Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Bebben, januar 04, 2012, 18:00:01 PM
SitatBased on our findings, we conclude that 1) the socalled atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in past climate periods, 2) the description by AMS and WMO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earthatmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.
Sitat1. INTRODUCTIONRecently, Gerlich and Tscheuschner  listed a widevariety of attempts to explain the so-called atmosphericgreenhouse effect. They disproved these explanations atthe hand of fundamental physical principles like thesecond law of thermodynamics. By showing that 1) thereare no common physical laws between the warmingphenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmosphericgreenhouse effects, 2) there are no calculations todetermine an average surface temperature of a planet, 3)the frequently mentioned difference of 33 K is a meaninglessnumber calculated wrongly, 4) the formulas ofcavity radiation are used inappropriately, 5) the assumptionof a radiative balance is unphysical, 6) thermalconductivity and friction must not be set to zero, theyconcluded that the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture isfalsified.Shortly after the paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschnerwas published by the International Journal of ModernPhysics B (IJMPB), there was an uproar in the internet(e.g., http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2009/03/chronik-eines-angekundigten-skandals-gerlich-und-tscheuschner-wurden-peerreviewt.php, http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/die-fachbegutachtung-below-is-elis.html)resulting in an uncounted attempts to insult Gerlich andTscheuschner, even under pseudonyms as done, for instance,by Joshua Halpern (aka Eli Rabett) and JoergZimmermann (aka for4zim) in violating the ethical standardsof scientific debates.
SitatBased on our findings, we conclude that 1) the socalledatmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be provedby the statistical description of fortuitous weather eventsthat took place in past climate periods, 2) the descriptionby AMS and WMO has to be discarded because ofphysical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earthatmospheresystem do not provide tangible evidence thatthe atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because ofthis lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledgethat the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially itsclimatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.
Sitat"Rahmstorf's reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore, the author introduces an obscure notion of "net energy flow." The relevant quantity is the "net heat flow," which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly."