ClimateGate: Robbing the poor to enrich the rich! (Part TWO of THREE)
.
.
.
Politics
and
Greenhouse
Gases
By John McLaughin
___November 27th, 2009
American Thinker
AMERICANTHINKER.COM
___Part TWO of THREE
___Links are in GREEN
Advocates and sympathetic
politicians claiming that
man-made global warming
from use of carbon-based
energy sources mandates
international controls on
economically prosperous nations
were already worried that their
victory is slipping.
Now another blow has been
struck against the basic “science”
used to support their case.
Following an extensive
theoretical analysis,
two German physicists
greenhouse gasis a misnomer
and that the greenhouse effect
appears to violate basic
laws of physics.
To briefly review,
the entire argument for immediate
political action on carbon-based
emissions rests upon three premises,
formulated over the last twenty
years by scientists affiliated with
the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC):
1.
The planet is experiencing
worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.
2.
This warming is unprecedented
because average worldwide
temperatures for at least a
thousand years have shown no
significant variation until the
last seventy years,
which correlates with a
thirty-percent increase in
carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated
by industrial activity.
3.
Invoking a “greenhouse effect” model,
the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits
a property involving special
characteristics of long-wave energy
absorption and radiation with
altitude (called “radiative forcing”)
which accelerates near-surface
warming and, as the
CO2 quantity increases,
spells planetary disaster
unless reversed.
.
.
In an
I laid out the case for why the first
two premises were flawed,
if not outright fraudulent.
Now, the IPCC “consensus”
atmospheric physics model tying
CO2 to global warming has been
shown not only to be unverifiable,
but to actually violate
basic laws of physics.
The analysis comes from
an independent theoretical study
detailed in a lengthy (115 pages),
mathematically complex
(144 equations, 13 data tables,
and 32 figures or graphs),
and well-sourced (205 references)
paper prepared by two
Gerhard Gerlich and
Ralf Tscheuschner,
and published in several updated
versions over the last couple
of years.
The latest version appears in
the March 2009 edition of the
International Journal of
Modern Physics.
In the paper,
the two authors analyze the
greenhouse gas model from its
origin in the mid-19th century
to the present IPCC application.
.
______
.
.
The Greenhouse Model
The paper initially tackles the
concept of thermal conductivity
of the atmosphere
(vital for any discussion of
radiative heat transfer)
and how it is affected by
carbon dioxide,
which,
they point out,
is a trace gas.
The current estimated concentration
of CO2 is 0.04% by volume
and 0.06% by mass.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner show
that even if CO2 concentrations
double
(a prospect even global warming
advocates admit is decades away),
the thermal conductivity of air
would not change more
than 0.03% —
within the margin of
measuring error.
The authors then devote nearly
twenty pages to a detailed
theoretical and experimental
model analysis of the classic
glass greenhouse.
This model posits that glass
surrounding a large volume of air
allows solar radiation to pass
through to heat the greenhouse
surface and then selectively
blocks resulting infrared energy
from escaping.
.
.
However,
calculations show that no
property of glass can adequately
explain the temperature rise.
Normal glass assumed in the
model just cannot selectively
screen and filter sufficient radiation
energy by spectral absorption
or reflection.
Thus,
assumption of a dominant radiative
heating model must be incorrect.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner rely
on referenced experimental evidence
to show what is really going on.
The dominant heat transfer
mechanism is not radiation,
but convection.
Experimental evidence shows
a greenhouse interior warms
merely because the glass
physically traps interior rising air,
which then becomes warmer and
warmer relative to air outside
the greenhouse,
which conversely can rise
and cool unimpeded.
If the classic glass greenhouse
model is obviously wrong,
then this raises suspicions about
the atmospheric
“greenhouse effect” itself.
The authors examine definitions
of “greenhouse effect” by three
respected sources
(the Dictionary of Geophysics,
Astrophysics, and Astronomy;
the Encyclopedia of Astronomy
and Astrophysics;
and Encyclopedia Britannica Online).
.
.
.
ClimateGate links in GREEN
.
.
Leave a Reply