The Focus Fusion Society › Forums › Noise, ZPE, AGW (capped*) etc. › GW Skeptics vs Scientific Concensus › Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.
“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 cant verify.