(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.
Comments
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.