Global Warming is NOT caused by CO2!

[nixmix]

Logic and the second law of thermodynamics proves that AGW cannot exist

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) 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.

Now lets see the Climate fools fight the second law of thermodynamics

[sharper]

The evidence will decide.

Evidence does not make decisions. People make decisions and they use evidence to make those decisions with varying degrees of reliability.

You ignored my questions. Who is "the judge" in your example? When can we expect a verdict? Do you accept there are situations where people have appointed themselves "the judge" of areas such as the shape of the Earth and reached clearly erroneous conclusions?

[sharper]

I'm glad that Akrasia concedes that I was correct. In the context it could be argued that the Earth is nominally round.

My point was to illustrate that everything is not always as it may seem, I think that is a valid point to make in this debate.

No you simply don't want to deal with the questions I asked so you'd rather discuss something else entirely.

I stated the Earth was round. Not perfectly round. I could have been more specific but the degree of detail I provided is entirely correct.

[Theowolfe]

Sharper.

No, it's simplistic tabloid type point scoring. Whether you provided sufficient detail is a matter of opinion.

[sharper]

No, it's simplistic tabloid type point scoring. Whether you provided sufficient detail is a matter of opinion.

I didn't say it wasn't a matter of opinion, I've stated conclusions that can be drawn from your insistence on discussing anything but the topic at hand. You can disagree but the reader will draw their own conclusions about why you derailed the discussion with an irrelevant and completely incorrect point.

[joemomma]

Now lets see the Climate fools fight the second law of thermodynamics

Interesting that you should raise the laws of thermodynamics, given that on other threads you've been so impressed with Steorn's apparent setting aside of these laws. In any case, there's a nice and simple refutation of that paper in the article's comments:

The sun is warmer than the earth. Transference of heat from the sun to the earth violates exactly zero laws of thermodynamics.

If you really prefer not to believe in AGW, then you can take some comfort from the fact that, according to the laws of thermodynamics, over the long-term the earth is in a cooling phase that will last until the end of time. Of course we won't really start to experience it until the sun burns out, but don't let the alarmists tell you otherwise.

[Akrasia]

Logic and the second law of thermodynamics proves that AGW cannot exist

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) 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.

Now lets see the Climate fools fight the second law of thermodynamics

What is it with Denialists and the second law of thermodynamics?
Creationists think it disproves evolution, Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
and now apparently it disproves global warming.

(except that it doesn't, the paper that you refer to has been widely slated by experts in physics for making simple fundamental errors that should never have been let slip through the peer review process. It was published in 2007 and has since been 'revised' at least twice in response to the massive criticisms from other physicists

(essentially, from what I gather, if the conclusions of the Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics were consistent with the real application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then refrigerators would not work.)
Rabett Run

[Wakeupcall]

What is it with Denialists and the second law of thermodynamics?
Creationists think it disproves evolution, Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
and now apparently it disproves global warming.

(except that it doesn't, the paper that you refer to has been widely slated by experts in physics for making simple fundamental errors that should never have been let slip through the peer review process. It was published in 2007 and has since been 'revised' at least twice in response to the massive criticisms from other physicists

(essentially, from what I gather, if the conclusions of the Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics were consistent with the real application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then refrigerators would not work.)
Rabett Run

What is it with all the name calling from the immature alarmists? (Stop using the word denier as if you are 100% correct)

You are generally incorrect so it is stupid of you to call skeptics deniers.

[Akrasia]

What is it with all the name calling from the immature alarmists? (Stop using the word denier as if you are 100% correct)

You are generally incorrect so it is stupid of you to call skeptics deniers.

Listen to yourself, accusing me of name calling and referring to me as an 'immature alarmist' in the same short sentence?


There is nothing 'skeptical' about posting discredited error ridden papers that the poster has almost certainly not read or understood himself as if it was proof that global warming is not real.

Misrepresenting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with nonsense pseudoscience is quite funny because it's exactly the same rubbish that the evolution deniers come out with (and persist with long after it has been thoroughly debunked)

[Wakeupcall]

These problems would have been publicised years ago if the AGW theorists didn’t have powerful allies: policy makers in virtually every professional scientific body, editors of virtually major every scientific journal, and reporters and editors at virtually all mainstream media outlets. Few provided unbiased, impartial forums where alternate views and evidence were aired and debated. Instead, most spared no effort to ensure voices against the artificial consensus were quashed by editorial fiat and a persistent campaign of vilification, intimidation, and ridicule.

This is great: ClimateGate: 30 years in the making « JoNova