Return the Nobel Prize

This paper is a full frontal attack on the science that has been presented and relied on by the IPCC crowd for the past several years. I am not aware of ever seeing such an unforgiving denunciation of anyone’s science.

I personally thought that some of the work was suspect, but at least erred on the side of an optimistic interpretation. This is saying that some of the work is just plain wrong. Wrong is always a problem in science, because other researchers do rely on your work. They get very angry if years of their work are wrecked by your fudge job.

The actual report is over a hundred pages and is quite a read. It cannot be copied anyway, but can be accessed by this link:

http://arxiv.org/format/0707.1161v4

With the attacks on the IPCC’s science now turning into a flood, we have not seen the last of this article and the responses to it. The pro warming crowd will now need a very sound bit of scientific work to counter the damage been done here.

The recent pronouncements from them display desperation and dogmatism. And the way things are going, as proper ethical scientists, it will become necessary for them to eventually acknowledge their error and return the Nobel Prize.

Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics."

The abstract of the paper reads in part, "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." Gerlich and Tscheuschner's study concluded, "The horror visions of a risen sea level, 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 modern 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."

From Conclusion: “The derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.”

Full text of Abstract:

Note that the full text is available and it is worthwhile to go to the summary at the end.
Abstract

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a _rm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 _C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics

B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World

Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.