Hi George,
I have seen this article by Gerlich and Tscheuschner - it makes for very amusing reading as it claims that the greenhouse effect is impossible because it would require a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The trouble with this ingenious refutation is that if the greenhouse effect doesn't exit then the average temperature of the surface of the Earth should currently be about -19 degrees Celsius. Even allowing for the cold polar regions, it is obvious that the surface is not that cold - in fact the average temperature is about 14C ie 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.
If such a fundamental flaw did exist in the theory of the greenhouse effect, I think it would have been picked up a bit earlier in the 150 years since Tyndall identified carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
The paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner was rebutted by Arthur Smith of the American Physical Society here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
And then debunked in the same journal here: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html
The abstract of this article states:
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner attempt to rebut this scathing critique here: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S0217979210055573.html
In short, it demonstrates that peer review is not flawless. The original paper was classified as a review article, which means that it was invited by the journal editor(s), in contrast to the usual research articles in which the author(s) simply submit a paper for publication. There are a few peer-reviewed papers around by some self-proclaimed skeptics, but they all contain glaring errors and/or misrepresentations. Most of the time, the research community does not bother to rebut these papers, since they have no impact on the science. Unfortunately, they can have a broader impact by being used as propaganda disseminated by 'sceptics' on unwitting non-technical audiences who may not be able to spot the problems.
It is for this reason that I went to the trouble of thoroughly debunking a paper by Bob Carter which was published by the official journal of the Queensland branch of the Australian Economic Society: http://www.eap-journal.com.au/archive/v40_i2_02_ward.pdf
Bob Ward
Policy and Communications Director
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George Marshall
Sent: 17 January 2011 10:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
Dear Bob (and all),
In your e-mail you say:
But few climate scientists doubt that because the concentration of
greenhouse gases is ever-growing in the atmosphere, the pace of warming will
undoubtedly pick up again at some point in the future. In fact you can only
avoid this conclusion if you believe that greenhouse gases don't warm the
Earth, in which case you pretty much have to ignore the whole of atmospheric
physics since John Tyndall first identified carbon dioxide as a greenhouse
gas in the laboratory in 1861.
In which context I was staggered to see an academic physics paper doing the
rounds of denier sites that does exactly that. The Falsification Of The
Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics- Gerhard
Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No.
3 (30 January 2009), 275-364
The full paper is at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
As you can imagine this paper is all over the denier sites- it allows the
deniers to claim that it is 'peer reviewed science'. I am very surprised
that no one appears to have challenged this journal and kicked up a big
stink. It also confirms the strange connection between climate change denial
and physicists that has often been observed.
What it also confirms (as you say) is that because the denial networks are
not bound by any form of actual truth they can indulge in constant message
market testing- they try out a range of messages and see what flies best. If
we show the logic of climate change as a chain of reasoning., each link in
the chain provides a point of potential attack.
a) Increased co2 not increasing -
measurements are wrong
b) => via greenhouse effect doesn't operate - balanced
by other factors (eg changes in solar output)
c) => translated by atmospheric systems feedbacks are negative
d)=> increased temperatures temperatures
managed/controlled by feedbacks. Measurements are wrong
e)=> translated by climatic systems feedbacks are negative
f) => changes in climate climate managed/controlled
by feedbacks. Measurements are wrong
g) => human impacts human impacts are
minimal/overall positive
It seems to me that climate deniers have been test each of these link over
the past years trying to find the weakest one (or the one that can be best
explained in the public arguments) And, of course, they can throw away the
whole chain by arguing that entire argument is untrustworthy and politically
motivated.
I see a change in emphasis over time.
A few years ago the main argument was that more CO2 is good for us (a
variation on g) but that has now morphed into a subtler argument that the
net impacts are minimal and not worth the costs of mitigation. Lindzen was
attacking on c and d. There was some guff around solar output. As climate
impacts accumulate the arguments are focusing on f)
I am sure that someone could map this.
The greenhouse effect has not been significantly challenged before- but this
paper seeks to go after that. This is therefore a messaging experiment which
has not taken off yet (it's had 2 years) but that is not to say that its
time might not come because, as you say, an assault on the greenhouse effect
is required to explain away the measured warming.
And as I used this analysis I can see a very good link in the chain that
no-one seems to have gone after...but seeing that this is an open list I
think I will keep that observation for a more private place.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Ward
Sent: 14 January 2011 18:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
Hi Alastair,
This is interesting. I have a few comments on the "counterblast".
I'm afraid your sceptical friend isn't very well informed about global
average temperature measurements. In the Met Office record, 1998 is the
warmest year followed by 2005, whereas (before this year) the NOAA and NASA
record show 2005 as the warmest year followed by 1998. And if you look at
the top ten warmest years in all three records, it is exactly the same (ie
every year after 2000 plus 1998) but in slightly different orders. The
differences are very small and so if he doesn't believe one of the records
he ought not to believe any of them. Maybe show him this webpage which shows
all three temperature records together - they all show pretty much alike, if
not identical:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring
He is correct that there has been no statistically significant warming since
1998 - but then you would be hard pressed to find any statistically
significant trend in just 12 data points anyway. However there is no denying
that the rate of temperature increase over the last decade has been much
less than it was over the previous few decades. It is not clear why this is,
but it is undoubtedly due to some other factor(s) which has counteracted the
warming influence of greenhouse gases - they may be natural factors (eg some
large-scale change in ocean-atmosphere currents) or man-made factors (eg an
increase in anthropogenic aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere), or
both. But few climate scientists doubt that because the concentration of
greenhouse gases is ever-growing in the atmosphere, the pace of warming will
undoubtedly pick up again at some point in the future. In fact you can only
avoid this conclusion if you believe that greenhouse gases don't warm the
Earth, in which case you pretty much have to ignore the whole of atmospheric
physics since John Tyndall first identified carbon dioxide as a greenhouse
gas in the laboratory in 1861.
And it is important to note that the NOAA-NASA announcement was only ignored
in the UK (and I should point out that 'The Sun' also covered it along with
'The Guardian', which I neglected to mention in my article), whereas it did
appear in the media in other countries (it was flagged up on the front page
of the 'Wall Street Journal' which usually gives a lot of space to the
'voices of scepticism'). So there is something peculiar to the UK going on.
I think the main reason is that news editors and editors (but not
environment reporters and correspondents) in many parts of the UK media have
become markedly more 'sceptical' in the past 12 months, mainly as the result
of hard lobbying by Nigel Lawson and the other members of the Global Warming
Policy Foundation who have used the controversies over climate science in
the last 12 months to promote the following messages:
1. Climate science was hyped leading up to Copenhagen, which then failed.
2. Climategate showed evidence of dodgy practices by climate scientists, and
the inquiries that found no evidence of wrongdoing were whitewashes.
3. The IPCC report has been shown to be suffering from serious errors and
has been discredited.
4. Climate change is being exaggerated by those with a left-wing agenda to
justify new taxes and regulations on businesses.
Bob Ward
Policy and Communications Director
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alastair McIntosh
Sent: 14 January 2011 17:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
What an interesting set of responses. Thank you all.
I sent a link to Bob Ward's Guardian piece to one of Britain's leading
contrarian authors - a tabloid consultant who I try to stay on civilised
terms with in the course of challenging his work. He replied back with a
counterblast which I've asked if I might circulate on this list, but so far,
no reply from him.
I'll send his full missive if he subsequently OK's that, but in summary in
my own words, his take is that the reason the media are ignoring climate
science is that they've seen through the bias, of which Bob's article, he
considers, is a prime example. Anybody with the internet, he says, can see
that for themselves. He holds that the Met Office and Hadley data is more
reliable than the American data. The Americans extrapolate missing data in
ways that give too much weight to the Arctic. This he says gives the
misleading impression that 2005 was the previous hottest year instead of
1998. The bottom line, and I quote him here as written, "is what this means
to the educated layperson is that THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN
PLANETARY WARMING SINCE 1998."
I have responded saying that I am not qualified to weigh up his claims about
the science and what the Americans v. Hadley do or do not do. In any case, I
don't want to spend further time debating with him. However, what I'm
wondering is to what extent these sort of guys are spreading pre-emptive
messages in the media to sow seeds of doubt and neutralise the real science
when it appears.
One further icon of interest. I was talking yesterday to a prominent
businessman who was at a function recently where they all had to say where
they'd put £100k of their personal money under current economic
circumstances. One of Scotland's top bankers was there, and in one word
answered "gold".
A.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher Shaw
Sent: 14 January 2011 15:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
Reminds me of when I went to the Heathrow Climate Camp in 2007 to do some
research for my DPhil and finding everyone I went to interview was also a
student researching this new environmental movement ( I exaggerate a little,
but only a little).
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George Marshall
Sent: 14 January 2011 14:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
Dear Alastair
"When prophecy fails" is also strangely relevant in regards to the recent
revelations about infiltrations into the climate movement. The flying saucer
cult investigated in when prophecy fails was so crawling with social
anthropologists that at some times a third of the people attending meetings
were plants. Amazing that the cult could get anything done at all.
X
George
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alastair McIntosh
Sent: 13 January 2011 22:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
David ... just picked this up ... trapped in my spam box, otherwise I'd have
responded in my previous message.
I have been struck recently by how quiet this forum has been. It's not that
there's not some interesting people on it or that, for a "crisis forum",
there's not interesting stuff to discuss.
My sense is that a helluva lot of us are stuck as to what we can
meaningfully say that doesn't just sound like the virtual equivalent of
speaking into the wastepaper bin. I've been working quite a bit recently in
writing stuff for a forthcoming Ashgrove book on human ecology about
postmodernism, and it does seem to me that during the 20th C we've seen a
progressive drift away from grounding, at various levels - both physical and
psychological (I would add spiritual, but we can leave that aside for now) -
in reality.
The people who form and moderate opinion are all living so comfortably,
relatively speaking, that they don't want to lift the lid. I had a
disturbing exchange recently with a good friend of mine and his wife. He's a
serving army general. We expect to disagree, but not as much as you'd think,
on war. What really surprised me was how animated he became about climate
change, his wife too, playing out all the Christopher Brooker type of
arguments and basically, a very intelligent scientifically literate man just
not wanting to know.
My sense in both this exchange and others similar is that most people can't
face the contradiction of their lives. Festinger summed it all up in the
1950s with his study of cults ("When Prophecy Fails") - and how, the more
that the cult failed the more the believers believed. You'll be familiar
with his whole cognitive dissonance theory that came out of that. My sense
is that we have to create space for people to live with their
contradictions. The poet Alice Walker says, and I quote from memory, "take
the contradictions of your life/ to wrap around you like a shawl/ to parry
stones/ and keep you warm."
If we can't do this with ourselves and others we force denial, and the
problem with denial is that it's worse than hypocrisy because it blind
people to truth. At least if you're not blinded to the truth you have the
possibility of getting your bearings.
I'd better go ... my wife's just back and it's late ... but I'm concerned
about this stuckness - in the media, even, I sense, on this forum, and I
wonder if you or others have reflection on this, or is there nothing else
that can be done but to sit with heads in the sand? Is that where we're at
in the human condition?
Alastair.
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Cromwell
Sent: 13 January 2011 18:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
Alastair asks of the BBC:
" What is going on in their science journalism?"
I'd remove the word "science" and just ask:
"What is going on in their journalism?"
Please forgive the plug, but see:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Ite
mid=51
And it's not just the BBC. It's the Guardian, the Independent, C4 News and
all the other news media we're supposed to regard as the most responsible.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alastair McIntosh
Sent: 13 January 2011 18:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Record warming isn't news
You beat me to it, Bob. I had been watching out and was about to make the
same observation. What makes it all the stranger is that early today the BBC
had as the lead item on its science website evidence of climate change in
rainfall in the English uplands -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12151866 They've since
substituted a story about the Sun. Astonishing that they can miss out that
the last year was the world's warmest equal, and the world's wettest ever.
What is going on in their science journalism?
A
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Ward
Sent: 13 January 2011 18:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Record warming isn't news
Apart from a small brief at the bottom of page 25 of today's edition of
'The Guardian', the UK media ignored the announcements yesterday by both
NASA and the US National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration that 2010
was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record.
But it was picked up by the media in most of the rest of the world, even
in the United States, where 49 of the 50 states are currently under
snow.
So what's up with our media? I've had a whinge about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/uk-media-ignore-climat
e-change
Bob Ward
Policy and Communications Director
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham
Tel. +44 (0) 20 7106 1236
Mob. +44 (0) 7811 320346
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
|
