Physicists term atmospheric greenhouse effect "fictitious"

"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.”

The Respected Doofinator

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802...

The conclusion is:

"In particular, it has been shown that:

1. An average surface temperature for a planet is perfectly well defined with or without rotation, and with or
without infrared absorbing gases

2. This average temperature is mathematically constrained to be less than the fourth root of the average fourth
power of the temperature, and can in some circumstances (a planet with no or very slow rotation, and low
surface thermal inertia) be much less

3. For a planet with no infrared absorbing or reflecting layer above the surface (and no significant flux of internal
energy), the fourth power of the surface temperature always eventually averages to a value determined by the
incoming stellar energy flux and relevant reflectivity and emissivity parameters.

4. The only way the fourth power of the surface temperature can exceed this limit is to be covered by an atmosphere
that is at least partially opaque to infrared radiation. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

5. The measured average temperature of Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C higher than the limit determined by items
(2) and (3). Therefore, Earth is proved to have a greenhouse effect of at least 33K."

Nice Summation of that paper.

The article is high level bafflegab. At leasst some of it is high level. The intent seems to be to use arguments that the average reader isn't going to fully understand.

He gives himself away in a couple of places though. His first point, that the "greenhouse effect" doesn't follow the same physics as a glass greenhouse, is a rather obvious strawman. It's a word, ok? A seahorse isn't a horse either, but seahorses are real all the same.

He really gives himself away with his second point.
"2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
b) with or without rotation,
c) 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."

What kind of argument is that supposed to be? Who would be naive enough to believe that an average temperature can't be calculated? He wants to throw the entire science out on that basis? Does he think it's meaningless to discuss the temperature of Venus? What about the average temperature of various layers of the sun? Astronomers have figures for that. If he wants to throw climatology out with that argument, he'll have to throw out considerable parts of physics and astronomy at the same time. Not to mention common sense.

Bill wrote:

Who would be naive enough to believe that an average temperature can't be calculated?

Well, ME, for one.

Can you explain to me what is the definition of the average temperature of the earth?

The Respected Doofinator

Cthulhu wrote:

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802...
The conclusion is:

....

Therefore, Earth is proved to have a greenhouse effect of at least 33K."

Well, now you've inspired me to read the entire Gerlich-Tscheuschner paper just for the thrill of proving you wrong.

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, ME, for one.
Can you explain to me what is the definition of the average temperature of the earth?
The Respected Doofinator

If you don't know what an average is, I can't help you.
But of course you do. You're just making silly arguments because you don't like to admit that average global temperatures are rising.

Honestly, how stupid can an argument get?

Radiation physics is fairly simple, and has been well understood for over a century. The action of the greenhouse effect in warming a planet is likewise fairly simply, and has been well understood for over a century.

Arguing that a greenhouse effect does not exist or the mathematical concept of a mean does not exist does one thing well and one thing only: establish the person making the argument as batshit crazy.

I would therefore strongly encourage you guys to use these arguments ;-)

Bill wrote:

The article is high level bafflegab. At leasst some of it is high level. The intent seems to be to use arguments that the average reader isn't going to fully understand.
He gives himself away in a couple of places though. His first point, that the "greenhouse effect" doesn't follow the same physics as a glass greenhouse, is a rather obvious strawman. It's a word, ok? A seahorse isn't a horse either, but seahorses are real all the same.
He really gives himself away with his second point.
"2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
b) with or without rotation,
c) 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."
What kind of argument is that supposed to be? Who would be naive enough to believe that an average temperature can't be calculated? He wants to throw the entire science out on that basis? Does he think it's meaningless to discuss the temperature of Venus? What about the average temperature of various layers of the sun? Astronomers have figures for that. If he wants to throw climatology out with that argument, he'll have to throw out considerable parts of physics and astronomy at the same time. Not to mention common sense.

I sorry he didn't stay with one smaller words for you. Then again I didn't think physicals was your strong suite anyways.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
I sorry he didn't stay with one smaller words for you. Then again I didn't think physicals was your strong suite anyways.

Anyone else notice the irony of Tina insulting Bill for not understanding 'big words' while simutaneously commiting several grammatical errors? It's just...funny :-D

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, now you've inspired me to read the entire Gerlich-Tscheuschner paper just for the thrill of proving you wrong.
The Respected Doofinator

heh see you in a month then :)

(seriously why does their paper run into so many pages?)

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't know what an average is, I can't help you.

Bill in Canada:

Here is what Gerlich and Tscheuschner say about average temperature.

"There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
b) with or without rotation,
c) 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."

If YOU know how to define average temperature, I will be glad to report your knowledge to Gerlich and Tscheruschner so they can correct their paper.

If on the other hand, you're just a typical warming quack blowing hot air, and don't really know what your talking about, I would like to record that on your permanent record, assign you to the IGNORE filter, and move on.

The Respected Doofinator

Chris Jury wrote:

Honestly, how stupid can an argument get?
Radiation physics is fairly simple, and has been well understood for over a century. The action of the greenhouse effect in warming a planet is likewise fairly simply, and has been well understood for over a century.
Arguing that a greenhouse effect does not exist or the mathematical concept of a mean does not exist does one thing well and one thing only: establish the person making the argument as batshit crazy.
I would therefore strongly encourage you guys to use these arguments ;-)

It's contrarianism and putting up barrirers of Doubt.

Creationists used to throw up all kind of roadblocks like this. In some cases even arguing how did we know fossils were once living organisms and not just rock statues created by God.

By subscribing to such a belief they create a barrier they can hide behind if faced with any fossil related evidence.

Even they know the barrier is ridiculous, but it's more of a stalling for time thing. They know that even if it is torn down they can just errect another barrier of Doubt to hide behind.

It's what the word contrarianism was designed to describe.

Chris Jury wrote:

Arguing that a greenhouse effect does not exist or the mathematical concept of a mean does not exist does one thing well and one thing only: establish the person making the argument as batshit crazy.

Dear Chris:

Let me try to move you beyond current level unsophistication.

The mathematical concept of a mean is understood and not at issue.

The issue is: how do you define a mean surface temperature for a planet with a complex, dynamic, and incompletely understood atmosphere, in an elliptical orbit around a sun of variable radiance.

You, and your fellow quack Bill seem to be suggesting that you have a textbook answer at hand, and it's just a matter of opening your book up to page 12 and quoting the answer to us.

So, quote away, or forever by labeled a big-talking, non-performing evasive phony.

Time to put your facts where your mouth is.

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Time to put your facts where your mouth is.
The Respected Doofinator

Mr Doofus. One can find the mean of ANY set of data, including meterology data. While the meteorology data is the air temperature at 2 meters, and thus subject to 'noise' from the earth/sea and atmsophere interface, climatologists can derive the global temperature by filtering the data over twenty to thirty year periods that remove 'climate oscillations'.

Now that you are educated are you ready to post something meaningful rather than debating nonsense arguments about terms?

I've looked into the bio for these 'geniuses'. A 'theoretical phsicist' is about as well informed on climate as he is on dentistry..

Now if GW was caused by gluons...

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr Doofus. One can find the mean of ANY set of data, including meterology data. While the meteorology data is the air temperature at 2 meters, and thus subject to 'noise' from the earth/sea and atmsophere interface, climatologists can derive the global temperature by filtering the data over twenty to thirty year periods that remove 'climate oscillations'.
Now that you are educated are you ready to post something meaningful rather than debating nonsense arguments about terms?

If you think this gibberish answers the question of "what is the definition of average surface temperature for the earth", then your mother is going to be both disappointed and embarrassed to realized that she birthed a learning disabled dim bulb.

If you think you have acheived some scientific milestone by knowing that "One can find the mean of ANY set of data, including meterology data", well, I'm sorry to have to tell you that you failed to answer the quesion that was asked.

News bulletin: the earth is NOT a data set; it's a planet.

The fact that you DIDN'T answer the question that was asked pretty well confirms that you neither understood the question nor know the answer.

The Respected Doofinator

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

I've looked into the bio for these 'geniuses'. A 'theoretical phsicist' is about as well informed on climate as he is on dentistry..
Now if GW was caused by gluons...

A theoretical physicist arguably has a firm grip on the scientific method.

That's an important and relevant attribute that isn't much in evidence among many of the lemmings of the warming quack nation.

The Respected Doofinator

Chris Jury wrote:

Arguing that ... the mathematical concept of a mean does not exist...

Jerk:

No one is arguing that "the mathematical concept of a mean does not exist".

In typical warming quack fashion, you just made up this straw man.

What are you going to do next to discredit yourself?

The Respected Doofinator

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

I've looked into the bio for these 'geniuses'. A 'theoretical phsicist' is about as well informed on climate as he is on dentistry..
Now if GW was caused by gluons...

Which makes him about a qualified as most of that list of concerned scientist.