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

Hmmmm... I have no reason to dismiss this paper on sight. It seems to have all
the requisites of a science paper - it makes predictions, it is testable, it is falsifiable.

Moreover, it seems to have that greatest virtue for a science paper, it is in principle
repeatable on a domestic scale.

Here is what I have in mind: take a cardboard roll of six or more inches diameter,
perhaps 8 feet long. Arrange three plugs: two transparent plugs to partition
the upper half, with a gas port and a low pressure gage and a pinhole exit between
them, and wired for a thermocouple.

Arrange a plate warmer at the base, closed in to avoid air leakage, wired through
a heavy duty dimmer to line power. Place a thermocouple on this plate warmer.
Wrap insulation around the entire cylinder.

Flush the upper partition with low pressure nitrogen to ensure the ambient is dry.

Setting the heater to a steady temperature , one looks for the trapped upper gas to warm,
and measures the temperature rate.

Then repeat with a CO2 fill replacing the Nitrogen. I am supposing that this might
provide some indication of CO2's well known absorption/transmission curve.
But perhaps I am oversimplifying here.
There is an issue about diffuse retransmission downwards from the warmed gas
to the (now) cool heater plate. There is an issue as to whether some positive
feedback loop can operate, or is the feedback negative, and so on...

Brian W

On 10/14/2010 10:05 AM, chuck britton wrote:
As my daddy (an accounting-type person) used to say -
"Figures don't lie - but liars can figure."

At 9:49 AM -0500 10/14/10, wrote:
Thanks for the article referenced. Here is what the authors claim
in their abstract...


International 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.
Forum for Physics Educators