There are no greenhouse gases

There are no greenhouse gases

There are 987 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Jul 7, 2009, titled There are no greenhouse gases. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

They are on their way. The House just passed the Obama energy bill, which is passed on the false idea that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

Earthling

Almerķa, Spain

#602 Jul 29, 2009
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Yes, the paper (I have the entire paper) is absolute proof of "Greenhouse Effect" FRAUD.
The paper deals with all aspects of physics including "Electromagnetic Physics" which is the primary branch of physics for the "Greenhouse Effect".
Geez, the "climatologists" don't have a CLUE about the real physics used in all other branches of Science!
Climatology is in a really, really sorry state....it's on par with Pyramidology.
If the paper proves any GH FRAUD, can you post some relevant sections?
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#603 Jul 29, 2009
HAHAHA...

But, guess what?...even Newton was a believer in Pyramidology and Alchemy.
------
A Short History of Pyramidology
"Sir Isaac Newton, for example, himself a keen pyramidologist, notoriously spent as much time on alchemical experiments and biblical interpretation as he did on the work in
mathematics and physics for which he is now honoured."

"..even a reputable scientist such as Scotland's Astronomer Royal, Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900), working in the 19th century, was convinced that the structure's proportions were inspired by the Christian God."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptian...
-----
Now, let's see if the AGW'ers can top that!

HAHAHA...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#605 Jul 29, 2009
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>If the paper proves any GH FRAUD, can you post some relevant sections?
The paper deals with a number of items like:

- the lack of use of vector mathematics when dealing with EM fields (all the w/m^2) quantities.

- math errors on surface integrals of a sphere....the AGW'ers have integrated temp^4 rather than temp^1 over the sphere.

- ducting phenomena with EM waves in the atmosphere (that's how LA can send radio signals to london).

- Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius obsolete science.

- The mis-use of the 2nd law.
etc.

The list goes on and on.

Now, is that Fraud or Scientific Incompetence?

Surely "some" of the AGW'ers including the IPCC are aware of their scientific "mis-conduct" or FRAUD when making false claims to the public.

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner did not accuse anybody of FRAUD...but left that up to the judgement of the readers.

I think the paper could be used in a court of law as evidence of Fraud.
Cousin Jethro

Leesburg, FL

#606 Jul 29, 2009
Yeah, right:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Haven't seen Gord, Earthling or BG named as references, there...

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/

Haven't seen indications that any of their collected troll trove of statements are true, but all the jpl measurements and conclusions posted seem to indicate they are inaccurate, incorrect and/or lying, so -- guess they're failed Bush-Cheney-big oil adherents with no other outlet to spew their lies -- or just OCD's with fixed ideas and monomania
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#607 Jul 29, 2009
Cousin Jethro wrote:
Yeah, right:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Haven't seen Gord, Earthling or BG named as references, there...
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
Haven't seen indications that any of their collected troll trove of statements are true, but all the jpl measurements and conclusions posted seem to indicate they are inaccurate, incorrect and/or lying, so -- guess they're failed Bush-Cheney-big oil adherents with no other outlet to spew their lies -- or just OCD's with fixed ideas and monomania
Gee, I don't see you disputing any of the FACTS in my post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Like I said....

In fact, every direct measurement done on "Back Radiation" coming from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth uses a cooled detector!

Gee, just like the 2nd Law says...Heat does not flow from Cold to Hot!
Chimney

UAE

#608 Jul 29, 2009
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney-ody...
OH MY GOD!
Do you see the Colder Atmosphere Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 flowing to and absorbed by the +15 deg (390 w/m^2) Warmer Earth surface in Trenberth's Energy Balance Diagram?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
Yes, I see it. You will note that the radiative energy flowing back to the surface of 324w is LESS than the 390w flowing from the surface to the atmosphere. This is a NET 66w flowing into the atmosphere.

It means a net flow from warmer to cooler. This is not in violation of the 2nd law. It means that the surface is cooling, from this net flow, but not as quickly as if there were no back flow of energy.

I will read the other paper you have linked, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this diagram.
Fun Facts

AOL

#609 Jul 29, 2009
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I don't see you disputing any of the FACTS in my post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Like I said....
In fact, every direct measurement done on "Back Radiation" coming from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth uses a cooled detector!
Gee, just like the 2nd Law says...Heat does not flow from Cold to Hot!
I've read some of John Cristy's work on CO2 backradiation, he says essentially the same thing, no backradiation from atmospheric CO2.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#610 Jul 29, 2009
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I see it. You will note that the radiative energy flowing back to the surface of 324w is LESS than the 390w flowing from the surface to the atmosphere. This is a NET 66w flowing into the atmosphere.
It means a net flow from warmer to cooler. This is not in violation of the 2nd law. It means that the surface is cooling, from this net flow, but not as quickly as if there were no back flow of energy.
I will read the other paper you have linked, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this diagram.
HAHAHA...get real!

Do you see the Colder Atmosphere Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 flowing to and "ABSORBED" by the +15 deg (390 w/m^2) Warmer Earth surface in Trenberth's Energy Balance Diagram?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

What happens when a body ABSORBES energy?....IT HEATS UP YOU IDIOT!

And, that is HEAT ENERGY FLOWING FROM COLD TO HOT....YOU IDIOT!
Chimney

UAE

#611 Jul 29, 2009
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
The paper deals with a number of items like:
- the lack of use of vector mathematics when dealing with EM fields (all the w/m^2) quantities.
- math errors on surface integrals of a sphere....the AGW'ers have integrated temp^4 rather than temp^1 over the sphere.
- ducting phenomena with EM waves in the atmosphere (that's how LA can send radio signals to london).
- Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius obsolete science.
- The mis-use of the 2nd law.
etc.
The list goes on and on.
Now, is that Fraud or Scientific Incompetence?
Surely "some" of the AGW'ers including the IPCC are aware of their scientific "mis-conduct" or FRAUD when making false claims to the public.
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner did not accuse anybody of FRAUD...but left that up to the judgement of the readers.
I think the paper could be used in a court of law as evidence of Fraud.
The quantity of radiation absorbed by the earth from the sun, offset by its own radiation according to the black body model yields an average expected surface temp of -18C.

Unsurprisingly, this is pretty close to the actual average surface temperature of the airless moon.

So, in between those moments when you are calling climate scientists morons or frauds, please explain in your infinite wisdom why the average surface temperature of the earth is approx +15C.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#612 Jul 29, 2009
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read some of John Cristy's work on CO2 backradiation, he says essentially the same thing, no backradiation from atmospheric CO2.
John Cristy should be proud!....HE IS A REAL SCIENTIST!

Hell, even an IDIOT knows that Heat can ONLY flow from Hot to Cold.
------
Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives

"The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees.
These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky.

For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward.

Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.

The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C.

So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere."

http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jone...
-----
This link shows that heating cannot occur from the atmosphere....by ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS!

In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY!
All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere!

It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C!

"If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F."

This confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics....heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects.
------
If Back Radiation actually reached the Earth....SOLAR OVENS WOULD WORK AT NIGHT!

THE EARTH'S ENERGY PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED.
Chimney

UAE

#613 Jul 29, 2009
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHA...get real!
Do you see the Colder Atmosphere Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 flowing to and "ABSORBED" by the +15 deg (390 w/m^2) Warmer Earth surface in Trenberth's Energy Balance Diagram?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
What happens when a body ABSORBES energy?....IT HEATS UP YOU IDIOT!
And, that is HEAT ENERGY FLOWING FROM COLD TO HOT....YOU IDIOT!
No, I am afraid you have to wear the idiot hat in this case, as you appear to misunderstand thermodynamics completely.

Heat does flow from warmer to cooler - but its a net statistical effect. Cooler objects still radiate energy, and this energy can be absorbed by any other object, hot or cold. However, when a warmer body is interacting with a cooler one the NET energy flow is from hotter to cooler.

Back flow of radiation is perfectly allowable, and it will reduce the net rate of cooling of the hotter object. I suggest you go and check this with your first year high school physics teacher if you don't believe me.

In his diagram, Treberth shows a NET energy transfer of 66w, which is perfectly allowable.

Perhaps it time you stopped embarrassing other climate sceptics with your ignorance.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#614 Jul 29, 2009
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
The quantity of radiation absorbed by the earth from the sun, offset by its own radiation according to the black body model yields an average expected surface temp of -18C.
Unsurprisingly, this is pretty close to the actual average surface temperature of the airless moon.
So, in between those moments when you are calling climate scientists morons or frauds, please explain in your infinite wisdom why the average surface temperature of the earth is approx +15C.
It's the SUN stupid....you know...THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!
Dracut Retiree -

Tewksbury, MA

#615 Jul 29, 2009
frank miller wrote:
Answer to "Fun Facts AOL #33: That would seem to be correct, Fun Facts, as anything that slows
atmospheric heat residence time, because of air's
very poor heat conductivity, would also block incoming solar heat flux, thus cancelling each other out! Besides the total number of vibrating
air molecules are not really increased, as Carbon,
[C] like when oil, coal, natural gas, ethanol in vehicles are burnt it reacts with the available
20 % oxygen, to combine and form CO2, H2O as combustion byproducts!!
What is critical is the increasing "heat-island"
heat sources of civilization! Billions of automo-
biles, trucks, buses putting out ~7680 kilocalo-
ries of HEAT per GALLON of liquid fuel burnt, at the exhaust pipes, and heat exchange to air coo-
ling radiators, while idling and cruising, day and night!
Plus for example, in already hot/humid Brazil
353,000,000 B.t.u's {84,000,000 kilocalories} of
heat to ferment sugar/molasses to distill only
one thousand {1000} GALLONS of fuel Ethanol {E-85}
Power plants of all types also put out heat,
especially nuclear plants, cooling heat exchange
in excess not recondensed as steam, to run tur-
bines! That why extensive REFORESTATION which
by the endothermic {heat absorbing} photosynthesis process, must begin World Wide
to reabsorb all this man-made HEAT which join
air masses! These increased heat energy air masses increase the ENTHALPY delta difference
when they meet COLDER Polar air masses, thus causing more violent turbulences, more snow,
more rains, and in some instances when the collisions are with hotter dry air masses, De-
sertification!{ All this man -made heat is added to the already reflecting heat concrete jungles
we call cities!!}
So its not so much CO2, from tail pipes but
the heat, ladies, and gentlemen!! Thank you!!
F.M.
I could not have said this better, I wonder what Bagdad Harry's take is on this??
Chimney

UAE

#616 Jul 29, 2009
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read some of John Cristy's work on CO2 backradiation, he says essentially the same thing, no backradiation from atmospheric CO2.
From Wiki:

In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, John Cristy said:

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[5]

In October 2007 Christy gave a lecture at Auburn University in which he reviewed areas of the global warming debate that he deems most significant and offered his evaluation of them.[6]

While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[5]

Not exactly a "sceptic", then.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#617 Jul 29, 2009
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
From Wiki:
In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, John Cristy said:
"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[5]
In October 2007 Christy gave a lecture at Auburn University in which he reviewed areas of the global warming debate that he deems most significant and offered his evaluation of them.[6]
While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[5]
Not exactly a "sceptic", then.
Watch what Christy has to say...in his own words..

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film
http://www.rabbitlink.com/www.rabbitlink.com/...
Chimney

UAE

#618 Jul 29, 2009
Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the SUN stupid....you know...THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!
Yes, the sun is the energy source. The moon is effectively the same distance from the sun as the earth is.

Not only that, the moon has an albedo of about 12%, and the earth about 37%, meaning the moon absorbs a higher proportion of incident solar energy and should be hotter than the earth.

The moon has an average surface temperature of -23 degrees.

Explain why the same intensity of solar radiation makes the earth, with its higher albedo, 38 degrees warmer than the moon?

Gee, genius, could the atmosphere have something to do with it?
Fun Facts

AOL

#619 Jul 29, 2009
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
From Wiki:
In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, John Cristy said:
"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[5]
In October 2007 Christy gave a lecture at Auburn University in which he reviewed areas of the global warming debate that he deems most significant and offered his evaluation of them.[6]
While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[5]
Not exactly a "sceptic", then.
But nowhere in the above does he state that CO2 is capable of backradiation.

I agree that population, urbanization and agriculture must have an impact on our planet. Cap and trade to limit CO2 will not change population, urbanization or agriculture.

Unless you consider destroying the rain forests to grow sugar cane for bio fuels.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#620 Jul 29, 2009
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am afraid you have to wear the idiot hat in this case, as you appear to misunderstand thermodynamics completely.
Heat does flow from warmer to cooler - but its a net statistical effect. Cooler objects still radiate energy, and this energy can be absorbed by any other object, hot or cold. However, when a warmer body is interacting with a cooler one the NET energy flow is from hotter to cooler.
Back flow of radiation is perfectly allowable, and it will reduce the net rate of cooling of the hotter object. I suggest you go and check this with your first year high school physics teacher if you don't believe me.
In his diagram, Treberth shows a NET energy transfer of 66w, which is perfectly allowable.
Perhaps it time you stopped embarrassing other climate sceptics with your ignorance.
"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow

spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

Gee, I see "not possible"....no mention of "NET" ANYWHERE!

You are dilusional....get some professional help...SOON!
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#621 Jul 29, 2009
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the sun is the energy source. The moon is effectively the same distance from the sun as the earth is.
Not only that, the moon has an albedo of about 12%, and the earth about 37%, meaning the moon absorbs a higher proportion of incident solar energy and should be hotter than the earth.
The moon has an average surface temperature of -23 degrees.
Explain why the same intensity of solar radiation makes the earth, with its higher albedo, 38 degrees warmer than the moon?
Gee, genius, could the atmosphere have something to do with it?
Oceans...and their ability to store heat energy!

What a STUPID TWIT!
Chimney

UAE

#622 Jul 29, 2009
Dracut Retiree - wrote:
<quoted text> I could not have said this better, I wonder what Bagdad Harry's take is on this??
The earth re-radiates energy at different wavelengths (infrared) than it receives energy from the sun (a mix including ultraviolet, visible, and infrared light).

The point about CO2 and other greenhouse gases is that they do not absorb much of the incoming solar radiation at the higher wavelengths, but they do absorb (some of) the wavelengths of the outgoing radiation. Thus the effect Frank Miller claims - that the CO2 would slow the energy flow equally in both directions, is false.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
1800 months of 'adjusted' data are irrelevant a... 33 min It s Weather Not ... 4
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr It s Weather Not ... 11,574
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 6 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 218
News Al Gore warns that Trump is ignoring weather ap... 6 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 224
global warming keeps on keeping on 15 hr jhnsn d-s 8
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 16 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 37,427
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 63,981
More from around the web