There is No Greenhouse Effect

Uncategorized 53 Comments

I don’t know if Kate posted about the following, so I’ll post it now.
German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner offered a paper in July of 2007 that argued that the theory of “greenhouse” earth defies the laws of physics.
It’s a very long technical read better suited to those among us who have a physics background … the summations are, if true, devastating to the entire AGW theory. The PDF:

It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport cofficients must be a highly involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is misleading to visualize a photon as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality or Feynman graph picture.
It is an interesting point that the heat conductivity of CO2 is only one half of that of nitrogen or oxygen. In a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere a conventional light bulb shines brighter than in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere due to the lowered heat conductivity of its environment. But this has nothing to do with the supposed CO2 greenhouse effect which refers to trace gas concentrations. Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a heat conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `super insulation’ violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.
[…]
– In Section 2 the warming effect in real greenhouses, which has to be distinguished strictly from the (in-) famous conjecture of Arrhenius, is discusseed.
– Section 3 is devoted to the atmospheric greenhouse problem. 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.
– In Section 4 theoretical physics and climatology are discussed in context of the philosophy of science. The question is raised, how far global climatology fits into the framework of exact sciences such as physics.
– The final Section 5 is a physicist’s summary.

Have fun!
cross-posted @ Celestial Junk

53 Replies to “There is No Greenhouse Effect”

  4. Bryan,
    It isn’t AGW anymore after all, it’s now “climate change” which covers the gamit from cooling to warming to no hurricanes or bad hurricanes. If we get a lot of snow in winter it is attributed to “climate change” and supposedly is because of forcing caused by greenhouse gases.
    Any good religion has an answer for everything donchaknow!

  5. will someone please forward this document to the Mayor of Toronto who now wants to ban all cars in Toronto to save the planet

  6. An excellent piece of work, if only to remind people that AGW is supposedly based on a reflective effect. I suspect many of the most ardent AGW supporters assume car exhaust gases are hot….so it’s heatin’ the atmosphere, eh?

  7. Thank you — reinforces the discussion in “Taken by Storm” i.e. that greenhouses do not work according to the IPCC’s “Greenhouse effect”. The whole CO2-as-a-warming-agent in a turbulent atmosphere where massive heat transfers occur by convection, storms, precipitation, currents etc. is intuitively absurd, and this simply puts the theoretical physical nail in the coffin of this hoax. It’s akin to claiming that another planet could pop into existence beside the earth as a result of a quantum effect.

  8. Wikipedia says the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at 383 PPM and that would translate to .0383% by volume

  9. Is this more Lyndon Larouche stuff? Are you guys still quoting his “scientists” again.
    Cutting edge satire that.
    Congrats all!!!!

  10. “It’s akin to claiming that another planet could pop into existence beside the earth as a result of a quantum effect.”
    Theoretically, this is perfectly possible. But to paraphrase Damon Runyon, dat ain’t da way ya bet.
    The entire AGW theory rests primarily on the chaos-theory tenet that in a sufficiently complex and chaotic system, tiny changes in input can cause vast changes in output. This is true.
    The difficulty is that in a sufficiently complex system, the causal chain from input to output cannot necessarily always be reproduced within the changing system, so simply reversing that tiny input change will not necessarily produce an exact reverse of the vast output changes.
    Thus, the very theory of AGW causation that has the most scientific validity is precisely the same theory that argues for the impossibility of undoing that change. AGW advocates might be somewhat less devoted to it if they knew that.

  12. DrD Since Canada contibutes 2% of the “man made co2” our contribution is 0.3 PPM. I know how much I am willing to spend pursuing the will-o-wisp called AGW.

  13. Well — this is all very interesting, but apparently the message is not getting out. Now the Premiers are having a big (two-day, I think) meeting on what do do about climate change. I would have thought that someone among their various advisers might have raised the possibility that (to use an expression favoured by my ex father-in-law) they are “barking up a tree where there ain’t no coons.”

  14. Posted by: Stephen J. at January 23, 2008 10:33 PM
    “The difficulty is that in a sufficiently complex system, the causal chain from input to output cannot necessarily always be reproduced within the changing system, so simply reversing that tiny input change will not necessarily produce an exact reverse of the vast output changes.”
    Not only “sufficiently complex” but also spiced with a hint of chaos and randomness.
    Undoing it would be akin to undoing the results of the cue shot to break the rack in pocket billiards. The only way is a rerack.

  15. P.S. – I posted this comment –
    “As a climate skeptic, I must say that I can totally agree with the summation at the end of the article:
    “However you slice it, it starts to look like the Eocene and Cretaceous are tugging at our sleeve, whispering to us “There are things going on with climate you don’t begin to understand. Proceed with caution.”
    Now, if only you can come around on the crisis and panic thing.”
    I wonder if it will get by their moderator?

  16. Had a read through it. They seem to take a lot of time and effort to show that the Greenhouse Effect does not work like a real greenhouse – something that no one is arguing.
    However to me equation 40 is the kicker. They call it the ratio of the intensities of the sunshine and the ground radiation but as you can see from equation 39 and their description it is a ratio of the total radiation.
    The problem is that they neglect the fact that the earth is a sphere and will thus have 4 times the radiating area of a disk the size of the earth (which will be what intercepts light from the sun).
    My personal favourite comment in the paper is where they call Jaworowski an “eminent atmospheric scientist”. I believe that at the most, only one of these descriptors is accurate.
    Regards,
    John

  17. John West,
    There is so, a green house effect!
    You can see the green rising in the Goracle*s account.
    You can see the rising green in Carbon trades accounts like this Gemco.org/
    So much green house effect, the Fruitfly guy and Greenpeace are cashing in too.= TG

  19. Well, so much for peer review, right guys?
    Man, am I ever glad you morons don’t have any influence on the scientific process.

  21. Correct anon.We let leftard nutcases like the Goracle/Dr.Fruitfly/U.N. etc. influence scientists.If you can call them scientists when they don’t even offer peer reviews,let alone allow them.

  22. The paper has been thru at least one revision for dailect correction. Having a good background in physics and math I find it reliable. Radiative fluences cannot be meaningfully studied with arithmetic and statistics as ‘climate science’ supposes. It should always be a red flag to read a ‘peer-reviewed’ paper involving the physical sciences devoid of derivations for its motivation; the crucial radiative transfer notions of ‘climate science’ are without foundation. CO2 at STP cannot warm the earth. Hansen, et. al., are simply fabulists and scientific poseurs.

  23. John Cross: “The problem is that they neglect the fact that the earth is a sphere and will thus have 4 times the radiating area of a disk the size of the earth (which will be what intercepts light from the sun).”
    Considering that the calculations are based on a W/m2 concept (as usual) it would seem your comment here is a diversion. I don’t believe it would be odd to assume that one makes calculations based on an overheard sun!
    “My personal favourite comment in the paper is where they call Jaworowski an “eminent atmospheric scientist”. I believe that at the most, only one of these descriptors is accurate. ”
    Jaworowski was only referenced as a politcal aside and there was no bearing on the calculations in this paper. Again, is this just a diversion.
    If you wish to debunk this paper scientifically, then please proceed in an appropriate manner. Otherwise, you may as well refer to them as the standard right-wing, neocon, tinfoil hat wearing skeptics that seems to be a logical arguement for most IPCC supporters.

  24. Frenchie 77: The earth will radiate from its whole surface, not just the side which is facing the sun. On the other hand when looking at the radiation from the sun striking the earth, only the side in day will receive it, not the night side. Considering this is a factor of 4, it is much much more than just a diversion.
    In regards to Jaworowski, since I have spent a fair amount of time looking at his papers I feel a special attachment to his work. 😉
    Regards,
    John

  26. Correct, Frenchie. I also find it very odd that if a non-agw-is-happening paper is not peer-reviewed, jc has probs with it- but if NASA has a whole Whack of non-peer-reviewed papers on their website, it is an ‘administrative problem,’ and apparently to jc there is NO probs with those papers.
    ‘they neglect the fact that the earth is a sphere and will thus have 4 times the radiating area of a disk the size of the earth ‘ – jc
    And half of that sphere at any one time is radiating heat back into space. And with the massive snow cover this winter, the albedo is higher and even more is being reflected back. And has anyone ever done a study to find if CO2 is uniformly spread throughout the atmosphere, or whether the concentrations are lower in some regions, such as way out in the middle of the Pacific?

  28. I should know better than to get involved in this, given my “background” in physics. But how about this: the theory challenges the idea that C02 isn’t reflecting as was originally thought, that the greenhouse affect is questionable. Does it really matter what area is measured? Sphere, disc? Whatever?

  29. Science moves at a generally slow but inexorable pace as the evidence slowly accumulates. A lot like watching a tug of war.
    What I take from this is the high level political point that the science isnt settled…why AGW proponents say that is beyond me other than it is a political tactic……
    Other than that I would take it as yet one more paper. Which means you have to view it in the universe of papers now and in the future.
    As someone pointed out it is going after some of the funademental precepts of AGW theory. A tactic that hasnt been much used…which means nothing about its legitimacy. Most have been dealing at the data level, which is where most of the action is because most scientists follow the data rather than otherwise, so there has been lots of debate about whether the proxies used are correct, are the sattelites measuring the right thing, is there a heat island bias built into ground temperature measurements.
    Essentially saying ok is there any data that might support the proposition that the climate is warming, based on one fact so far…that nobody disagrees that there is an increase in CO2.
    Although, there are some interesting questions now being asked about the variations in CO2. Why does it drop significantly from one month to the next, but the trend is clear.
    I wouldnt take one paper to the bank, and I wouldnt dismiss the paper so quickly either. If the paper is important it will attract a bunch of attention. But the paper is an attempt to go after an important theoretical underpinning….the line I that rings true to me off the top is that the forcing effect is so large in the theory that we should be able to observe this effect in the lab, somehow the amazing insulating properties of CO2 have escaped us to date.
    Maybe we really have learned soemthing interesting out of all this.

  30. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen 20.253% since 1960. Wow, so scary huh? But take a closer look at what measurement scale we’re talking about. CO2 levels rose from 316 parts per million to about 380 parts per million. Parts per million! That’s just an increase of 0.000064% of the atmosphere.

  31. JC: As I said, the calculation are done on a w/m2 basis, as Dean alludes to – this is irrelevant of shape. The basic premise is that greenhouse theory is questionable!
    Truly, if one wanted to debunk the paper, then go after their basic experiment.

  32. Posted by: Stephen at January 24, 2008 9:41 AM
    “What I take from this is the high level political point that the science isnt settled…why AGW proponents say that is beyond me other than it is a political tactic……”
    It is never a safe thing to assume that those who have invested large amounts of ego, time or the possibility of future income into a theory do not have a vested interest in the final outcome.
    What better way than to claim victory before the game is finished.
    If the claims of “settled science” were to fall apart then the washing machine will become stuck on the *spin cycle*.

  33. Two words:
    Planet Venus.
    Not a word in that paper on the CO2 induced, 400-degree greenhouse effect on our next door planet. If CO2 has no effect here, then it should have no effect there.
    I don’t buy the AGW hype. However, this whole paper seems dubious and politically motivated.
    Very hard to find real science in that debate.

  34. the radiation received is like a disk, essentially the sun is like a point source. however the earth will radiate as a sphere. without an atmosphere the earth would be like the moon with hot and cold surface temperatures. I think the article is saying 0.03% CO2 is insignificant compared to the 96% C02 content of Venus.

  35. Greenneck~ perhaps you will have also noticed that Venus is 26 million miles Closer to the sun?
    Venus also falls outside the ‘lifezone’ of our solar system.
    btw, the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, do you know how warm a summer day gets there?

  37. Yoop deserves a lemon merangue pie for this. .
    **If the claims of *settled science* were to fall apart then the washing machine will become stuck on the *spin cycle*.**
    Global warming IS a spin cycle and the Fr influenced spelling of merangue with an *i* makes no sense either. = TG

  38. Greenneck,
    Planet Venus is significantly closer to the sun, so it should be hotter, the fact that it still has an atmosphere means that things get trapped. The lack of ocean, it got boiled off, means that the C02 would be in the atmosphere, since it isnt in a carbon sink anywhere.
    It is highly volcanic which continues to put out more CO2….the casaul relationship between the C02 and the increased temp isnt clear…meaning what caused what. Did the increase in C02 caused by “something”, say perpetual volcanic eruptions cuase this….
    Once again water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas and Methane is likely the most powerful…..C02 is neither plentiful nor powerful in heattrapping effects.

  39. I would also note, greenneck, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of venus are 2500 times that of the Earth. Mars is at almost the same concentration, yet daytime temps in summer rarely get above +10 Farhenheit. How do you explain that, with all that CO2 that must be having ‘some’ effect?

  41. John Cross: Why is it beyond possibility what we are being duped by corrupt polititions,etc in regards to the GW thing?? Is this not even a remotely possible scenario?? How is it going to serve the enviroment to redirect trillions of dollars solving a problem that isnt even there.

  43. Posted by: OMMAG at January 24, 2008 12:47 PM
    “Your not allowed to say things like that!
    Not unless you can produce and EXPERT to back up your POV.”
    It all depends on what the expert expert’s definition of expert is.

  45. It’s also worth noting that the atmosphere of Venus is considerably denser than Earth, (93 bar), and the clouds are made up of Sulphur dioxide and Sulphuric acid which both act as reflecting solar energy away from the planet and trapping the heat that does get in through convection.
    Using Venus, (or Mars), as an exemplar of CO2 greenhouses is a waste of time.

  47. Oh yes cal2, but my point was that using Venus as an example of “runaway greenhouse effect”, as many AGW supporters do, completely misses the fact that Venus is a very different planet. It’s reckoned that less solar energy reaches ground level on Venus than on Earth since most of the solar energy is reflected by the sulphuric acid clouds, and the heat on Venus is largely generated by the enormous density. Add in the fact that the atmosphere on Venus rotates faster than the planet and that the huge polar storms mix things up pretty well, comparing climate on Venus to that on Earth is a nonsense.
    (Though our knowledge of Venusian climate is based on one lander which lasted minutes and a few flybys, so climate predictions for Venus are even less reliable than our own.)

  48. Frenchie 77 and Dean Spencer: In fact it is very relevant to their argument since one of the line of the argument is that there are various factors that climatologists apply to the equations. The factor of 4 is one of the factors that they say climatologists have introduced. As you can see it is very relevant and is not an introduced factor.
    Bob: It is a possibility – one that I don’t think is likely though.
    Regards,
    John
    PS Fred, if you check your math, you are off by a factor of 100.

  49. “Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2.”
    The above statement says that 80% of this warming is by water vapor. That means that driving hydrogen powered vehicles, which produce water vapor as a by-product, will cause even more global warming instead of lowering global warming. DUH…

  50. john cross must be making money on this somewhere. Why else hang onto a bogus scare so desperately?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation