Atmospheric green house effect destroyed

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v1.pdf

A step by step destruction of the anthropogenic green house waming conjecture.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really... :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The atmospheric greenhouse eect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional
works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global
climatology essentially describes a ctitious 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. Nevertheless, in almost
all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for
granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scientic foundation. In
this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are
claried. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming
phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eects, (b) there
are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the
frequently mentioned dierence of 33 C 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 falsied.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You really should retype that so that it's readable.

And as far as all that "information" goes, it's quite obvious that neither you or others who believe those silly claims have ever heard of the planet Venus! I suggest you do a little reading up on it - after which you will quickly toss all this nonsense aside.

 

I would suspect the warming speaks for itself regardless if and/or how its calculated.

 

i suggest you read the paper, or are you averse to the scientific method,
people that give an opinion without at least looking at the evidence are crackpots.

 

If there were no greenhouse effect, we wouldn't be here. All our crops would freeze solid at night.

 

Can you read the first post ?

 

And have you even bothered to check out Venus??????????????

 

Venus is not the Earth, Venus has a different position in the solar system,
you may as well compare Earth to a gas giant for all the good that will do.

If you are able read the paper.

 

Wake up, fishtail!! If it wasn't for the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere we'd be just like the Moon - baking in the daytime and WAY below freezing at night!

The paper is garbage. (I read it.)

 

Can you recognize the word anthropogenic?

Also the paper is on Arxiv, they are not perfect but they do filter out garbage, but if you think it is garbage may be you
point out where.

 

Certainly! I'm not some illiterate teenager. :bugeye: Briefly, it means caused by humans as opposed to nature.

The guy makes several valid points but completely misses the train when he denies the greenhouse effect exists. He tries to brush it off with claims of physical entrapment of air allowing it to be heated (as in a car left in the sun) and fails to recognize how it actually works on a planetary scale.

And even though you seem to think that Venus, Mars and the Moon aren't good models to look at (actually, they are PERFECT models!) I still suggest that a little bit of research on them would increase your level of understanding tremendously. It's you (and the writer of that paper) who is ignoring valid evidence to the contrary of your position.

 

Teenagers may be as literate (or not) of any other age group. Why pick on teenagers?

 

Because the public education system in this country has been steadily going down the shitter for several generations now - so the younger you are, the more likely you are to be illiterate?

 

Which country I thought we were in the world wide web?

 

Because many of them cannot read, write or spell effectivly - yet! Given time, yes, but that's exactly what it takes.

 

Last time i looked there were no humans on Venus or Mars.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with the natural greenhouse effect - which the author of paper also denies.

Are you simply too lazy to do a bit of honest research and reading??

 

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

We are talking about orders of magnitude, the paper does not deny natural
green house effect ,only the effect of co2 in minor quantities.