Physicists term atmospheric greenhouse effect "fictitious"

Chris Jury wrote:

<quoted text>
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

I was attempting to put things in a way he might be able to understand.

Special announcement for:

Bill, Chris Jury, Cthulhu, LessHypeLessFacts, and the lemmings and stragglers of the Warming Quack Nation:

"Another consequence is that one cannot even calculate the temperature of the Earth without models that accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere. Indeed, present models have large errors here--on the order of 50 percent. Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned" to get those quantities approximately right."

Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Professor Lindzen, Dr. Gerlich, Mr. Scheuschner, and I are still patiently awaiting your definition of "average surface temperature" and your specification of how to calculate it.

I don't want to put unnecessary pressure on you, but if you come through, there COULD be a Nobel Prize in this for you.

The Respected Doofinator

It's hard to imagine how anyone could ever come up with ideas that are so bass ackwards. I mean, I don't think an intelligent person could come up with ideas this insane if they TRIED to. A quick google search brings up this page:

"Gerhard Gerlich
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich teaches Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig (Germany).

He ended his speech "Die physikalischen Grundlagen des Treibhauseffektes und fiktiver Treibhauseffekte" (The physical fundamentals of the greenhouse effect and fictitious greenhouse effects)[1] in November 1995 with the statement that the CO2-greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere is pure fiction of people who like to use big computers, without physical fundamentals.[2] This conference in Leipzig was 1995 organized by the European Academy for Environmental Affairs and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and it resulted in the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change which Gerhard Gerlich signed.[3] Professor Gerlich's first paper was published in the 1970's. His most cited paper according to google scholar has been cited one time."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

It's kind of like when people create grand, pseudoscientific arguments to prove that the Earth is flat, or that we are on the inside of a sphere. There are lots and lots of nonsense assertions and declarations that have no basis in reality.

So Doofinator et al., if you guys want to join this crazy flat-Earth cult, be my guest. As I said above, I would strongly encourage exactly that. Please tell everyone you know about your newfound reality. There is no better way to show everyone around how batshit crazy this stuff is than to push the really, really crazy claims.

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 ;-)

I agree with your demonsrtation of "Honestly, how stupid can an argument get? "

[QUOTE who="Chris JuryGerhard_Gerlich
It's kind of like when people create grand, pseudoscientific arguments to prove that the Earth is flat, or that we are on the inside of a sphere. There are lots and lots of nonsense assertions and declarations that have no basis in reality.
So Doofinator et al., if you guys want to join this crazy flat-Earth cult, be my guest. As I said above, I would strongly encourage exactly that. Please tell everyone you know about your newfound reality. There is no better way to show everyone around how batshit crazy this stuff is than to push the really, really crazy claims.[/QUOTE]

Bro, calme down. Richard Lindzen is a preimminent climatalogist at MIT and has probably forgotten more about climate science than most of the global warming alarmists have ever learned. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself. Unless you feel you are a scientist of his stature, I suggest you not shoot your mouth off. Also, the idea of a "global mean temperature" remains a matter of controversy. One scientist likenend finding the global mean temperature to finding the average telephone number in a phone book. Another has suggested that you need to look at mean temperature in various regions of the globe in order to adjust for local weather effects.

Chris Jury wrote:

It's hard to imagine how anyone could ever come up with ideas that are so bass ackwards. I mean, I don't think an intelligent person could come up with ideas this insane if they TRIED to. A quick google search brings up this page:
"Gerhard Gerlich
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich teaches Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig (Germany).
He ended his speech "Die physikalischen Grundlagen des Treibhauseffektes und fiktiver Treibhauseffekte" (The physical fundamentals of the greenhouse effect and fictitious greenhouse effects)[1] in November 1995 with the statement that the CO2-greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere is pure fiction of people who like to use big computers, without physical fundamentals.[2] This conference in Leipzig was 1995 organized by the European Academy for Environmental Affairs and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and it resulted in the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change which Gerhard Gerlich signed.[3] Professor Gerlich's first paper was published in the 1970's. His most cited paper according to google scholar has been cited one time."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
It's kind of like when people create grand, pseudoscientific arguments to prove that the Earth is flat, or that we are on the inside of a sphere. There are lots and lots of nonsense assertions and declarations that have no basis in reality.
So Doofinator et al., if you guys want to join this crazy flat-Earth cult, be my guest. As I said above, I would strongly encourage exactly that. Please tell everyone you know about your newfound reality. There is no better way to show everyone around how batshit crazy this stuff is than to push the really, really crazy claims.

You actually cite sourcewatch? That's every bit as bad as you consider sourcing a right-wing site. It's a pure left-wing propaganda site.

The Truth Matters wrote:

<quoted text>
You actually cite sourcewatch? That's every bit as bad as you consider sourcing a right-wing site. It's a pure left-wing propaganda site.

Ha, it's just an interesting short bio. What do you find objectionable in the blurb above?

The arguments fall completely flat. This is just a bit of background about the author. The arguments die on their own, regardless of who makes them. It's simply interesting to see who it is that is proposing the nonsense.

JFR22 wrote:

<quoted text>
Also, the idea of a "global mean temperature" remains a matter of controversy. One scientist likenend finding the global mean temperature to finding the average telephone number in a phone book. Another has suggested that you need to look at mean temperature in various regions of the globe in order to adjust for local weather effects.

But that simply doesn't make any logical sense. You can obtain a mean for any dataset. The climate is such that the global mean temp only fluctuates within a small margin over short timescales (geologically speaking), unless the climate is rapidly changing.

Regional variation is often substantially larger than global variation over those same timescales. It is precisely BECAUSE global mean temperature shows little variation when the climate is not being forced that it is a particularly useful parameter.

The Retarded Doofus wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Meaningless babble. The *temperature* of the earth at many points *is* a data set and so a mean of the surface temperature can be found. Any measurement system is NOT the thing measured, of course, but nobody said that the surface *temperature* of the earths surface IS the earth as you seem to be trying to claim.

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
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 Retarded Doofus

This is as clueless as the original babble.

Chris Jury wrote:

<quoted text>
But that simply doesn't make any logical sense. You can obtain a mean for any dataset. The climate is such that the global mean temp only fluctuates within a small margin over short timescales (geologically speaking), unless the climate is rapidly changing.
Regional variation is often substantially larger than global variation over those same timescales. It is precisely BECAUSE global mean temperature shows little variation when the climate is not being forced that it is a particularly useful parameter.

Peddle, peddle, peddle. Peddle the AGW crisis. Watch this video to find out everything you need to know about global temperature and why marine life every where is in peril.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

(in peril = Chris Jury is a marine biology college student)

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Meaningless babble. The *temperature* of the earth at many points *is* a data set and so a mean of the surface temperature can be found. Any measurement system is NOT the thing measured, of course, but nobody said that the surface *temperature* of the earths surface IS the earth as you seem to be trying to claim.
<quoted text>
This is as clueless as the original babble.

More handwaving, more evasion, more "look over there".

Still, no definition of how to measure the average surface temperature of the earth.

So, how many data points are there in the earth's temperature "data set"? How were the data points obtained? Are the data points representative of the data space being measured? What is the algorithm used to define "representative"? Were there any data points excluded from the data set that should have been included? Are there data points that ought to be included but are not? When were the data points obtained? What span of time do the data points cover? Is this the right time span? Would a different time span result in a different value? Were all of the factors that affect the temperature measurement identified and controlled? How about the distance from the sun? Does the distance of the earth from the sun have an effect on the measured average surface temperature of the earth? How about the radiance of the sun? Does the radiated energy of the sun vary? Does the variation in radiated energy from the sun affect the measured average surface temperature of the earth? How about the amount of space dust between the earth and the sun? How about the radiation transparency of the earths atmosphere: does it vary diurnally? seasonally? annually? How about the size of the ozone hole? Does the ozone hole affect the average surface temperature of the earth? Etc. etc. etc.

Enough chest thumping. Enough braying. Enough posturing and display behavior.

Where is your definition of how to measure the average surface temperature of the earth?

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
More handwaving, more evasion, more "look over there".
Still, no definition of how to measure the average surface temperature of the earth.

Still clueless after all these posts? Your claim is like saying we cannot measure the 'temperature of the sun' which is harder than that of a solid body. While it has some 'debatable' meaning, science can come up with an 'effective radiative temperature' even though we have not a single instrument on the surface of the sun.

Unlike that, we have thousands of instruments measuring the earths temperature and over time these give a quite valid reading of the 'average temperature' regardless of factors that are basically 'variance'. All measurements have SOME error and noise so every measurement set has some variance. It does not mean we cannot measure anything ( as your pedantic arguments would have us think).

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
More handwaving, more evasion, more "look over there".
Still, no definition of how to measure the average surface temperature of the earth.

You have questions about how something that is done is done. If I were you I would look to those sources for the answers rather than posting them on topix global warming forum. Each global surface temperature record has various various papers explaining the methodology. Your best bet is to look there.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Still clueless after all these posts? Your claim is like saying we cannot measure the 'temperature of the sun' which is harder than that of a solid body. While it has some 'debatable' meaning, science can come up with an 'effective radiative temperature' even though we have not a single instrument on the surface of the sun.
Unlike that, we have thousands of instruments measuring the earths temperature and over time these give a quite valid reading of the 'average temperature' regardless of factors that are basically 'variance'. All measurements have SOME error and noise so every measurement set has some variance. It does not mean we cannot measure anything ( as your pedantic arguments would have us think).

Still no definition of how to measure average surface temperature of the earth.

Remember, YOU mocked Gerlich and Lindzen for saying it hasn't been done, and that warming quack scientists know how to do it.

Where's the definition?

The Respected Doofinator

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
You have questions about how something that is done is done. If I were you I would look to those sources for the answers rather than posting them on topix global warming forum. Each global surface temperature record has various various papers explaining the methodology. Your best bet is to look there.

It's not my job to look it up.

Gerlich and Lindzen said there is no defined measure for average surface temperature.

Your warming quack comrade scoffed and suggested it's something that every warming quack knows.

Warming quacks are asserting that something exists. The burden of proof is on the warming quack nation to prove the existence. You can prove a unicorn exists by producing a specimen. You can prove an average surface temperature measure exists by producing it, and specifically, the definition.

Go ahead: Prove Gerlich and Lindzen wrong.

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Still no definition of how to measure average surface temperature of the earth.
The Respected Doofinator

Obviously you still cannot read past the 'dick and jane' level. Nuff said.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously you still cannot read past the 'dick and jane' level. Nuff said.

Less Hype Less Facts Less Brains:

Still no definition of average surface temperature.

Not even at the 'Dick and Jane' level.

The Respected Doofinator

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Still no definition of average surface temperature.
Not even at the 'Dick and Jane' level.
The Respected Doofinator

For the love of God, do you not realize that this argument does nothing more than make you look incredibly daft? Please, go ahead and argue the inexistance of an arithmentic mean, but only if you want to look like an utter moron.

Honestly, do you not see how stupid this is?

Arithmetic mean for any dataset:

X =[sigma(x1 + x2 +... xn)]/n

Measure the temperature at a whole bunch of sample sites around the world, add up the values, and divide by the sample size. That is the mean...duh.

Since we are generally more interested in measuring temperature anomaly, you do the same as above but by adding up the temperature anomalies relative to whatever baseline.

You silly, silly man you...

Chris Jury wrote:

<quoted text>
For the love of God, do you not realize that this argument does nothing more than make you look incredibly daft? Please, go ahead and argue the inexistance of an arithmentic mean, but only if you want to look like an utter moron.
Honestly, do you not see how stupid this is?
Arithmetic mean for any dataset:
X =[sigma(x1 + x2 +... xn)]/n
Measure the temperature at a whole bunch of sample sites around the world, add up the values, and divide by the sample size. That is the mean...duh.
Since we are generally more interested in measuring temperature anomaly, you do the same as above but by adding up the temperature anomalies relative to whatever baseline.
You silly, silly man you...

So, following your procedure, Mr. Dumbbell, if you went out on your back porch and read your thermometer, and then went back to your outhouse, and read the thermomoter there, and then averaged the two numbers using the algorithm you thoughtfully and courageously provided, you would have the average surface temperature of the earth?

Well, I guess Gerlich and Lindzen were wrong.

Sounds publishable to me.

I'm sure it would pass peer review at Science magazine, provided that your said it was yet more evidence of global warming.

The Respected Doofinator

Chris Jury wrote:

<quoted text>
For the love of God, do you not realize that this argument does nothing more than make you look incredibly daft? Please, go ahead and argue the inexistance of an arithmentic mean, but only if you want to look like an utter moron.
Honestly, do you not see how stupid this is?
Arithmetic mean for any dataset:
X =[sigma(x1 + x2 +... xn)]/n
Measure the temperature at a whole bunch of sample sites around the world, add up the values, and divide by the sample size. That is the mean...duh.
Since we are generally more interested in measuring temperature anomaly, you do the same as above but by adding up the temperature anomalies relative to whatever baseline.
You silly, silly man you...

is this that average temperature that seems to be falling now?
Even the UN seems to accept that warming is over for now. what's the forecast for THIS summer? remember the one for the UK last summer? we are still recovering from THAT fiasco - all the floods caused by the "driest summer ever"! so, what is due for us this year?