{"id":1245,"date":"2019-10-24T21:51:18","date_gmt":"2019-10-24T21:51:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/klima-fakten.net\/?page_id=1245"},"modified":"2023-01-18T18:35:02","modified_gmt":"2023-01-18T17:35:02","slug":"physics-of-the-green-house-effect","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/klima-fakten.net\/?page_id=1245&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Physics of the green house effect"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image_print\"<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n

The current environmental policy of many countries seems to know only one goal, the avoidance of the „climate-damaging greenhouse gas“ \"CO_2\". Its harmful effectiveness is questioned by „climate sceptics“ and „climate realists“. The public discussion gives the impression that this in reality difficult scientific question could be decided by polemics and insults and by majority building in political committees or the ballot box, with the flimsy and fundamentally false assertion that things are simple and completely clarified by science<\/a><\/strong>. Conversely, the complexity of the issue, the details of which are not completely overlooked by any single person, seduces ideologically biased groups to dominate the public debate towards their dubious political agenda with difficult-to-understand half-truths or even blunt lies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For me as a physicist this situation is unacceptable. It is possible to clarify the question of the influence of the gas \"CO_2\" on the earth’s temperature on the foundations of physics, which have grown for centuries and have become universally accepted knowledge.<\/strong>
As about 10 publications on the topic of climate change are currently published daily, the topic cannot be dealt with in all details here.   
But due to the approach to build exclusively on undisputed assumptions, I see this contribution as an opportunity to finally address and clarify the topic on a factual level.<\/strong>
Of course, this may include a hard discussion, which will then hopefully be conducted in the spirit of this contribution, as objectively as possible and on the basis of the undisputed prerequisites.  I expect that both „sides“ will „rub“ against these arguments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The argumentation presented here is not new, and to a certain degree it is not even controversial to IPCC publications. Some of the necessary physical findings have been known for over 100 years. The individual arguments have already been published by other authors. In my opinion, what is missing is an understandable, objective and 100% comprehensible chain of argumentation.
If I’m wrong, I like to be taught better with convincing arguments, but not with the infinitely stupid, unscientific argument that almost all scientists agree on certain statements<\/strong>.  That would be the end of all scientific progress.       <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This contribution has the goal of<\/p>\n\n\n\n