Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study

[Darth Wong]

By all means let's pull out the peer reviewed science.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Full paper can be viewed here.

What does this mean? The entirety of of the greenhouse effect hysteria is based on fictitious numbers, bad science, and false prepositions.

Who the fuck published that garbage? The guy claims that the greenhouse effect is based on "the assumption that the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation", and that is an outright lie. Where are you getting these sources from? Which peer group reviewed this? Mickey Mouse and Friends? He claims that the greenhouse effect is some sort of "heat pump" effect, when it is nothing of the sort: thermodynamically, it is nothing more than an insulating effect on re-radiation. And he continually harps on the fact that the physical glass greenhouse has nothing to do with atmospheric effects: no kidding, the "greenhouse effect" is just a fucking nickname.

The thing does not read like a genuine scientific paper at all, and you frankly look like a moron for taking it seriously and not seeing how obviously fucked up it is. The paper even goes after Al Gore's movie, which is not a scientific source at all. It absolutely reeks of some political hack.

I'm serious. Anyone who reads that and thinks it sounds like a legitimate scientific paper has never read a legitimate scientific paper. It's almost farcical. He even triumphantly states that the Stefan-Boltzmann law for blackbody radiation is not accurate for real radiators, as if that's some secret and not something you could find in any first-year physics text. And then he pretends that this means climatologists are lying by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, when in fact scientists use emissivity estimates to account for that.

[starslayer]

Which peer group reviewed this?

No one did. It has only ever been published on the ArXiv, which is not peer reviewed in the slightest. I imagine the reason it hasn't been seen elsewhere is that the reviewers rejected as out and out garbage. I've no idea how two purported theoretical physicists fucked up undergraduate level thermodynamics so badly, but they did. Jesus Christ, I can see how badly they fucked up, and I'm a fucking second-year undergrad (One of the things that really threw me, at least scientifically, was when they started going off about MHD toward the end. Did they ever actually justify doing that? Is that justified in the first place for what is basically a statistical thermodynamic system?).

[Akkleptos]

What does this mean? The entirety of of the greenhouse effect hysteria is based on fictitious numbers, bad science, and false prepositions.

Uh-huh... I suppose that Venus' surface is extremely hot because... uh... it's the location of hell?
Seriously, how do you deny something so evident? Venus is very much Earth-like, except that the heavily clouded upper athmosphere (sulphuric acid clouds, mind you) doesn't let the heat out, according to most astronomers (NASA says). Also, lower athmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Why wouldn't the greenhouse effect work on Earth? So if it is that which has Venus¿ surface boiling, what makes anyone seriously think it couldn't happen on Earth?

I'm betting the "abstract" must have been meant as a joke, and it was taken from a spoof site.

[Sky Captain]

How likely it is for humans to cause runaway greenhouse effect? IIRC in Eocene epoch CO2 content were approximately 3500 ppm and it was significantly warmer than it`s today, but no runaway heating. I doubt we have enough easily accessible fossil fuels to cause CO2 going up that high.

[Guardsman Bass]

How likely it is for humans to cause runaway greenhouse effect? IIRC in Eocene epoch CO2 content were approximately 3500 ppm and it was significantly warmer than it`s today, but no runaway heating. I doubt we have enough easily accessible fossil fuels to cause CO2 going up that high.

Nobody's seriously saying that we're going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect, or that there haven't been higher temperatures in the past (the Early Cretaceous, and most of the Mesozoic Era, were much higher, at least based off of what they've discovered). The issue with anthropogenic global warming is the timing - the Eocene warmth came after a process of centuries, if not millenia. It still caused extinctions, but life had much more time to adapt. By contrast, we're looking at significant warming over the period of a century.