More "stuff" worth perusing:
Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change
Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, 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. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]
I'm not wading through an hour of a scientist who can't run a projector -- did he keep pressure constant?It's not there in lecture #1 -- Which Lecture???
22 here. Starts at 51 minutes and ends at 57 minutes.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks-t007AwrI]Letters and Science C70V - Lecture 22 - YouTube[/ame]
-- Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate ChangeAnthropogenic:
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the fast-response framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.
This one is interesting:
[0707.1161] Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Th ABSTRACT says,Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, 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. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]
-- Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate ChangeAnthropogenic:
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the fast-response framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.
(an apparently busted link, though)
-- Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate ChangeAnthropogenic:
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract: A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the fast-response framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.
(an apparently busted link, though)
Bullshit site that totally misrepresents what the article actually said.
Center for Science in the Earth System
Abstract
Subsurface temperature trends in the better-sampled parts of the World Ocean are reported. Where there are sufficient observations for this analysis, there is large spatial variability of 51-yr trends in the upper ocean, with some regions showing cooling in excess of 3°C, and others warming of similar magnitude. Some 95% of the ocean area analyzed has both cooled and warmed over 20-yr subsets of this period. There is much space and time variability of 20-yr running trend estimates, indicating that trends over a decade or two may not be representative of longer-term trends. Results are based on sorting individual observations in World Ocean Database 2001 into 1° × 1° and 2° × 2° bins. Only bins with at least five observations per decade for four of the five decades since 1950 are used. Much of the World Ocean cannot be examined from this perspective. The 51-yr trends significant at the 90% level are given particular attention. Results are presented for depths of 100, 300, and 500 m. The patterns of the 90% significant trends are spatially coherent on scales resolved by the bin size. The vertical structure of the trends is coherent in some regions, but changes sign between the analysis depths in a number of others. It is suggested that additional attention should be given to uncertainty estimates for basin average and World Ocean average thermal trends
Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?
More "stuff" worth perusing:
Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change
I'm not wading through an hour of a scientist who can't run a projector -- did he keep pressure constant?
If this guy is wrong then I can't blame anyone for not understanding the science as it isn't being taught. Seriously, this guy suppose to be one of the better ones.
Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?
No rocks, a very few are guilty of deliberate fraud. The remainder of those who actually believe are victims of an error cascade. They simply accept certain data as true and incorporate it into their own studies without actually checking. This isn't the first time it has happened and won't be the last.
Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?
No rocks, a very few are guilty of deliberate fraud. The remainder of those who actually believe are victims of an error cascade. They simply accept certain data as true and incorporate it into their own studies without actually checking. This isn't the first time it has happened and won't be the last.
But does it seem at all plausible to you that the 50 major scientific bodies in the world would be victims of these error cascades - and that the few opposing scientists the only ones to see through it?
It seems much more likely to me that a handful of scientists would be fooled - and that the overhwelming majority would be well aware of the pitfalls and errors.
I'm not wading through an hour of a scientist who can't run a projector -- did he keep pressure constant?
Of course not. If you keep the pressure constant, you get no heat of compression and are simply left watching a barbie and a tonka truck bask in the warmth of a couple of light bulbs. Nothing exciting in that. What sort of a sideshow huckster would he be if he didn't toss in a little fraud for effect?
He didn't keep pressure constant?
Then he proved Boyle's Law, not global warming.
Damn, AGW cultists are stupid.
But does it seem at all plausible to you that the 50 major scientific bodies in the world would be victims of these error cascades - and that the few opposing scientists the only ones to see through it?
It seems much more likely to me that a handful of scientists would be fooled - and that the overhwelming majority would be well aware of the pitfalls and errors.
[
He didn't keep pressure constant?
you have to look hard indeed to find a meteorologist who is on the bandwagon.