|Chronology||Current Month||Current Thread||Current Date|
|[Year List] [Month List (current year)]||[Date Index] [Thread Index]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]||[Date Prev] [Date Next]|
I had understood that a CO2 enriched environment has the curious
effect of passing shorter wavelength
and stopping longer wavelengths?
I expect the illustrious authors are making the point ( well-taken?)
that this effect - if true - has very
little to do with the mechanism by which actual green houses maintain
a warmer than ambient environment
but only the consequential results of greenhouse-like effects?
I am just guessing of course - but if this is the case, the paper would
surely provide valuable input
at the junior high level, would it not?
On 10/14/2010 9:49 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Thanks for the article referenced. Here is what the authors claim in their abstract...
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF
GERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
International Journal of Modern Physics B
Volume: 23, Issue: 3 (30 January 2009)
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of
Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology,
essentially describes a fictitious 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 a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific
foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are
clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in
glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to
determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33
degrees 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 falsified.
On 14 Oct 2010 at 9:10, Espinosa, James wrote:
A very few on this list might be interested in reading the article: "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics," by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner. It appears that most already are quite sure that global warming is due to humans.
Forum for Physics Educators