Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Sorry but the AGW argument has always been that "CO2 is the main reason for Climate Change" and you even got scientists claiming "CO2 is more important than any natural factor including the Sun"....

That's not my opinion.

Originally posted by Essan

However, at present Arctic regions have less ice cover than at any time since at least before the MWP ............

Essan....that's not true and you know it because i have shown to you several research papers that show global temperatures during the MWP were WARMER than it has been in the 20th, or 21st century....

Even the Sargasso Sea temperatures show that the ocean was a lot warmer during the MWP and the end of the RWP than it has been at present....

Take a look at the link below...

lv-twk.oekosys.tu-berlin.de...

Yes it shows temps until 1999 but you do know that 1998 and 2005 were almost similar in temps, and still during the MWP and the RWP it was MUCH WARMER....

[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


First off, don't be a liar. That excerpt is exactly what I quoted. Don't try to play it off otherwise.

Second, read it. Understand the context. I can pare it down for you, into plain English in as few words possible.

"Any closed system will continually deteriorate into a more chaotic state. This isn't happening on earth, therefor global warming must be false"

By stating that there needs to be a "heat pump" in the atmosphere, and trying to apply the second law of thermodynamics to the global climate, they are actually saying that the earth is a closed system.

That said, we DO have a heat pump. It's called the sun. As I and others have pointed out, these physicists honestly do not know what they are talking about, at least not when it comes to climatology. A doctorate in mathematical physics is not a doctorate in climatology.

Also, before pimping these guys because of their doctorates, you might want to research them a bit. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner apparently have absolutely no work to their names except global warming denials. Not only do they not participate in their field of expertise, they also come into a field they clearly have no understanding of and try to debunk it. They might as well be pitching footballs at a baseball game or something.

Incidentally, a search for these two pulls up plenty of sources debunking their shoddy climate work.

I'm usually far too busy debunking nutballs with no concept of history or science, informing people in cryptozoology exactly what weird critter X is, engaging people in political discussion, and the like to kick out my own threads. This is when I have the time to come to ATS at all. I do have two threads building in my head, I just need A) the time and B) the ability to make them -perfect-

[edit on 1-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Essan

However, at present Arctic regions have less ice cover than at any time since at least before the MWP ............

Essan....that's not true and you know it because i have shown to you several research papers that show global temperatures during the MWP were WARMER than it has been in the 20th, or 21st century....

I'm not talking about global temperature, I'm talling about Arctic ice cover - specifically the Baffin region. 2 very different things. It can be globally warmer but the Arctic can still be colder. Do you dispute this? It doesn't prove any AGW predictions, it's an observation that requires explanation. That explanation may have nothing to do with human actvity. But I find it interesting. Especially when there seems to be a smoking gun. IMO there shoud be growing ice caps on Baffin, not shrinking ones. And therefore I ask myself why?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


What the hell?....

For crying out loud...you CLAIMED they were talking about "the Earth being a Closed system" and now even showing that they did NOT say the Earth but rather "ANY CLOSED SYSTEM" and you keep claiming i am lying?...



[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Essan
I'm not talking about global temperature, I'm talling about Arctic ice cover - specifically the Baffin region. 2 very different things. It can be globally warmer but the Arctic can still be colder. Do you dispute this?

....The Arctic regions will almost certainly still exist for a long time. Are you disputing the fact that the Arctic, and Antarctic have CHANGED and there have been times in the past when glaciers had receeded more than they are now?.... Do you dispute this fact?.....

Originally posted by Essan
............
IMO there shoud be growing ice caps on Baffin, not shrinking ones. And therefore I ask myself why?

You see, people like you don't want to accept the fact that there are factors that affect the climate which do not happen in any schedule made up by man....

You seem to think that nature must follow YOUR schedule in order for Climate change to be natural.... Sorry Essan but that is not the way the Universe works.....

Do you not understand the fact that the Solar System has entered a new region of space and even in 1978 it was predicted that in the "near future" there could be dramatic Climate Change?.... which is exactly what has occurrred.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Yes, you were lying with your claim that I did not excerpt from the source.

And I can't tell if you're being intentionally or accidentally ignorant now. Yes, they say any closed system. They then present the Earth as one such closed system. That's the entire basis of their work here. That's the assumption that they're working on, it's the crux of their argument - because not a single damn piece of their argument makes any sense unless they are trying to apply it to earth as a closed system.

I realize that you understand that the Earth isn't a closed system. I also realize you're just thrilled to find "scientists" that agree with a notion you already have, and feel the need to ignore what they wrote in order to defend them - in order to defend your own notions. You should stop. It makes you look silly. I'm not going to try to get you to believe in climate change here, I realize that some people just prefer comfortable, blissful ignorance. But you could at least find (somewhat) more credible sources who make their case on actual science to back yourself up with.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

....The Arctic regions will almost certainly still exist for a long time. Are you disputing the fact that the Arctic, and Antarctic have CHANGED and there have been times in the past when glaciers had receeded more than they are now?.... Do you dispute this fact?.....

No, I'm saying nothing of the sort. Not sure why you should think so? Have I not made myself clear?

Based on current orbital parameters we would expect to see ice sheets increase over the Arctic over a multi centenial period - this does not exclude shorter term reductions.

It's possible the current reduction - data indicates this to be the lowest extent of ice cover since before the MWP - may be entirely due to natural reasons. On the other hand, we do have a possible smoking gun and must therefore consider that as a possibilty.

Originally posted by Essan
............
IMO there shoud be growing ice caps on Baffin, not shrinking ones. And therefore I ask myself why?

You see, people like you don't want to accept the fact that there are factors that affect the climate which do not happen in any schedule made up by man....

I know that that is the case.

You seem to think that nature must follow YOUR schedule in order for Climate change to be natural.... Sorry Essan but that is not the way the Universe works.....

Whereas you KNOW that climate chnages accoridng to YOUR schedule and you cannot accept any other possibility.

How can you be so absolutely sure that nothing humans do has any effect on climate whatsoever and that everything is due to other factors - but only the factors you personally believe in?

Can you not countenance the possibilty that some human actiovity may have an effect, however small?

Do you not understand the fact that the Solar System has entered a new region of space and even in 1978 it was predicted that in the "near future" there could be dramatic Climate Change?.... which is exactly what has occurrred.

No, I don't. The space aliens don't speak to me

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Yes, you were lying with your claim that I did not excerpt from the source.

........Christ... the only one lying is you....

This is not only absurb but hilarious..... you just don't want to admit you had both your feet in your mouth and you were stupid enough to insult me based on you not understanding what they are saying....

Show it where they SPECIFICALLY say "EARTH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM"... like YOU claimed they said.....

Some people obviously are not man, or woman enough to admit when they are wrong......

Originally posted by Essan

Based on current orbital parameters we would expect to see ice sheets increase over the Arctic over a multi centenial period - this does not exclude shorter term reductions.

Based on the fact that the Solar system, and Earth, have moved into a new region of space which AFFECT the climate of all planets, it is obvious that Earth's climate does not follow the schedule made up by any man, or woman. This is something you don't seem to want to understand.

Originally posted by Essan
It's possible the current reduction - data indicates this to be the lowest extent of ice cover since before the MWP - may be entirely due to natural reasons. On the other hand, we do have a possible smoking gun and must therefore consider that as a possibilty.

A smoking gun of what exactly?.....

Originally posted by Essan

I know that that is the case.

Yet you keep caliming that the cliamte is not following a schedule you think it should follow....

Originally posted by Essan

Whereas you KNOW that climate chnages accoridng to YOUR schedule and you cannot accept any other possibility.

I am not the one saying the climate is not the way it should be because of some schedule....

Originally posted by Essan
How can you be so absolutely sure that nothing humans do has any effect on climate whatsoever and that everything is due to other factors - but only the factors you personally believe in?

I follow the evidence, and if the cream of the crop of the AGW proponents, Jones, Mann et al couldn't find ANY definite proof and they had to rig the data, erase evidence that refutes their claims, and they used and use every legal and illegal way they could find trying to keep people in the dark. This tells me there is no evidence to support the claim that mankind has caused "Global Warming".....

For crying out loud they had to admit that they used FALSE information just to push for their globalist agenda....

Or are you also unawares of this fact?....

Originally posted by Essan

Can you not countenance the possibilty that some human actiovity may have an effect, however small?

....What is your NEED to believe that "mankind must have some effect on the global climate" when there is NO PROOF?....

Sorry Essan, the cream of the crop of the AGW proponents were caught.... and scientists who participated in the scam had to ADMIT they KNEW they were giving false information JUST TO PUSH FOR THEIR AGENDA....

Originally posted by Essan
No, I don't. The space aliens don't speak to me

Your memory is very bad then because I have posted in the past this reasearch as well as others....

In any case "space aliens" don't need to speak to you...all you need to do is follow scientific discoveries made this century and not continue to rely what you might have learnt in the 19th century.

I have been reminding you of these facts several times, but somehow you keep forgetting...

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind

www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
..........
"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger."

However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.

"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.

"Heejeong used detailed statistical analysis to prove this phenomenon is real. Convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere can be strongly driven by these fluctuations, independent of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Space radiation hits record high

Now, the influx of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system has reached a record high. Measurements by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft indicate that cosmic rays are 19 per cent more abundant than any previous level seen since space flight began a half century ago."The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, who is a member of the ACE team. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."

www.newscientist.com...


[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Let's keep showing Essan, and some others what are the real causes of the ongoing Climate Change the Earth, and all planets in the Solar System, and even the changes the Sun is experiencing.

Voyager makes an interstellar discovery

The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA's Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.

"Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system," explains lead author Merav Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. "This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all."
.........
"Voyager data show that the Fluff is much more strongly magnetized than anyone had previously suspected—between 4 and 5 microgauss*," says Opher. "This magnetic field can provide the extra pressure required to resist destruction."

www.physorg.com...


The following is one of the several research papers I have shown in the past which shows even back in 1978 it was known the Solar System was going to encounter a new interstellar cloud.

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud

Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600.

Observations indicating a hydrogen density gradient in the vicinity of the solar system are reviewed, particularly observations of an anisotropy in the far-UV flux around 950 A from the brightest and closest O and B stars as well as a variation in the local D/H ratio along the lines of sight to Alpha Cen and Alpha Aur. Possible mechanisms that may strongly affect the observed D/H ratio on a very small scale are considered, selected radiation pressure is proposed as the most likely mechanism for deuterium separation, and it is shown that this mechanism would be effective only if the density gradient of the nearby interstellar medium has remained stable for at least about 10 million years. This time scale is taken to imply the existence of a nearby (less than 2 pc distant) interstellar cloud. Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

See?... no need for "space aliens"... You just need to be up to date with scientific discoveries. Well, as the above article shows it was even known back in 1978.





[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


RTFA, man. Seriously. Hell, don't even read the article, just read the title.

"Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics"

What law of physics do they say is being violated? The Second law of Thermodynamics.

As you apparently know, the Second Law applies to a closed system.

Ergo, by applying the second law to Earth - the globe in "global" - they are making the claim that the earth is a closed system.

It's right there in front of your face. In the title, in the article - in fact, throughout the article since as I have said, absolutely nothing these physicists have come up with makes ANY sense unless they are assuming Earth is a closed system.

Not only are the physicists bad at climatology, they're terrible at physics.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

As you apparently know, the Second Law applies to a closed system.

Ergo, by applying the second law to Earth - the globe in "global" - they are making the claim that the earth is a closed system.
..........

Christ.... They are not saying the Earth is a closed system..... What they are "implying" is since ANY CLOSED SYSTEM WOULD DETERIORATE BY ITSELF, AND SINCE THE EARTH'S SYSTEM IS NOT DETERIORATING THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM AND AGW IS A FICTITIOUS CLAIM.....

They even say there is no air circulation in a greenhouse which is why it gets hotter, yet you want to claim they say the Earth is a closed system?....

You do know that a "greenhouse" IS a closed system, yet what they say is that the reason why it gets hotter in a greenhouse is because IT IS CLOSED and there is no air circulation...which is what makes the "greenhouse effect" as claimed by the AGW a fictitious claim....

they go on to say there is a "real greenhouse effect" but it doesn't work asclaimed by the AGW proponents, and that's what their paper is about...

NOWHERE do they say what you are claiming, yet you want to keep twisting what they are saying trying to save some face.....

Since you CAN'T produce any statement where they say what YOU claim, it is obvious that you are wrong and you are not even man enough to admit it....



[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Thanks electric for fighting the good fight. The lies and personal attacks by these AGW when someone puts some real science on the table shows what a total fraud they all are. NO matter how much you show them its all a lye you know their going to refuse to believe because the global elites have used this to play their hand.

There is no global warming (just take a look at the whether channel), and those that keep telling us there is are doing it to advance their own globalist agenda. Its been debunked and proven false.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Let's keep showing Essan, and some others what are the real causes of the ongoing Climate Change the Earth, and all planets in the Solar System, and even the changes the Sun is experiencing.

I don't dispute other causes of climate change exist - and there may be causes we are not yet aware of.

However, unlike some, I do not assume that all climate change is due to one thing - just because a room warms because the sun shines through the window and there is an electric heater on in the room, does not mean that the coal fire does not also add to the increase in temp.

However, if it's all down to one single cause, presumably the alleged lack of warming (or even cooling) over the past decade means that that cause has now ceased to affect us or its effect has greatly lessened?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Jesus Christ it just gets better and better with you.

NOWHERE do they say what you are claiming

As WalkingFox already pointed out - it's right in the abstract:

The atmospheric greenhouse effect,

...

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.

Now you clearly don't even understand what the 2nd Law means, but yeah KEEP USING CAPS LOCK LIKE THAT MAKES YOU LOOK SMART:

What they are "implying" is since ANY CLOSED SYSTEM WOULD DETERIORATE BY ITSELF, AND SINCE THE EARTH'S SYSTEM IS NOT DETERIORATING THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM AND AGW IS A FICTITIOUS CLAIM.....

No - they are implying the Earth does not violate the 2nd Law of TD. Why don't you actually look up what that is:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

So let me say this in your language so maybe it finally gets through:

They are saying that BECAUSE the EARTH DOES NOT VIOLATE the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS it DOES DETERIORATE to a system of MAXIMUM entropy. This CLOSED SYSTEM is then in a state of maximum randomness - aka equilibrium, therefore no heat pump can exist moving energy from cold to hot.

Of course they are wrong - and YOU DEBUNKED THEM YOURSELF. But YOU ARE STILL TOO DENSE to figure this out.

So yeah ElectricUniverse "thanks for fighting the good fight" of spreading unbridled ignorance and completely misrepresenting BASIC SCIENCE. BUT USE A LOT OF BIG FONTS and SENSATIONALIST BULL#### ABOUT SCAMS and RELIGION and and maybe enough other people will think you know what you're talking about.

It's futile, futile I tell thee!



So, ignoring the wilfully ignorant, the general opinion is that G&T is the suckiest paper in recent memory?

[edit on 2-2-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You people are just amazing... you twist what is being said time and again, and the fact that those who like you want to believe in AGW, which even scientists say is nothing more a religion shows that you people will just try to applaud each other even when you are telling lies, and twisting what is being said...

The effects of greenhouse gases has been labeled ""greenhouse effect" is it not?.... and a greenhouse is a closed system... that is the context in which these scientists are saying this claim is fictitious..... They do not say ANYWHERE "Earth is a closed system"... and BTW i put words on caps because some people obviously can't understand what they are reading so i try to get their attention...but still such people try to sound as if they were smart twisting what is being said...

STOP trying to twist what they say, and show PROOF that they say "earth is a closed system".... which they don't... and since you haven't been able to show ANYWHERE the lie you made up, it is obvious that you people will continue to believe in this scam...just because it has become your RELIGION....

Not only that, but the fact that you people can only respond with insults shows that this is nothing but an "emotional" topic for you all...

If you all are using the original article to try to twist what these scientists are saying, let's actually see what the article says...again...

............
From this short tutorial, the scientists go on to show the vast difference in physical laws between real greenhouses and Earths atmosphere. They expose the fallacies in accepted definitions of greenhouse effect from several popular sources. "It is not trapped infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse but the suppression of air cooling." Gerlich and Tscheuschner explain Earths atmosphere does not function in the same way, nor does it function in the way global-warming alarmists describe as "transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation."

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle. There would have to be a heat pump mechanism in perpetual motion in the atmosphere to transfer heat from a low to a high temperature reservoir, and such a machine cannot exist. They call the greenhouse effect a fictitious mechanism. "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [man-made] climate changes has no physical basis."

Throughout the paper the authors show that those who advocate the greenhouse gas theory use faulty calculations and guesstimates to arrive at their catastrophic conjectures, and though Gerlich and Tscheuschner make no specific accusation, they point out how many respected scientists have blamed alarmists for intentional fraud rather than mere scientific error. They also reveal that the idea of a greenhouse effect is modern and never mentioned in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. According to them, it is impossible to replicate forecasts made by climate modelers' computer simulations with any known scientific formulae.
.........

First of all G&T clearly specify that the Earth's atmosphere and GHGs do not act as a greenhouse, and anyone with ANY brains knows a greenhouse is a closed system, yet you all want to keep claiming they say the Earth is a closed system?...

Second of all, they have already and clearly stated Earth's atmosphere and greenhouses do not act as a greenhouse, and again anyone with any intelligence knows a greenhouse is a closed system, but then they continue and state how the second law of thermodynamics is violated by GCMs because if GHGs acted as a greenhouse the system would deteriorate... yet you all want to twist what they clearly are saying and want to claimg they are saying the completely oposite to what they are really saying?....

And then you all, those who believe in the lies by "foxmonkey" (whatever his name) want to claim you are intelligent.....

Enough of this nonsense by people who obviously see AGW as nothing more than a religion...

[edit on 2-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by mc_squared


No "squared" the only ones being dense are you people... even the scammers have ADMITTED that they used false information, yet you people keep wanting to believe in their lies... Now that shows who is dense...

Not to mention the fact that the few threads you have made are nothing but blogs of AGW believers, but hey I guess that's more than enough evidence for you, even when the perpetrators of the scam have come clean and stated they have used false information to keep AGW alive... Your responses shows this is nothing more than an emotional topic for you all, which again proves AGW is a religion for you...

BTW, yes i have to put in caps certain words, or even statements for the children who can't understand what is going on yet they keep believing in a lie.

You all are like children who were just told "Santa doesn't exist" and you don't want to let go...

[edit on 2-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by melatonin


Yep again melatonin aka "Al Gore Junior" provides nothing of substance to corroborate what he "believes" even when his bosses and masters are accussing each other of fraud and are admitting they have used false information to keep AGW alive....

What is new?....