Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46494)	1/23/2014 12:44:01 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Further offerings on the profferings of G&T 111 January 25th, 2008 12:56 am Raypierre kicks it off: Dear Mr. Morano, You can obfuscate all you want, but you can’t hide from the fact that we have been going at this for nearly two weeks now and none of the skeptics we have discussed so far have established a credible publication record for the ideas that qualify them as skeptics in your eyes. Whatever these ideas are, they evidently can’t stand up to the same kind of scrutiny that the ideas in the IPCC report have been subjected to. Today I’m in a good mood, so I’ll give you a twofer: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner . Neither of these physicists has produced a single peer-reviewed paper bearing on any aspect of climate science, or even on the radiative physics underpinning climate science. The two links you provide in fact point to the same paper. What you seem to be unaware of is that this paper has not been published in any journal. It appears only in the unreviewed ArXiv repository of manuscripts. This repository has no screening whatsoever as to the the content of the papers posted. Indeed, a look at the paper by anybody who has even a nodding acquaintance with radiation physics shows why they wouldn’t dare subject it to peer review. About 40 pages of this 90 page opus is in fact devoted to discussing the well-known flaws in the glass-greenhouse analogy sometimes used in simplified explanations of the phenomenon. These flaws have no bearing whatever on the manner in which the greenhouse effect is actually computed in climate models. The rest of the paper is simply bad physics; in fact, if they were right, not only would there be no anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there would be no greenhouse effect at all! They’ve proved too much! The Earth would be a solid ball of ice, and Venus would be 400 degrees colder than it is. And, as an aside, infrared weather satellites wouldn’t work either. Since the work was never published, it of course has never been discussed in the peer reviewed literature. The obvious flaws in the paper cannot be discussed easily in a comment box, but for a good general guide to the junk physics in this paper I refer the reader to Eli Rabett’s discussion at: http://www.inblogs.net/rabett/2007_10_01_archive.html Eli also provides links to other discussions of the paper. But if you don’t believe these discussions, or can’t follow them, just think of this: If Gerlich and Tscheuschner were right, they’d publish their ideas in a peer-reviewed journal. They have every reason to. They’d become instantly famous, and no doubt win the Nobel Prize in physics for such a revolutionary overturning of everything known about energy balance of planets (and stars, too, for that matter). — Posted by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert rabett.blogspot.com Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago. He was a lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, and a co-author of the National Research Council report on abrupt climate change

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46494)	1/23/2014 11:43:52 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

All any who claim they refuted anything said by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner are self deluded and may have severe reading comprehension problems. And current observation support the proffers by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner and have falsified the proffer of the vast AGW hoax consensus. The extremely limited brain bandwidth of your posts demonstrate the ideas expressed by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner are over you head. You post only links to info the seems to support your religious convictions of how it is. Your posts in summary suggest that most of those are also over your head. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, their ideas may also be over the heads of many others who you call deniers. Or they choose not to agree publicly as then the would be virulently attacked even more. They choose a compromise fuzzy acceptance of CO2 green house gas ideas. They argue the sensitivity is far far lower and thus not any danger. No sensitivity is also no danger.