The process that greenhouse gas advocates support doesn't exist it appears.
For those that want the truth here is some more information on this
fascinating scam.
The fact that certain people go so low as to call me names has resulted
in me realising these people who fake credibility are all around.
While we cant all be right, we must see that important facts are always
discovered by single minded people, and not committees.
Some people will lake the easy way out and accept what the Governments
are pushing.
While I accept that there may be a reason for Global warming there are
others who say there is Global cooling.
In the end its the variability of climate thats so hard to pin down.
But the theories and what are said to be causing this have been
incorrect, and while some hang onto this, more work must be done to get
to the bottom of this problem.
It is interesting to note that further down on the webpage there is
another scientist who has done some pretty impressive calculations,
which could in time prove he's trying to blind us with science, or not.
I guess he's being paid to do so, so why not...
Even as they argue, there is no doubt we need more taxes, or excuses for
them.

This is taken from this webpage physics forems....
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=186598

Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner of the Institute for
Mathematical Physics at the Carolo-Wilhelmina Technical University,
Germany, demonstrate the falsity of the greenhouse gas theory in lengthy
technical discussion.

The process that greenhouse gas advocates support doesn't exist.

Of particular interest is his discussion on page 31 using a car as an
example to demonstrate that greenhouses work by preventing heated air
from escaping rather than by blocking radiation. Gerlich also discusses
the different versions of the greenhouse gas theory including the one by
Svante Arrhenius whose calculations were rejected at the time.


On page 66 he begins a discussion on the impossibility of a global
average temperature which if it existed would require use of
differential equations. On page 74 he provides an example of a pot on a
stove showing that heating by radiation does not result in heat going
back to the source of the radiation.



The article is in PDF format in small type. I've found on my computer
that it is easier to read by saving a copy of the file to disk and then
reading it outside the browser using the Adobe Acrobat reader. You can
follow the discussion without having to work through the equations he
provides for actual calculations.

It's been quite a few years since I did anything with such equations and
I'm not ambitious enough to work through them to check their accuracy.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/...707.1161v2.pdf

Those who think only climatologists can talk about climate need to keep
in mind that climate must obey the same physical "laws" as other
physical phenomena.


--

On 23/01/2010 9:37 AM, Jonno wrote:
The process that greenhouse gas advocates support doesn't exist it
appears.
For those that want the truth here is some more information on this
fascinating scam.
The fact that certain people go so low as to call me names has
resulted in me realising these people who fake credibility are all
around.
While we cant all be right, we must see that important facts are
always discovered by single minded people, and not committees.
Some people will lake the easy way out and accept what the Governments
are pushing.
While I accept that there may be a reason for Global warming there are
others who say there is Global cooling.
In the end its the variability of climate thats so hard to pin down.
But the theories and what are said to be causing this have been
incorrect, and while some hang onto this, more work must be done to
get to the bottom of this problem.
It is interesting to note that further down on the webpage there is
another scientist who has done some pretty impressive calculations,
which could in time prove he's trying to blind us with science, or
not. I guess he's being paid to do so, so why not...
Even as they argue, there is no doubt we need more taxes, or excuses
for them.

This is taken from this webpage physics forems....
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=186598

Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner of the Institute for
Mathematical Physics at the Carolo-Wilhelmina Technical University,
Germany, demonstrate the falsity of the greenhouse gas theory in
lengthy technical discussion.

The process that greenhouse gas advocates support doesn't exist.

Of particular interest is his discussion on page 31 using a car as an
example to demonstrate that greenhouses work by preventing heated air
from escaping rather than by blocking radiation. Gerlich also
discusses the different versions of the greenhouse gas theory
including the one by Svante Arrhenius whose calculations were rejected
at the time.


On page 66 he begins a discussion on the impossibility of a global
average temperature which if it existed would require use of
differential equations. On page 74 he provides an example of a pot on
a stove showing that heating by radiation does not result in heat
going back to the source of the radiation.



The article is in PDF format in small type. I've found on my computer
that it is easier to read by saving a copy of the file to disk and
then reading it outside the browser using the Adobe Acrobat reader.
You can follow the discussion without having to work through the
equations he provides for actual calculations.

It's been quite a few years since I did anything with such equations
and I'm not ambitious enough to work through them to check their
accuracy.


Right
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/...707.1161v2.pdf


Those who think only climatologists can talk about climate need to
keep in mind that climate must obey the same physical "laws" as other
physical phenomena.



--