The title of this paper and the abstract below reveal what this paper is all about. When it was published in 2009, it was basically ignored as far as I could tell. I have not yet seen a cogent scientific, peer reviewed rebuttal. If Gerlich and Tscheuschner are correct, then this should be accepted. If not, then a clear, reasoned response within the frame of physics should be provided, preferrably by a peer reviewed paper published in the same journal.
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) guideline (click here) on reporting on climate says to only consider peer reviewed papers. Well, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper is peer reviewed. Why has there not been any press coverage on it, other than to slander and attack those who question the IPCC dogma?
Now I do not have a dog in the fight over whether there is or is not a greenhouse effect, but I can detect a snow job. I like to give my students “both sides of the story.”
So, an open invitation for anyone to provide me a cogent, peer reviewed analysis within the frame of physics to confirm or rebutt the analysis presented in this paper. Having seen none, I believe the paper and its conclusions should be taken seriously.
Gerlich, G. and R.D. Tscheuschner. 2009. Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B. Vol. 23, No. 3, 275–364.
The abstract is below. Click here to obtain the full paper (fee).
Abstract (click here)
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33◦ is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.