Is Global Warming Debunked by Thermodynamics?

[GreenLantern]

Ahhh yess the infamous global warming controversy...

okay so i figured this would be a nice place to post this because it pertains to Thermodynamics

A good friend of mine (who is my current roommate) loves to find things that go against what i believe and claim to prove it.

A few weeks ago he was sent an email with an article published in germany that claims global warming isn't possible due to the laws of thermodynamics.

Now i didn't read into this to much as the paper is something like 100 pages but for those here that know about this or looked into it, could you tell me if this has any platform to stand on?

I myself have no where near the qualifications to say this is B.S. or factually/scientifically sound which is why I am asking PF

this paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf"

please let me know what your opinions are on this. I don't mind being wrong and admitting it to my friend but I like to be damn sure before I'm swung one way or another unlike my friend who will pretty much believe anything he reads online/sees on TV

Thanks
-GL

 

[mathman]

I have no intention of reading the paper. However just tell your friend the Greenland and Antartic ice caps are shrinking, while the Arctic ocean is becoming passible in the summer.

 

[rcgldr]

The Earth receives a huge amount of heat from the sun, about 1,400 W/m² :

http://dev.nsta.org/ssc/moreinfo.asp?id=947

The average temperature on the Earth depends on the rate of dissipation of the heat via thermal radiation (there's a tiny amount heat dissipated by the relatively tiny number of hydrogen atoms that escape the Earth's atmoshpere, and some amount of heat gained from solar wind particles captured by the atmosphere).

Water vapor is the biggest factor, followed by carbon dioxide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

The issue is one of balance between heat absorption and dissipation. A small change in either will result in a change in temperature until the rates equalize. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is also affected by temperature, but I don't know if this is a 'vicious cycle' effect.

 

[GreenLantern]

It would really interest me in seeing the results of a pole taken, on whether global warming is fact or fiction, by only the PhD's in science.

I was riding the metro the other morning and was reading one of the garbage news papers that are handed out for free at the stations and it really frustrates me the vast amount of garbage that is put out in the air about a topic that greatly effects everyone and that most of the litter is caused by people who don't know the first thing about science and the empirical method it stands on. People that have very little if any experience in the field are talking about topics that are way beyond their understanding.

How can people talk about something they have no education in as if they are half qualified to make a worthy conclusion on the situation? And what is worse, people read these articles by these journalists and take it to heart as the said and done answer and use the information for proof of their standing. It drives me crazy the way people CHOOSE to be ignorant.

ughhhhh media...

 

[pallidin]

The only thing I can reiterate is the fact that the Earth is not an isolated object with respect to thermodynamics.
And there is nothing in nature that has given Earth some type of super-thermostat to maintain a certain temperature.
Quite the opposite. Because there is no "thermostat" the Earth is prone to fluctuations.

It's all about chemicals, especially airborne. Greenhouse gases that trap heat, causing the Earth as a whole to 'warm-up"

Whereas non-human events can cause these fluctuations, it is now clear that human industrialized activity(smokestacks, vehicle exhaust, deforestation, etc...) has a much more significant impact.

 

[kcdodd]

An opinion pole of PhDs is about as useful as a pole of average folk. All that matters is the science itself, and the facts that back up theory.

 

[sylas]

I know this paper quite well. It is indeed nonsense. It was discussed briefly in the thread [thread=300667]Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics[/thread], and in a couple of other threads. It is one of the absolute silliest papers I have ever seen get into a real physics journal (albeit a small one). It crops up in PF occasionally, but has had no impact whatsoever on science, nor has anyone rewritten all the normal undergraduate textbooks on atmospheric thermodynamics.

The paper is long, and the error density is high. It's one of those papers where a list of the errors would be longer than the paper itself. I mentioned a couple of errors in the thread above, but that only scratches the surface of the problems.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[pallidin]

An opinion pole of PhDs is about as useful as a pole of average folk. All that matters is the science itself, and the facts that back up theory.

And ACTION to mitigate consequences.

 

[QuantumPion]

I have no intention of reading the paper. However just tell your friend the Greenland and Antartic ice caps are shrinking, while the Arctic ocean is becoming passible in the summer.

Actually we recently had an all-time maximum southern hemisphere sea ice coverage in 2008.

And the sea ice has been much less in the past as well:

“The arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the arctic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of Earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

-US Weather Bureau, 1922

 

[mathman]

http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/52384

Above is a recent (2009) study of Antarctic ice sheet.

 

[sylas]

Two points. Minor issue; there's a difference between sea ice and ice caps.

The major problem: none of this deals with the paper at the start of the thread. The errors in the paper are far more fundamental, not denying warming but actually denying the greenhouse effect altogether.

 

[Integral]

I am locking this thread. We do not need another global warming thread, if you wish to discuss this topic go the Earth sciences forum.

Sylas has answered the original question. End of thread.