Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 3.0 (September 9, 2007)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.go
................
4.3.3 Conclusion
A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse e ect.
There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results
that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, ux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over di erent climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand [154], continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition
Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects : : : 91
of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical
statistics.
In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.
.................
In other words: Already the natural greenhouse e ect is a myth albeit any physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse e ect, however is a \mirage" [204]. The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are ctitious 94 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner consequences of ctitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by
climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudoexplanations,
which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.
A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify
an e ect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and
have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scienti c discussion,
where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justi ed arguments as a discussion of \questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday"25. In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad in nitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available.
Regardless of the speci c eld of studies a minimal basic rule should be ful lled in natural science, though, even if the scienti c elds are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology:
At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clari ed in the philosophy of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation
of the e ects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simpli cations of the physical original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the e ects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulation.
\Global warming is good : : : The net e ect of a modest global warming is positive."
(Singer).26 In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term
uctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to get into all aspects of the climate variability debate.
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric e ect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse e ect, in particular CO2-greenhouse e ect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting
solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
arxiv.org |
