Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Framework of Physics

This paper was published nearly a year ago by German physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner; somehow I missed it, not being in the main AGW loop. The authors claim that the atmosphere does not have the same characteristics as a glass greenhouse, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is violated with such a faulty hypothesis, namely that heat transfers from warmer to cooler, not the other way around as is required by AGW by means of CO2. Also the attempt to model the complexities of the actual conditions is shown to be futile, plus the influence of CO2 concentration is not a factor in the heat transfer equations.

The following is an excerpt:

This is the generalized form of the heat equation.[not shown here, but above in the original text].Only with artificial heat densities Q in Equations (144) and (136) one can incorporate a hypothetical warming by radiation. There is no term that depends on the carbon dioxide concentration.

4.2.11 Discussion

The equations discussed above comprise a system of one-fluid equations only. One can (and must) write down many-fluid equations and, in addition, the averaged equations describing the turbulence. To get a realistic model of the real world, the above equations must be generalized to take into account

* the dependency of all relevant coeffcients on space and time;

* the presence and coexistence of various species of fluids and gases;

* the inhomogenities of the media, the mixture and separation of phases.

In principle such a generalization will be feasable, if one cuts the domains of definition into pieces and treats the equations by a method of patches. Thus the final degree of complexity may be much larger than originally expected arriving at a system of thousands of phenomenological equations defining non-linear three-dimensional dynamics and heat transfer.

It cannot be overemphasized that even if these equations are simplifed considerably, one cannot determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small time intervals. This situation will not change in the next 1000 years regardless of the progress made in computer hardware. Therefore, global climatologists may continue to write updated research grant proposals demanding next-generation supercomputers ad infinitum. As the extremely simplifed one-fluid equations are unsolvable, the many-fluid equations would be more unsolvable, the equations that include the averaged equations describing the turbulence would be still more unsolvable, if "unsolvable" had a comparative.

Regardless of the chosen level of complexity, these equations are supposed to be the backbone of climate simulations, or, in other words, the foundation of models of nature. But even this is not true: In computer simulations heat conduction and friction are completely neglected, since they are mathematically described by second order partial derivatives that cannot be represented on grids with wide meshes.

Hence, the computer simulations of global climatology are not based on physical laws.
The same holds for the speculations about the influence of carbon dioxide:

* Although the electromagnetic field is included in the MHD-type global climatologic equations, there are no terms that correspond to the absorption of electromagnetic radiation.

* It is hard if not impossible to find the point in the MHD-type global climatologic equations, where the concentration of carbon dioxide enters the game.

* It is impossible to include the radiative transfer equation (59) into the MHD-type climatologic equations.

* Apparently, there is no reference in the literature, where the carbon dioxide concentration is implemented in the MHD-type climatologic equations.

Hence, one is left with the possibility to include a hypothetical warming by radiation by hand in terms of artificial heat densities Q in Equation (144). But this would be equivalent to imposing the "political correctly" requested anthropogenic rise of the temperature even from the beginning just saving an additional trivial calculation.

In case of partial differential equations more than the equations themselves the boundary conditions determine the solutions. There are so many dierent transfer phenomena, radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc. and many types of interfaces, static or moving, between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc. for which there does not exist an applicable theory, such that one even cannot write down the boundary conditions [176, 177].

In the "approximated" discretized equations artifcial unphysical boundary conditions are introduced, in order to prevent running the system into unphysical states. Such a "calculation", which yields an arbitrary result, is no calculation in the sense of physics, and hence, in the sense of science. There is no reason to believe that global climatologists do not know these fundamental scientific facts. Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climates.

An interesting comment from another blog: None of the global climate experts have PhDs in Global Climate Science. They are "pioneers" who are making it up as they go.

The idea that "climate is not weather" progresses to: climate is indeed physics. Climate Forecasting however, is politics and money and reputation.