An example of why

Ethon flew in using the Way Back Machine attachment. Since the big guy is kinda slow, he has taken to doing the red-eye, followed by a quick spin in the time shifter however, you never know what will turn up in the ash can of history slot and, of course, it is Eli's job to clean up. Recently it was the text of a speech by Gerhard Gerlich of Gerlich and Tscheuschner fame at the Theodor-Heuss-Akademie, in Gummersbach, Germany on 20. 2. 2005.

Now some bunnies say that there has been enough, enough! on the other hand Gerlich and friend, have been, let us say not very friendly to the Rabett Run locals while being very aggressive about holding the one true second law, an attitude they are proselytizing throughout the deny-o-sphere. Their oh we am physicists and we know it all attitude is wearing, especially since they have not a clue. Anyhow, here is an example GG imposed on the Theodor-Huess-Akademic in Gummersbach to show that there is no greenhouse effect. The answer to the puzzler is given after the jump.

Gegenbeispiel 1:
Ein Wassertopf auf der Herdplatte. Ohne Wasser wird der Topfboden rotglühend. Wasser absorbiert die Infrarotstrahlung hervorragend und läßt das sichtbare Licht weitgehendunbehindert durch. Mit Wasser wird aber der Boden nicht rotglühend, also ist mit Wasser bei gleicher Heizleistung der Boden wesentlich kälter.

oK, it was in German, which translates as

Counter example 1:
A pot of water on the (electric) stove. Without water the bottom of the heating plate pot glows red. Water is great at absorbing the infrared radiation and lets visible light pass pretty much straight through. When you put the water on the heater the plate bottom of the pot doesn't glow red, so with water using the same heating power the electric stove plate bottom of the pot is a lot colder.

(Thanks to Martin for the correction on Boden)

So little ones - what did friend Gerlich miss? Here is a hint: make yourself a tea.



Water boils. Before it boils it evaporates, the heat loss is called latent heat, and is a major way in which the surface loses energy to the atmosphere (convection and radiation are the other two). Without a pot of water, the electric heater loses heat by convection and radiation. Put a pot of water on, and first the water is heated by conduction from the heating plate (this cools the plate as it is an additional heat loss mechanism), then evaporative losses move heat from the water to the atmosphere, and this large heat loss cools the electric plate.

Of course, if you boil all the water away, that electric heater glows red again because there is no loss of latent heat by evaporation (boiling being rapid evaporation). Difficult to know what G means by this example, a counterexample for the atmospheric greenhouse effect it is not, a difficult problem to understand, it is not. What does Gerlich think this shows?

It is not simple for laymen to find the cause of physical effects. A model of effect requires both a cause and an explanation. Both must be there. Even the Neanderthals used skins to reduce convectional cooling. You don't need any "physical explanation" for that. Thus, you don't find the "normal" greenhouse effect (auto or greenhouse) in any physics textbook. You also don't find the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect described in any theoretical physics textbook. That, taken together with these counterexamples shows every layman that this effect does not exist physically because the "physical explanation" is false.

Friend Gerlich is quite proud. At the beginning of this opus he mentions with due modesty:

Ich lege großen Wert darauf, daß ich kein Klimawissenschaftler bin, erst recht kein selbsternannter, sondern ein theoretischer Physiker. Auf jeden Fall verstehe ich von den physikalischen Grundlagen der fiktiven atmosphärischen Treibhauseffekte mehr als alle Klimatologen zusammengenommen, was naturgemäß gar nicht so schwer sein kann.

or

I am proud that I am not a climate scientist, even a self described one, but a theoretical physicist. In amy case, I understand the physical basis of the fictional greenhouse effect more as all the climatologists taken together, which, naturally can't be so difficult.

Better he should take a beginners course in atmospheric science and after that, perhaps something more complex. Oh yes, Dr. Gerlich will cheerfully send you a copy of his 1996 opus.

G. Gerlich: "Die physikalischen Grundlagen des Treibhauseffekts und fiktiver Treibhauseffekte", in: "Treibhaus-Kontroverse und Ozon-Problem", Europäische Akademie für Umweltfragen (1996), S. 115-147).

The Rabett shudders.