26
Dec

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”

For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(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.

This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.

Note: Over 500 Diggs! Keep it alive with a Digg here

Possibly related posts:

  1. Former NASA scientist debunks CO2 greenhouse theory
  2. Is the effect of Carbon Dioxide on temperature logarithmic?
  3. Now satellite radiation data debunks global warming theory
  4. Journal of Climate study asks why CO2 has not warmed the planet more
  5. NASA’s greenhouse mistake

391 Responses to “German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory””

  1. Bryan says:

    The paper written by the two German Physicists is well argued.
    Both Physicists are of highest standard and their paper has been peer reviewed.
    Both have had several papers published after peer reviews.
    On other blogs it has attracted a lot of mud slinging but not from physicists working in the field of heat transfer or advanced thermodynamics.
    Until their paper is rebutted by some expert in peer reviewed journal I would ignore the general comment one finds in blogs.
    What I don’t understand is that people seem to think that this is a left/right political issue.
    It is nothing of the sort,it is a matter of fact.
    What I want to see is open science nail down the facts in an open way and then deal with them.
    Those who take a political slant on the matter may end up looking foolish when the mist clears.
    Until the G&T paper is falsified by an expert in thermodynamics in a peer reviewed journal I for one think it demolishes the idea that co2 provides a heat pump that causes AGW.

  2. Tom Roe says:

    It would be nice if AGW theory were a scientific debate. Debate being the keyword because it implies doubt. Unfortunately AGW ceased to be a scientific debate decades ago. Those of us engaged on the political side of all this have always hoped that science and scientists would play the honest broker. That has clearly not taken place. There are some facts which cannot be disputed at this point: some of the basic science behind AGW theory does not meet accepted scientific standards, scientists conspired over a lenghty period of time to corrupt the peer-review process in their discipline, scientists conspired to keep their research and methodologies secret, and the IPCC made specific claims based on non-scientific articles from enviromental advocacy groups. These are proven facts and constitute a bill of particulars which should cause any sincere person to have serious doubts about the science behind AGW, the ability of the scientific community to maintain it’s own standards, and the efficacy of any course of action built on AGW theory. climategate represents another failure of science and politics in a long history of such failures. The ambition of it’s grand illusions are what set it a little apart from most others.

  3. Brian H says:

    Check out the way the money is flowing: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/ Carbon offsets futures have gone from $9 to 10¢/ton in 8 months! A good measure of the reputation of the AGW-ers.

  4. Brian H says:

    For an intuitively appealing model of a negative feedback mechanism which dumps “blocked heat” out of the atmosphere, check out Clemenzi’s site http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Heat.html . In a nutshell, water evaporation cools the surface, and dumps it into space when it condenses at the cloud tops. Venus is hot because it has no water, not because of its CO2, for example.

  5. Kevin Beck says:

    If this isn’t substantiation enough, then I don’t know what the heck AlGore is smoking. How many more proofs that AGW doesn’t exist will it take for that bloviating butt of all future jokes to realize that there is no science to support his foolish claims.

  6. [...] the above mentioned post, I referenced the paper by Dr Gehard Gerlich and Dr Ralf Tscheuschner discussed on [...]

  7. kiadragon says:

    Are you Deniers so ignorant you can’t see a STATISTICAL BLIP when you see one?

    Look at the hundred year trend: http://www.paganchaosmagic.com/pics/Temp.jpg

    I suppose the Ice Caps melting is all photoshopped?

    • JOHN says:

      Oh I went to the main site http://www.paganchaosmagic.com that REALLY gave me a good laugh. Makes me wonder if you go to Stonehenge and masturbate during the Winter Solstice?

    • Denis Ables says:

      Kiadragon:

      You gotta be joking! What do you think that graph proves (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it’s accurate)? You do realize that we were coming out of a very cool period back in the 1800s, don’t you? Which way would would you expect temperature to be moving after a cool spell? Surely this is a joke, cuz you can’t be that stupid!

      • kiadragon says:

        Actually if you look at the ice core data going back TEN THOUSAND YEARS we are warmer than we have been since the Dinosaurs.

        • Denis Ables says:

          See the Medieval Warm Period. (Even Jones, one of your CRU leaders, is backing away from Mann’s attempt to erase that period.

          • JOHN says:

            Denis he’s a lunatic. The fact is the Medieval Warm Period temperature was higher than it is now, that should tell y9ouo something about his claim. He’s just has no life and no clue, you should check out his website that will tell you all you need to know about him.

          • kiadragon says:

            The Medieval Warm Period is thought to have been caused by volcanic activity. That is always possible for the short term…major volcanic eruptions can lower the global temperature for decades. This trend is over thousands of years.

          • kiadragon says:

            John, you made the point that I am a lunatic pagan. Since you dont want to discuss my points, please shut up and let me chat with the person with the reasonable debate point?

        • Denis Ables says:

          You are choosing to ignore the Medieval Warming Period; that’s on a par with your opponent claiming temperatures cannot be considered, even now, based on what the CRU folks have done with the raw temperature data.

          In the case of the MWP it was not just tree ring samples (I emphasize “samples” as opposed to the proven juryrigged group of tree rings selected by the folks at Anglia in an attempt to invent their own version of history, ice cores and, most important, man’s activities. Ancient vineyards have been found further north in England than grapes can even now be grown. Also Greenland was green. The Vikings lived there, and were even able to map its boundary because the surrounding water was not frozen.

          Sea levels rising? That’s been happening since the last ice age. They’re up over 400 feet. If you look at a graph, the rise was initially slow, then for a long period faster, and for some time now it’s been almost flat, rising at a few mm per year; in fact hardly discernable. Also, keep in mind that it’s about 800 years after the MWP, and the ocean is in its final warm stage and will be (or already is) dumping some additional CO2 back into the air. At the same time the warming water results in some expansion of the ocean, perhaps enough to explain the few mm s of increase.

          In the summer the ice fields and glaciers tend to shrink, and in the winter the opposite. We are still between ice ages. Overall, if glaciers and ice continued to grow during the interglacial period, there would soon, by definition, not be any interglacial periods.

          Other websites you will find informative include Joannenova.com and WattsUpWithThat in regard to investigations of surface temperature recording stations.

      • kiadragon says:

        Here is the ice core data from the last 400,000 years. See a link between C02 and temperature or are you blind as well as willfully ignorant?

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

      • kiadragon says:

        Or perhaps this ice core temperature reading over the last couple ten thousand years:

        http://www.mos.org/soti/icecore/studies.html

        Is that junk science too?

        • J Mayeau says:

          No I like this. I’ll play.
          Your icecore study shows 10,116 feet (3,053 m) of ice covers 110,000 years of earth’s climate.
          That equals out to a little more then an inch per year.

          Here comes a curve. Brace yourself.
          Glacier Girl – The Lost Squadron

          On July 15, 1942, a flight of six P-38s and two B-17 bombers, with a total of 25 crew members on board, took off from Presque Isle Air Base in Maine headed for the U.K. What followed was a harrowing and life-threatening landing of the entire squadron on a remote ice cap in Greenland.

          Fifty years later a small group of aviation enthusiasts decided to locate that squadron, who had come to be known as “The Lost Squadron,” and to recover one of the lost P-38s. It turned out to be no easy task, as the planes had been buried under 25 stories of ice and drifted over a mile from their original location.

          That’s 268 feet of ice in 50 years during supposedly the warm patch on your chart, which equals 5 feet 4 inches of ice cover per year between 1942 and 1992, not 1 inch like your boys at ice secrets claim.

          Ice Core Research is what you call your classic example of alarmist propaganda website F A I L.

        • Denis Ables says:

          Klingon:

          “rising sea levels, ice melt… We’re still between ice ages. When those activities stop, get your woolies and snow shoes on!

  8. JOHN says:

    Oh my a pretty graph, no doubt made by some scumpbag trying to pove something that isn’t. Dream on dude. Go back to your Al Gore How to Handle Deniers Booklet and come up with something better. Have a nice evening.

    • kiadragon says:

      The chart is the accepted standard measurement mean of 98% of the worlds scientists. If you are too stupid to accept hard data, go read more Glenn Beck.

      It dont read Gore. I read Science.

      • Gordon says:

        “Accepted standard measurement mean of 98% of the world’s scientists.”

        I have a Bachelor’s degree in science. Why did I not receive a ballot for this vote?

        Seriously, you are making an “appeal to authority” here, not a scientific argument. Just because the Earth is getting warmer, does not mean CO2 is the cause. There’s a correlation between US National Debt and Global Temperature, as well as incidence of autism, decrease in Congressional IQ, bagginess of blue jeans, and many other extraneous phenomena.

        In order to prove CO2 is a cause, one needs to provide a physical mechanism backed by mathematical proofs for the physical properties of CO2 to prevent heat from returning to space, or slowing it to the extent that less heat escapes during darkness before the next sunrise than would otherwise occur.

        That’s never been done. Where’s the beef?

        And don’t just say “But it absorbs IR!” It does absorb IR, and it re-emits IR (net flow warm to cold, i.e. upward) , and it conducts heat to surrounding molecules (net flow warm to cold, i.e. upward), and it convects heat (net flow toward less density, i.e. upward). So right there, it is obvious it doesn’t prevent upward flow of heat.

        So your only recourse is to show that all of these atmospheric mechanisms slow the upward transfer of heat when the air consists of 99.961137% other stuff instead of 99.965% other stuff, and CO2 only absorbs about 8% of the blackbody radiation (http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html).

        Oh, and it absorbs virtually all of that 8% within 10 meters of the surface. And only an insignificant amount is re-emitted, since the absorption is not by electron orbitals, but rather absorption through molecular bond. In other words, the photons are essentially converted directly to mechanical heat (i.e. temperature), which is then overwhelmingly transported by conduction and convection.

        There can be no significant change to overall radiant flux in any part of the atmosphere, since the altitude difference where the (8%of) IR converts to temperature is trivial for any CO2 concentration capable of supporting photosynthesis (i.e. being able to grow food to shove into your piehole).

        To sum up, scientists may agree that the planet has been warming overall for the past 100 years, and cooling before that, and warming before that, etc. (ad nauseum). A rational scientist would not just take a bunch of temperature readings over a few decades from weather stations that are inconsistently maintained, poorly operated and fraudulently analyzed, and then run around screaming like a little girl. Rather, he would hypothesize a mechanism, and propose a sound, logical analysis that shows why that mechanism is the best explanation, and what physical measurements could be made to falsify that mechanism.

        • JOHN says:

          Big round of applause for Gordon.

          A large part of the problem is you are dealing with screaming girls and girlie men. They are too busy screaming to listen.

    • kiadragon says:

      You are obviously too set in your ignorance to look at facts, but here is more proof of rising C02 = rising temperatures going back 400,000 YEARS:

      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

  9. JOHN says:

    You’re a real twit…going up against real physicists with cut and past bullshit from websites. I

    • kiadragon says:

      No…I am quoting scientists. One or two oddball physicists dont worry me. Some of them believe in Ether theory too…that doesn’t make it real. I GO WITH THE PREVAILING OPINION OF 98% OF THE WORLD SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

      Are you the ‘physicist’ I am ‘going up against’? Or do you just find one who agrees with you and ignore the other 10,000 scientists?

      The Ice Core data is published in Nature. Junk Science?

      So you reach for insult because YOUR SCIENCE SUCKS!

    • kiadragon says:

      Disprove the Vostok Ice Core temperature record and then talk to me about “going up against REAL physicists”.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

    • kiadragon says:

      You don’t have to be a physicist to read a Temperature/CO2 chart. Or is that too advanced for you?

      • Denis Ables says:

        Considering what the IPCC folks did to the raw temperature data, it would take a palm or crystal ball reader to come up with what should have been the temperature.

        • kiadragon says:

          Always the excuse. Ignore everything because you don’t approve of the accounting. OK.

          Please explain the melting ice caps, rising sea levels and higher acidification levels in the oceans of dissolved CO2.

    • kiadragon says:

      So if I quote something its “CUT AND PASTE”

      If YOU quote something its “a physicist”

    • kiadragon says:

      So I am:

      1. A twit
      2. A Cut and Paster
      3. Not a physicist (just a degreed engineer)

      You STILL HAVEN’T REFUTED THE DATA. You just pretend it doesn’t exist.

      • Gordon says:

        A there’s the problem, you’re an engineer that loves data.

        Data cannot prove anything until you get to statistical correlation over 2 standard deviations AND show the correlation is cause effect where cause precedes effect.

        If the temperature change precedes the CO2 increase, then it’s not proven.

    • kiadragon says:

      Oh…I forgot!

      I am a pagan who masturbates at Stonehenge!

      • J Mayeau says:

        Actually yes. NOAA is the epitomy of bullshit.

        I found them still flogging the hockeystick graph the last time I looked at their paleoclimate page. Probably the last place on the net doing so without embarassment.

        I’ll never waste my time on them again.

        • kiadragon says:

          I won’t debate the Hockey Stick because of all the arguments about it.

          Who then do you trust besides NOAA? I hear all kinds of bullshit called on the guys taking the temps, but no Denier ever comes back with measurements to refute then other than isolated map points.

          Please explain the melting ice caps, rising sea levels and higher acidification levels in the oceans of dissolved CO2.

          Did those facts get made up to?

          • Kurt says:

            What the ice data clearly shows is the extended warming period that we are in now. It has lasted for approx. 10,000 years – stretching well beyond the length of most warming periods. What the ice core graphs that you present do not show, is the cyclic nature of these warming periods – about a 125,000 year cycle.
            This latest one has lasted far longer than most, and the industrial influence of man has only been around for about he last 300 years of it. Our current average global temperature is BELOW the average for this 10,000 year warming period. So the “hockey stick” is still below the 10,000 year average.

            The obvious conclusion is that this higher average temperature did not do any damage to the planet – the polar bears were here before the industrial revolution, the rain forests were here, the ice pack was here, etc.

            So how is it that you make the argument that the continuation of the “hockey stick” will cause the planet any damage – when the planet was warmer in the not too distant past – and not due to our influence??

          • kiadragon says:

            Kurt, I am not arguing for the Hockey Stick. That debate will go on forever.

            Please explain the melting ice caps, rising sea levels and higher acidification levels in the oceans of dissolved CO2.

          • JOHN says:

            Dennis these retards all use the same tactics they ask this, then they ask that, then when you answer it they ask something else, they’re only here to screw with people an cause problems. This must be in the Al Gore Screw with Believers Manual. This is probably one of the ones the Brtts pay to be Global Warming A-holes…I mean Heros, or whatever they call them selves.

          • kiadragon says:

            John…please explain to this ‘retard’ the melting ice caps, rising sea levels and higher acidification levels in the oceans of dissolved CO2.

            I NEVER MENTIONED THE HOCKEY STICK.

          • kiadragon says:

            John…what argument of mine did he refute? We are debating a point. Please find the good grace to ignore me since you have decided I am a ‘retarted pagan’

            Debate me or shut up, John.

          • JOHN says:

            Here we go with change the subject again.

            Arctic Ice hit a low in 2007 it’s up 26% (www.icecap.com)

            Antarctic Ice: During January 2010, ice extent grew at an average of 34,000 square kilometers (13,000 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent increased at a fairly steady rate in the early part of the month and then slowed towards the end of January.(nsidc.org)

            Regading Acidification it’s BS.

            The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At tha rate it’s 3,500 years before it becomes acid.

          • kiadragon says:

            John…150 marine scientists for 26 countries say that acidification is NOT bullshit. It seems any scientist you disagree with is full of shit.

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm

          • kiadragon says:

            “Antarctic Ice: During January 2010, ice extent grew at an average of 34,000 square kilometers (13,000 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent increased at a fairly steady rate in the early part of the month and then slowed towards the end of January.(nsidc.org)”

            Why are the sea levels rising then, John?

          • JOHN says:

            You jusr read the facts, you only reply with your 150 scientists, who probably are about as good as the NASA, IPPC, PENN State, East Aglia U and other assorted “Scientists”. So yes they’re full of it.

          • kiadragon says:

            And you are an intellectual fraud. You scientists are right and mine are wrong?

            How come mine outnumber yours 98 to 2?

          • JOHN says:

            Your sea level isn’t rising much. About 7 inches in the past 100 years. We are coming out of a cooling period, it’s normal. If you would get your nose out of your Greenpeace Bible you’d see the sea levels have risen and fallen a lot over the previous centuries, it’s normal.

          • kiadragon says:

            You again look at one number in ignorance instead of a trend. I suppose these sea level increases were also bull shit scientists and bad measurement?

            http://www.paganchaosmagic.com/pics/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

          • kiadragon says:

            John…I don’t belong to Greenpeace. I own guns, eat meat, hunt, fish and am likely more educated than you.

            Why don’t you pull your head out of your ass and realize maybe I am more than a stereotype?

          • JOHN says:

            You would make the 3 Stooges look intelligent. What you do and whether you belong to Greenpeace doesn’t change the fact you are an a-hole. Adios I actually have a life and a job. I’m going to bed.

          • kiadragon says:

            Sleep tight, John. You angry, angry, angry little man.

          • JOHN says:

            Me angry? No you are the one with the anger issues having a fit earlier because I was ignoring you. Haha you are a hoot. All I did was respond in kind. Nite nite.

          • kiadragon says:

            John…you insulted my religion, sexuality and intelligence. Everything but my facts.

            I am not angry. I am just pleased I found an actual debate instead of your feces slinging.

            You really do you side of the argument a great deal of harm when you decide to open you mouth. Keep it up. Its good to have the crazy, angry, sad men out in the open where we can all see them for the bitter and unhappy people they really are.

        • kiadragon says:

          So all Ice Core data is bullshit?

        • kiadragon says:

          OK. How about a video from the Discovery Channel of what Climate Change is doing to Alaska? Or are they all conspiracy theorists too?

          http://news.discovery.com/videos/earth-signs-of-climate-change-in-alaska.html

  10. JOHN says:

    He’s obviously a psycho…..I woudn’t waste my time on him. He needs a thorazine shot or something.

  11. kiadragon says:

    You all FAIL. You insult instead of challanging facts. You follow blindly what you WANT to hear. Good luck. I look forward to hearing your explanations for what the next fifty years holds.

    All the insults and no one compared me to Hitler or Nazis? You guys are slipping…

    • Kurt says:

      I think you are typical in that you claim others are ignoring the facts, but you cherry pick what you want and discard the rest.

      To wit:

      1) The sorry state of the surface stations used in this country to compile surface temperature data. By NOAA’s own standards, most of them have error of at least 2 deg C, and some as high as 5 deg C.
      Whether you are measuring trends or the absolute temperature, you cannot say you know the temps to within 0.1 deg C, when the measurement instrumentation has nowhere near that accuracy.

      2) For some as yet unexplained reason, the IPCC and others have removed thousands of surface stations from their average temp. calculations. You would think with the controversy that you would want more measurements – not less. But the AGW crowd has removed the surface stations that seem to disagree with their conclusions.

      3) This one should bother you but doesn’t seem to:
      “Hide the decline” how can it be science when those entrusted with the data want to hide it from us? That is no longer science, but propaganda.

      4) Disparity between the north and south poles. The north polar ice underwent a huge melt (but came back big time), while the south polar ice has not been melting, but increasing. If global warming is truly global – why would it only affect the north pole?

      5) The almost complete lack of correlation between CO2 levels and average global temperature. The statistical correlationis very low – less than 50% – which usually means there IS no correlation. In fact if anything, the data shows that higher temps cause higher CO2% not vice versa.

      Kiadragon it would be interesting to see how you explain these things.

      • kiadragon says:

        OK. Give me a minute to digest that and I will attempt to.

      • kiadragon says:

        1) The sorry state of the surface stations used in this country to compile surface temperature data. By NOAA’s own standards, most of them have error of at least 2 deg C, and some as high as 5 deg C. Whether you are measuring trends or the absolute temperature, you cannot say you know the temps to within 0.1 deg C, when the measurement instrumentation has nowhere near that accuracy.

        As an Electronics Engineer who specializes in sensors and automation, I know that a temperature sensor that is not properly dialed in is a problem. BUT, while it may show an incorrect temperature, the scaling of the sensor will remain intact. Unless someone resets the sensor between readings, the overall temperature difference trending is still valid. It is 5 degrees and the bad sensor says 7 degrees. A year later the temperature is 6 degrees and the bad sensor says 8 degrees. The statistical deviation of 1 degree still holds true. Errors in temperature measurement of 2 degrees C does not mean that the sensor ‘jumps around’. It still tracks a trend and the trend is cooler in some spots and hotter in others.

        • Kurt says:

          I am also an engineer. I specialize in the design of automated machinery, and am very well acquainted with sensors and temperature measurement. Yes there is a difference between accuracy and resolution. However, the IPCC is not measuring an average temperature difference between years, they are measuring the average temperature of the planet, and then measuring the change in that average from year to year. So they are relying on the temperature and not just the change.
          ( when you reason through it – just how would you tell anyone what the average temp. of the planet is doing, if all you can rely on is the resolution and not the accuracy of the instrument)

          Moreover, problems such as placing the surface station next the condenser coils of an A/C unit will obviously cause the temperature of that station to trend upward. It is the siting conditions of the stations that are causing the error problems, not necessarily the measurement accuracy of the instrument itself.

          • kiadragon says:

            Excellent. Than you know precisely what I am trying to explain. Allen Bradley or Siemens guy?

            I am not excusing the temp stations. I am saying that they seem to show a trend. I don’t think they are nearly as inaccurate as the hyperbole likes to make them out, but that is only opinion as I have not visited them.

            My final point is only this: When all the world glaciers are shrinking (with the exception of the South Pole), the sea levels are rising (to whatever extent you choice to believe), Permafrost is melting where it was solid for thousands of years…what else can be causing all of these effects?

            If that is not a raise in overall temperature, please give me an idea what it might be.

            I go with the preponderance of the data. I make changes in my life to reduce fuel consumption. I don’t quibble over who has the best thermometer.

        • Kurt says:

          Allen Bradley, IDEC, Beckhoff, Omron, Opto 22. My favorite is probably Opto 22.

          For example if you look at Opto 22 specs for their SNAP-AITM temperature input modules – they state a best accuracy of +/- 0.8 degrees C AFTER the application of zero and span calibration.

          The old style graduated thermometers were more accurate than this.

          We tend to think of electronics as being more accurate, but they really are not – not unless you spend a thousand dollars per point, and NOAA and IPCC are not doing that.

          The point to be made is that they are not only looking at a delta T (they are not relying solely upon the resolution of the instrument) they are using the actual measured temperature and making an average over time.

          When you think about it – just how would you go about measuring the temperature of the earth. It changes with time of day, seasons, altitude (due to adiabatic lapse rate), with horizontal displacement, etc.
          You could write an engineering thesis on how to accurately measure the temperature of the water in a glass to within 0.1 deg C, and yet here the AGW people are telling us they know the earth’s temperature with that kind of accuracy.

          If you are the automation engineer that you say you are, then you know what I am talking about. We can take great care with instrumentation, but we know now much variation there is due to all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the object we are measuring itself – such as cold junction compensation or the lack thereof, the thermocouple effect due to dissimilar metals in the electronics enclosure, temperature change of the measurement electronics itself, etc, etc.

        • Kurt says:

          Your statement about the worlds glaciers is unsubstantiated and another broad brush treatment.

          The facts are that most of the worlds glaciers are NOT instrumented! Therefore how would we know whether they are receding or growing.

          I live in the Seattle area. The are a number of glaciers in the Cascades – especially on Mt. Rainier.

          Only some of the glaciers on Mt. Rainier are receding – some are growing. Some are not instrumented. The same is true throughout the world. The south pole ice has been growing substantially – not only in coverage, but in height as well.

          http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/04/world-sea-ice-reaches-levels-unprecedented-in-25-years/

          • kiadragon says:

            Kurt…my last comment before I am out the door for the long weekend:

            The instruments that are on the glaciers ARE CAMERAS. I will post time studies on photos when I get back from vacation demonstrating clearly that the worlds glaciers are melting and have been melting steadily for about 100 years.

        • Kurt says:

          Nice try! – yes some of the instruments are cameras, however most of the instrumentation is focused on measuring displacement. Very similar to measuring the movement on Mt. St. Helens, they use either lasers, or more recently GPS, to measure one station’s movement relative to another’s.

          Most of the glaciers in the world are not instrumented. Of those that are, some are receding, some are growing.

          Recommended reading:
          “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. One of the last (maybe THE last?) books written by him before he died, it is the debate over global warming in the form of a novel.
          Typical of his style, it is a mix of fact and fiction, only in this case he has gone to the trouble of footnoting all of the facts.
          He also draws some conclusions at the end. It is well researched and an excellent read – I couldn’t put it down – and highly recommended for the AGW crowd.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Nice parsing there. The number of some glaciers that are shrinking vastly exceeds the number of some glaciers that are growing.

            In other words you are engaging in the same manipulation that poisons any attempt at a reasonable discussion.

          • Denis Ables says:

            Eli: Why does it matter how many glaciers are growing or shrinking? We’ve been in a warming trend since the bottom of the “little ice age”; that’s about 300 years. Shouldn’t at least some stuff be melting?

            It will definitely be REALLY worrisome when there are no signs of melting.

            Are you thinking that glacier melt has something to do with man’s activities, that we have caused the warming since the 1700s? That would have to be via our contributions to CO2, right? No other mechanism that I’ve heard about as been found, and it turned out, some time ago, after more core samples, that CO2 increases historically following temperature increases by 800 years. (and it is a very strong correlation, so apparently the ocean upchucks some extra CO2 at that time). It turns out that right now we’re about 800 years after MWP.

          • Kurt says:

            You are ignoring the facts.

            Sum the mass of glaciers that are growing – and you have to include those in antarctica – vs. those that are receding, and we still have increasing glacial mass.

            BTW the point is well made, that after the mini ice age ended, which no one in AGW circles seems to want to discuss, the earth’s temperature has been increasing – which is what you would expect.
            This 10,000 year extended interglacial period that we are in
            has an average temperature (mini ice age included) that is HIGHER than the current average temperature of the planet – most of that time WITHOUT man’s influence.

            This higher temperature did not kill the planet did it!

            So all the alarmist propaganda is just that – and intended to leverage the socialist/communist influence over society.

  12. kiadragon says:

    2) For some as yet unexplained reason, the IPCC and others have removed thousands of surface stations from their average temp. calculations. You would think with the controversy that you would want more measurements – not less. But the AGW crowd has removed the surface stations that seem to disagree with their conclusions.

    I don’t have any hard data except that the surface stations you referenced were removed BECAUSE they were some of the questionable data points you referenced in point 1.

    • JOHN says:

      You are so full of it. They have removed them all over the world, they use one in Canada, they dumped all the others, they dumped a bunch in Russia, too. The report for one county in S. America where they don’t even have any temp station.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/22/american-thinker-on-cru-giss-and-climategate/

      • kiadragon says:

        Shut up. I am talking to Kurt

        • Kurt says:

          There used to be almost 6,000 surface stations included in the average. Now there are something like 1500. Why? Are you telling me that 4500 of them were so bad they were removed from the average?

          Since there is such a dispute why not add more stations?
          Why would anyone be against doing that? More data is better.

          The Russians asked a legitimate question and that is why were all of their coldest stations removed?

          There are similar problems all over the world.

          The problems with surface stations here in the US are well documented on http://www.surfacestations.org
          Volunteers are taking the time to document the surfacestations photographically and otherwise.

      • kiadragon says:

        American Thinker? ROTFLMAO

    • Denis Ables says:

      Kiadragon:

      Russia has made loud complaints, that something like 40% of their land mass (in the coolest areas) was ignored by the Hadley CRU. The temp stations in that area were (according to the Russians) more reliable than elsewhere, yet the Hadley boys ignored those in favor of the more southerly stations, which had missing data (so imputed data needed).

      Then there was one case (don’t recall where in South America, where the one station located at high altitude was moved to the beach (much lower altitude). Nobody is offering any defense at all of why those things were done. Don’t you think those kinds of actions, and no attempt to justify why, is more than a little suspicious? (It’s hard for me to explain what incentives there are to do such things, but if the claims are true what else can one presume?

      This stuff contradicts the notion that they’re even trying to get an accurate temperature reading for the earth.

      (Also, many stations are in urban heat islands, and, as the heat-island grows (and practically all do), the temperature increases, so measuring temperature change is also a nightmare. Only (very) rural area station readings should be used.

  13. kiadragon says:

    3) This one should bother you but doesn’t seem to:
    “Hide the decline” how can it be science when those entrusted with the data want to hide it from us? That is no longer science, but propaganda.

    I don’t see that at all and I understand that it is a matter of opinion. Scientists are not gods and many make mistakes. It is a matter of the preponderance of the evidence (dramatic ice changes, etc) and the super-majority of scientific opinion. If some bad apples are lying, the majority of the scientific community will nail them to the wall eventually. There is no “Science Cabal’ or Illuminati controlling scientists. This dissolves into ad hominen attacks on the scientists, not their data.

    • Kurt says:

      Clearly the progammer’s notes that we have now show one helluva problem with the data. The guy is so distraught over what he is going through that he is seeing a shrink. He mentions “hide the decline” more than once.

  14. kiadragon says:

    4) Disparity between the north and south poles. The north polar ice underwent a huge melt (but came back big time), while the south polar ice has not been melting, but increasing. If global warming is truly global – why would it only affect the north pole?

    That point is in dispute. If true, the rate of South Pole ice addition does not balance the rate of North Pole ice loss. If it did, the sea levels would not be rising.

    • Kurt says:

      Check out this link – a paper in Science makes the case that sea levels 81000 years ago were one meter higher, while CO2 was lower.
      Check out this link:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/new-paper-in-science-sea-level-81000-years-ago-1-meter-higher-while-co2-was-lower/

      • kiadragon says:

        That may be. But over the last 400,000 years temperature lag CO2…hockey stick or no hockey stick.

        So if 81000 ago we had a crossing of data trends, I don’t see that as enough data to throw out all the rest. It could have been volcanic activity or solar activity…unless we can show that the sort of CO2 level is OFTEN in contrast to temperature instead of lagging it.

        Interesting point though. CO2 levels are not the only thing that raises temperature.

        • Kurt says:

          Kiadragon that is not true.

          Take a look at Al Gore’s famous movie (I know the producer by the way – he is my cousins boyfriend)
          They zoom out so it is hard to see, but CO2 lags temperature.

          There is an explanation for that. As the ocean temperature rises, the vapor pressure of the dissolved CO2 rises and more of it comes out of solution, so the CO2 levels rise as temperature rises.

          You can also see the lack of correlation by looking at the slope of the CO2% vs time it is a straight line with seasonal variations imposed on it – and it is much steeper than the slope of average planetary temperature vs. time.

          Also look at the absorption lines for CO2 vs water vapor.
          When the suns radiation is re-radiated back out into space it is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. In this area of the spectrum, water vapor is a much more potent green house gas than is CO2. It absorbs much more in this area of the spectrum. CO2 makes up 0.038% of the atmoshere by volume. Water vapor is 100X more than that.

          The argument for CO2 causing global warming is very tenuous.

          OK I am really signing off now.

        • Kurt says:

          Here is a good link. Open the the pdf version on this page and look at the graphs. He does a great job of discussing the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

          http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefing.html

        • Kurt says:

          Here is another link:

          http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf

          Figures 13 and 14 and the associated text provide good insight on the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

  15. kiadragon says:

    5) The almost complete lack of correlation between CO2 levels and average global temperature. The statistical correlationis very low – less than 50% – which usually means there IS no correlation. In fact if anything, the data shows that higher temps cause higher CO2% not vice versa.

    Please provide a link to prove that. I disagree fundamentally. I would like to see your data.

    • Kurt says:

      I will do that for you tomorrow. I have to find the links again.
      But the correlation is quite bad.

      I am signing off for today.

    • kiadragon says:

      Thank you. Good night.

    • Denis Ables says:

      Kiadragon.

      If you don’t know that the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature is EXTREMELY high – one look at the graphs tells you that, and that the subsequent additional ice cores has shown that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases by 800 years in that cases, then you haven’t yet at time to check the data.

      However, it is the case that for at least the last century the level of CO2 has been increasing from what some called a “balanced” level in the atmosphere of 280 ppmv. It’s now about 380ppmv. And there’s no denying that some of that increase (some call all of it) is due to man (fossil fuel usage particularly), and we do all exhale the stuff. What has really been a travesty for the alarmists is that CO2 has not been shown to be a driver of our temperature increase. In fact in recent years it has been increasing monotonically at around 2ppmv per year, but in the last couple of decades there has been no increase in temperature (satellite data).

      Also, you should understand that there is global warming and there is anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. We’ve gone through numerous past periods of GW.
      And, you seem much more anxious to “talk” than listen. Not many at this site are willing to devote much time to trying to talk to deaf ears.

      • Kurt says:

        Thanks for the link.

        Here is another very good one:

        http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf

        Look at figure 14. It shows the absorption spectra for water vapor vs. CO2 at the wavelengths that are radiated by earth. Clearly water vapor has the broader absorption at these wavelengths, and coupled with the fact that water vapor is 100x more prevalent in the atmosphere, the influence of CO2 is pretty small.

        • Eli Rabett says:

          The spectrum is very low resolution, kind of a sketch rather than a real spectrum. The water vapor spectrum (and the CO2 spectrum) is composed of many sharp lines. You can get a better picture of what it really looks like here. The “fuzz” is water vapor, the big dip is CO2. Even in this case where the resolution is much higher the lines are instrumentally broadened. If you really want to know what is up, go to Spectral Calc (google accessible) and play around with it, although some practice is needed.

          The bit about water vapor being more prevalent, is true as far as it goes, which is about 3 km up. Water vapor condenses, and that means that its concentration rapidly diminishes with altitude. When all is said and done, CO2 is about ~ 1/2 as effective as water vapor BUT, water vapor concentration is controlled by sea surface temperature.

          • Kurt says:

            Not sure where to start with this one -

            Clearly just looking at spectral response, water vapor is more than 3x more effective at absorbing in the part of the spectrum where earth radiates.

            Overall on average the atmosphere is made up of about 1% water vapor, however that averaging it over the entire volume of the atmosphere.
            In the troposphere the average is higher than 1%.
            BTW your assertion that water vapor only extends up about 3 km is not true. Clearly it snows on the top of Mt. Everest – which is almost 9 km high. There has to be water vapor present in order for snow to fall. There are also high clouds made up of ice crystals – formed from condensed water vapor that froze.

            CO2 makes up just 0.038% of the atmosphere by volume.
            You multiply the difference in effectiveness at absorbing IR by the greater proportion in the atmosphere and you come with a factor of over 100x more pronounced greenhouse effect for water vapor than for CO2.

    • Denis Ables says:

      Dragon: You get your own opinion, but not your own facts.

      • Eli Rabett says:

        By about (sorry) 5 km, water vapor is about the same as CO2 in mixing ratio (~400 ppmV, by about 10 km, it’s down to ~ 50 ppmV.

        There go your calculations.

        • Kurt says:

          You’re assuming that absorption is homogenous through the first 10 km. Who’s to say that the bulk of the greenhouse effect does not occur within the first few kilometers?

        • Gordon says:

          The IR from the surface is nearly 100% absorbed within 10 meters. It is not absorbed by orbitals (which would then shortly cause re-emission at the same wave length), but rather by excitation of molecular bonds. In other words the temperature of the CO2 or water vapor goes up when it absorbs the IR.

          From there it’s just conduction and convection. The effect of CO2 concentration on conduction and convection is trivial.

  16. kiadragon says:

    Gonna crash myself, Kurt. Lets pick it up tomorrow.

  17. Denis Ables says:

    K-dragon:

    One such site on the historical CO2 / temperature correlation follows, but it’s quoted and graphs shown in various blogs.
    Just try googling “historical correlation of carbon dioxide and temperature”. (and don’t necessarily believe Wikipedia or RealClimate – on the former a guy named Connolly (sp?) controls the data and is a warmist, and the latter was established by the folks at IPCC.)

    In the meantime, begin your journey to a real and fascinating education by watching the 6 part video below. The first minute or two only has English subtitles, but then it shifts to English. It’s a fascinating and enjoyable watch.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=related

    A followup CERN Colloquium by Jasper Kirkby, if you’re more technically oriented:

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/?ln=fr

  18. kiadragon says:

    To everyone who thinks I ran away…you have interesting ideas I am happy to present counter arguments to next week. I am leaving on a short vacation and will not be commenting or otherwise surfing until next week.

    See you then and I hope you have a nice weekend.

  19. Harry Key says:

    This tripe has been continually trumpeted for too long. Good on you for exposing it.

    http://www.harrykey.com/blogs/climategate-uturn-no-warming-since-1995/

  20. Brian H says:

    Two general points:
    Weighting is the whole ball game when you are talking about “averages”, and there is no a priori way of knowing how to weight the various data sources. The G&T objections to the simplification assumptions of such averaging apply a fortiori. Dynamic heat fluxes between areas with rapid fluctuations of surface temps and humidity, etc. render “guesstimates” meaningless — just useful plugs for models to get the output you prefer today.

    As for heat transport, one simple and powerful pipeline through the troposphere is surface cooling by evaporation, followed by heating at cloudtops by condensation with resultant blackbody and convective transfers up, up, and away. “Open Sesame”, the uncovered pot.

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.