Elevated from a comment Theodore White says: March 8, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Let’s clarify a few things on another of Anthony’s excellent posts, like this one ‘Hey Hansen! Where’s the Beef !?’ –
It’s lengthy, but gives the view of a person who was there on the ground, covering climate science and global warming in the late 1980s – years before the AGW mania took off.
I worked as a journalist in the late 1980s in Colorado, home state of Senator Tim Wirth. I had interviewed him several times on other topics. As part of my general assignment beat, I also covered science, climate and weather, regularly at NOAA, NCAR and other federal science agencies headquarted in Colorado.
I clearly remember the tone of articles on global warming during the 1980s. Most of the concern came out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on the ozone layer. By the way, this was during the new era of climate scientists working with high-grade graphic computer modelling.
The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were that some, like Hanson, took an immediate ideological tone to explain the ozone shifts – not once mentioning the Sun or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field effect on Earth’s ozone layers. For some reason, there was a resistance to even mentioning the Sun’s effects on earth by these new climate scientists getting jobs at the science agencies. It was odd I thought.
When news editors assigned stories on the climate back then it was usually spurred by press releases out of places like NCAR, NWS, NOAA, etc., which usually featured a talk, lecture, or findings that were sent to the media. Global warming, in the mid-to-late 1980s was not the AGW ideological era that it is today.
In fact, climate scientists were not in any agreement if the earth was ‘warming’ in the 1980s – though it was true. Many scientists would roll their eyes at the mention of ‘global warming’ but many changed their tune in the 1990s just as major federal dollars were being directed to ‘man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.
But I digress – in short, when I wrote pieces on the climate, I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved. Now, though there was evidence that the use of aerosols were clearly evident in the upper atmosphere; the data did not support that this was the cause of the fear-mongering on ozone holes which was all the rage in the climate community of the late 1980s and 1990s.
NCAR had modeled on the theory that aerosols were the cause, but not the Sun, which again, I found odd, since the only major source of radiation that can only affect the opening and closings and sizes of the Earth’s ozones IS the Sun.
There is no other source of radiation that can effectively destroy the earth’s ozone layer. But what was curious (and unbelievable) is that there were obvious determined efforts (in the mid-to-late 1980s) to blame mankind for something it could not do on a planetary level – and that is to change the climate.
Only the Sun can do that.
What I noticed about Sen. Wirth and Hansen back in the late 1980s, is that there was a obvious concerted effort within the emergence of baby boomer management and personnel into climate science on the federal level; that they were pushing ideology as policy. This was a prepatory assault that was planned out.
When Al Gore rose to the vice-presidency by 1993 – Wirth and Hansen were already well out in front of the ‘man-made’ global warming pack – extending the ‘man-made’ ideology to other federal agencies and the university-level climate community – with federal dollars.
Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present – you may find some amazing numbers.
Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up (and began to alter weather data on purpose) while spending lavishly on computers pushing the AGW ideology – all at the public’s great expense.
But the media was not on board. Most journalists are ignorant of climate and weather science. I was fortunate in that I was not, so my editors passed on to me the great amount of work – and I was busy enough as it was a police reporter as it was! Since my beat included covering the climate science community in the heart of it in Colorado, I was well-attuned to how events were shaping up by 1989.
Since the mid-1980s, what I saw were articles like the one Anthony posted from 1986 were becoming more common. What I observed as professional reporter was that the ozone-layer press releases from NOAA and NCAR and other climate centers were beginning to use the same talking points in their different releases to news desks. Sometimes, these went out on the wire which were then placed into newspapers across the country without the resources to assign reporters to cover the climate.
I did not have that problem since this was part of my beat. In interviews with the particular scientists (including Hansen) what I observed was that they were heavy on the ideology, yet not sure if it was strong enough because the global weather data in the late 1980s did not strongly support their case that the world was warming because of man.
Still, by 1989, the AGW science did not make sense to me in light that it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which I remind everyone – remains in effect to this very day.
Anyhow, it did not seem to matter to Wirth’s office, Hansen, or the growing careerists at NCAR and NOAA; because whomever was pushing ‘man-made global warming’ on the United States, were also doing it at the international level too.
My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.
Events have since proven that I was right.
All this – while AGW ideologists reaped untold profits convincing populations that carbon (the very stuff we are made of) is bad and so we all have to pay for carbon to a global mafia.
In short, the careerist climate AGW scientists and their political insiders conspired to convince the world that humans had to pay dearly for exhaling the carbon gases that the natural world and our trees inhales to flourish.
Carbon is natural to Earth. It is driven by the Sun’s activity. Carbon lags far, far behind temperature (also driven by the Sun) and carbon is not – and never has been – a threat to the Earth.
Why?
Because the laws of thermodynamics and physics that govern our system says so.
Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide.
Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Carbon Dioxide Research Div.
ProductType: Technical report
NTIS Order Number: DE86008810
Page Count: 412 pages
Date: Dec 1985
Author: F. M. Luther M. C. MacCracken
This report presents the current knowns, unknowns, and uncertainties regarding the projected climate changes that might occur as a result of an increasing atmospheric CO sub 2 concentration. Further, the volume describes what research is required to estim …
Report Number: DOE/ER-0237
http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=DE86008810
Alan Wilkinson says:
March 10, 2012 at 12:02 am
@Theodore White, the issue is not whether heat flows back to the earth’s surface from the atmosphere, it is how easily it is released from the earth’s surface having arrived from the sun
_________________________________
Quite correct. As I’ve said March 9, 8:37pm above. Radiation from the atmosphere does slow the rate of radiative thermal energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, though each carbon dioxide molecule has little effect compared with each WV molecule due to its limited range of frequencies.
But you may be forgetting that evaporation and diffusion (conduction) in total play a greater role than radiation, and these are in no way affected by that radiation from the atmosphere, and can easily compensate for any slowing of the radiation rate from the surface.
There are many other considerations also mentioned in my paper, including stabilising effects of thermal inertia in the crust, and cooling effects of backradiation to space from solar radiation.
Great article Mr. White, I experienced that very same experience in Colorado during the late 70’s and 80’s. I know from which direction you are coming from. NCAR needs to be defunded and moved to some state where real science is still taught and overboard zealot environmentalists banned. That is really what needs to happen for the sake of all.
Thank you William M. Connolley for showing us exactly how these zealots speak. You are really good at portraying this aspect and all concentrated on one site to boot… you make it so easy to collect! Thanks. You’ve made it so simple.
Zealot he may be, Mr Connolley’s understanding of thermodynamics is probably more credible than Mr White’s, ISTM.
LazyTeenager says:
March 9, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Urederra says
CFCs are very stable molecules, so stable we used them as aerosol spray propellants in body deodorants. O3, on the other hand, is so reactive it is used as a sanitizer because it kills all kinds of microorganisms. And yet, people see CFCs as the reactive species.
————
Which people?
In fact atmospheric scientists do consider them to be very stable species. That’s part of the problem. They don’t break down at low levels in the atmosphere, so they diffuse into the upper atmosphere.
In the upper atmosphere CFCs have the crap beaten out of them by deep ultraviolet radiation from the sun. They disintegrate and the fragments are chlorine atoms which are very, very reactive indeed. These are responsible for destroying ozone. The whole chemical reaction trail has been worked out in minute detail.
Theodore hasn’t the faintest clue about any of this stuff.
————
Chlorine atoms LazyTeenager? You mean like sea salt, sodium and chloride, NaCl, right? One of the most plentiful ionic substances beside water that covers 70% of this earth and you don’t think it is inherent in the atmosphere irregardless of trace CFCs? Those nasty chlorine ions that every living being depends for its partner nasty sodium? So you really know your “stuff” in minute detail do you?
I’ll also thank you for making my life of gathering so much easier while I also praise William M. Connolley.
I open the curtains in my living room and the room gets warmer. You will try to arrest my curtains for violating the second law of thermodynamics. Twit.
What? This is a place where sceptics gather. Did you expect us to go easy on you because we liked your conclusions about global warming? Boy did you get that wrong. I’m a sceptic because I can’t abide nonsense not because I don’t want global warming to be true. And your nonsense annoys me just as much as Mann’s if not more.
Your second law talk is an absolute pile of steaming … rubbish. And people spouting this kind of pseudoscientific garbage make me very angry. I have a particularly short fuse when it comes to abuses of the second law of thermodynamics because it is probably the most abused principle in science. Creationists for example will often claim that evolution violates the second law. What a load of total excrement!
The usual trick to abusing the second law is to state it very vaguely and try to ignore the details. But you just can’t do that. The second law is very specific. It speaks of the behaviour of an ISOLATED SYSTEM. So … where exactly is your isolated system? This isn’t just a minor detail that can be ignored. You absolutely need to have an isolated system or you can’t legitimately apply the law.
It may have escaped your notice but the Earth itself most definitely isn’t an isolated system. It has this ruddy great big heat lamp called the sun sitting up there in the sky pumping in energy 24/7. Furthermore energy also radiates out from the Earth into space at what is hopefully a comparable rate. That makes the Earth very much NOT an isolated system. So you see, this second law stuff you are peddling is complete nonsense.
Now, in the immortal words of Monty Python “Go away or I shall taunt you a second time.”
How the Earth’s greenhouse effect works:
Energy only arrives and leaves the Earth system as radiation. Therefore energy going in equals energy going out. It arrives from the Sun mostly as visible light, and leaves mostly as microwave / infra-red radiation (because of Stefan-Bolzmann considerations).
A microwave transparent atmosphere would allow all the microwave radiation out uninhibited. However an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, CO2, H2O, etc, intercepts a significant proportion of the microwave radiation, and converts it to heat by collision interaction between molecules, before it can be re-radiated by spontaneous emission (see Fermi’s golden rule).
In effect the Earth’s surface has to work harder to pump the energy out into space, and it does that by being hotter. Stefan-Bolzmann rules mean that more radiation is emitted at slightly shorter wavelengths, and that maintains the radiation balance, and therefore the equilibrium.
How does the Earth’s surface become warmer? – through energy feedback from the atmosphere. How does that happen? – I think there are several mechanisms, a significant one is water condensation – the transfer of the latent heat of water vapourisation from the atmosphere to the surface.
Speaking of some amazing numbers, time-frames and global warming/climate change … I came across some rather amazing numbers pertaining to the UN and NGOs accredited with “consultative status” between 1946 and 2011. I could not believe my eyes … and it’s definitely worse than I thought. I know that correlation does not equal causation, but perhaps further research is warranted:
Introducing … the UN’s jolly green sustainable hockey stick
Wllliam (Connolley), I don’t remember you either.
But I don’t question whether you were at BAS or not.
FYI I was working at Rothera Base with the BIOTAS group.
Do you remember Pedro Montiel or David Wynn-Williams?
People parroting the CFC theory. When you propose a reaction mechanism you give the attacking role to the most reactive species. If you say that CFCs destroys ozone your are saying CFCs are more reactive than ozone. (Impersonal you, please excuse English language for the lack of good impersonal clauses)
I will reply Collonney in deep later, I have no time now. I give you an appetizer, The formation of halogen radicals in the upper atmosphere is something that remains to be proven. Even though, if they are formed, they would be formed in larger amounts over the tropics and over the equator, just because those zones receive more solar radiation. So the concentration of radicals over those zones should be higher than over the poles, and therefore the destruction of ozone should be higher over the equator/tropics because or the theoretical higher radical concentration and because of the higher temperatures. Empirical data says otherwise.
smileyken says:
March 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm
duster
“allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?
————
It does have a liquid state. Except it’s not at normal atmospheric pressure. Just look at the phase diagram.
There are also plenty of technological applications of liquid CO2, coffee decaffienation being one amoung many.
Hi Wayne
Chlorine atoms LazyTeenager? You mean like sea salt, sodium and chloride, NaCl, right? One of the most plentiful ionic substances beside water that covers 70% of this earth and you don’t think it is inherent in the atmosphere irregardless of trace CFCs? Those nasty chlorine ions that every living being depends for its partner nasty sodium? So you really know your “stuff” in minute detail do you?
——————-
Wayne, sea salt has chloride ions. In other words a chlorine atom with an extra electron giving it a negative charge. The chloride ions are stuck like glue to sodium ions. Sodium ions are sodium atoms that are missing an electron so they have a positive charge.
The outcome of all this is that sodium chloride is a solid that can’t be carried up into the upper atmosphere. Unlike CFCs. And if it was carried up into the upper atmospher it would likely not produce chlorine atoms.
So Wayne lets recap. Chloride ions are not the same as chlorine atoms. Chorine ions are safe, chlorine atoms would rip your eyes out.
Urederra says
People parroting the CFC theory.
———–
They don’t say that at all. As I keep on telling you CFCs are not a reactive species. CFCs do not react directly with ozone. They have to be broken down first.
The formation of halogen radicals in the upper atmosphere is something that remains to be proven.
———–
The breakdown of CFCs by ultraviolet radiation is an experiment you can do in the lab.
So the concentration of radicals over those zones should be higher than over the poles, and therefore the destruction of ozone should be higher over the equator/tropics because or the theoretical higher radical concentration and because of the higher temperatures. Empirical data says otherwise.
————
That’s naive because a important part of the process is upper atmosphere ice crystals that form over Antarctica during the winter.
Sorry but the whole process is quite complex and evidently you are trying to deny all this based on a very superficial understanding.
Ian H: That makes the Earth very much NOT an isolated system. So you see, this second law stuff you are peddling is complete nonsense.
____________________________________
So you think the Second Law doesn’t apply anywhere on Earth because it’s not an isolated system? Perhaps your coffee never gets cold – but mine does.
Perhaps you had better correct Wikipedia “In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer,”
So when the Sun radiates energy to the Earth and warms the surface, and the Second Law is certainly applying because we don’t see the surface warming the Sun where is the isolated system?
In so far as radiation and the Second Law are concerned, the “isolated system” amounts to the source of spontaneous radiation and the target. Such could be a molecule on the Sun sending radiation to a molecule on the Earth’s surface, for example.
You had best read my peer-reviewed Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics when published Monday or Tuesday, for you seem to believe in a concept of net radiation which in fact has no corresponding physical entity.
Excellent post, thanks for a clear bit of history. And someone else that believes in the laws of thermodynamics disproving the GHG theory.
John West says:
March 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm
What is meant by the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If it did then why would Engineers have to account for differences in downward long-wave radiation on cooling rates of cooling ponds and such? (Engineers aren’t known for accommodating imaginary processes that violate laws of thermodynamics.)
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf
—————
Thanks for the extra counter-example to the “the atmosphere can’t emit infrared radiation” nonsense.
I use the “point the electronic IR thermometer you can buy at your local electronic store at the sky” counter example.
What you have described is similar to my “unglazed solar pool heater” counter example.
@AnotherPhilC says: March 10, 2012 at 2:17 am
This would be one of the funniest explanations of the GH conjecture that we’ve seen here for a long time, but it just shows how people with a lack of understanding of physics can be so easily bluffed by the hoax.
Phil says “” energy .. arrives from the Sun mostly as visible light,”
Sorry, Phil – not quite right. Radiation with WL in the visible light spectrum is certainly not more than 50% of solar radiation. And radiation itself is neither light nor heat.
Then he says “Earth’s surface has to work harder to pump the energy out into space, and it does that by being hotter”. Yeah – like when we pump ourselves up into a sweat on a tread mill – So the Earth pumps more energy out of itself, does it Phil? And at the same time pumps energy into itself in order to be “hotter” does it? I hope it eats all its corn flakes for breakfast.
Oh, then we have Phil telling us there is “energy feedback from the atmosphere.” – violating the Second Law of Thermodynmaics – eh?
Oh, but you think rain does the trick? ““the transfer of the latent heat of water vaporisation from the atmosphere to the surface.”
Actually you might be right there – so long as the rain is warmer than the surface which can happen when it rains on snow I guess. Just perhaps not quite the average sort of situation we see 24/7 worldwide.
You’ve been well indoctrinated by the IPCC.
“…climate scientists working with high-grade graphic computer modelling. ” Ah yes, 1980’s climate modeling with at best 20×20 mile grid squares and no inclusion at all of clouds in the models. Models with the assumption that in each 400 square mile cell the weather was uniform, ie rain or snow or not over the entire area.
“High grade” indeed, but given the technology available, the best that could be done if one wanted results to come out in days instead of months – though remembering that Earth has clouds would have helped the models’ quality.
I recall reading something in a magazine back then about the ‘oops’ of leaving clouds out of the models – that was the first brick to fall out for me. I’d fallen for the “warming” propaganda, but I also knew computers quite well and leaving out something so blatantly obvious to anyone who ever goes outside struck me as rather incompetent on the part of the computer modelers.
What would be fun is porting some of those old coarse climate models to current systems to watch them run in extreme speed that their programmers couldn’t even conceive of wishing for in the 80’s.
> Do you remember Pedro Montiel or David Wynn-Williams?
Vaguely; they were in Bio, I was in ICD. DWW came to sticky end, as I recall.
> the energy flowing out of the Earth (and its atmosphere) has to equal the energy arriving at the Earth
Good point. But that is just the intro words, which I didn’t write. I’ll put a note on the talk page, if you don’t want to. It is possible to fix things, you know. But I notice you don’t contest my main point – that the two effects (a real GH, and atmospheric GHE) are different, and the mainstream knows this perfectly well. So why don’t the regulars here correct people like White when they say this stuff which is so obviously wrong? Do you just not even bother read what he writes?
> The formation of halogen radicals in the upper atmosphere is something that remains to be proven. Even though, if they are formed, they would be formed in larger amounts over the tropics and over the equator, just because those zones receive more solar radiation. So the concentration of radicals over those zones should be higher than over the poles, and therefore the destruction of ozone should be higher over the equator/tropics
Oh dear. First of all, you really need to actually read up on the basic theory before you criticise it. The reason we have an ozone hole over Antarctica, so much stronger that anywhere else, is because of surface reactions on polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). This wasn’t expected in advance, but is now well understood. So yes, I’m sure the free radicals form more readily over the tropics, but they get transported (Brewer-Dobson circulation, if you want to know the term to google) and the reactions occur where the PSCs are. And the PSCs only form when its very very cold. Still no-one care to take a guess as to why they form over Antarctica but very much less over the Arctic?
> The Greenhouse Effect is a fraud, deliberate sleight of hand by… (etc etc)
Even Monckton knows you’re wrong:
Lord Monckton then startled his audience by saying it was settled science that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 adds to it, that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, that we are largely to blame, and that some warming can be expected to result.
Doug Cotton says:
That is not what Myrrh said. She (he?) said:
In other words, the average global temperature would be 52°C warmer.
Does this mean that you agree that, without water, Earth would have an average temperature of 67°C?
So are you claiming that there is not radiation returning to Earth’s surface from the atmosphere?
Richard Simons says:
March 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Sloppy phrasing on my part. 🙁
Surface radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too. would probably be more accurate and was what I actually meant.
DaveE.
Doug Cotton says:
March 10, 2012 at 3:58 am
Ian H: That makes the Earth very much NOT an isolated system. So you see, this second law stuff you are peddling is complete nonsense.
;——————————————————————————————————————
Ian H.: nonsense.
The second law only requires the definition of a boundary, i.e., the definition of a system.
Ideally, you want to avoid mass transfers across the same boundary as the energy transfers, i.e., one prefers a closed system (with only energy transfers across the boundary.)
The entropy change of the process in question is the change in entropy of the system plus the change in entropy of the universe.
The universe is the isolated system, i.e., the stuff outside the boundary of the system which is source of the energy (and/or mass) transfer.
There are no free lunches.
For instance, if I define a system as a “human”, then calculate the entropy change of the “human” while it’s alive, then the entropy change of the system will be negative, and the resulting entropy change of the universe will be positive or zero (or the “human” dies.)
Then TOTAL entropy change of the process (system + universe) will be greater than or equal to zero (zero if the system is in equilibrium.)
I looked for the sentence “CFCs destroy ozone” on google and I found 11400 results.
That is what I said in first place. Look who is not understanding what I am saying.
Again, look who is not understanding what I am saying. I am quite aware of that experiment, I have even done it myself (with N-bromosuccinimide as a bromine radical source) and there are some neat videos on youtube proving that. But that is not what I said, what I said that the formation of halogen radicals IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE is something that remains to be proven.
The point is not that ultraviolet light can break CFCs, the point is that CFCs are not the cause of the so-called ozone hole because they cannot reach the zone of the stratosphere where ozone is formed.
The lightest CFC, chlorofluoromethane has a molecular weight (m.w.) of 68, and it is liquid below -9 C. dichloromethane, the next in line, has a m.w. = 84 and is liquid at room temperature. Halon 2311 has a m.w. = 196 and it is also a liquid. Just for comparison, He m.w. = 4 Ar m.w.= 40, Rn m.w. = 222. If you fill a balloon with helium it goes up, if you fill it with argon it remains down and everybody knows that radon levels build up in basements and lower floors of contaminated houses. With that in mind, how can you expect Halon 2311 (m.w. = 196) to go up to the stratosphere?
I have tried to find a CFCs global distribution map in the atmosphere and I couldn’t. I only found computer model distributions (I want real empirical data) or CFCs distributions in the oceans. The highest is at the labrador sea, by the way, and very little over the southern hemisphere when compared to the northern one.
LOL. Now it is you the one denying photodissociation. As I said, if CFCs reach the stratosphere they will be splitted into radicals by UV radiation. That happens in the lab without the need of ice crystals. But, as I said, if CFCs reach the stratosphere, they will be splitted in higher quantities where there is more solar radiation and temperature (over the equator and tropics) and never over the poles during the six months of winter, again, because there is little to none UV radiation.
The cause of low ozone levels over the poles is something very easy to explain, Gordon Dobson already knew that ozone is unstable and will decompose over time. It is replenished when UV radiation splits O2 molecules into O radicals that react with more O2 rendering O3. Since there is little UV radiation over the poles during the winter, O3 levels cannot be replenished until summer.
The few people who do understand why the laws of physics prove that the Earth can never become a greenhouse and that humanity is not the cause of global warming are to be commended. This is because their eyes are open and they can think for themselves.
That in itself shows that it always worth reminding those who lack the intelligence at this time to see right through the lies of anthropogenic global warming. What completely disproves AGW are the laws of physics. The physical laws of heat, energy and work is essential to understand the laws of thermodynamics.
The rampant ideology in science in general and in climate science in particular which relates to global warming also shows how those who push the lie of ‘man-made global warming’ dismiss the Sun and fail to understand how the Earth’s climate system works.
This is a major problem of seeing the big picture, which is common among those who play with science but require remedial lessons on how the earth’s weather system operates.
I forecast applying these principles, but those who deny the physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate and weather cannot forecast in the real world. That is proof right there of the fallacy of those pushing the lie of AGW – that is, the lie of man-made forcing of earth’s climate by carbonic acid gas, or CO2.
What physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner say about the computer models used as ‘proof’ of man-made global warming is telling –
“Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by
introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model.”
Computer modelling used to force the lie of AGW does not make sense since it is well known among skilled forecasters and experts that there are a wide variety of transfer phenomena.
“Radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc. along with the various kinds of interfaces, static or moving, between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc., for where there does not exist any applicable theory,” say Dr. Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
“In the approximated discretized equations, artificial unphysical boundary conditions are
introduced in order to prevent running the system into unphysical states. Such a calculation
which yields an arbitrary result is no calculation in the sense of physics, and hence,
in the sense of science.
“There is no reason to believe that global climatologists do not know these fundamental scientific facts. Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climates.
This is the contention of AGW proponents, who by the claim of man-made global warming violate the First and Second Laws Of Thermodynamics:
First Law of Thermodynamics – In all cases, when work is transformed into heat, an amount of heat in proportion to the produced work is used up, and vice versa, the same amount of heat can be produced by the consumption of an equal amount of work. Work can be transformed into heat and vice versa, where the amount of one is in proportion to the amount of the other. This is a de nition of the mechanical heat equivalent.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one. A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation. This applies to radiation as well.