Where Are All Climate Scientists?

                                  Everybody seems to be facing the same direction, but one...

In previous posts on climate sensitivity I have shown that the basic postulate of climate alarmism is the relation dQ = 4 dT connecting "radiative forcing" dQ = 4 Watts/m^2 from doubling CO2 (1% of total) to "global warming" of  dT = 1 C. The relation dQ = 4 dT is claimed to be an undeniable basic rock solid consequence of Stefan-Boltzmann's Radiation Law, which cannot be disputed.

Myself I can only find that to apply the Radiation Law to compute changes of the Earth surface temperature from increased CO2, is as incorrect as applying it to compute the change of the inside temperature of a house (or conventional greenhouse) from some change of interior heating. An engineer doing so would not have a job: Nobody would believe that a 1% radiator change from 1000 W to 1050 W can elevate an inhabitable inside temperature of 15 C to a cosy 20 C.

 

That climate alarmists like IPCC claim rock solid undeniable truth of the basic postulate is understandable, since it is alarming by indicating high climate sensitivity.

What I cannot understand is that  all scientists skeptic to IPPC alarmism, including Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke,..., and all sceptic blogs including the Reference Frame and WUWT,....also seem to consider the basic postulate of dQ = 4 dT to be correct. How is that possible? Is this an expression of the Dark Age of the Uncertainty Principle?

Oh, there is one, and one is enough: Compare with the very interesting 2009 article Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effect within the Frame of Physics by the physicist Gerhard Gerlich: By showing that 

• (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric green- house eects, 
• (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
• (c) the frequently mentioned dierence 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 falsied.

I agree. But how can it be that no climate scientist understands? In fact, Gerlich already in 1995 

expressed:

• the CO2-greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere is pure fiction of people who like to use big computers, without physical fundamentals. 
  

Climate scientists did not listen then and do not listen today. Why?

What is of particular interest, from a scientific point of view, is that according to Gerlich: The "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not appear 

•  in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, 
•  in any fundamental work of physical kinetics, 
•  in any fundamental work of radiation theory.

What we have is thus a form of folklore carried by climate scientists and Royal Academies, a folklore without any scientific basis and scientific source, as if  we are living in a Dark Age of Science covered up by a Dark Age of Information... Are we?