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]

Re: [Phys-l] Greenhouse

If I find that a particular mechanism seems in conflict with the 2nd
law, I can conclude (among other things):

(A) the mechanism is faulty and the 2nd law is valid
(B) the 2nd law is faulty and the mechanism is valid
(C) my understanding of the mechanism and/or 2nd law is faulty

These authors are not alone in their choice of option A. What made
these authors choose that option, I wonder? I didn't get to read the
article. Do they say?

Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:49 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Greenhouse

Thanks for the article referenced. Here is what the authors
claim in their abstract...


Journal of Modern Physics B
Volume: 23, Issue: 3 (30 January 2009)
Pages: 275-364

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.

James Espinos
Forum for Physics Educators

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database: 422/3196 - Release
Date: 10/14/10

Forum for Physics Educators