2011-05-19 17:32:02That Jalbring 2003 paper....
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.146.81.187

Hi folks,

(originally posted  in the peer review section - I'm still getting the hang of this place!)

There seems to have been a denier resurgence of late and one that keeps getting foisted upon the readerships of various newspaper comment-threads such as the Guardian's CIF is that Jalbring 2003 paper in E&E.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

When this popped up at the Guardian a day or two ago, I did do a search on Skeptical Science for a quick response as I had to go out, but couldn't find one. Given they are playing it again at the moment, I wonder if a rebuttal might be timely? Unfortunately, the physics required is a bit out of my depth, although it seems even to me that the author has gotten several things rather mixed-up. If they're going to keep throwing it about the place then a couple of paragraphs explaining what's wrong with it might be useful so that we can post links - not to win any argument with an individual denier but for the public to follow and make their own minds up.

Cheers - John

2011-05-19 19:06:01
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

Another shining example of Energy & Environment being no better than the Daily Sport.

 

His trick (as in fraudulent manipulation to lie to people, not as in useful mathematical tool) is to give 100% greenhouse effect by putting a perfectly insulating sheet around the atmosphere. Everything else stems from this.

The argument is effectively 'if you take radiation out of the equations you can prove that radiation doesn't affect temperature!' (corollary: energy isn't conserved OR radiation doesn't transfer energy)

2011-05-19 22:41:48
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.65

The discovery of warm water, as an italian saying goes.
This Hans Jelbring discovered the lapse rate and (wrongly) thinks that it is the greenhouse effect. Strange enough, he says that no one took it into consideration while quoting a standard textbook.
Not sure that such a bad paper should be given any consideration. I didn't heard about it untill now, but if it keeps popping up in skeptics quarters it's going to be an easy rebuttal.

2011-05-21 14:19:33
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.146.81.187

OK - since I am active in the Guardian's comment pages, where pretty much any old bit of crap that is being circulated tends to pop up, I'll keep tabs and let you all know if it's being pushed any further!

Cheers - John