The falsification of the radiative greenhouse gas effect
By: Tom D Tamarkin
We have aligned the Great Climate Debate Mango project and EnergyCite with Vereins Fortschritt in Freiheit e.V. zu „Klimawandel“ und „Klimaschutz“ or the Association for Progress in Freedom on “Climate Change” and “Climate Protection” (APFC) in cologne, Germany. APFC’s position on AGW/climate change is quite simple and rests on the fact that “greenhouse gases” (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, and the like) do not transfer heat through the so called IR radiative greenhouse gas theory and that theory has been proven false within the frame of physics.
Working with an esteemed team of German physicists, it is shown that perpetuum mobile of the 2nd kind (a perpetual motion machine of the second kind) that is, a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work, violates the fundamental law of physics; “the law of the conservation of mass and energy”; i.e., “neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed rather they can only be transformed from one form to the other.”
In 2007 Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D., and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D., wrote an article “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” This is a valid and as of April 2019 unrefuted paper which disproves the greenhouse gas effect. This is the foundation of the Great Climate Debate AGW tutorial.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that 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 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 C 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 February 19, 2008, Arthur P. Smith, et al., submitted a paper attempting to refute the aforementioned Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper titled: “Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.” The math is beyond the reach of a large number of “climate scientists” many of whom have limited studies in advanced physics and math. Without going into details, one American climate scientists, Dr. Judith Curry, has described the two papers as talking past each other while dismissing the Gerlich & Tscheuschner entirely stating: “However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H2O, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.”
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.
The results presented here are not new. However the form of presentation is designed to clearly and accurately respond to recent claims1 that a physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In fact, the standard presentation in climatology textbooks2 is accurate in all material respects. The following explores in more detail certain points that seem to have been cause for confusion. First presented are the definitions of basic terms and the relevant equations for the flow of energy. The situation for a planet with no infrared-absorbing atmosphere is then examined, and a constraint on average temperature is proved. Several specific models of planets with no infrared-absorbing atmosphere are then solved, including one presented by Gerlich and Tscheuschner1 , and it is verified that all satisfy this constraint. A simple infrared-absorbing atmospheric layer is added to these models, and it is proved that the temperature constraint is easily violated, as is shown by the observational data for Earth.
Article in full at: https://greatclimatedebate.com/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
On April 17, 2009 Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D., Ralph Dlugi Ph.D., and Michael Zelger Ph.D., submitted a paper titled: “Comments on the Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” in which it is shown that Smith, et al. (2008) used inappropriate and inconsistent formulations in averaging various quantities over the entire surface of the Earth considered as a sphere. Using two instances of averaging procedures as customarily applied in studies on turbulence, it is shown that Smith’s formulations are highly awkward. Furthermore, Smith’s discussion of the infrared absorption in the atmosphere is scrutinized and evaluated. It is shown that the Arthur P. Smith, et al., attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless. Article in full at: https://greatclimatedebate.com/comments-on-the-proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
On December 2, 2010, Gerhard Gerlich Ph.D., and Ralf D. Tscheuschner Ph.D., submitted a paper titled: “Reply to “Comment on ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’” by Joshua B. Halpern, et al. (Halpern, Arthur P. Smith et al.)
It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e. physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.
This final work of Gerhard Gerlich Ph.D., and Ralf D. Tscheuschner Ph.D., stands as of this day, April 12, 2019 as unrefuted throughout the world. No one has refuted the Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D., Ralph Dlugi Ph.D., and Michael Zelger Ph.D. or this final Gerhard Gerlich Ph.D., and Ralf D. Tscheuschner Ph.D. paper. Simply stated the greenhouse gas theory, i.e., the IR radiative greenhouse heat transfer theory is false. All the IPCC models are based on the false assumptions that greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) have an effect on the Earth’s temperature. They don’t, except to the extent that clouds consisting of water particles and water vapor provide albedo by the reflection of radiation from the sun, thereby providing a cooling effect on Earth. Thus, the entire notion of climate research in the context of CO2 mitigation is based on the false premise of what a “greenhouse gas” does or does not do. Article in full at: https://greatclimatedebate.com/reply-to-comment-on-falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects-within-the-frame-of-physics-by-joshua-b-halper-et-al/
Why has the Gerlich & Tscheuschner work not been widely disseminated and discussed in the U.S.?
It is because those promoting manmade global warming:
- Controlled the meteorology and climatology journals in the U.S.;
- Controlled non-meteorological science publication (Nature, Science, etc.);
- Controlled Wikipedia;
- Manipulated data;
- Demonized skeptics.
Papers by skeptical scientists were blackballed and not published in U.S. professional journals. In contrast, Kenneth Richard has documented over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers published in Europe and Asia in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 that challenge the hypothesis that CO2 has been the primary driver of recent global warming (and other aspects of the bogus “consensus”) and support solar, oceanic, and other natural cycles as the primary causes of global warming, but they are not found in the U.S. publications.