rat, the IPCC consensus science say that way CO2 would drive global temperatures would result in the upper troposphere trapping lots more heat. And in the tropics because that is the only place where Sun energy in is higher than the Earth's IR out. At the bottom a chart used by Dr. Gray show this.
The models are all falsified by observations. The models are the codifying of the speculated CO2 influence. There ain't no science.
The proffers of Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner have not been falsified and are consistent with observations.
Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butterfly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth.
In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth albeit any physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a "mirage" [204]. The horror visions of a risen sealevel, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious ,consequences of fictitious 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 mod- ern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, 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 am- plify an effect 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 andhave 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 scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified 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 infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though, even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and me- teorology: 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 clarified 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 effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulation.
"Global warming is good The net effect 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 fluctuations 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 effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
----------------------------. . . ... . . . ----------------------------------------
Ground temperature variations are just natural variability. Also you data is out of date by two years.
Model calculations do not agree with measured temperatures in the upper troposphere
 |
