So, Global Warming will solve our energy crisis?
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.
Via DAMIT.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Well, all the heat has to go somewhere and if it radiates into space their funding dries up. The models not only require reverse conduction, heat must also not rise lest reach the upper atmosphere and radiate into space.
There is only one source of global warming: the Sun. All the models hinge on some greater portion of the incident energy from the Sun being somehow prevented from radiating back into space. While the surface of the earth may experience warming due to the blanketing effect of AGW gasses, the thermal signature of the earth as viewed from space would be seen as cooling since less energy would be radiating into space.
Of course, we who are not climatologists could be wrong. The laws of thermodynamics may not be laws at all but more like guidelines. Like the pirate code when something was needed to move the plot forward.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:41 am
“A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.”
More about Gerlich.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I thought global warming caused it to get cold and snow.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
It’s not entirely impossible for a system to heat up an even warmer system. for example: you can forcibly condense saturated “cold” vapours to heat up an already hotter “hot” system.
Or you can use adiabatic expansion/compression. In a refrigerator setup, one part keeps getting colder (fridge) while another (radiator) keeps getting warmer. Forced by external energy, but only to overcome inertia and friction, no “net addition” of energy is theoretically required.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Thanks Michael for pointing out that snarky people who think that thousands of scientists might have missed something really obvious should really understand what the fuck they’re talking about before repeating bullshit (and shame on ya Uncle for not looking a little deeper before regurgitating this goofiness).
The paper in question reduces to the proposition, “the second law of thermodynamics says you cannot transfer heat from a cold body to a warm one. Therefore, back-radiation from the cooler atmosphere cannot heat the warmer ground.”
Well, they’re wrong. The second law says you can’t have NET heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer one. And even that is only true if the heat isn’t pumped there by appropriately adding energy to the system. If Uncle’s link were right refrigerators wouldn’t work; the heat from the cooler interior couldn’t possibly warm up the radiator in back.
Seriously people…you wouldn’t like it if climatologists who didn’t know shit about it tried to tell you how to draw from a holster under duress or reload target ammo. So why would you try to argue that they don’t know their business?
And when you do it in the dumbshit fashion seen here…you look, well…like a dumbshit.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
The 2nd Law takes a lot of abuse; you might recall the Evolution Deniers tried taking it for a ride with equally hilariously stupid results.
Not sure where this Gerlich fellow gets off, but somebody might want to clue him in that the 2nd law refers to a closed system, which the earth is decidedly not thanks to the sun constantly adding more energy.
Then again, expecting balanced insight on scientific issues from a site like climategate.com is like expecting balanced take on self defense stats from the Brady Campaign.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:16 am
Some really hate this document. Love the plan, first interpret some things, then based on the interpretation start whacking at it.
Pretty simple debate trick.
They hate it on the Blab. It is like heresy.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:10 am
Well, PGP, it seems refrigerators is something else you know nothing about. Get a book, read about compression and expansion of liguids/gases and heat transfer. Then tell me where that is duplicated in nature.
And all this time I just thought you didn’t know anything about climate. Turns out you practice equal opportunity silliness.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I see Sebastian-PGP hasn’t lost the faith.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
One of the perks of having the empiricists (go look that word up before you respond, I guarantee it doesn’t mean what you think it means) on my side is I don’t need any faith whatsoever. No faith to lose is a good place to be when discussing science with philistines and idiots who are dumb enough to mistake empirical inquiry with faith.
SA–looks like you missed the plot entirely. Much as a fridge can transfer heat energy from a colder medium to a warmer one because an EXTERNAL source is supplying energy, so can the same thing happen in earth’s atmosphere because of that EXTERNAL (read: not a closed system) energy source we all know and love and greet every morning in the eastern sky.
Seriously, pull the wax from your ears and the thumb from your ass and think for a second–with all the debate on this subject and all the funding being poured into skeptical efforts…why do you think no serious effort has been put into using this hare brained scheme as a serious counter AGW effort?
I’ll tell you why–because it’s like the scene in Dodgeball when the hare brained guy says “I know…we could pay them in Canadian dollars”, as though he’s catching onto something everyone else has missed…when in fact it’s just dumbshittery of the finest order.
As though the thousands of actual scientists who work on physics and chemistry and such need you guys to clue them in about the 2nd law.
Idiots.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Think of it another way–if what this Gehrlich idgit was saying made sense, none of us would be here, because the sun wouldn’t be able to heat the earth.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:13 am
Ok, PGP tell me where on earth the expansion valve is located that allows the pressurized liquid cooling agent to expand to a gas and absorb heat, then return to the condenser and compressor to be returned to liquid state to do the cycle all over again.
C’mon genius where is it? The only way to transfer heat from a cooler environment to a warmer environment is in a closed system with lots of external processes in play. Where on earth is that closed system in nature? You are right climatologist and physicists do not need me to explain that to them, but you need them to explain it to you.
I spent a near lifetime working with heat transfer technology. And if I learned nothing else, I know you know nothing about it.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:16 am
Or you could do a simple experiment, set your refrigerator outside, unplug it, leave the door open and put it on a turntable so that it always faces the sun or not, as you choose and then come back and tell us how much cooler it gets than the ambient temperature.
We’ll wait.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:22 am
Oh, and I’m still waiting to compare what each of us do to combat environmental abuses of the planet. I’ll tell you what I do, as soon as you tell me what you do. I promise I provide more cooling and more carbon absorption and more oxygen generation than do you.
And I do it without any real work, no chemical or mechanical means. So c’mon genius, let’s do this.
This would be the fourth or fifth time I have issued this challenge to you in the last few years. You refusal ill bespeaks your faith in your belief.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:19 am
Well then genius, how are we here at all? If what you posit is true, there could never be any heat transfer from the exosphere to the stratosphere to the troposphere, and we wouldn’t be here at all. I’ve spent near a lifetime reading about science, and if learned nothing else, I’ve learned that what you know about heat transfer ain’t worth shit if you can’t wrap your mind around such a simple concept.
Not sure what the point of your question is in number 13. I’m sure as average Americans go my carbon footprint is pretty low, but if yours is lower than mine, what exactly would that prove? The problem is global in scope and requires a lot more than you and me recycling our cans and driving more fuel efficient vehicles.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:44 am
Here’s a graphic explaining why your career in heat transfer apparently hasn’t taught you shit:
http://maps.grida.no/library/files/greenhouse-effect.jpg
It pretty clearly illustrates the mechanism by which the sun heats the earth. It’s simple really, and shows why the 2nd law canard advanced in this paper is hopelessly irrelevant because the sun constantly adds more energy (and why the colder exosphere can heat the warmer stratosphere, which can heat the warmer troposphere, etc).
This isn’t really hard to understand–the 2nd law objection fails because it doesn’t apply to cases where an external energy source is contributing energy and thus powering the heat transfer from colder to warmer bodies. Some of this energy is retained by CO2 molecules instead of escaping into space. Add more CO2, and you retain more energy, and the planet warms.
Even the most educated skeptics don’t deny the basic existence of this mechanism–they just try to argue that the 33% increase in CO2 in the last century or so doesn’t matter.
They’re apparently wrong, in the view of nearly all their peers.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:19 pm
You quite simply are full of shit. Tell me the three methods of heat transfer. Then see how many of them apply to earth and its relationship to the sun and the relationship they have to how the earth is not a ball of ice.
My God, man! I don’t care if you’re stupid, and religious about it, but quit denigrating your intellectual superiors.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Would you, if you could get rid of all carbon dioxide?
January 1st, 2010 at 5:25 pm
I notice you talk about me, instead of the refuting what I say or answering what I have asked. I’m pretty sure that means you lose.
Well? how about did you refrigerator cool down out in the yard? \
Oh,yeah the sun is much cooler than earth, that why it transfers so much heat, right? Right?
January 1st, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I’m not really denigrating you, I’m asking you a simple question: if G&T’s paper has any merit, how does the earth get warmed by the sun at all?
If what they’re saying had any merit, it would be impossible for the earth to be warmed by the sun and all life on this planet wouldn’t be able to exist.
I did refute what you said by explaining why Gerlich’s paper doesn’t hold water, and how it is that the earth is warmed by the sun, and why the 2nd law doesn’t prevent the greenhouse effect from existing or warming the planet. Any further discussion on stupid questions like “would I get rid of all CO2” (of course not, what a stupid ass question, the GHG makes life possible) is irrelevant.
Gerlich’s paper is wrong. Period. What else is there to discuss? The sun heats the earth via radiation (since it can’t be convection or conduction). It supplies a constant source of energy, and some of that radiation is captured by CO2. If you quickly and rapidly add more CO2, you get a net increase in radiation captured. The earth gets warmer.
Gerlich kinda missed the whole “the earth adds more energy so the 2nd law doesn’t apply” part. Not sure why you’d want to defend such hackery.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:54 pm
If you’re really feeling uppity you could go here and see what people who are decidedly your intellectual superiors have to say on the subject: the rebuttal from an actual physicist on Gerlich’s paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
The math parts pretty quickly go beyond even the stuff I studied in college, but I’m sure they’ll make perfect sense to you. Just as I’m sure St. Louis Rams will win the Super Bowl.
In short…Gerlich’s paper isn’t worth using to wipe your ass (which is why it was quickly dispensed with over a year ago and he’s well known to be a hack…and it’s pretty telling that climategate.com is just now trying to pimp it).
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:03 am
I’m not talking about Gerlich’s paper because I haven’t read it. I’m talking about the fraud of man caused global warming. Hey, you got the radiation from the sun thing right. I really didn’t know if you knew.
After radiation hits the earth and the atmosphere then there occurs naturally a lot of heat transference. Some radiation, but mostly convection and conduction, and every bit of it is from warmer to cooler environs, unless you have a closed system with external processes involved.
Now, I give you this to think about. Why are we the blue planet? The answer to that will put you on the road to understand retention of heat. Or, what is basically different about cooler air from warmer air? That too, will give you a clue. And it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. But it will tell you how air conditioning generally works.
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:57 pm
While I’m sure that’s an interesting exercise (reading into Rayleigh scattering and whatnot), hardly seems relevant…nor a substantive or compelling argument to support your supposition re: AGW being a fraud. Not sure why I or anyone else would think it was simply based on your say so.
External processes involved…like say…the sun? You’re getting there. If you couldn’t have cooler environs transferring heat to warmer ones, you’d never have any of the sun’s energy making it’s way to the surface of the earth…and the earth would be a frigid rock devoid of life (see most planetary bodies in the solar system, to include all that lack atmospheres). If you read Smith’s rebuttal of Gerlich’s childish hackery, they show that the earth would be much, much colder if there were no Greenhouse Effect.
In short, the GHE is real, it’s as scientifically defendable accepted as gravity or the germ theory of disease, and if you increase the concentration of the gasses that make it happen, the earth will be warmer.
Not sure what’s hard about that. So far you haven’t presented much to go on…why don’t you quit the condescension and the amateurish effort to show that I don’t know anything, and defend the argument that was the core of the original post by our host? Or defend any argument at all?
Just declaring AGW a fraud by fiat and stomping your feet won’t convince anyone who made it past 8th grade of anything.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
What so hard about that is that it isn’t true. Answer the two questions above if you want to know why earth isn’t frigid rock.
Uh, hello, did you miss the part about the closed system? You know the necessity of it before you can transfer heat in contradiction of the laws of physics.
I bet you win a lot of arguments, at least in your own mind. People must just walk away from you muttering “What fucking idiot”. And you think you won.
You have a religion. And you will believe anything that supports your religion. However, to maintain that religion you must ignore all the facts that disprove its foundation. Same as you did by trying to say I was beginning to understand, you know “sun=external source”, but you left out the part about the “closed system and external processes“
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:49 am
Add more CO2, and you retain more energy, and the planet warms.
Really?
Violation of the 2nd law. No free lunch.
So if you put a jacket on your temperature rises above 98.6?
Correct?
If what you claim is accurate, there would be no equilibrium. It would constantly get warmer from nothing more than the sun. Constantly adding more energy every day.
Well Dr. Science?
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:41 am
PGP, you won’t defend Mann made Global Warming?