New Paper Uses Physics Laws To Disassemble Greenhouse Theory
Eight years ago, 2 physicists published a comprehensive 115-page scientific paper entitled “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” in the International Journal of Modern Physics.
Buttressed by a reference list of over 200 scientific publications, the authors addressed the merits of commonly held greenhouse “conjectures” as they relate to the laws of physics.
“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.”
From pages 35 to 44, Gerlich and Tscheuschner critiqued 14 different “fictitious” manifestations of the greenhouse effect theory as they have appeared over the course of the last several decades.
In a newly-published scientific paper, meteorologist and physical chemist Dr. Martin Hertzberg (and two other chemists) provide a condensed update to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner appraisal of the theoretical greenhouse effect.
Hertzberg and colleagues also apply the standard laws of physics to critique 6 current theoretical explanations for the role of greenhouse gases (CO2) in presumably keeping the Earth 15°C warmer than it would otherwise be.
Included below is an abridged, less-technical version of the (pay-walled) paper in an ostensibly user-friendly format.
It should be noted that the conclusions may be controversial even for skeptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarm. That’s because the vast majority of climate skeptics at least accept the basic tenets of the greenhouse effect theory. Instead, the existing skepticism focuses on the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing in particular (low vs. high), not on whether the greenhouse effect as conventionally expressed is “real” or meets the standards applied by the laws of physics.
It is widely assumed that that the common understanding of how greenhouse gases operate in the climate system (the atmosphere and oceans) is both real and supported by scientific observation and physical tests. This paper, like Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), may challenge this assumption.