Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
…
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.
…

I think this was the response (no pdf unless you want to pay for it):
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:12y9TN4AzwsJ:scholar.google.com/+COMMENT+ON+“FALSIFICATION+OF+THE+ATMOSPHERIC+CO2+GREENHOUSE+EFFECTS+WITHIN+THE+FRAME+OF+PHYSICS”&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

So I guess there is no response to this paper? So it probably must be true then…

Edit

	In particular, without the greenhouse effect, essential features of the atmospheric temperature profile as a function of height cannot be described, 

	i.e., the existence of the tropopause above which we see an almost isothermal temperature curve, whereas beneath it the temperature curve is 

	nearly adiabatic. The relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed temperature curve is explained and the paper by Gerlich and 

	Tscheuschner [arXiv:0707.1161] critically analyzed. Gerlich and Tscheuschner called for this discussion in their paper. 

	

	actually a pdf in german:

	http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf

	

	You could ask the author to send you the English one, but probably who cares?

	Also other refutations in the link I posted previously:

	http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich#Refutations

Brian H wrote:
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.

If you have a degree in physics, then you could publish a paper in GW field and expose all the flaws you are talking about. Or not?
It would also save me from having to go over long debunked arguments, even if they seem to get newer and more original every time.