vansig wrote: In a different thread, there is a raging debate about CO2, and whether it has an effect or no, and whether there is transparency or secrets kept, in the field of climatology. that debate is slightly more appropriately placed here.

So,
Given a spinning sphere, period=24h, radius=6371km, albedo=0.367, at 1AU from the Sun, atmosphere scale height=7 km, and known concentrations of various gases, it should be possible to calculate the contribution of each one on temperature from their absorption spectra. This is an incomplete model, certainly, but regardless of validity we should be able to learn something from it.

So: what then, does it say, about the effect of GHG concentrations, eg CO2 between 200 – 1000 ppm, upon average global temperatures?

http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/auer_files/image001.gif

Surely the transparency exists in the research to make it possible for any ordinary person, like me, to run this?
Surely I dont need to join some club, and make an oath of silence?
Surely I can publish, even self-publish, all the results and the code for verification, if i write it myself?

Nope.
Here’s what genuine physicists say: (excuse the Germanic English)

“… 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.”

From http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

Also,

Thus there is simply no physical foundation of global climate computer models, for which
still the chaos paradigma holds: Even in the case of a well-known deterministic dynamics
nothing is predictable [201]. That discretization has neither a physical nor a mathematical
basis in non-linear systems is a lesson that has been taught in the discussion of the logistic
differential equation, whose continuum solutions differ fundamentally from the discrete ones
[202, 203].
Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by
introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model.

A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models
and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and
attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect.
There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists
believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results
that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods,
flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand [154], continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical
statistics.
In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global
warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.

the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality. The
CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a “mirage” [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level,
melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious con-
sequences of 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 mod-
els, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-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 just marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis
refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unre-
producible 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 advocates of
the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified
arguments as a discussion of “questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday”[25].

And finally:

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 CO2-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.