\subsection{Introduction}
%
A fundamental theory of the weather and its local averages, 
the climates, must be founded on a reasonable physical theory.
Under the premise that such a theory has
already been formulated there are still two basic problems left 
unresolved, namely 
%
\begin{itemize}
\item 
the embedding of the purely physical 
theory in a much more wider framework including the 
chemical and biological interactions within the 
geophysical realm, 
\item 
the correct physical account of a possible 
non-trivial radiative effect, which must go far 
beyond the famous black body approach, which is 
suggestive but does not apply to gases.
\end{itemize}
% 
A review of the issues of chemistry and biology 
such as the carbon cycle lies outside 
the perspective of this paper, but it must not be neglected. %
%
In his criticism of global warming studies
by means of computer models the eminent theoretical
physicist Freeman J.\ Dyson stated\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{Dyson2005}:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\begin{quote}
\lq\lq
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, 
and they do a very good job of describing the fluid 
motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. 
They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, 
the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields 
and farms and forests. 
They do not begin to describe the real world 
that we live in. 
The real world is muddy and messy and 
full of things that we do not yet understand. 
It is much easier for a scientist to sit 
in an air-conditioned building and 
run computer models, than to put on 
winter clothes and measure what is 
really happening outside in the swamps 
and the clouds. 
That is why the climate model experts 
end up believing in their own models.\rq\rq 
\end{quote}
% 
However, it can be shown that even within the borders of 
theoretical physics with or without radiation 
things are extremely complex so that one very 
quickly arrives at a point where verifiable 
predictions no longer can be made. Making such 
predictions nevertheless may be interpreted 
as an escape out of the department of sciences, 
not to say as a scientific fraud.

In the following the conservation laws 
of magnetohydrodynamics are reviewed. 
It is generally accepted that 
a Navier-Stokes-type approach
or a simplified magnetohydrodynamics 
provides the backbone to climatological 
computer simulations\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{McGuffie2006,Scaife2007,Chorin1993}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% 
In these frameworks neither the radiative budget 
equations can be derived, nor is it possible 
to integrate radiative interactions in a consistent way. 
Therefore it would conceptually be necessary to go into 
the microscopic regime, which is described by 
non-equilibrium multi-species quantum electrodynamics 
of particles incorporating bound states with internal 
degrees of freedom, whereby the rich structure and 
coexistence of phases have to be taken into account 
in the discussion of natural situations. From these 
only formally sketchable microscopic \textit{ab initio} 
approaches there is no path known that leads to a family 
of more realistic phenomenological climate models\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{Zichichi2007}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% 
