Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[citizenzen]

Aren't you glad I'm helping you understand all this? It may just help you look more intelligent at cocktail parties.

Frankly, people were getting a little freaked out by your misconceptions... not to mention your breath.

That's probably why you usually find yourself drinking alone.

Though the arrogance and bitterness sure doesn't help.

Or the comb-over.

 

[palerider]

I have read all of that but none of them have debunked even the first part of it and yes, there are plenty who try to trash it but where the rubber meets the road, they are unable. Show me the specific work to disprove it. The work itself is quite specific and as such would require equally specific debunking. General complaints don't do the trick.

 

[palerider]

Aren't you glad I'm helping you understand all this? It may just help you look more intelligent at cocktail parties.

Frankly, people were getting a little freaked out by your misconceptions... not to mention your breath.

That's probably why you usually find yourself drinking alone.

Though the arrogance and bitterness sure doesn't help.

Or the comb-over.

More impotent ad hominems. I love it. Quotes from a physics forum that you don't begin to understand. Let me know when you find some actual published material that challenges the claim.

Interesting, don't you think that a "member" of the physics forum would offer up such an ameturish rebuttal as that first joke you provided a link to that claimed in the first sentence that CO2 was the most important of the greenhouse gasses? Excuse me while I laugh in your face. Physics forum.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

More impotent ad hominems. I love it. Quotes from a physics forum that you don't begin to understand. Let me know when you find some actual published material that challenges the claim.

Interesting, don't you think that a "member" of the physics forum would offer up such an ameturish rebuttal as that first joke you provided a link to that claimed in the first sentence that CO2 was the most important of the greenhouse gasses? Excuse me while I laugh in your face. Physics forum.

See what I mean? Nasty. You could contribute to the edification of others without the bad attitude. You come across as a self-righteous, superior a**hole. It's no wonder that people don't like you.

You are an educated person and you have things to offer, but you offer them like a monkey flinging his sh!t at the people outside the bars of his cage. The monkey has some justification for that kind of behavior, do you?

 

[citizenzen]

Let me know when you find some actual published material that challenges the claim.

I thought these were interesting posts in that thread...

I'm wondering how many physicists will submit their papers to this journal in the future.

• • •

It's already a very minor journal with a low impact factor. I doubt it will have much effect, as long as this kind of thing is isolated. If the journal becomes known to writers as an easy road to publication of pseudoscientific material on climatology, or as a venue in which debate takes place at such a fundamental level of disconnect with basic physics, then things can go down hill. There are some interesting examples of journals that have gone downhill in this kind of way.

I have emailed the editors to suggest, as politely as I could, that they really should look into this matter.

I had a short reply saying that the best thing would be for critics (like me) to submit a response to their journal as an article; which they would be happy to consider.

I don't plan to do that. I don't think it is appropriate. If this was a real scientific debate, then of course it is the best thing to have competing views expressed in different published papers. This is usual in science, and there are plenty of examples where good published work expresses contrasting views of different experts.

It is not appropriate to have debate on simple first year thermodynamics debated between different papers. With a credible scientific journal, it is the responsibility of the editors to maintain quality by identifying such basic errors in what is submitted before it gets published. With a well run journal, the disagreements aired in the journal are matters of legitimate scientific dispute, not matters of undergraduate homework correction. Or so I think.

The paper is really long. It is full of basic errors from start to finish, but obscured by red herrings and strawmen of the greenhouse theory, or else irrelevant technical jargon which looks impressive at a glance but really shows that they don't know theories apply in a given case, and peppered with outright howlers of error that can be explained if you take the time to pull together the sequence of argument and show where they get it wrong.

A full refutation would be longer than the original (it invariably takes less time to say something that is wrong than to explain why it is wrong) and even then publication is likely to convey the incorrect notion that there really is some kind of scientific debate here.

The need for a response is not for the benefit of working physicists. No one who actually works in atmospheric or planetary thermodynamics is going to be taken in for a second. It's only for the benefit of non-experts or people confused as to who they should trust that some kind of help is needed. A paper like this will have no effect at all on the workings of science itself; but it can do a lot of damage for the understanding of people who are not experts but who are keen to understand the issues. In my view, a lot of patience is required here. It's normal for keen amateur enthusiasts, such as most of us here, to make lots of errors in something like thermodynamics. Here's a real scientific paper making a lot of claims. Many readers are bound to be unsure of who to trust, and that's normal. It doesn't mean they are bad people.

I also am going to benefit from a technical discussion on errors in this paper, because I also am not an expert. I know enough to identify some of the errors on my own behalf; but sometimes it takes me a while and I may trip up on details or miss some aspect of the argument that a real expert could see more quickly.

One thing I want to emphasize. This is not about global warming. It's simply about the physics of why the Earth is, on average, so much warmer than an airless moon right now.

The only reason this paper is getting much exposure is because it is feeding into a widespread public skepticism on global warming. But the questions raised in the paper are all about the physical thermodynamics of a fixed composition atmosphere, and it seeks to refute the conventional scientific understanding of why the Earth is, on average, so much warmer than an airless moon. It's not about changes to the composition of the atmosphere.

If there are readers out there who think that the atmospheric greenhouse effect as conventionally understood is wrong, then it would be instructive for them to propose an alternative. The amount of energy radiated into space from the Earth is the same as if the Earth was a uniform blackbody radiating at -18C. Yet the average surface temperature is much more than this. Why?​

 

[citizenzen]

Let me know when you find some actual published material that challenges the claim.

The I got a reply from the member of physicsforum.com regarding your question. Here it is...

The paper you mention is a real oddity. Working scientists have mostly just ignored it. As it turns out, however, there is a rebuttal in press. It is:

Joshua Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann (2010) Comment On "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics", (to appear in) International Journal of Modern Physics (B), Vol 24, Iss 10, March 30 2010.

Full disclosure. I am a co-author. It will be out at the end of the month, I am told. You can tell your friend/debate-colleague that it is normal to have some lead time in scientific publishing. This rebuttal took a while to appear for a couple of reasons, many of which are beyond our control. We didn't start on it until a few months after the original appeared.

Apart from that, the "claim" itself is dealt with quite satisfactorily in pretty much any undergraduate level text book on atmospheric physics. There are quite a number available, and an easy way to get one in print is just pop into your local University library. Most should allow visitors. Contrary to the claims of Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, the atmospheric greenhouse effect is entirely spontaneous, and all the net energy flow, and the net heat flow, is always from hot places to cooler ones. With the greenhouse effect, the net radiant heat flow between the surface and the atmosphere is upwards, consisting of a lack downwards back radiation (directly measured) and an even larger upwards thermal radiation (which G&T ignore) plus some additional upwards energy flow by convection and latent heat of evaporation.

The "conduction" that G&T speak of is irrelevant. It's negligible (still air is a good insulator), it has no role in the greenhouse effect, and it is upwards as well anyway.

An important and pretty readable paper that explains the relevant energy flows much more accurately than G&T is:

Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., and Kiehl, J. (2009) Earth’s Global Energy Budget, in Bulletin of the AMS, Vol 90, pp 311-323.

I highly recommend it if you want to talk about energy flows with your biochemist friend/acquaintance. It is *the* major reference on Earth's energy budget, and this is the one you can give right now.

If it conflicts with G&T, it is simply because G&T are wrong. It is not in response to G&T, of course. For that you have to wait until March 30.​

It appears we have a lot to look forward to. Strap on your seatbelt palerider, it looks like you're in for a bumpy ride.

And with your hemorrhoids, it ain't gonna be pretty.

 

[OldTrapper]

See what I mean? Nasty. You could contribute to the edification of others without the bad attitude. You come across as a self-righteous, superior a**hole. It's no wonder that people don't like you.

You are an educated person and you have things to offer, but you offer them like a monkey flinging his sh!t at the people outside the bars of his cage. The monkey has some justification for that kind of behavior, do you?

Typical that you would mention anus's, and sh!t.

Then too, you criticize Palerider while ignoring the BS he was replying to.

Originally Posted by citizenzen
Aren't you glad I'm helping you understand all this? It may just help you look more intelligent at cocktail parties.

Frankly, people were getting a little freaked out by your misconceptions... not to mention your breath.

That's probably why you usually find yourself drinking alone.

Though the arrogance and bitterness sure doesn't help.

Or the comb-over.

 

[citizenzen]

Then too, you criticize Palerider while ignoring the BS he was replying to.

Yeah... I was getting my digs in.

Like everybody else around here.

You're not so sweet and innocent yourself, OT.

 

[OldTrapper]

Yeah... I was getting my digs in.

Like everybody else around here.

You're not so sweet and innocent yourself, OT.

Never claimed to be, just fair, and accurate.

I notice you seem to avoid answering many questions when you get backed into a corner though like most on the left. Then you resort to "getting your digs in".

 

[citizenzen]

I notice you seem to avoid answering many questions when you get backed into a corner though like most on the left. Then you resort to "getting your digs in".

Then I don't think you're paying enough attention. I'm not afraid to offer my opinion or to admit my ignorance. Perhaps you mistook rhetorical questions for ones in which merited an answer. What question haven't I answered?

If you had actually read this thread you'd know that I made a good-faith effort to be polite despite numerous attacks. Unfortunately, there came a point where I lost my desire to be the only one engaging in a civil debate. That is my mistake. While I always endeavor to maintain civility despite the behavior of those around me, I sometimes succumb to the idiocy and join in the fray. Let's see if we (I) can return to the kinder demeanor that I claim to value.

So please, once again, what questions have I not answered?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Typical that you would mention anus's, and sh!t.

Did you think that your mention of the above excretory substance in relation to me was going to go unnoticed just because the mods removed it? You brought up the subject and so does the Bible just as I said. Remember, DOT, it was YOUR god who invented both the sh!t and the anus.

Then too, you criticize Palerider while ignoring the BS he was replying to.

It's really important for you to jump into the middle of my discussion with Pale and expose your lack of historical knowledge of our interchange. Thank you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Never claimed to be, just fair, and accurate.

I haven't seen much of either of those things in your posts, DOT, especially the accurate part. Why not post links to give your sources so that we can check your accuracy?

 

[OldTrapper]

Did you think that your mention of the above excretory substance in relation to me was going to go unnoticed just because the mods removed it? You brought up the subject and so does the Bible just as I said. Remember, DOT, it was YOUR god who invented both the sh!t and the anus.

Well, I am glad to see that you finally acknowledge He is the creator, not some random chance of "evolution". Then too, He created it for a specific purpose having to do with the excrement of waste, not sexual pleasure.

It's really important for you to jump into the middle of my discussion with Pale and expose your lack of historical knowledge of our interchange. Thank you.

Naw, I saw it, and even citzenzen had the decency to admit he was "getting in his digs". Not hypocritical you though.

BTW, I don't see where the mods have removed anything of mine.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, I am glad to see that you finally acknowledge He is the creator, not some random chance of "evolution". Then too, He created it for a specific purpose having to do with the excrement of waste, not sexual pleasure.

You must love those thumbs because you sure use them a lot. I have never said that God didn't create--this must be another one of your rectal reclamations.

Do you have a link to your proof that God didn't intend sexual pleasure from any of our orfices? Or are you just posting another of your rectal reclamations?

Naw, I saw it, and even citzenzen had the decency to admit he was "getting in his digs". Not hypocritical you though.

BTW, I don't see where the mods have removed anything of mine.

Did I say the mods had removed your posts?

 

[OldTrapper]

You must love those thumbs because you sure use them a lot. I have never said that God didn't create--this must be another one of your rectal reclamations.

Ah gee whiz. Do I have to go back to the other thread about God's existence to prove you are lying again.

Do you have a link to your proof that God didn't intend sexual pleasure from any of our orfices? Or are you just posting another of your rectal reclamations?

Well, since you are such a great "bible scholar" in your own mind, did not one of your links at BibleGateway explain Romans 2:24-32 for you, or the "sin of Sodom"? You do understand that sodomy is an unnatural act according to God, right? Well, obviously not. You obviously think sticking a dick into a pile of sh!t is a natural activity.

Did I say the mods had removed your posts?

Just a few posts earlier in this thread, and you have forgotten what you posted already?

"Did you think that your mention of the above excretory substance in relation to me was going to go unnoticed just because the mods removed it?"

Typical for you to do so in virtually every topic you post at.