July 22, 1:27 PM EXAMINER.COM Environmental News By Kirk Myers
Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The latest target of the Warmists: Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, a mathematician and leading critic of the global warming theory, a.k.a. "climate change." Monckton was recently mocked and browbeaten in a 115-slide presentation by John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. His "hit and run" slide-show attack was an attempt to discredit a presentation that Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009.
Monckton replied with a powerful rebuttal that, point by point, eviscerated Abraham's embarrassingly dishonest production. Monckton called on Abraham and the university to issue a formal apology, remove the libelous presentation from the Internet, and donate $110,000 to a Haitian charity as compensation for the damage done to his reputation.
As Joanne Nova observes: "Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn't say, complained about things he didn't cite (even if he did and it's printed on his slides), pretended he couldn't find sources (but didn't take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton's character."
The assaults on Monckton and other high-visibility skeptics (for example, Marc Morano of Climate Depot, Joe D'Aleo of ICECAP, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Fred Singer, Anthony Watts and Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi) are further evidence that the global warmists are in full retreat and resorting to slash and burn tactics as they make a desperate last stand to defend their cherished theory from an onslaught of countervailing scientific evidence.
Recently, the so-called "greenhouse effect" has itself come under increasing attack by a phalanx of scientific experts, including Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, professor Nasif Nahle, applied mathematician Claes Johnson, former radio-chemist Alan Siddons, analytical chemist Hans Schreuder, combustion research scientist Martin Hertzberg, and engineer Heinz Thieme.
Last year, 130 skeptical German scientists co-signed an Open Letter of protest to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, asserting, among other things, that a "growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role" in Earth's climate.
The scientists derided global warming as a "pseudo religion," said the "UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility," and dismissed the alarmist warnings of rising CO2, claiming it "had no measurable effect" on temperatures.
The critics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect have been relentless in their attacks. They continue to blast holes in the theory, whose roots go back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896).
As professors Gerlich and Tscheuschner have pointed out in their research paper, "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics":
"[The greenhouse theory] essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
"According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.
"Neither the absorption nor the reflection coefficient of glass for the infrared light is relevant for this explanation of the physical greenhouse effect, but only the movement of air, hindered by the panes of glass."
A growing body of scientists have joined Gerlich and Tscheuschner in exposing the "accepted science" underlying the greenhouse effect. Here are a few of their more damning statements:
(Heinz Thieme, engineer)
"The phenomenon of 'atmospheric backradiation' is presently advanced as an explanation of thermal conditions on Earth, and as the basis of some statements about climate change. However, scientific evaluation in strict accord with the laws of physics and mathematics suggests that 'atmospheric backradiation' is physical nonsense.
"An assessment conducted in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of vector algebra of the key greenhouse theory concept of 'atmospheric backradiation' suggests that it is simply a mirage. The only 'Backradiation Phenomenon' that needs explaining is how this physical nonsense maintains its place in numerous earth sciences textbooks at both school and university level.
(Alan Siddons, radio chemist)
". . . if the tenets of this [greenhouse] theory are valid there can be no outcome other than a doubling of surface energy (a doubling at minimum, that is, since there's no reason to suppose that radiation from the now-warmer surface would not continue to be back-radiated, absorbed, and amplified in a 'runaway' heating cascade).
"Simple as it is, though, no scientist in the world is able to construct a model that exhibits any radiative gain because the theory's tenets (called 'the basic science') are not valid. On a theoretical basis alone, conservation of energy (the First Law) forbids a model like this from working. You can't obtain more energy than you put in.
"Just like temperature, radiant energy flows do not add. Lumping two 70° balls of clay together doesn't result in a single ball that's 140°, nor do 70 watts per square meter beaming back onto a body that's radiating 70 [degrees] raise it to 140 [degrees]. Frankly, it is stupid to think otherwise."
(Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics)
"It is surprising to see large parts of the scientific community including academies of sciences embracing a hypothesis of global warming from atmospheric CO2, without any convincing scientific support. It appears that the mere mentioning of Stefan-Boltzmann's Radiation Law has been enough to annihilate any further demands of scientific evidence.
"This may be a result a 2Oth century physics education with both the Radiation Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being based on statistical mechanics not understood by anybody. In any case, the acceptance by the scientific community of CO2 climate alarmism without physical basis, needs to be understood and corrected."
(Dr. Martin Hertzberg, combustion research scientist)
"The most significant atmospheric component in the radiative balance is water: as a homogeneous absorbing and emitting vapor, in its heat transport by evaporation and condensation; as clouds, snow and ice cover, which have a major effect on the albedo, and as the enormous circulating mass of liquid ocean, whose heat capacity and mass/energy transport with the atmosphere dominate the earth's weather.
"In comparison to water in all of its forms, the effect of the carbon dioxide increase over the last century on the temperature of the earth is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane!"
Siddons, Hertzberg and Schhreuder, "A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?"
"The Earth is not "unusually" warm. It is the application of the predictive equation [Stefan-Boltzmann formula] that is faulty. The ability of common substances to store heat makes a mockery of blackbody estimates. The belief that radiating trace gases explain why earth's surface temperature deviates from a simple mathematical formula is based on deeply erroneous assumptions about theoretical vs. real bodies."
These are just a few examples of the mounting criticism directed at the very foundation of the AGW theory -- a theory driven not by science, but rather by a cabal of powerful elitists who seek to dominate and control the planet's economy through a system of confiscatory taxation and Orwellian people controls.
The "science" underlying greenhouse warming alarmism increasingly is being exposed as pure fantasy -- a house of cards built on manipulated climate models supporting pre-ordained conclusions based on cherry-picked land-based temperature data that has been homogenized, interpolated and adjusted to produce, without fail, a politically correct increase in planetary warming.
But as Gerlich and Tscheuschner observe, the science of climate change is fraught with uncertainties and unknowns that make a mockery of the predictive powers of laboratory computer models:
"The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing in their own models."
Re: "Greenhouse gas effects".ReplyDelete
It is truly amazing that no one has ever MEASURED the supposed back radiation. It is also relevant that even NASA do not show back-radiation in their graphical representation of the earth's radiative energy budget.
Greenhouse gases and AGW should be consigned to the same rubbish bin of history as Lysenko.
Sense at last! Greenhouses get warm, despite glass being opaque to IR energy, because visible light also causes warming and the light entering e greenhouse suffers an energy loss which causes a frequency drop to IR levels. This IR cannot radiate away from the greenhouse because glass is opaque to IR ( in other words in both directions) The glass will get warm and this will radiate from the outer surface of the greenhouse but this process takes time, due to the low conduction of glass and thus the air inside gets warmer. It also has limited air circulation which will slow heat loss to the outside. Greenhouses will cool to ambient temperature over night due to the lack of incoming radiation. Nothing can store heat ( 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).ReplyDelete
John Marshall learn some real physics and and study IR radiation- Glass is not opaque to IR. Yes glass does absorb some IR depending on its composition. I suggest that you look up the work of R.W. Wood and also do some research in the fire safety field of experimental work done over the past 30 years on how glass absorbs IR and its effects on glass breakage during a fire. Also look into IR photography that shows that your statements are not complete.ReplyDelete
His statement that nothing can store Heat-energy is again inappropriate as everything that is above absolute Zero is storing Heat/energy it just is continually losing energy either by radiation,convection, or conduction, All bodies are absorbing energy because nothing goes to absolute zero.
It is very easy to prove that backradiation has no effect on temperatures. The direct solar energy at noon on a clear summer day in an arid area is about 1000 wm-2. That's enough to raise the temperature of a black surface to about 91 C (196 F). And that is about what happens on an asphalt roadway. If backradiation had any effect, the surface would be much hotter.ReplyDelete
Greenhouses don't get warm by glass absorbing IR. You can demonstrate this yourself by checking a parked car on a sunny day. The dashboard is really hot, but the windshield is only warm. What is happening is that convective cooling is blocked. The so-called greenhouse effect is pure fiction.ReplyDelete
Bottom line, as I will keep repeating: 1) The world is not warming. It is cooling. 2) Global climate cannot be predicted, only measured and analyzed. The computer models of Mann, Jones, and their lying co-conspirators computer models are phony, and they know it. 3) Nothing humans do can change the climate of Planet Earth. History proves that the CO2 hypothesis is dishonest on its face, and high school physics shows it to have no scientific basis. This canard is an embarrassing fake. No competent scientist could abide it for a moment, and anyone who believes it is a dupe.ReplyDelete
Global Warming Alarmists don't deserve to be refuted on the merits, because they have proven themselves to be malicious frauds without concern for facts. They deserve to be prosecuted for malfeasance, terminated from positions of influence of any kind, and held up to ridicule and disgrace as the criminal public enemies of freedom and prosperity that they are.
Well done Wes. That is the most succinct explanation of why the the concept of a greenhouse cannot be applied to an atmosphere. Greenhouses work because they limit heat loss that occurs due to convection. Another simple experiment is to open the car windows by a small amount. The temperature inside the car drops substantially even though the effective glass area that now allows IR to escape has only increased by a tiny amount.ReplyDelete