Saying, "I don't understand what's going on" does not mean that nobody understands what's going on.
PS: If you actually carried out the experiment using the picture as a guide you would measure a rise in body temperature. The human body trys to maintain constant temperature, but it can't ignore the laws of physics.
Amen. This is a long opinion piece, with no evidence cited that the Constructal Law is a better predictor of the climate's response to increased CO2 than existing techniques. The one relevant paper linked to is an intriguing but underdeveloped model:
The paper doesn't back up the author's claim that "there is no physics-based reason to assume that increasing CO2 will make any difference to the global temperature". It includes an assumed factor y=0.4 for the infrared reflectance 'greenhouse factor', and any increase in that value will affect the expected results.
If anything applying the Constructal Law would be more worrying than current models, since there's potentially a more chaotic response to increased CO2 levels, increasing the risk of dramatic climate changes.
(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.
Moon surface temp:
equator Min 100k, mean 220K max 390K
85°N min 70 K mean 130K max 230K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Earth: min 184k mean 287K max 331 K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
PS: NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has used its Diviner instrument to probe the insides of permanently shadowed craters on Earth's satellite. It found mid-winter, night-time surface temperatures inside the coldest craters in the northern polar region can dip as low as minus 249C (26 Kelvin). The Diviner instrument observed the lowest summer temperatures in the darkest craters at the southern pole to be about 35K (-238C); but in the north, close to the winter solstice the instrument recorded a temperature of just 26K on the south-western edge of the floor of Hermite Crater.
there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects
Seriously? What next, are we going to discover that black holes aren't actual literal holes, and that no particular quarks are really any more charming than others?
It's arxiv with no journal listed as publishing it. You do correctly quote the abstract but the language of this abstract is pretty overwrought - it doesn't read like something that would be published in a serious journal whether it's correct or not. Part of the problem with the language might be a poor translation.
Climatology is a complex thing and I'm actually sympathetic to exploring skepticism about global warming. The problem is that the skeptics seem to often be their own worst enemies.
"does not mean that nobody understands what's going on."
What are all the inputs and outputs? Which are significant? Does anybody know the answer to either of these questions? You can build a model without knowing all the inputs and outputs, but it's called a guess.
For the global temperature, the input is ~99.98% light and a tiny amount of heat from the earth’s core etc, and the output is light to space. The earth receives ~174 petawatts 24/7 365 and you can't really hide energy on that scale for very long. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earths_energy_budget) You can directly measure this stuff so it's not really a guess.
PS: He used "tera-watt scale" which is about as true as saying watt scale. Well he was only off by 1000x so it's not quite that bad.
Comments
Saying, "I don't understand what's going on" does not mean that nobody understands what's going on.
PS: If you actually carried out the experiment using the picture as a guide you would measure a rise in body temperature. The human body trys to maintain constant temperature, but it can't ignore the laws of physics.
Amen. This is a long opinion piece, with no evidence cited that the Constructal Law is a better predictor of the climate's response to increased CO2 than existing techniques. The one relevant paper linked to is an intriguing but underdeveloped model:
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/Constructal...
The paper doesn't back up the author's claim that "there is no physics-based reason to assume that increasing CO2 will make any difference to the global temperature". It includes an assumed factor y=0.4 for the infrared reflectance 'greenhouse factor', and any increase in that value will affect the expected results.
If anything applying the Constructal Law would be more worrying than current models, since there's potentially a more chaotic response to increased CO2 levels, increasing the risk of dramatic climate changes.
From a recent paper by two German Physicists
(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.
there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects
Seriously? What next, are we going to discover that black holes aren't actual literal holes, and that no particular quarks are really any more charming than others?
Fine - I am waiting for the big waves this paper will make if it turns out to be valid.
I think you got voted down because you don't name the physicists or the journal they published in.
Also, the phraseology of your points couldn't get into any scientific journal, so what are you quoting, your summary?
Actually,
I think you are talking about
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4 - It's referenced by Alexander Cockburn in his most recent nation article.
It's arxiv with no journal listed as publishing it. You do correctly quote the abstract but the language of this abstract is pretty overwrought - it doesn't read like something that would be published in a serious journal whether it's correct or not. Part of the problem with the language might be a poor translation.
Climatology is a complex thing and I'm actually sympathetic to exploring skepticism about global warming. The problem is that the skeptics seem to often be their own worst enemies.
"does not mean that nobody understands what's going on."
What are all the inputs and outputs? Which are significant? Does anybody know the answer to either of these questions? You can build a model without knowing all the inputs and outputs, but it's called a guess.
For the global temperature, the input is ~99.98% light and a tiny amount of heat from the earth’s core etc, and the output is light to space. The earth receives ~174 petawatts 24/7 365 and you can't really hide energy on that scale for very long. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earths_energy_budget) You can directly measure this stuff so it's not really a guess.
PS: He used "tera-watt scale" which is about as true as saying watt scale. Well he was only off by 1000x so it's not quite that bad.
My PC's power supply operates on the terawatt scale. Specifically, it operates on the very low end of the terawatt scale.