No .. dividing by 0 won't help here either.

A paper that more people should read (via Small Dead Animals):

There is No Greenhouse Effect

German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner offered a paper in July of 2007 that argued that the theory of “greenhouse” earth defies the laws of physics.

It’s a very long technical read better suited to those among us who have a physics background … the summations are, if true, devastating to the entire AGW theory. The PDF:

It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport cofficients must be a highly involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is misleading to visualize a photon as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality or Feynman graph picture. 

It is an interesting point that the heat conductivity of CO2 is only one half of that of nitrogen or oxygen. In a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere a conventional light bulb shines brighter than in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere due to the lowered heat conductivity of its environment. But this has nothing to do with the supposed CO2 greenhouse effect which refers to trace gas concentrations. Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a heat conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of `super insulation’ violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.


– In Section 2 the warming effect in real greenhouses, which has to be distinguished strictly from the (in-) famous conjecture of Arrhenius, is discusseed.

– Section 3 is devoted to the atmospheric greenhouse problem. It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.

– In Section 4 theoretical physics and climatology are discussed in context of the philosophy of science. The question is raised, how far global climatology fits into the framework of exact sciences such as physics.

– The final Section 5 is a physicist’s summary.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s