Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

Du predikar för kören. Old news.

Har du sett videon med professor David Dilley?

Gör det.

https://youtu.be/qNSPiMmuIvI

Glömde tillägga att grunden för det påstående är dock falskt. Enligt klimatalarmisterna så står vattenånga för 80% av växthuseffekten och spårgasen koldioxid för 20%. Detta är ett bisarrt påstående.

"Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 ◦C
warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. About 80 percent of
this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If
such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving
concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind
of ‘superinsulation’ violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2
such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed."

Hittar det på sidan 12 här: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

En totalsågning av fjorton olika "växthusteorier".

För övrigt ett extremt intressant och lärorikt dokument.
Väl värt att läsa!

Det måste väl ändå få den mest inbitne klimatdåren att börja ifrågasätta:

Taget ur samma dokument som länkats till ovan.

Till och med idioterna i tråden kan utföra experimentet som motbevisar IPCC:

"In Section 3.3.5 it was indicated how simple it is to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse hy-
potheses, namely by observing a water pot on the stove: Without water filled in, the bottom
of the pot will soon become glowing red. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the pot
will be substantially colder.
In particular, such an experiment can be performed on a glass-ceramic stove. The role of
the Sun is played by the electrical heating coils or by infrared halogen lamps that are used as
heating elements. Glas-ceramic has a very low heat conduction coefficient, but lets infrared
radiation pass very well. The dihydrogen monoxide in the pot, which not only plays the role of
the “greenhouse gas” but also realizes a very dense phase of such a magic substance, absorbs
the infrared extremely well. Nevertheless, there is no additional “backwarming” effect of the
bottom of the pot. In the opposite, the ground becomes colder.
There are countless similar experiments that immediately show that the atmospheric
greenhouse picture is absolutely ridiculous from an educated physicist’s point of view or
from the perspective of a well-trained salesman offering high performance tinted glass that
reduces solar heat gain mainly in the infrared "

Herregud. Skriften är ju en guldgruva:

"There are essentially three categories of sciences, namely

• formal sciences (mathematics),
• natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology)
• social sciences

In natural sciences one has to distinguish between

• a theory: a logically self-consistent framework for describing the behavior of certain
natural phenomena based on fundamental principles;
• a model: a similar but weaker concept than a theory, describing only certain aspects of
natural phenomena typically based on some simplified working hypothesis;
• a law of nature: a scientific generalization based on a sufficiently large number of em-
pirical observations that it is taken as fully verified;
• a hypothesis: a contention that has been neither proved nor yet ruled out by experiment
or falsified by contradiction to established laws of nature.

A consensus, exactly speaking a consensus about a hypothesis is a notion which lies outside
natural science, since it is completely irrelevant for objective truth of a physical law:

Scientific consens(us) is scientific nonsense."

Spot on!

Mera ord och inga visor:

"Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by
introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model. In Ref. [29] a clear
definition of what scenarios are is given:

"Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex dynamics
systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socio-
economic development, and technological change. Their future evolution is highly
uncertain, Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold and
are an appropriate tool with which to analyze how driving forces may influence
future emission outcomes and to access the associated uncertainties. They assist in
climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the assessment of impacts,
adaptation and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path will
occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain."

Evidently, this is a description of a pseudo-scientific (i.e. non-scientific) method by the experts
at the IPCC. The next meta-plane beyond physics would be a questionnaire among scientists
already performed by von Storch [204] or, finally, a democratic vote about the validity of a
physical law. Exact science is going to be replaced by a sociological methodology involving
a statistical field analysis and by “democratic” rules of order. This is in harmony with the
definition of science advocated by the “scientific” website RealClimate.org that has integrated
inflammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses against authors as a part of their
“scientific” workflow"

Den här snubben sätter fingret på "klimatvetenskapen".

En stor jävla bluff. Varken mer eller mindre.

Sammanfattning för er som inte orkar läsa 80 sidor:

"A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical
phenomena. The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate mis-
nomers.

2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
• with or without an atmosphere,
• with or without rotation,
• with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.

3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the de-
termination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.

4. Average temperature values cannot be identified with the fourth root of average values
of the absolute temperature’s fourth power.

5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their
average values.

6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the
actual heat flow without mechanical work.

7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a per-
petuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity
in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer
a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the “average” fictitious radiation balance,
which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.

8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared
radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is
absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does
not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.

9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of
the temperature of the illuminated surface.

10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is
assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all
gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the
low temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.

11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for prop-
erly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high
tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local
climate, cannot be taken into account.

12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems,
and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in
particular theoretical physics.

13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate
dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is
nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann
once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a
mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you
allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will
fly.” (cf. Ref. [185].)

14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with
wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is
impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on
grids with wide meshes.

15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear
partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamentally differ from
calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the
predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer
models may be regarded as a heuristic game.

16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butterfly phenomenon as
another threat to the health of the Earth."

Mic drop...

Samtliga av IPCCs modeller använder sig av evighetsmaskin av andra graden och bryter mot termodynamikens andra huvudsats.

Samtliga modeller bygger på att värme flödar från kallt till varmt utan att extern kraft tillförs.

= Ovetenskaplig bullshit.

Fy fan vad folk har blivit grundlurade...

Jag har varken hunnit se videon eller läsa pappret men växthuseffekten bygger inte på att värme skulle flöda från kallt till varmt (vilket skulle bryta mot termodynamikens andra huvudsats). Värmen flödar från jordytan till den kallare atmosfären. Men om atmosfären blir varmare (genom mer CO2) flödar mindre värme från jordytan.

Har fortfarande inte hunnit kolla dina länkar och nu har det blivit för sent på kvällen/natten igen. Hursomhelst ger detta en bra beskrivning av fenomenet politiskt infekterad (pseudo)vetenskap. Det finns onekligen många frågetecken kring ”klimatvetenskapen”.

Du är för festlig. Du lyckas ta en artikel som består av 80 sidor ren pseudovetenskap och leta reda på ett påstående du håller med om.

Och du lyckas inte falsifiera artikeln utan tror att problemet försvinner bara du hasplar ur dig dryga kommentarer. Artikeln är 100% fysik till skillnad från pseudovetenskap som klimatforskarna sysslar med.
"Konsensus"... Tillåt mig hånle. Vad kommer härnäst? Demokratisk omröstning om vilka fysiska lagar som gäller?!? Tycker ni skall hålla er till social studies och låta vuxna sköta fysiken.



För att citera artikeln: " RealClimate.org that has integrated inflammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses against authors as a part of their “scientific” workflow""

Ovanstående är 100% överensstämmande med vad ni klimatdårar i tråden pysslar med.

Du har inte den blekaste aning om vad du pratar om. Tillochmed Totius inser detta.

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X