\section{Physicist's Summary}
%
A thorough discussion of the 
planetary heat transfer problem  
in the framework of theoretical 
physics and engineering thermodynamics 
leads to the following results:
%
\begin{enumerate}
%
\item
There are no common physical laws between 
the warming phenomenon in glass houses and 
the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, 
which explains the relevant physical phenomena.
The terms \lq\lq greenhouse effect\rq\rq\
and \lq\lq greenhouse gases\rq\rq\ are
deliberate misnomers.
%
\item
There are no calculations to determinate 
an average surface temperature of a planet 
%
\begin{itemize}
\item with or without an atmosphere, 
\item with or without rotation, 
\item with or without infrared light 
      absorbing gases. 
\end{itemize}
%
The frequently mentioned difference 
of 33~$^\circ{\rm C}$ for the fictitious 
greenhouse effect of the atmosphere 
is therefore a meaningless number.
%
\item 
Any radiation balance for the average 
radiant flux is completely irrelevant 
for the determination of the ground level 
air temperatures and thus for the average 
value as well.
%
\item
Average temperature values cannot 
be identified with
the fourth root of average values 
of the absolute temperature's fourth 
power.
%
\item 
Radiation and heat flows do not determine 
the temperature distributions and their 
average values.
%
\item
Re-emission is not reflection and can in no 
way heat up the ground-level air against 
the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
%
\item 
The temperature rises in the climate model 
computations are made plausible by a perpetuum 
mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting 
the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models 
to zero, an unphysical assumption. 
It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind,
if the \lq\lq average\rq\rq\ fictitious radiation balance, 
which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
%
\item
After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most 
of the absorption of the infrared radiation 
in the Earth's atmosphere. 
The wavelength of the part of radiation, 
which is absorbed by carbon dioxide
is only a small part of the full 
infrared spectrum and does not change 
considerably by raising its partial pressure.  
%
\item
Infrared absorption does not imply \lq\lq backwarming\rq\rq.
Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature 
of the illuminated surface.
%
\item
In radiation transport models with the assumption 
of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that 
the absorbed radiation is transformed into the 
thermal movement of all gas molecules. 
There is no increased selective re-emission 
of infrared radiation at the low temperatures 
of the Earth's atmosphere.
%
\item
In climate models, planetary or astrophysical
mechanisms are not accounted for properly.
The time dependency of the gravity acceleration 
by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) 
and the local geographic situation, which is important 
for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
%
\item 
Detection and attribution studies, 
predictions from computer models 
in chaotic systems,
and the concept of scenario analysis
lie outside the framework 
of exact sciences,
in particular theoretical physics.
%
\item
The choice of an appropriate 
discretization method and 
the definition of appropriate
dynamical constraints (flux control)
having become a part of computer modelling 
is nothing but another form of 
data curve fitting. 
The mathematical physicist v.\,Neumann
once said to his young collaborators: 
\lq\lq If you allow me four free parameters 
       I can build a mathematical model that 
       describes exactly everything that 
       an elephant can do. If you allow me 
       a fifth free parameter, the model 
       I build will forecast that the elephant 
       will fly.{\rq\rq}\
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ifthenelse{\equal{IJMPB}{\TschStyle}}
           {(cf.\ Ref.~\refcite{Zichichi2007}.)}
           {}%
\ifthenelse{\equal{arXiv}{\TschStyle}}
           {(cf.\ Ref.~\cite{Zichichi2007}.)}
           {}% 
\ifthenelse{\equal{TeX4ht}{\TschStyle}}
           {(cf.\ Ref.~\cite{Zichichi2007}.)}
           {} 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% 
\item    
Higher derivative operators 
(e.g.\ the Laplacian) can never
be represented on grids with wide meshes. 
Therefore a description of heat conduction
in global computer models is impossible. 
The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly
be represented on grids with wide meshes.

%
\item 
Computer models of higher dimensional 
chaotic systems, best described by 
non-linear partial differential equations
(i.e.\ Navier-Stokes equations),
fundamental differ from calculations 
where perturbation theory is applicable
and successive improvements of the
predictions - by raising the computing power -
are possible. At best, these computer models
may be regarded as a heuristic game.
%
\item 
Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of
chaos known as butterfly phenomenon as another
threat to the health of the Earth.
%
\end{enumerate}
%
In other words: 
Already the natural greenhouse effect 
is a myth albeit any physical reality.
The ${\rm CO}_2$-greenhouse effect, 
however is a \lq\lq mirage\rq\rq\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{Thieme2007}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
The horror visions of a risen sea level, 
melting pole caps and developing deserts 
in North America and in Europe 
are \textit{fictitious consequences} 
of \textit{fictitious physical mechanisms} 
as they cannot be seen even 
in the climate model computations.
The emergence of hurricanes and tornados
cannot be predicted by climate models, 
because all of these deviations 
are ruled out. 
%
The main strategy of modern 
${\rm CO}_2$-greenhouse gas defenders 
seems to hide themselves behind more
and more pseudo-explanations, 
which are not part of the academic education 
or even of the physics training. 
A good example are the radiation transport 
calculations, which are probably not 
known by many. Another example are
the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are 
introduced to amplify an effect
which is not marginal but does not
exist at all.
Evidently, the defenders of the
${\rm CO}_2$-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept 
any reproducible calculation as an explanation 
and have resorted to unreproducible ones.
A theoretical physicist must complain 
about a lack of transparency here, 
and he also has to complain about 
the style of the scientific discussion, 
where advocators of the greenhouse thesis 
claim that the discussion is closed, 
and others are discrediting justified arguments
as a discussion of \lq\lq questions of yesterday
and the day before yesterday\rq\rq%
%
\footnote{%
a phrase used by von\,Storch in
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\ifthenelse{\equal{IJMPB}{\TschStyle}}
           {Ref.~\refcite{Stockholm2006}}
           {}%
\ifthenelse{\equal{arXivOrTeX4ht}{\TschStyles}}
           {Ref.~\cite{Stockholm2006}}
           {}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
}.
In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical 
physics, the discussion is never closed and
is to be continued \textit{ad infinitum}, 
even if there are proofs of theorems available. 
Regardless of the specific field of studies 
a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled 
in natural science, 
though, even if the scientific fields 
are methodically as far apart as physics 
and meteorology: At least among experts, 
the results and conclusions should 
be understandable or reproducible. 
And it should be strictly distinguished
between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario
on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.

That means that 
if conclusions out of computer simulations 
are to be more than simple speculations, 
then in addition to the examination of the 
numerical stability and the estimation 
of the effects of the many vague 
input parameters, at least the 
simplifications of the physical original 
equations should be critically exposed. 
Not the critics have to estimate the effects 
of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulation. 

\lq\lq Global warming is good $\dots$
       The net effect of a modest global warming
       is positive.\rq\rq\ (Singer).%
%
\footnote{cf.\ Singer's summary at the Stockholm 2006 conference\TschSpace%
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\cite{Stockholm2006}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
}
In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand
the dynamics and causes of the long-term fluctuations 
of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this 
paper to get into all aspects of the climate variability 
debate.
 
The point discussed here was to answer the question,
whether the supposed atmospheric effect
has a physical basis. This is not the case. 
In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse 
effect, in particular ${\rm CO}_2$-greenhouse effect, 
in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions
which provide a consulting solution
for economics and intergovernmental policy.%
%

