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: Bilow who wrote (46643)	1/24/2014 6:04:31 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 86356

. "You're going to deny that the above article makes sense even though the article is by a group that you supported in the past." Not quite; I've called Lomborg a phony since about forever. Nothing he says ever makes sense. This should be the take-away from the story... this is Lomborg's group. Lomborg has now almost completely evolved on AGW. I still find it hard to believe. Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change Exclusive 'Sceptical environmentalist' and critic of climate scientists to declare global warming a chief concern facing world Juliette Jowit The Guardian, Monday 30 August 2010 15.17 EDT The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby. Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem theguardian.com

To: Bilow who wrote (46643)	1/25/2014 1:34:32 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 86356

Bilow, this is a post I found as an evaluation of Falsicfiation and the Peer reviewed put down. I will admit I do not have the precision of dissection of language shown in the article to say absolutely this is logical perfect proof, but it all agrees with what I believe from my original hundreds of hours of thinking about the original Falsification. If it is bad theoretical physics, no physicist has formally challenged the paper. This is an analysys of Halpern.. REPLY TO "COMMENT ON 'FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS' Terry Oldberg \| May 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm \| Reply Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2010 article of Halpern et al (hereafter collectively referenced as “H”). In the abstract to their article, H state that Gerlich and Tscheushchner (hereafter collectively referenced by “GT”) “…claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.” This statement is prone to being misunderstood for, as GT demonstrate in their 2009 article, the literature describes many such effects. In their article, GT claim to have falsified all such effects that had been described at the time of publication of this article. One of these effects is described by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) at ( windows.ucar.edu ). UCAR references this effect as “the greenhouse effect.” While GT claim to have falsified “the greenhouse effect,” H argue GT have done no such thing. In the following remarks I argue that H’s argument fails from its violation of a principle of logic. The conflict between GT and H over “the greenhouse effect” of UCAR centers on the “back radiation” that is featured by the type of diagram which I’ll call a “Kiehl-Trenberth” (K-T) diagram after its inventors. In a K-T diagram, the back radiation is represented by an arrow with its tail in “greenhouse gases” and its head pointed at Earth’s surface. A caption states that the back radiation is “absorbed by surface.” The back radiation has a magnitude. In UCAR’s K-T diagram, this magnitude is 324 watts per meter squared. In H’s K-T diagram, the magnitude has the different value of 333 watts per meter squared reflecting a recent update. The K-T diagram asserts that the magnitude of the back radiation participates in a heat balance at Earth’s surface. In particular, the sum of the magnitudes of the incoming flows equals the sum of the magnitudes of the outgoing flows. “The greenhouse effect” of UCAR results from the requirement for the outgoing flows to increase in the amount of any increase in the magnitude of the back radiation for the balance to be preserved. The magnitude of the back radiation increases with the concentrations of the greenhouse gases hence a monotonic increase in surface temperatures with time. H argue that heat can flow as back radiation from colder matter in the atmosphere to hotter matter in Earth’s surface without violation of the second law of thermodynamics because the second law does not govern this flow. H assert it is only the “net heat flow” that must be from the hotter to the colder matter under this law. The magnitude of the “net heat flow” is the difference between the respective magnitudes of the upward flow of radiation and the back radiation. H’s argument employs an unusual and troublesome use of terms in the languages of thermodynamics and radiative physics in reference to concepts of the two fields. In the language of thermodynamics, the energy that flows across the boundary of a material body is referenced by the term “heat.” Under the second law, the “heat” flows only from relatively hot to relatively cold matter, for if it were to flow in the opposite direction, the entropy of the universe would spontaneously decrease. However, H’s “heat” flows also from relatively cold to relatively hot matter. To decode what it is that H are claiming by their argument, the reader must discover a mapping between H’s use of terms and the associated concepts. In discovering this mapping, it is essential to have a symbol for the concept that is referenced by the word “heat” in the language of thermodynamics. Going forward, I’ll use the symbol “heat-t” for this purpose. As it is subject to the second law, H’s “net heat” must be an example of heat-t. As it is not subject to the second law, H’s “heat” must not be an example of “heat-t.” From the fact that it flows from colder to hotter matter, it follows that the back radiation is not a flow of heat-t. If it is not such a flow, what concept is referenced by the term “back radiation” when H employ this term in their argument? By the descriptor “radiation” and the context of the associated heat transfer problem, the back radiation must be an example of electromagnetic radiation. H assert that this radiation “flows.” The K-T diagram implies that the magnitude of this radiation participates in a heat balance at Earth’s surface. That it “flows” and participates in a heat balance implies the back radiation can be represented by a Poynting vector. Thus, one concludes that when the term “back radiation” is used by H, this term references a Poynting vector. Radiation that can be represented by a Poynting vector matches the description of a flow of heat-t. Thus, the “back radiation” of H’s argument must be a flow of heat-t. It has been proved that, in the terminology of H’s argument, the “back radiation” is a flow of heat-t and is not a flow of heat-t. On the basis of this contradition H’s argument logically fails, from its violation of the law of non-contradiction.