REPLY TO "COMMENT ON 'FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS' BY JOSHUA B. HALPERN et al
Author(s): GERHARD GERLICH
Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina, Mendelssohnstraße 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of, Germany
RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dipl.-Phys.
Postfach 602762, D-22377 Hamburg, Federal Republic of, Germany
Abstract: It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a "Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.
Comment: They note in the abstract that conventional "greenhouse" theory creates a perpetual process in violation of the conservation of energy.
Also note:
Arthur P Smith's rebuttal of the G&T has been shown by the Kramm paper to be "fruitless."
Here's an interesting effort: Failure to duplicate Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment. The boxes are closed, of course, so do not resemble the "open-topped" atmosphere, which readily dumps energy by shedding energetic gas molecules, but it does make sense in terms of radiative shielding and trapping.
ReplyDeleteThere is another paper that has just been published on line by Energy and Environment with the title 'a null hypothesis for CO2' that also argues that CO2 cannot cause climate change. E&E 21(4) 171-200 (2010). Here is the abstract:
ReplyDeleteEnergy transfer at the Earth's surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth's climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
Thanks Roy,
ReplyDeleteIs there a non-paywall version, say a draft, available?
Brian H
ReplyDeleteI had a look at Pratts "experiment" and I must say I'm far from impressed.
Its quite clear that he does not have a background in experimental science.
Problems with his experiment.
1. The three lids had widely different thicknesses
Polyethylene film 1
Glass 156
Acrylic 625
Compare with Woods equal thickness glass and rocksalt.
2. Realising this, he has a second series where he tries a double thickness film and double thickness Acrylic block
The film is supported on 48 acetate pillars 6mm wide cut from OHP slides.
No mention is made as to how these pillars stay vertical.
Sharp edges and thin film begs trouble of puncture.
3. The film lid is evidently quite floppy as can be seen from the photographs.
I suppose it is to be expected as any attempt to get a tight lid might result in puncture.
Anyway it is in clear contrast to the totally rigid double Acrylic 312mm thick lid.
As the temperature increases the floppy film lid will "bow out" significantly increasing the volume inside that box.
The formula T2 = T1xV1/V2 predicts the new temperature T2 will drop because of that effect.
There is no such problem with the Acrylic lid box as the volume stays content throughout.
3. No starting temperature given.
4. No time for duration of experiment given.
5. No attempt to vary box,box lid, box position,thermocouples to see if some component had a problem.
6. Why not use 3 mercury thermometers(like Wood) it would save all connecting and disconnecting the single multimeter used.
Sadly there are no conclusions that can be drawn from this experiment.
Huge budgets are given to climate science and the massive dislocation to the world economy is intended.
You would think that obtaining a rigid 10mm Polyethylene plate,10mm glass plate and 10mm Acrylic plate and redoing Woods experiment would be a very small price to pay for testing Woods experiment.
Anonymous, thanks for pointing out the huge flaws in this experiment. They also didn't mention that Wood's results were re-confirmed by at least 3 other papers. Looks like the scientists at global warming central, a.k.a. Stanford University, tried to pull another fast one on us.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure those flaws are adequate to explain the degree of difference, though. In any case, as G&T point out, the claim that glass (or any barrier) blocks some IR is equivalent to saying it absorbs that IR, and should heat up. This apparently does not happen.
ReplyDeleteMS,
ReplyDeleteCan you please list the 3 papers you state supports the Woods experiment.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html
ReplyDelete