fredag 16 juli 2010

Physicist Illuminated by IPCC Physics

In my search to understand why physicists do not deny the physics of backradiation and thereby give silent support to IPCC climate alarmism, I recall the discussion I had with string physicist Ulf Danielsson in a sequence of remarks to the post What Does a Physicist Say about Climate Science? (in Swedish). 

In this discussion Danielsson states that he cannot see that IPCC uses any fundamental physics incorrectly and thus that the conclusions of IPCC appear to be correct.

Danielsson also states that he does not consider himself to be an expert of climate physics (backradiation/Stefan-Boltzmann) and therefore relies on IPCC.

In other words, as concerns the fundamental physics of climate science, Danielsson
as an expert of fundamental physics, relies on IPCC. It seems that many physicists argue in the same way. 

Now, since IPCC relies on fundamental physics, what Danielsson relies on is a form of backradiation of fundamental physics.  Danielsson as fundamental physicist is thus illuminated by a body of lower expertize, namely IPCC which itself is supposed to be illuminated by the expertize of fundamental physicists. 

In other words, we have an example of a warm body (Danielssson) which is heated by a colder body (IPCC). 

But this is in violation of the 2nd Law. How to resolve this paradox?

6 kommentarer:

  1. You don't like the greenhouse effect. There is no basis in physics for your dislike, you just don't like it. Same as you seem not to like relativity, wave-particle duality, and many or most aspects of modern physics.

    And you wonder why scientists do not share your unfounded prejudices!

  2. It seems that physicists don't like GE because they don't write about it.

  3. There are thousands of papers in the literature about it. You simply haven't bothered to read them.

  4. Claes, since you didn't come up with an answer to this question lasat time I asked it, I repeat it:

    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?

  5. See new post. Too cool B so quickly is impossible.

  6. And what limits my ability to cool B? The bodies could be one light year apart, giving me plenty of time.