Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

{cont}

>”Since the work was never published*, it of course has never been discussed in the peer reviewed literature. The obvious flaws in the paper cannot be discussed easily in a comment box, but for a good general guide to the junk physics in this paper I refer the reader to Eli Rabett’s discussion at …”
Our paper is a brand new preprint submitted for publication. You are allowed to cite it in your future work according to
the arXiv conventions. Apparently, you rank a peer reviewed published paper higher than a preprint, no matter of its content. Even so, really surprising in this context is that you attribute to the statements of a semi-anonymous virtual climate pet, namely Eli Rabett, the highest value.
What is this about? (my emphasis)
Gerhard Gerlich
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
___________________________
*Subsequently, the paper was duly published after completion of peer review in the International Journal of Modern Physics (Jan 2009) as noted above.

CAGW and the GH hypothesis is junk science, not even testable in Physics terms. The equations on which it is based are invalid on the face. No possible linear approximations can account for the sub-grid scale processes which dominate after very short periods (days or weeks). In fact, as noted clearly in the paper, neither the mathematics nor the computer power to process the equations and the extremely detailed data necessary for their functions exist, or can even theoretically exist. The processes are irremediably chaotic at even moderate time scales, much less decades and centuries.