Nils-Axel Mörner, Two German Climate Scientists: “CO2 Malarkey Coming To An End”…”Its Days Are Doomed”

Renowned Swedish paleogeophysicist Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner also has sent his comment to NoTricksZone concerning the termination of the fellowship of Caleb S. Rossiter and the state of climate science.

His comment is also followed by a joint statement sent by German climate scientists Prof Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner.

Nils-Axel Mörner:
Ass. Professor, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics
Sea Level, Paleoclimate, Sun-Earth Interaction

The story of ‘a twinkling blanket of bulbs’ is touching (the words by Rossiter in WSJ). Of course, South Africa should have its new coal-fired power plant. The global hysteria about CO2-emissions is a terrible instrument in neo-colonialism, and has set up such remarkable personal behaviours of inquisition and book-burning.

The issue is surely not founded in science. More remarkable is that it has swept across the world. However its days are doomed, and with the accumulation of new facts and records, it will wither away – but until that day of science liberation arrives, we will continue to face much destruction, inquisition and misconceptions.”

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich / Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner:

The days of this CO2 malarkey are coming to an end – sooner or later. Therefore, Professor Rossiter’s fellowship at the Institute for Policy Studies should be reactivated since he got the point. We have emphasized that there are no atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects in physics, and climate models are not based on physics. The anti-CO2 campaigners never presented measurements, which show that an atmospheric gas volume warms up in response to a concentration increase of the trace gas CO2. And never it was proven that so-called “fossil fuels” are fossil. The earth ball is a huge repository of resources wrapped into a thin film of mankind. So what? An enlightened, up-powered and industrialized Africa will be a source of our future inspirations and creativity.  IPCC, Al Gore, and their buddies should turn off their light bulbs sustainably. This would solve most of these (pseudo-)problems of our time immediately.”

 

21 responses to “Nils-Axel Mörner, Two German Climate Scientists: “CO2 Malarkey Coming To An End”…”Its Days Are Doomed””

  1. benpal

    Thanks for publishing these strong words!

  2. Don B

    Alas, the end of this Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of Crowds can not come soon enough to prevent Obama and other governmental leaders from doing great harm.

  3. Psalmon

    Eventually someone other than “moon made of cheese” skeptics are going to care how all the temperature adjustments add up to 2, 3, 4 degrees, but people notice it’s colder and colder.

  4. R2Dtoo

    Slowly but surely the honest scientists are stepping forward. The greatest thing we can do is undo the 97% consensus garbage. I thank you for bringing these sentiments forward, and even mores, these scientists for stepping forward. I’m really hoping David Evans’ new work passes criticism and shakes the world.

  5. Eric Smith

    Not while the oil companies and banks are promoting it.

    http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro

    James Hansen in the Guardian.

    Governments today, instead, talk of “cap-and-trade with offsets”, a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/26/james-hansen-climate-change

  6. Mick

    It has never been about climate change. That has been the “front” used to redistribute wealth and increase governmental power. Both goals are being attained; observe your power bills.

  7. Les

    People who believe in consensus should read about Dr.Semmelweis.

  8. David Appell

    If there is no greenhouse effect

    1) Why is the Earths’ surface temperature 30 C warmer than sunlight can make it?

    and

    2) Why are there big gouges carved out of the Earth’s TOA outgoing spectrum:
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/ ?

    1. cleanwater2

      David Where is your credible experiment that proves that the GHGE exists? I’ve asked you this question many times and you still can not provide the answer. Here is a short list of references that you obviously have ignored when I posted them on your web-sit.
      The average atmospheric earth temperature has been level or going down for the last 18 years inspite of increased CO2, this is because the GHGE does not exist.
      David your degree in Theortical physics is meaningless because they only taught you what to think not how to think.
      If anyone gets this far, do you still believe the “GHGE exist”? Do you question its existence?. You also better be doing some independent research because it has been proved that there are large numbers of groups of supposedly scientific societies that have pissed on their own “Codes of Ethic” by agreeing with the Hoax of Mann-made global warming” by Consensus not by proven experiments.
      Those that have accepted the Hoax of Mann-made global warming/GHGE include such organizations as Society of Sigma Xi ( a major group of scientists and engineer), the American Society of Civil Engineers, The National Academy of Science,, these are just some that I have had personal experience. The list of others would be in the thousands.
      At the same time a few Noble prize recipients in physics have resigned from the American Physical Society because of their consensus accepted of the GHGE.
      The witchdoctors of the IPCC , The US EPA, some at NASA, the EU, George Soros , Australia politicians and John Cook that are attempting to destroy the economics of the world because they lie about the fact that science has proven that the “GHGE” does not exist.

      Berthold Klein P.E.
      http://climaterealists.com/5783
      ALAN SIDDONS HEADLINE STORY JOHN O’SULLIVAN NASA
      NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
      Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
      Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
      NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

      As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:
      **************************
      But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.

      How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.

      ********************************************************
      Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan
      ###########################################################################

      The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
      Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
      B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
      http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
      Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

      Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme

      Part 12
      R.W.Wood from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
      The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
      By Alan Siddons
      from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

      The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

      “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

      The work of Arrhenius was shown to be significantly in error by Angstrom in1903. Arrhenius changed his career shortly after> Why?

      After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by many physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

      Paraphrasing: Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 Million politicians and 20 Million environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

      University of Pennsylvania Law School
      ILE
      INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
      A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
      and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
      at the University of Pennsylvania
      RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
      Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
      Jason Scott Johnston
      UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
      May 2010
      This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
      Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.

      Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
      Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
      Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
      http://www.americanthinker.com
      Ponder the Maunder
      wwwclimatedepot.com
      icecap.us
      http://www.stratus-sphere.com
      SPPI
      The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010, G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( peer reviewed).
      Many others are available.
      The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”—Albert Einstein
      “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
      Part 13
      APPENDIX
      • IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation(invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature. animals radiate IR from exothermic oxidation and plants do so from endothermic photosynthesis. http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html Photosynthetic organisms also have a thermoregulatory system that permits them to radiate the excess of absorbed thermal radiation and the heat generated from metabolic processes. Dr. Nahle conducted an experiment related to this mechanism of thermoregulation in melons and spearmint: http://www.biocab.org/Biophysics.html#anchor_36

      • IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR, there construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags. The words “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary. Atoms and molecules absorb according to their unique absorption spectrum and emit according to their unique emission spectrum. They emit amount of radiation, w/m2 that they absorb.
      • The Bohr model is the work of Dr. Niels Bohr a physicist that studied the behavior of gasses when they absorb IR and other forms of radiation. This is much more complicated than presented here. It is a branch of science called Quantum physics.
      The basic studies resulted in Dr. Bohr receiving a Nobel Prize in physics in 1922.
      The important part of the Bohr model is that when the gas absorbs IR radiation it does not “heat” the gas. It does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecule which is the velocity of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. The IR (photon) energy is converted to inter-molecular activity. The explanation is a concept that is beyond the scope of this experiment. It has an important part in proving that the GHGE does not exist. Many volumes of experiments are available and can be explained better by Quantum physicists; the subject is being studied continually -”The science is not settled.”
      • Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth’s fortunate location in the universe, its temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water (liquid/solid) can change to a gas at all temperature, to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above, and a solid below 32

    2. cleanwater2

      Read the papers ” The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
      By Alan Siddons
      from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

      As stated before you have been taught what to believe,not how to think.
      Science is never settled!
      Is Kirchhoff’s Law Valid?

      April 9, 2014

      (THUNDERBOLT PROJECT) – Kirchhoff’s law of thermal emission (formulated in 1860) is presented and demonstrated to be invalid. This law is crucial to our understanding of radiation within arbitrary cavities. Kirchhoff’s law rests at the heart of condensed matter physics and astrophysics. Its collapse can be directly associated with 1) the loss of universality in Planck’s law (Planck’s constant and Boltzmann’s constant are no longer universal in nature), 2) the collapse of the gaseous Sun as described in Standard Solar Models, and 3) the inability of the Big Bang to act as the source of the microwave background.

      spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreen shift + ←→slower / faster (latest Chrome and Safari)
      ↑↓volume mmute
      ←→seek . seek to previous 12…6 seek to 10%, 20%, …60%
      Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

      Write’s PSI President John O’Sullivan:

      PSI’s Vice Chair Dr Pierre Latour was a co-speaker at the Thunderbolts Conference where Dr Robitaille gave that address. Latour peer reviewed Robitaille’s science and affirmed it was sound. Latour agrees that what Robitaille has now proven about radiation also applies to – and discredits – global warming ‘science’ because it shows that the IPCC’s understanding of how radiation warms the climate is wrong.

      Robitaille’s science says that when atmospheric temperature increases, then CO2 emissivity goes down. This entirely supports what 350+ PSI experts say. Moreover, Dr Latour affirms this is consistent with Hottel, Perry’s “Chemical Engineer’s Handbook”, 1950. It again shows that experts from the ‘hard’ sciences are better able to adduce what happens within earth’s climate system than those climatologists (mostly geographers) who are ‘soft’ scientists, with inferior knowledge and training in higher physics and chemistry.

      Robitaille’s explanation of solar behavior (sunspots, eruptions and wind) fits beautifully with that of PSI consultant and friend, Piers Corbyn, the worlds best independent long range weather forecaster. Dr Laotur reports, “Robitaille’s science points to how Corbyn does it: solar wind drives jet streams which drive climate change. Electric Universe is coming into focus, ions and electrons on the go, electrical and chemical engineering hand in hand. CO2 is innocent.”

    3. Bart

      1) Why is the Earths’ surface temperature 30 C warmer than sunlight can make it?
      2) Why are there big gouges carved out of the Earth’s TOA outgoing spectrum

      These observations are necessary for the GHE to be present, but they are not sufficient to prove that adding more GHG to the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures. The surface temperature depends on several variables, and is not everywhere necessarily locally increscent with respect to GHG concentration. Additionally, there are negative feedbacks in the system.

      The temperature records of the last 18 years (and more, e.g., the fact that the rise from 1910-1940, before CO2 concentration could have had any discernible effect, precisely matches the increase from 1970-2000) demonstrate conclusively that the sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2 concentration, in the present climate state, is at most negligible, and could even be negative.

      1. DirkH

        “1) Why is the Earths’ surface temperature 30 C warmer than sunlight can make it?”

        Nonsensical computation – The computation bases its assumption on an atmosphere without greenhouse gases – i.e. without CO2 and without H2O – yet uses the same albedo for Earth as the real Earth has – including clouds and ice areas.

  9. Hugh K

    I’m not optimistic — Global warming has long-past moved from science to the political. As with all things political, the divide is between the left and the right. As recent history has demonstrated, the left never capitulates, even when the evidence is overwhelming against the concept the left is promoting. They simply change the evidence as we have witnessed time and again with supposed global warming.

    The Fix — NOAA and NASA have been ‘adjusting’ both historical and current raw data (the evidence) with urgency for a reason. Historical temperature data is always adjusted down while recent/current temperature data is always adjusted up (both statistically impossible). This ‘adjusted’ data makes its way to the NCDC (National Climatic Data Center). As both satellite and surface temps reach the twenty year mark, regardless of reality, promoters of CAGW, will simply point to the ‘adjusted’ data held at the NCDC claiming that historical data cannot be disputed. The left never capitulates.

    Follow the Money – As always, consumers/taxpayers will subsidize those with a vested interest in the continued promotion of CAGW as we have already witnessed with solar and wind projects that cannot financially succeed based solely on their particular not-ready-for-prime-time technology. From those whose paycheck demands making wild/scary projections in the name of science, to those that ‘adjust’ the data and store it, and eventually those that utilize this ‘adjusted’ data to promote their particular global warming business, it is naïve to think that those profiteers will ever simply admit they were wrong and walk away from the golden (‘green’?) goose.

    Hope/Change – The only hope of stopping this fraud is the combination of an open-minded inquisitive media and an honest government…..And at that notion, I am laughing too hard to continue typing…

  10. BobW in NC

    The left is tone deaf to facts, direct evidence, truth. Their world consists of one entirely of their own making. All else does not exist…

    Sad.

    1. KevinM

      Just the left?

      1. DirkH

        Yes. “The ends justifies the means” is their credo, not ours.

  11. cleanwater2

    After reading the orininal version of Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich / Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner: – paper Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
    Within The Frame Of Physics
    Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
    replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
    Gerhard Gerlich
    Institute fur Mathematische Physik
    Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
    Mendelssohnstrae 3
    D-38106 Braunschweig
    Federal Republic of Germany
    g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
    Ralf D. Tscheuschner
    Postfach 60 27 62
    D-22237 Hamburg
    Federal Republic of Germany
    ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov

    Abstract

    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 equilibrate 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 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 green-
    house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
    of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference 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, (setting thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

    I developed the experiment that proves that the Hypotheses of the Greenhouse effect does not exist. -The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.
    Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
    By Berthold Klein P.E 1-15-2012 Incorporation of comments of Dr.’s Pierre Latour, Dr. Nasif Nahle and others.
    More people should read both papers and other similar references and spread the word.

  12. metin
  13. Mervyn

    Obama has put his weight behind the global warming alarmist cause and, sadly, Obama has given a new lease of life to the great global warming con promoted by the IPCC since its creation in 1988.

    This could have serious ramifications for the world unless conservative governments such as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, together with countries like India, China and Russia, act in unison to defeat this new form of climate extremism which demands the world drastically changes because of its human induced CO2 that, at best, is only responsible for about 0.11 of 1% of the total greenhouse effect.

    Obama and the army of alarmists have lost all sense of proportion on this non-issue.