Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Schmanck ^ | 24 June 2008 | Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks Civ. Great article but who are we to believe — the consensus or the heretics? For my part and for years, with little to no evidence, I believed algore warming was and still is for that matter, a steaming pile of crap. How can that be when the scientific community™ was in full froth mode with their hair on fire selling their “facts”? Is it even possible it could happen in other disciplines, say, history for example? ;^)

[SunkenCiv]

:’)

[editor-surveyor]

BFL

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Something she should see...FR Thread:

Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can.

[Rippin]

I thought the idea of the greenhouse effect was nothing to do with the incoming solar radiation (IR near or far or visible spectrum) but had to do with the reduction of radiant cooling where C02 and water vapor etc. absorb longer wave earth cooling and reflect it back. This article seems to say it is all about the incoming IR being absorbed.

[CowboyJay]

I will admit that I am 20 yrs removed from my peak, and that some of what they're exploring as a mechanism is simply beyond my ken.

Most of what I've seen thrown around has more to do with the balance being effected by the transmittance properties, and excited electrons being more predisposed to radiative transfer (electron shell theory), which as Southack was I think hinting at seems to produce a form of perpetual motion machine - it contradicts 2LTD (entropy). This is the (non-working) 'hockey stick' model.

If it's the opposite, and it's a case of 'global less cooling', well you can't have it both ways. The mechanism must also work in reverse, meaning that CO2 must also force radiatiation back towards space. The net radiative and convective balance MUST be back towards space (also pointed out by Southack). The earth's atmosphere is not a closed system - it is equilibriating with the sun and SPACE. (equilibrium, 2LTD, 3LTD)

Back to the OP - TY to Hostage for pointing out the base logic, that these effects cannot be proved in terms of, and seem to contravene accepted scientific law. So, until/unless PROVEN otherwise - the CO2 AGW hypothesis is not valid.

So then the possibility that more heat is being transferred into the clouds, and causing short-term heat latency? Sure. I'll say I no longer have the chops to do the equations involved. There are opinions by reputable scientists such as Richard Lindzen @ MIT that CO2 adds in some small part to the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat (though he believes it has been overstated). One must take into account that these effects are also being equilibriated over time BY SPACE. Either way, it is still an unsolvable equation that has yet to be quantified in scientific terms as a constant.

I will leave the thread with this one thought - Lindzen states that the sum of all climate feedbacks are likely negative - 2LTD and empirical evidence (both temps and accepted crude data from paleo record showing that both CO2 and temps have been higher in the past yet we are still here). There seem to be few instances indicating periods where a rise in CO2 preceded a rise in temperatures - making CO2 as the driver seem improbable.

[muffaletaman]

There is one overriding, AMAZING point in this article - and I have never considered it BUT NOW it seems OBVIOUS!

= = = THE KILLER CONCEPT IS THIS!!! = = =

If CHANGES in CO2 concentration at this LOW level (in forty-nine years beginning in 1958, CO2 increased by approx 62 ppmv - 0.0062% - and is approaching a total concentration of 0.04%)...

... could have such a profound and accumulative effect (FORCING an increase in the average temperature of THE ENTIRE PLANET’S ATMOSPHERE of several degrees in just a few decades, or even a century and a half)...

THEN THIS EFFECT WOULD BE EASILY OBSERVABLE IN LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS!!!

It would NOT be subtle - it would be readily detectable, and a consistent PHYSICS-based explanation and mechanism would exist.

It would NOT be some mysterious effect. This is NOT quantum mechanics! This is “normal” classical physics.

AGAIN - to reprise the argument - AND PLEASE NOTE THE UNITS - CO2 has increased by about six-thousandths of one percent in fifty years. If this continues another 50 or 100 years, disaster awaits - the average temperature of the entire planet will increase 2 - 4 - 6 degrees? (pick a number)

If this CO2 effect existed AND was of this POWER, it would be readily measurable in the lab.

SO - Where is the lab data and analysis supporting this effect - not just computer models - but real-world, reality-based measurements?

Game-Set-Match on JUST this argument alone, IMHO

[Fred Nerks]

...If this CO2 effect existed AND was of this POWER, it would be readily measurable in the lab...

FREE POWER! hey, it just gets hotter and hotter in here, there must be a way we can build lots of greenhouses and capture all that energy...

[Marine_Uncle]

"SO - Where is the lab data and analysis supporting this effect - not just computer models - but real-world, reality-based measurements?"
If they exist, it appears no one has shared the data in a precise manner.

[SouthTexas]

I’ve seen this before.

Put simply, the earth is NOT a greenhouse, thus invalidating everything stated after that. Then you come to the fact that if CO2 is such a great insulator, why isn’t it used in construction?

[BOBTHENAILER]

Very, very interesting——MHO tends to agree wholeheartedly. You should forward this info to Sen. James Inhofe-—the biggest critic of CO2 warming, etc.

[editor-surveyor]

Thanks for the ping!

[editor-surveyor]

“In summary, no atmospheric greenhouse effect, nor in particular a CO2-greenhouse effect, is permissible in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.” There actually is an atmospheric greenhouse effect. The atmosphere works exactly like the walls of a real greenhouse - as an insulator.

I suspect that you didn't fully grasp the article.
.

[Marine_Uncle]

I believe the good Senator is following this much more closely then most of us. And at this point has quite a few people keeping track of what both sides may have to say.

[SunkenCiv]

/bingo

[supercat]

THEN THIS EFFECT WOULD BE EASILY OBSERVABLE IN LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS!!!

It would theoretically be possible for the planet to have enough different positive feedback mechanisms that even though none of them were individually significant, the cumulative effect would be disastrous. What makes the theory implausible is that the planet is known to have gone through conditions far more extreme than anything we have now and returned to a (more or less) equilibrium state. If the planet's ecosystem were prone to thermal runaway it would already have happened at various times when it is known not to have done so. The fact that the planet is habitable suggests very strongly that its ecosystem has some very powerful negative feedback systems.