Carefully-reasoned new paper finds no support for any global warming theory

Natural Science, Vol.3 No.12, December 2011

Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact

by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi


In this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) quan- tifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively.

In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years.

Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and WMO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.



  1. Judging from some comments online, eg , it seems that paper is going to take quite a beating over the upcoming year or two as people read it and weigh in.

  2. Jose_X,

    obviously, your reference Tom Curtis had never read the paper of Kramm and Dlugi (2011). His arguments are sheer nonsense because K&D clearly distinguished between the branches of physical climatology and statistical climatology. The definition of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) only covered the branch of statistical climatology. In its International Meteorological Vocabulary (Sec. ed. WMO-No. 182. Geneva, 1992, p. 112) the WMO defined climate as the

    "Synthesis of weather conditions in a given area, characterized by long-term statistics (mean values, variances, probabilities of extreme values, etc.) of the meteorological elements in that area."

    This definition is also used by K&D. Area does not mean the entire globe. The Koppen-Geiger climate classification also mentioned by K&D illustrates that the notion global climate is not only impractical, but also rather inadequate. Figure 13 of K&D are related to a figure of NCAR scientist Meehl.

    Trends in the global near-surface temperature must not be related to statistical climatology. A fundamental requirement in statistics is that the data must be random. This is the reason why, at least, thirty years have to be considered as a climate period. One can also determine a trend of a record even though the requirement of randomness is not fulfilled.

    Because of his incompetence Tom Curtis is worried about the word Greek "klima" which means inclination of the incident sunbeams. Obviously, he is not familiar with any kind of theory or numerical modeling. For your information: The use of the solar zenith angle to express the inclination of the incident sunbeams is mandatory in describing both the radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere and the energy budget at the earth's surface. Thus, it is used in both NWP models and General Circulation Models.

    Since you and your reference Tom Curtis are not familiar with the physics of the atmosphere and physical climatology I recommend to read textbooks on atmospheric radiation (e.g., Liou, 2002; Petty, 2004), atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics (e.g., Riegel, 1992; Zdunkowski and Bott, 2003), and physical climatology (e.g., Peixoto and Oort, 1992).


All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them