand that AGW is impossible. It cannot happen. Playing around with words does not in any manner mean that these laws that govern the Earth are not in force. Thermodynamic laws are in force on Earth - right now, and there is no such thing as AGW. It cannot happen on this planet. Period.

[Eclipse Now]

I know Brian, he's cool. The Himalayans may not be melting. BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

 

Indeed, I've revived a thread on glaciers so that we can discuss this "Glacier-gate" threat disappearing at length there! All I can say is "FANTASTIC" because that was one of the scariest global warming scenarios.

 

If you wish to discuss "Glacier-gate" please do so in the glacier thread below. Thanks.

http://hypography.com/forums/science-news/21681-glaciers-are-shrinking-worldwide-does-matter.html

[Essay]

My reasoning is clear - the laws of Thermodynamics makes clear that AGW is not valid. It is an impossibility on Earth. It cannot take place. At all.

Your unsupported, repetitive, claim is "clear," but your reasoning is unclear (to me at least). I'd sure appreciate you explaining what it is about AGW that you think "violates" thermodynamics.

 

Was I right about you thinking it is the relative amounts of CO2 & H2O vapor, or was it something else?

 

~ :phones:

[Moontanman]

Please close out this thread, it has gone totally gone off topic.

[Eclipse Now]

Can we all agree where to discuss what? This 'channel flipping' is giving me a headache... isn't there already a "Solar action drives climate change" thread somewhere? Surely we should all have the top 26 Denialist myths discussed one by one on these forums, have them bookmarked in our easy to edit Firefox bookmarks, and then just refer newcomers to each existing thread as these myths keep coming up? Or we'll be forever going over the same ground again, and again, and again.

 

(PS: I just love Firefox so much even my wife, a hardened Mac user dedicated to Safari, has switched to Firefox! A MAC user! Now that's unheard of! Firefox has a great sidebar that lets you edit your bookmarks as you browse... I could just reach up and drag this tab into the sidebar and bookmark this discussion thread or even this post with one mouse sweep and it's done. I can jiggle the folders and folders and sub-folders and sub-sub folders of bookmark categories all around in Firefox... it makes it easier for discussions like these.

 

EG: I have a global warming folder, and I'm gradually building a catalogue of Denialist myths, and each myth has its own subfolder, etc.

 

how do others catalogue all the information they collect? How many of you use a BLOG as a 'personal pensieve', which of course is a Harry Potter memory storing device. )

[Eclipse Now]

Please close out this thread, it has gone totally gone off topic.

 

Hey, you got that in just before I could post mine! :phones:

[Theo]

Your unsupported, repetitive, claim is "clear," but your reasoning is unclear (to me at least). I'd sure appreciate you explaining what it is about AGW that you think "violates" thermodynamics.

 

Was I right about you thinking it is the relative amounts of CO2 & H2O vapor, or was it something else?

 

~ :phones:

 

Just where is my claim "unsupported?" You gave no evidence. If you would like to know why AGW is impossible under the laws of Thermodynamics, then read, and understand that it cannot take place according to these laws. It is an impossibility. No one's "opinion" is going to change these laws either.

 

See - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

 

What Climategate reveals is just how ideology does not belong in Science. The careers of those who participated are over. And, they know it.

 

It is a sad thing for the world that many people have been lied to in order to create a global business out of the lie of AGW. Moreover, the religious fervor and propaganda that has been created out of this lie has led to many now questioning climate science itself.

 

For, if AGW were to be true, then there would be no need to falsify climate data, alter computer models, and to remove raw global weather data which did not reflect the ideology of AGW.

 

Science is a place for exploration and discovery. There is no place for ideology in science, and over the past 20 years, climate science has been run by ideologues who have obviously lost their intellectual honesty. Climategate shows this, and in the coming months, more revelations will ultimately lead to the full debunking of AGW - which has been disproven as impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics.

 

I agree with John Coleman, who states the truth -

YouTube- John Coleman slams global warming (1 of 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivkYxslfg9s&feature=related

[Essay]

Just where is my claim "unsupported?"

I agree with John Coleman, who states the truth -

Coleman slams global warming (1 of 4)

 

 

You bring up a long-refuted paper (from 2007) as support for your blanket claim about AGW?

I was asking for a specific such as the CO2/water vapor ratio, or whatever you see as problematic; but not a simplistic "it must be false" proclamation.

 

That was some paper: :phones:

“(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (:) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; © the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C 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.”

 

“The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.”

 

Gerlich? Finally, a physicist! But....

Cato, and the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute? That's a good resume (said sarcastically).

===

 

The paper "refutes" and "rules out" a lot of accepted science, but never explains why or how.

===

 

No wonder it was so easy to respond to:

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

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"

 

The conclusion specifically addresses Gerlich and Tscheuschner's "more extravagant claims...."

 

~ :)