Breakable wrote:

“Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.

What to do next:
1)Post the next paper which claims to have fully refuted the GW (silver bullet mentality);
2)Try some FUD instead by attacking the uncertainties of GW process (muddling the waters);
3)Plaster the current refuted paper all over the forums yet again and again. and again (persistence wins in the end);
4)Have some doubts (The ILLUMINATES will win!!!)

PS:If you are claiming some credentials (a degree in Physics), you might want to prove them, otherwise its empty claim, because we can’t verify.

That paper was immediately challenged and no response was obtained; the slur that two specialist physics professors didn’t understand the 2nd Law, issued by an unqualified non-physicist, was laughable to begin with.
Here is their response. (See continued for balance of material)

974.
February 11th,
2008
4:25 am
Dear all,
Dear Dr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert,
We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are very sorry that we cannot reply to all statements published in Internet blogs since our “times on-line” are rather limited. Especially, we do not reply to semi-anonymous virtual climate pets like Eli Rabett and other Internet geniusses such as Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf and others at “Real Climate” or “Atmoz Blog” anti-scientific smear sites. Most of them do know so little about physics such that they quote the second law of thermodynamics incorrectly in order to falsify our work. Even the difference between energy, work and heat seems to be unknown to these experts. This cannot be the basis of a scientific discussion.
First, let us start with discussing the identity of Eli Rabett. We have been informed that Eli Rabett is the pseudonym of Josh Halpern, a chemistry professor at Howard University. He is a laser spectroscopist with no formal training in climatology and theoretical physics.
On 2007-11-14 we sent Josh Halpern the following E-Mail:
“Josh Halpern alias Eli Rabbett – [If you are not Josh Halpern, then forgive me and delete this message immediately.]
Apparently, believing to be protected by anonymity you (and others) want to establish a quality of a scientific discussion that is based on offenses and arrogance rather than on critical rationalism and exchange of arguments. Scientist cannot tolerate and endorse what is becoming a quality in weblogs and what is pioneered by IPCC-conformal virtual climate bloggers. I must urge you to reconsider.
My questions to you:
1. What is the most general formulation of the second law of thermodynamics?
2. What is your favorite exact definition of the atmospheric greenhouse effect within the frame of physics?
3. Could you provide me a literature reference of a rigorous derivation of this effect?
4. How do you compute the supposed atmospheric greenhouse effect (the supposed warming effect, not simply the
absorption) from given reflection, absorption, emission spectra of a gas mixture, well-formulated
magnetohydrodynamics, and unknown dynamical interface and other boundary conditions?
5. Do you really believe, that you can transform an unphysical myth into a physical truth on such a low level of
argumentation?”
We did not get any response.
We would like to encourage the readers of this blog to read our paper, at least the conclusions.
It can be found here:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
The following is a delayed reply to the very offending posting #111 of Raymond T. Pierrehumbert who wrote to Marc
Morano:
>“You can obfuscate all you want, but you can’t hide from the fact that we have been going at this for nearly two weeks now and none of the skeptics we have discussed so far have established a credible publication record for the ideas that qualify them as skeptics in your eyes. Whatever these ideas are, they evidently can’t stand up to the same kind of scrutiny that the ideas in the IPCC report have been subjected to.”
Neither the validity of a scientific result depends on the publication record of its authors, nor the number of publications is an indicator of the quality of research . To put it bluntly, virtual climate research (Pierrhumbert and his buddies may call it “real climate” research) is nonsense (non-science). The thousands of publications reviewing the results of these computer games are not worth the papers they are printed on, not to mention the hardware, CPU times and memory.
{cont}