Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
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 a mechanism is real and stands on a firm 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° 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.
(My emphasis in bold)
Abstract,
by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D.Tscheuschner
Unfortunately, there's a paywall in front of the full PDF article.
The much-hyped recent warming appears to have tapered off, or flat-lined. Some say we are now entering a period of perhaps prolonged cooling. If true, any sustained cooling - in and of itself - falsifies the theory of AGW.
I hope we don't have to freeze our tails off to prove the climate alarmists wrong. It would be tragic if (perhaps) misguided zealots and/or fanatics succeed in powering down our coal plants at the very time we will most need their output.
We cannot rely on wind-farms, solar or other so-called green energy. At present, our choices are fossil fuels and/or nuclear. I'm not satisfied that the latter is a wise choice.
I'm horrified that so many seemingly intelligent people are so myopic that they fail to recognize the severe economic shackles they are wishing on this country at the very time we are undergoing a financial melt-down, all on the basis of a controversial theory that has many, many skeptics who question its validity.
'Talk about playing into the hands of our enemies!
S