tisdag 13 juli 2010

Collapse of (Climate) Physics


The collapse of climate science, or more precisely climate alarmism based on the greenhouse-effect, which we are now witnessing, can be seen as a consequence of the collapse of physics with the takeover of Modernity in Physics, Arts and Music in the beginning of the 20th century, when Penguin Logic came to replace the rational logic and physics of the 19th century. See also the knols The Dark Age of the Uncertainty Principle and The Brainwash by Bohr.

The greenhouse-effect states that by backradiation, the Earth surface will be heated by the presence of the trace gas CO2 in a colder atmosphere. 

Now, the greenhouse-effect indicates a collapse of physics because
  • it is not described in physics books
  • it is not denied by physicists.
Climate alarmism is based on the greenhouse-effect, taking for granted that it has a solid physics basis. But it is not described in the physics literature and so is a free invention. 

The collapse is signified by the fact that this is not what physicists are saying: They say nothing and thereby give silent support to a climate alarmism based on a greenhouse-effect without physics basis.  

Why do physicists keep silent? Because the greenhouse-effect is based on backradiation and 
to understand that backradiation is unphysical, requires understanding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But the 2nd Law is a mystery to modern physicists and thus a modern physicist cannot say what should be said, namely that backradiation violates the 2nd Law and thus that the greenhouse-effect is fiction. This is a veritable collapse. To say nothing is not science.

19 kommentarer:

  1. The greenhouse effect is described in countless papers and countless textbooks. To deny that is just stupid.

    SvaraRadera
  2. But it is not properly understood. Nobody claims to understand it from physical principles. It is presented and perceived as a true mystery beyond comprehension, as expressed by Feynman, Arnold and many others. Do you understand it? If so, what does it say, and why does it hold?

    SvaraRadera
  3. Your original post claims "it is not described in physics books". You now seem to agree that it is, but you now claim that "it is not properly understood". I observe that this is not the first time your opinion has apparently shifted rather suddenly like this.

    The greenhouse effect and the physics that gives rise to it is rather well understood, by me and many thousands of other scientists. No-one believes it is "a true mystery beyond comprehension".

    I suggest, again, that you read "The discovery of global warming", by Spencer Weart. It contains a very good description of how our current understanding was arrived at, and its bibliography lists some 2000 references which you can follow up.

    SvaraRadera
  4. Roger,
    Please take a look at the online greenhouse effect calculator I found for you, try it out, and then show us exactly where Weart's book or any other paper or physics book explicitly shows the underlying mathematics behind this simple calculator of the "greenhouse effect."

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/u-mass-hasnt-heard-of-1st-law-of.html

    SvaraRadera
  5. A simple illustrative "calculator" designed for teaching purposes has little relevance. Why ask me, anyway? Why not mail the creator of the web page?

    Do you seriously believe that the greenhouse effect is not described mathematically in the scientific literature? How many papers and textbooks related to atmospheric physics have you read?

    SvaraRadera
  6. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is if it is described. If there is a source I am eager to read it. Is there? Don't try with Arrhenius again.

    SvaraRadera
  7. What was wrong with Arrhenius? How many of the 2,000 references listed in Spencer Weart's book have you read? Have you read the most recent IPCC report, and references therein?

    SvaraRadera
  8. I agree with much said, and I am proud to be one of the few physicists that speak out. However, I do not agree with your attributions to 20th century physics in general. I believe that for example QED, (where the underlying physical preservation laws are stressed), provides an excellent framework to demonstrate the nonsense of the Greenhouse Effect. The truth is that the GE does not fit into 20th- nor 19th century physics. It is truly one of the most ugly and fraudulent pieces of shit ever produced in the name of science.

    SvaraRadera
  9. Why do physicists keep silent?

    SvaraRadera
  10. Roger,
    What they are doing is using the Stefan-Boltmann equation and then incorrectly assuming a percentage ("backradiation %") of the incoming solar energy can be recycled to add more energy to the system. The fact that many climate books and papers talk about this unphysical "backradiation" doesn't make it true.

    Here we go again on Arrhenius - I already showed you Wood's paper and 3 others that confirmed Wood's paper, which you ignore. Did you know that Arrhenius HIMSELF many years later finally admitted his mistakes?

    SvaraRadera
  11. Claes - I ask again: what was wrong with Arrhenius? How many of the 2,000 references listed in Spencer Weart's book have you read? Have you read the most recent IPCC report, and references therein?

    MS - that is not an incorrect assumption but a fact, verified by observations. The calculator you linked to is no doubt extremely simplified and illustrative only, but the concept is perfectly valid.

    As I have told you several times now, all Wood said was that "greenhouse effect" could be considered a misnomer. Neither he nor anyone else ever showed that the effect does not exist. This is very simple stuff. If you don't understand it, I feel pretty sure that it's not because you can't but because you don't want to.

    SvaraRadera
  12. Science like politics is carried by living people responsible for what they are saying. Which living major physicist gives his/her word to the greenhouse effect?

    SvaraRadera
  13. Claes, it is not clear what you believe, or what aspects of the discussion your questions are meant to illuminate. Your refusal to answer simple questions speaks volumes, though.

    I think you would have a hard time finding any "living major physicist" who denies the existence of the greenhouse effect. Asking me for other people's opinions seems weird; why don't you contact any "living major physicist" you like, ask them whether the greenhouse effect exists or not, and whether they understand it? Then you can report back with what you find.

    SvaraRadera
  14. Why do physicists keep silent?

    I see two main reasons. The first and foremost is ignorance, as you say, they don't read about the Greenhouse Effect in the physics literature. Secondly, most physicists are not political activists to their nature, and sadly, most of them don't pay much attention to what is going on in other branches of physics than their own. But I guess that is a problem in science in general. On the other hand, I think a mathematician who digs into it can spot the main flaws just as well as a physicist.

    Contrary to you though I don't think statistical physics or QED gives any support to the GE whatsoever. Let me condense the reasons for that.

    GE does not fit into the framework of statistical mechanics since it portrays an equilibrium system where the temperature is not the same everywhere. The entire concept of a stationary temperature gradient is an anomaly.

    GE does not fit into QED since it pays no attention to the law of conservation of momentum, which is one of the major cornerstones of both old and modern physics. If it is adhered to, one would find that heat radiation is functionally the same and heat conduction and thus tends to eradicate temperature gradients, NOT CREATE THEM.

    SvaraRadera
  15. I do not think that stat mech explains anything.
    I have asked physicists about GE and it seems they have nothing to say. QED does not seem to help.

    SvaraRadera
  16. As far as I can see, stat mech is not as mysterious as you make it seem. The underlying assumption is the so called ergodic hypothesis which can be clearly defined mathematically and is believed to be valid in most large systems with strong nonlinear interactions. In some cases though, if the interactions are not sufficiently strong, computer simulations do not always come to equipartition of energy. A requirement is of course that you have a theory of the underlying degrees of freedom. Strictly speaking, there are not that many statistical ensembles introduced in the basic literature. The most famous are the distribution of energy quanta in the SB-law and the ideal gas. I presume you like one of them better than the other. Another peculiar observation is that climatologists assume that the atmospheric layers are both blackbodies and ideal gases at the same time. Sounds like double book-keeping to me, just like so many other things in that business.

    SvaraRadera
  17. Ergodicity is an ad hoc assumption which is impossible to test empirically and thus empty scientifically.

    SvaraRadera
  18. Claes, what do you expect physicists to say? The basic physics is sound, but they have no reason to point this out as long as only you and very few others think otherwise, and as far as the more specialized climate stuff, maybe they are smart enough to realize that scientists specializing in the climate are better at handling that? Besides, if you check you will find that many climate scientists have a background in physics. James Hansen's degree is in physics, for example.

    Backradiation is, of course, as pointed out many times here, very real. All objects radiate heat based only on their own temperature, not through some spooky action at a distance where they, somehow, find out the temperature of the object that said radiation will eventually reach.

    Consider a situation where you have two objects far apart. Object A is 100K and object B is 200K. A should not radiate towards B according to you, but, since I'm an evil experimentalist, I choose to cool B to 50 K before the radiation have time to reach it (they were far apart). Suddenly A should have transmitted that radiation after all. How do you figure that works?

    SvaraRadera
  19. Hah, där finns enorma mängder empiriskt validerade observationer som samtliga motsäger den av 'AGW-sidan' hävdade tesen: "... eftersom vi inte kan finna ngn annan orsak till temphöjningen.." Ja, men phaen ta rubbet: ".. vi inte kan...", [som är en bluff i sig] så ges allehanda politokrater 'rätt' att införa diverse skatter - ingen nämnd, ingen glömnd! -.

    It is all about the money!! OUR MONEY!
    Go figure, please!

    Mvh/TJ

    SvaraRadera