Global Warming
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: Global Warming
Heyho... I'm back. Wink
So I took a look at that paper you referenced and it seems that your scientist attacks the greenhouse effect itself. This is funny for two reasons:
1. You argue against (Man made) Global Warming (see: title of this thread) which is a part of, but not synonymous to climate change. Global Warming takes place. We can measure it. Gerlich doesn't argue against that. He questions whether the greenhouse effect exists. So maybe we should clarify: Do you deny the greenhouse effect OR global warming?
2. The greenhouse effect is well understood in climate science. Halpern et al. pointed out in their paper, that the very method used by Gerlich to disprove the mechanism is faulty [1].
Furthermore I found it a bit odd, that Gerlich applies the 2nd law of thermodynamics to point out that the greenhouse effect does not exist [2]. The second law of thermodynamics states that within a closed system the entropy will increase over time and will never decrease.
A closed system is a defined part of the universe from which energy cannot escape and into which no energy can enter. The earth is an open system, receiving energy in the form of light from the sun and radiating energy as heat into space. The second law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to earth as a whole and the climate in particular.
The paper itself contains mostly anecdotes and some history but only very little science. One of his pillar arguments is that "However, looking up the search terms 'glass house effect', 'greenhouse effect', or the German word 'Treibhauseffekt' in classical textbooks on experimental physics, one finds - possibly to one's surprise and disappointment - that this effect does not appear anywhere - with a few exceptions [...] [2]"
First of all this is not true. Second, even if it were true - so what?? Theoretical physics usually doesn't deal with the greenhouse effect (more on that later). Instead the greenhouse effect is more of a topic in Earth Science. You don't find particle physics in a geology book and you won't find the greenhouse effect in every book on theoretical physics. So. Effing. What. It sure does appear in most modern science books. Maybe the old fella thinks that science simply used to better in the good ol' times. However this is clearly not the case.
I can name just three books all of which I own and all of which explain the greenhouse effect:
1. Mortimer, C. E., Müller, U. (2007): Chemie, 9 th edition, Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag
(a chemistry book used by undergraduate students of chemistry, physics, biology and geoscience)
2. Harten, U. (2009): Physik, 4 th edition, Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag
(a book for students of natural sciences and engineering on the basics of physics)
3. Bahlburg, H., Breitkreuz, C. (2008): Grundlagen der Geologie, 3 rd edition, Münster & Freiberg: Spektrum Verlag
(a book for undergraduate students of geology. The title translates to: "Basics of geology")
All of these books are used in universities to teach science students. The reason I bring up these 3 in particular is because they were conveniently standing in my bookshelf. It is THAT simple. All I had to do was open ANY science book I owned and I found "greenhouse effect" in every single index. In a nutshell: Gerlich's entire argument is totally bollocks.
Gerlich also claims that "There seems to exist no source where an atmospheric greenhouse effect is introduced from fundamental university physics alone. [2]" When I read that I burst into laughter. Of course such a source is hard to find, simply because fundamental physics alone cannot address and/or describe the greenhouse effect. The climate is in fact one of the most complex fields of study in modern earth sciences. Studying the climate involves geochemistry, hydrology, geology, meteorology, geophysics and glaciology (and more).
These sciences have 2 things in common: Firstly they all are geosciences and secondly Gerlich isn't trained in any of them. Or to put it less pollite: He doesn't have a clue what he's babbling about. Likewise I might try to refute particle physics by pointing out that it can't be explained by geology and complaining that my favorite geology book doesn't say anything on particle physics boo hoo. And if it isn't in ye olde geology books it must be false... right? Consider
Of course to be fair I'm exaggerating a bit and physics does play an important role in climatology. But it simply cannot be studied by physics exclusively.
I do also take some offense on how the paper itself was written. Apart from all the anecdotes in it it's also full of contempt, verbal shit slinging and insults - Gerlich even implies that there is some sort of fraud/ conspiracy going on in science. This is simply ridiculous because science is a self regulating process which by its very own nature roots out any kind of fraud or fabricated data.
As mentioned above Halpern et al. commented on the paper. And as far as I know Gerlich/ Teuschner have replied to that comment. So if you're really interested in both sides you might wanna do some further reading. Also if you are more of a visual person potholer54 has done some excellent videos on the whole issue on youtube which points out both sides of the subject (of course this can't be considered scientific literature/ material per se Wink )
P.S.:
(25-11-2012 04:10 PM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure what your objection to the term "plenty" is. I'm just stating a fact that there are numerous papers that have been published that argue against some of the conclusions relating to global warming. If I'm asserting anything it's that the debate is onging, which is demonstrably true.

Anyway, have a good week and I look forward to hearing any of your further comments if and when you have time.
My objection to the term "plenty" is that, if we're gonna have a debate on science then you have to play by the rules of the game (i.e. science). Therefore if you make the claim that challenges the default paradigm (i.e. anthropogenic climate change exists) then you have to back up your claims. That means: SOURCES. State the title and authors of the papers you are referring to. The more sources you have, the more solid your argument. Note however that quoting the same author in several different papers does not help to point out that a lot of climatologists argue against anthropogenic climate change.
If you cannot do that then your argument fails right there, sorry. Drinking Beverage
You too have a good week/ evening/ day.
Take care.
[1] Halpern et al.: Comment on "falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics".
[2] Gerlich et al.: Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WeAreOne's post
01-12-2012, 08:44 PM
RE: Global Warming
(24-11-2012 11:39 AM)WeAreOne Wrote:  I do know however that there are some trained geoscientists who claim that climate change doesn't exist - curiously these 'scientists' are often working for corporations like Shell, BP... you get it. So let me put it in a different way: No *independent* scientist I know of questions climate change.
Here's a link to a few Scientists who do not promote the idea of man-made Global Warming and they do not work for oil companies:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmi​ng#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_process​es"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2012, 08:55 PM
RE: Global Warming
(01-12-2012 08:44 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 11:39 AM)WeAreOne Wrote:  I do know however that there are some trained geoscientists who claim that climate change doesn't exist - curiously these 'scientists' are often working for corporations like Shell, BP... you get it. So let me put it in a different way: No *independent* scientist I know of questions climate change.
Here's a link to a few Scientists who do not promote the idea of man-made Global Warming and they do not work for oil companies:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmi​ng#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_process​es"
And contrast that with a list of climate scientists , most of whom are the mainstream.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 01:02 AM
RE: Global Warming
(01-12-2012 08:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 08:44 PM)Julius Wrote:  Here's a link to a few Scientists who do not promote the idea of man-made Global Warming and they do not work for oil companies:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmi​ng#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_process​es"
And contrast that with a list of climate scientists , most of whom are the mainstream.
Exactly, and many of them oppose the idea of man-made Global Warming! Compare my list against yours!

See...the idea that the Science of Global Warming is solved - and due to mankind - is a falsity. Much like what the Discovery Institute puts out concerning evolution - it's not Science.

When the Global Warming Scientists can make verifiable predictions with their so-called "Models", then I'll take them seriously. Until then, they are engaging in nothing but wild-arse speculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 04:11 AM
RE: Global Warming
(01-12-2012 08:44 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 11:39 AM)WeAreOne Wrote:  I do know however that there are some trained geoscientists who claim that climate change doesn't exist - curiously these 'scientists' are often working for corporations like Shell, BP... you get it. So let me put it in a different way: No *independent* scientist I know of questions climate change.
Here's a link to a few Scientists who do not promote the idea of man-made Global Warming and they do not work for oil companies:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmi​ng#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_process​es"
[Image: Climate_science_opinion2.png]
Ironically this diagram can be found at the page you referenced. I'm not even going to comment on this. Let's just say if you want to argue against a position, then why do you provide the opposite site with a source which shows that your postion is the weak one?
Also if you had read that page you would have recognized that not all people argue specifically against anthropogenic global warming:
- 6 scientists questioned the accuracy of the IPCC climate projections(, but not the projections themselves)
- 20 scientists argued that global warming is natural(, but not that it doesn't exist)
- 3 scientists argued that global warming has hardly any negative consequences(, but not against its existence)
- 8 scientists said that the cause of global warming is unknown(, but again, not against its existence)
Your position ("Global Warming doesn't exist, so it cannot have been caused by humans") isn't represented here at all. That's because no scientist denies the magnitude and significance of existing data from which we can infer past climate change (for example ice cores, delta 18 O values...)
Apart from that Wikipedia isn't a scientific source.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 04:15 AM
RE: Global Warming
(02-12-2012 04:11 AM)WeAreOne Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 08:44 PM)Julius Wrote:  

... site... postion*
*... side ... position

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 04:18 AM
RE: Global Warming
@ I corrected my own spelling errors not yours in the post above this one. I don't know why your name wasn't deleted from it.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Nothing cannot exist forever."
- Stephen Hawking

"Hmmm, Bacon..."
- Homer Simpson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 05:06 AM
RE: Global Warming
(02-12-2012 04:11 AM)WeAreOne Wrote:  Ironically this diagram can be found at the page you referenced. I'm not even going to comment on this. Let's just say if you want to argue against a position, then why do you provide the opposite site with a source which shows that your postion is the weak one?
Also if you had read that page you would have recognized that not all people argue specifically against anthropogenic global warming:
- 6 scientists questioned the accuracy of the IPCC climate projections(, but not the projections themselves)
- 20 scientists argued that global warming is natural(, but not that it doesn't exist)
- 3 scientists argued that global warming has hardly any negative consequences(, but not against its existence)
- 8 scientists said that the cause of global warming is unknown(, but again, not against its existence)
Your position ("Global Warming doesn't exist, so it cannot have been caused by humans") isn't represented here at all. That's because no scientist denies the magnitude and significance of existing data from which we can infer past climate change (for example ice cores, delta 18 O values...)
Apart from that Wikipedia isn't a scientific source.
The following article confirms this as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_...ate_change

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2012, 07:35 AM
RE: Global Warming
(02-12-2012 01:02 AM)Julius Wrote:  
(01-12-2012 08:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  And contrast that with a list of climate scientists , most of whom are the mainstream.
Exactly, and many of them oppose the idea of man-made Global Warming! Compare my list against yours!

See...the idea that the Science of Global Warming is solved - and due to mankind - is a falsity. Much like what the Discovery Institute puts out concerning evolution - it's not Science.

When the Global Warming Scientists can make verifiable predictions with their so-called "Models", then I'll take them seriously. Until then, they are engaging in nothing but wild-arse speculation.
And my point is that the deniers aren't correct, either. The science isn't settled.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Man Made Global Warming bemore 93 4,672 26-11-2012 12:00 PM
Last Post: Logica Humano
Exclamation The Global Vaccine Agenda JahFSM 16 1,492 01-06-2012 10:27 AM
Last Post: TheBeardedDude
  The Great Global Warming Swindle ashley.hunt60 25 2,300 21-06-2011 03:38 AM
Last Post: robotworld
Forum Jump: