Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann" (1012.0421v1)

Abstract: It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifcally vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "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 that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a "Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e. physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.

• The paper defends the authors' original work "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO₂ Greenhouse Effects" against critiques by Halpern et al., asserting their initial findings remain valid.
• The authors argue that critics misapply physical laws, inaccurately represent radiation processes, and rely on questionable climate models that neglect non-radiative heat dynamics.
• They maintain that current conceptualizations of greenhouse effects lack solid empirical and theoretical foundations within traditional physics, urging reconsideration of widely accepted climatic theories involving CO₂.

An Insightful Overview of the Paper by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

The paper authored by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, a response to the commentary by Halpern et al., revisits and defends their controversial work, "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO₂ Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics." The authors assert their initial findings, denouncing Halpern et al.'s refutation as scientifically insubstantial. This essay aims to unpack the contentions and elucidations presented in their response.

Arguments and Contentions

Gerlich and Tscheuschner argue systematically against multiple facets of climatology's understanding of the greenhouse effect, particularly the influence attributed to CO₂. They rebuff Halpern et al.'s accusations by claiming these critiques stem from misinterpretations and scientific slip-ups. They emphasize that no empirical evidence definitively confirms CO₂’s measurable influence on Earth's climate, a point they sustain through a series of arguments rooted in classical thermodynamics.

Key Points of Criticism:

1. Misapplication and Misinterpretation of Physical Laws:
   • Gerlich and Tscheuschner criticize the application of the Clausius law by Halpern et al., stressing that their own analysis correctly adheres to thermodynamic laws without the fallacies purported by their critics.
2. Inaccurate Representation of Radiation Processes:
   • The paper underscores confusion surrounding radiative processes in the atmosphere. The authors assert that diagrams and models frequently misrepresent these, leading to scientifically unsupported conclusions about energy flows.
3. Questionable Climate Models:
   • With regard to global climate models, Gerlich and Tscheuschner express skepticism over the calculations predicting temperature fields based solely on radiative transfers involving CO₂.
4. Theoretical Deficiencies:
   • They indicate theoretical loopholes in the greenhouse effect's conceptual framework as described by global climatologists, arguing that prevailing models neglect significant non-radiative heat dynamics such as convection and conduction.

Numerical Results and Theoretical Implications

The authors stand firm on their assertion that the current conceptualizations of greenhouse effects lack a solid empirical and theoretical foundation when scrutinized within traditional physics. They argue against predictive climate models, suggesting that discrepancies among various models and their deviation from actual climatic observations undermine their scientific validity.

Future Directions and Theoretical Implications

From a speculative standpoint, the authors' rigorous critique urges a reconsideration of widely accepted climatic theories involving CO₂. Their polemics challenge orthodoxy, pressing the scientific community towards more holistic models that encapsulate comprehensive thermodynamic processes rather than isolating radiative effects.

Conclusion

Gerlich and Tscheuschner's reply comprehensively examines the criticisms posed by Halpern et al., emphasizing methodological rigor and adherence to established physical laws as central to legitimate scientific inquiry. Their insistence on exactitude in the application of thermodynamics spotlights potential weaknesses in contemporary climatology relevant to greenhouse gases.

In the broader context of climate science, their steadfast discourse, while contentious, invites a deeper investigation into the assumptions underlying greenhouse gas-driven climate models, suggesting the opportunity for more robust interdisciplinary approaches. This exchange not only stirs debate but also illuminates the challenges in bridging complex climate phenomena with empirical physics.