Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
A couple of German physicists have looked at the case for manmade global warming and have come to the conclusion that the concept would violate the laws of physics. I never bought into this garbage to begin with and it’s nice to see some real scientists with the backbone to stand up to the “consensus”.


The New American


The Science (Fiction) of the Greenhouse Effect

Two German physicists have written a paper debunking the "theory" of the greenhouse gas effect by demonstrating how it violates basic laws of physics. Their paper, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics, was published last year in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Modern Physics.

From this short tutorial, the scientists go on to show the vast difference in physical laws between real greenhouses and Earth's atmosphere. They expose the fallacies in accepted definitions of greenhouse effect from several popular sources. "It is not 'trapped' infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse but the suppression of air cooling." Gerlich and Tscheuschner explain Earth's atmosphere does not function in the same way, nor does it function in the way global-warming alarmists describe as "transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation."

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle. There would have to be a heat pump mechanism in perpetual motion in the atmosphere to transfer heat from a low to a high temperature reservoir, and such a machine cannot exist. They call the greenhouse effect a fictitious mechanism. "The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic [man-made] climate changes has no physical basis."

Throughout the paper the authors show that those who advocate the greenhouse gas theory use faulty calculations and guesstimates to arrive at their catastrophic conjectures, and though Gerlich and Tscheuschner make no specific accusation, they point out how many respected scientists have blamed alarmists for intentional fraud rather than mere scientific error. They also reveal that the idea of a greenhouse effect is modern and never mentioned in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. According to them, it is impossible to replicate forecasts made by climate modelers' computer simulations with any known scientific formulae.



Of course Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been blacklisted by the climate-change community and have had labels such as "Stupidity," "crackpot," "dross," and "bunkum" applied to their work.

Seems like the truth has no place within scientific circles anymore.




posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Seems whomever has the deepest pockets, along with saturation of all given media, can repeatedly drive any lie home until it's just totally accepted.
Even if the facts and science prove otherwise,
the hype and best video effects will sway the minds of the masses.



[edit on 27-1-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Earth is not a closed system...the warming is coming from the sun...it is trapping rays based on the density of greenhouse gases...

the falty logic here is that they are saying earth is closed...and yes, if we didnt recieve rays from the sun, we could release all the carbon we want without it warming up.

also, if you keep a actual greenhouse without sun, it wont warm up either...

this is insane...these people are crackpots...listen to them if you want, they also just said a standard greenhouse that gardeners use...and a tarp you toss over a plant during a chill is physically impossible.

guess you can get any degree over the internet these days.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Absolutely correct. I wonder what the reaction would be if a meteorologist published a paper on the failure of relativity?

Oh wait! How about a refutation of the paper by another physicist Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect!


Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Arthur P. Smith∗ American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961

A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.


Science is exact, scientists are not.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by metamagic]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Earth is not a closed system...the warming is coming from the sun...it is trapping rays based on the density of greenhouse gases...


Um... Though some heat may be "trapped..." during the day... Heat escapes our planet every night. We are NOT a closed system.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Then they make the point that climate models used to predict catastrophic global warming violate the second law of thermodynamics. The law states any closed system left to itself will continually deteriorate toward a more chaotic state. The German scientists illustrate how the idea of heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gases to the warmer ground violates this principle.



I guess this pair must be "internet scientists" if they don't even understand that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to Earth.

1. Earth and its atmosphere are not a closed system.

2. These greenhouse gases are produced at/near ground level, and some will naturally stay there.

3. Heat will not stay trapped forever, just as the cream in your coffee does not stay cold. Temperature gradients exist, but you cannot completely confine the heat exchanging movement of electrons to a single level of that gradient.

For the "internet scientists" here, heat is movement. Movement moves.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 



The authors are Gerhard Gerlich, a professor of mathematical physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig, and Ralf Tscheuchner, a retired professor of theoretical physics and freelance lecturer and researcher in physics and applied informatics.


And a theoretical physicist is obviously unlikely to have the relevant expertise in experimental physics in climate science.


Thermal physics has to be applied correctly to climate system models, and the relevant experimental procedures.

Oh look I'm a physicist and I can do better climate science than a climate scientist!!!



A couple of German physicists have looked at the case for manmade global warming and have come to the conclusion that the concept would violate the laws of physics.


So who is going to be right? Scientists who have decades of experience in climate science, or retired scientists taking up climate science as a hobby. Stick to your own field of expertise please guys!


Imagine a climate scientist attempting to prove Quantum theory wrong. Hmm, now that would be interesting!

Scientists can sometimes just be wrong and sometimes just make silly errors, especially if they don't have the relevant experience in a field. Anyone who has taken university degree lectures will know that some lecturers will make silly errors from time to time, they are just human beings after all.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by john124]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

it should come as no surprise that Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been blacklisted by the climate-change community. "Stupidity," "crackpot," "dross," and "bunkum" are several of the descriptives used in online blogs blasting the paper.


So expletives in an online blog equals being blacklisted?


The 2009 update of the original Gerlich/Tscheuschner piece has yet to be disproved,


If it's gibberish why would anyone need to disprove it, as no actual climate scientist has taken it seriously enough to push it to the table. Do scientists have unlimited time to disprove any silly claim? No. It's as ridiculous as stating that nobody has yet disproved the spaghetti monster, therefore it has merit. WTF indeed!



though for the most part alarmists continue to ignore it in their mad rush toward global eco-government and a world-wide carbon trading market worth billions.


And as usual finish with a good old conspiracy, because that's what MUST be true since climate scientists haven't given him the attention they desire! BOO-HOO!!!


[edit on 27-1-2010 by john124]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by metamagic
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Absolutely correct. I wonder what the reaction would be if a meteorologist published a paper on the failure of relativity?

Oh wait! How about a refutation of the paper by another physicist Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect!


Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Arthur P. Smith∗ American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961

A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.


Science is exact, scientists are not.

[edit on 27-1-2010 by metamagic]


If you are going to pull a name and refuting paper from the OP's article, you should at least post it in the original context:



The first edition of the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper released in 2007 caused enough of a stir to prompt Arthur P. Smith with the American Physical Society to issue a 2008 rebuttal, "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect." Yet in his nine-page article, Smith cited only five sources, one of which was the Gerlich/Tscheuschner work, and failed to address most of the points raised in it. The 2009 update of the original Gerlich/Tscheuschner piece has yet to be disproved...


The Smith paper WAS NOT published in a peer reviewed journal.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
The G&T article was the definitive sign that AGW denialists had jumped the shark.

I've been comparing these anti-science deniers to YE creationists for a few years now. The similarities in their arguments etc. And then people pushing against science using the specious SLOT argument was the killer.

Since then they've just got more desperate and incoherent. And here we are now picking at minor issues in a not very well-known part of the IPCC reports, stealing and quote-mining emails, and journalists making quotes up on the fly.

In place of religion for YECers, it's political ideology for climate science deniers. Right-wing free market ideologues.

ABE: I see the science naifs are on the scene. Peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient process. Crap still makes it through. If you want a peer-reviewed response to G&T's laughable article, try this one:

Halpern et al (in press)


Gerlich and Tscheuschner obtain an absurd result by using a very unphysical assumption, that each part of the planet's surface immediately cools or heats to reach an equilibrium with the locally impinging solar radiation, thereby neglecting the thermal inertia of the oceans, atmosphere and ground and all other heat transfer processes within the atmosphere and surface. Were this to be the case, all parts of the Earth would immediately drop to almost absolute zero at night, and the discrepancy between Earth’s observed average temperature and the average on this hypothetical Earth would be very large, over 100 K.


lol

[edit on 27-1-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deny Arrogance

Originally posted by metamagic

Science is exact, scientists are not.



If you are going to pull a name and refuting paper from the OP's article, you should at least post it in the original context:

The Smith paper WAS NOT published in a peer reviewed journal.



I guess you totally missed the point of my post. I obviously erred in not being specific enough.

If you spend enough time working with science and scientists, you discover that a large percentage of them are, as Thomas Kuhn says, "puzzle solvers". They like to think of real science as measuring something to the next decimal place or winning an argument over the dating of Etruscan pottery shards. In my experience, the Paredo principle seems to apply in science, only 20% of the scientists do the real "science" while the rest fill in the details -- I have worked with both types.

Lots of scientists have swollen egos and the interpersonal skills of self absorbed five year olds. And I know because I used to manage teams of them. When you combine with the publish or perish culture of science, you can pretty much find papers to support any position you want. A physicist can't get a physics paper published? No problem, pick a subject, like say meteorology and publish a paper that the physicists won't read because it's not physics and the meteorologists won't read because it was written by a physicist. Peer reviewed journal..most of the innovative papers I have read which later became milestones n their field were rejected by peer reviewed journals because they didn't toe the line.

I was presenting a paper at a scientific conference which had some interesting data that pretty much shot down an minor claims of one of the standard models. At one point a professor from Brown University jumped up and started yelling that I should leave because I was actually talking about data. He kept claiming that data had no place in science and that my paper should provide only theoretical arguments for or against the standard theory. Fortunately an other professor from UCLA told him to shut up, sit down or that his butt would be "theoretically argued" into the alley way. And she looked like she could do it too.

So...

1. Beware of papers that are written by scientists who argue against standard models in a field that they have no background in. However, papers by scientists who have switched fields are usually quite insightful.

2. Be careful of making a grand statement (like "global warming debunked" or some such) on the basis of a single paper even if it appears in a peer reviewed journal.

3. Don't be impressed by a single paper. That was my point, for each paper, you can generally find a rebuttal, and a rebuttal to the rebuttal. For non-scientists, it is hard to accept that scientists often argue for positions they don't believe in just to generate a rebuttal.

So, science is exact, scientists are not. Science is logical and has no ego, scientists are not and do have 'em.

Caveat discipulus.


[edit on 27-1-2010 by metamagic]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What in the world are you talking about?... Please learn how to make a coherent argument before you post illogical rhetoric which proves nothing but your state of mind...

The Earth is NOT a closed system, if it was the Earth wouldn't be affected by what happens in space, by what happens to the Sun, and the different regions which the Solar System goes through....

GHGs DO NOT TRAP anything.... they RETAIN radiation, but they do not trap it....and like the other member said, and as I have said many times at night GHGs release most of the radiation they had been slowly retaining during the day... If GHGs trapped radiation thens it would be as hot at night as in the mornings, which anyone with an IQ higher than 1 knows it is hotter during the day, than the night....

There is no proof WHATSOEVER that CO2 retains the amount of radiation claimed by the AGW fanatics.

The AGW SCAMMERS only have flawed computer models which they rig on how they THINK GHGs react...

Nature itself has shown the fallacies of the AGW SCAM...

The main scientists who were pushing for the AGW SCAM were CAUGHT red handed talking about hiding data, they deleted data, and facts and used several legal, and illegal ways to keep people in the dark and still there are people who believe them?....




[edit on 27-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


What in the world are you talking about?... Please learn how to make a coherent argument before you post illogical rhetoric which proves nothing but your state of mind...

The Earth is NOT a closed system



What in the world are YOU talking about??

That's EXACTLY what SaturnFX JUST SAID:


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Earth is not a closed system...the warming is coming from the sun...it is trapping rays based on the density of greenhouse gases...

the falty logic here is that they are saying earth is closed...and yes, if we didnt recieve rays from the sun, we could release all the carbon we want without it warming up.


Seriously EU - what are you talking about? Ever.

You come on every one of these threads barking away about SCAM SCAM SCAM and you clearly don't even know who or what you're arguing for or against.

Half of your own posts you debunk yourself and don't even realize it.

SCAM SCAM SCAM!!

Every time I read one of your posts you're sounding more and more like a Monty Python sketch - and you make just as much sense. It's hilarious.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by metamagic

Absolutely correct. I wonder what the reaction would be if a meteorologist published a paper on the failure of relativity?


Wow, I guess physicists have nothing to say now about the "physics" of GHGs?....


Originally posted by metamagic
Oh wait! How about a refutation of the paper by another physicist Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect!


First of all that paper you gave comes from ONE physicist, meanwhile the other paper had two physicist... Someone wise enough once said two heads think better than one...

But anyways, let me simplify this by showing what your physicist says at the conclusion....


Namely that assuming “the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation” leads to “a warming of the Earth’s surface” relative to firm limits established by basic physical
principles of energy conservation, for the case of an atmosphere transparent to both visible and infrared.


From that little link you gave us...

Did anyone ever tell you what ASSUMING proves?.... That's what AGW claims are all about flawed assumptions made by people whose whole career depend on the survival of GCMs nomatter how flawed they are...



Originally posted by metamagic

Science is exact, scientists are not.


Really science is exact?.... Obviously you don't know much about science because science is ALWAYS EVOLVING..... Science is neither exact nor is it settled....

From the time of the Egyptians, or the ancient Chinese, or the Greeks til today science has EVOLVED quite a bit, and we keep learning new things, and we keep finding out things that once was thought impossible "because science said so" are more than possible.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
No one seems to have the ba**s to say it so I will. Those two guys may be just a handful of scientists we have left. Science is about disproving theories in order to prove theories. This whole global warming thing has destroyed the scientific communities credibility. These so called scientists (for funding) have continually tried to prove global warming. They immediately jumped on board in order to please TPTB and line their pockets. Flame me and say I am wrong but it doesn't change the fact that most of the leading "scientists" aren't expanding our knowledge, they are expanding their wallets.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

What in the world are YOU talking about??

That's EXACTLY what SaturnFX JUST SAID:


No he claimed that GHGs trap heat, when they don't. That and the fact that he obviously thinks that CO2 causes the warming CLAIMED by the AGW scammers.

But where is the proof? The AGW scammers can't even understand why it has not gotten warmer, and it should be obvious by now. That and the fact that several errors were found from which the IPCC policy makers, and environmentalists based their claims on, plus the fact that the main AGW scammers, such as Mann, and JOnes were caught red handed tlaking about doing anything, and everything legal, and illegal to get rid of any research that refutes their claims, to not allow anyone to get their original programs, and their data but instead to only give out the rigged data they made, and other underhanded tactics they have been using, plus the fact that there are hundreds of peer-reviewed research that shows AGW is nothing more than a scam based on flawed computer models should be telling you quite clearly that "the science is neither settled" and obviously you have been believing, and for some reason keep want to believe on a scam....or what has become the new religion of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century...

BTW, the people who have been claiming for years that the Earth is a closed system are the AGW crowd.

I would have to read the entire paper but what these guys are talking about are GHGs, which for the most part, and unless something drastic happens such as a large meteor collision with Earth, or a super massive solar flare takes out a large part of the atmosphere GHGs stay on Earth's atmosphere and go through cycles within the Earth's system.



Originally posted by mc_squared
Seriously EU - what are you talking about? Ever.


Actually more than you, and that should be clear by the fact that I have posted more peer-reviewed research that debunks your religion instead of using



Originally posted by mc_squared
You come on every one of these threads barking away about SCAM SCAM SCAM and you clearly don't even know who or what you're arguing for or against.


Because by now it should be clear that's what the AGW religion you seem to love so much is...a SCAM...

What you don't like it that your religion has been shown to be a SCAM?.... well don't believe on it then....




Originally posted by mc_squared
Half of your own posts you debunk yourself and don't even realize it.


lol, not really, and again i don't see you refute anything except making illogical claims because your AGW religion is being shown to be a SCAM....



Originally posted by mc_squared
Every time I read one of your posts you're sounding more and more like a Monty Python sketch - and you make just as much sense. It's hilarious.


lol what is actually hilarious is that there are still people who have been so brainwashed, like you, that you still want to believe in scammers....

Between the leaked emails which show your idols have been scamming and deceiving people from the beginning, to the several errors that the IPCC had to admit, which several of us were pointing to people like you for years yet you jsut wanted to believe the SCAMMERS, to the fact that hundreds of peer-reviewed research shows AGW is based on nothing more than flawed computer models and assumtions made by people with an agenda, plus the fact that several scientists who believed the lies of AGW also have now changed their minds because the leaked emails, plus all the rroneous data which the IPCC has been basing their claims on should be telling intelligent people what AGW is all about...

But then again, you need to be intelligent to realize what this is all about...something you seem to lack.
Am I hilarious now?...




[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I've been comparing these anti-science deniers to YE creationists for a few years now. The similarities in their arguments etc. And then people pushing against science using the specious SLOT argument was the killer.


The only "anti-science deniers" and "religious fanatics" are those who keep beliving in AGW...oh I forgot you keep being one..... I guess you must be a religious fanatic and an "anti-science denier" since you are not accepting the facts....



Originally posted by mc_squared
Since then they've just got more desperate and incoherent. And here we are now picking at minor issues in a not very well-known part of the IPCC reports, stealing and quote-mining emails, and journalists making quotes up on the fly.


Yet nothing more than the same old rhetoric from the same old AGW kook who uses the papers from Mann, Jones, and loves to quote from FakeClimate.org, I mean realclimate.org.....

Between the leaked emails, the several errors which the IPCC had to concede were errors they based their claims on, plus the fact that you keep losing people, and scientists from your base of "core believers" it should show you your religion is dead "Al Gore junior"....



Originally posted by melatonin
In place of religion for YECers, it's political ideology for climate science deniers. Right-wing free market ideologues.


lol... this has NOTHING to do with "right wing free market" in fact it has been shown people like you keep getting rich from the religious scam you perpetrated.. But again we do know how mel loves to use red herrings and he seems to think they are valid arguments....



Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: I see the science naifs are on the scene. Peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient process. Crap still makes it through.


Yep, we keep seeing it, the crap that is, and reading it every time you, and your AGW buddies post in the forums....


[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by metamagic

I guess you totally missed the point of my post. I obviously erred in not being specific enough.


Your point seems to be that you are trying to refute this by making a claim which really refutes nothing, and has nothing to do with the thread.

I have worked with scientists of many different fields and I have valued their opinions as they have valued mine, but that doesn't prove anything at all does it?



Originally posted by metamagic
1. Beware of papers that are written by scientists who argue against standard models in a field that they have no background in. However, papers by scientists who have switched fields are usually quite insightful.



Well, i guess your point must be then not to trust anyone who dares to argue against models which are based on flawed assumptions...

Actually i have to say beware of those who would tell you not to believe scientists just because they, and their research happens to disagree with "standard models".



Originally posted by metamagic
2. Be careful of making a grand statement (like "global warming debunked" or some such) on the basis of a single paper even if it appears in a peer reviewed journal.


It isn't just a single piece of paper. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers, and thousands of scientists who have shown and or state AGW is a lie. A lie that is as dead as Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Then we have the leaked emails, the several errors that the IPCC had to concede recently they based their claims on, and the fact that nature itself has shown AGW is a lie.



Originally posted by metamagic
3. Don't be impressed by a single paper. That was my point, for each paper, you can generally find a rebuttal, and a rebuttal to the rebuttal. For non-scientists, it is hard to accept that scientists often argue for positions they don't believe in just to generate a rebuttal.


As i said above there is more than just this paper, and btw should people be impressed by your statements that "you have worked with both types of scientists" and take this claim of yours as proof that AGW is true?



Originally posted by melatonin
So, science is exact, scientists are not. Science is logical and has no ego, scientists are not and do have 'em.

Caveat discipulus.


No offense, but I have a hard time believing you have worked with scientists and yet you claim "science is exact"...

Science is not exact, science is always evolving because at the end science is but the estimated guess of a human who is flawed just because he/she is human.

Computer models are made by men, or women, and like humans computer models are flawed, and this is a fact that several peer-reviewed research has shown.




[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

Half of your own posts you debunk yourself and don't even realize it.

SCAM SCAM SCAM!!
..........


Oh and btw, if you are talking about this post... "‘Scam, Scam, Scam!’: European Parliament Member Rips Global Warming Hysteria" there is a rule in this website that we are not allowed to change the title of an article that we are posting. It seems obvious that once again you don't check facts before you open your mouth, or in this case write a post.

I have to wonder how is it posting the name of an article exactly as it shows in a link "debunks anyone."

One more thing, in case you didn't know, you can't debunk people, you can only debunk claims, statements, and theories....


But I guess someone like you can make that sort of mistake.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
The G&T article was the definitive sign that AGW denialists had jumped the shark.


Aye, does look like it!

It's a bit worrying though that they seem to think the greenhouse effect is so-named because the atmosphere works the same way as the glass in a greenhouse ........
And by proving it doesn't (everyone else has known this for 150 years) they thus 'prove' that global warming is impossible .....


Maybe they should have spent 5 minutes reading Arhennius first?

Though in any case, unless they've have proved than human activity has no effect whatsoever on the Earth's albedo (a city has the same albedo as a forest? A forest has the same albedo as a field? Ice covered water has the same albedo as open water?) and/or that Earth's albedo has no effect whatsoever on temperature (a white object absorbs the same radiation as a black object?), then they haven't disproven AGW





new topics

top topics



 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join