Published rebuttal to Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009

Early in 2009, an unusual paper appeared in the International Journal of Modern Physics (B), claiming to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect using physics. The authors are Gerhard Gerlich, of the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig (Germany), and his colleague Ralf Tscheuschner. Amongst other things, it claimed that a violation of the second law of thermodynamics was required in conventional descriptions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

The paper had little impact in the world of science, although there has been a lot of discussion at various blogs.

In response to this, a number of people, led by Joshua Halpern of Howard University, have submitted a rebuttal. The rebuttal, and a reply from the authors of the original paper, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, has now appeared in the April 20, 2010 issue of the journal. The papers are, unfortunately, behind a paywall. However, you can can see the original paper on arxiv at arXiv:0707.1161v4. The abstracts for the rebuttal and reply can be found online at the pages for IJMP(B), Vol 24, Iss 10, Apr 20, 2010.

I am one of the co-authors of the rebuttal, under my own name of Chris Ho-Stuart, so I am deeply involved in this.

I expect there will be a lot of of discussion on this in various places around the net. I have opened up a thread at the new Climate Physics Forums discussion board. This may be a good place for discussions to occur. The board aims to maintain high standards of courtesy and substance, while allowing robust criticism of ideas.

You may find the discussion thread at Published comment, and reply, on Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009. I would very much prefer people to discuss this post at the board. You will be required to register in order to comment, but the process is painless. However, I am also leaving comments open here for the time being.

The board has no formal policy on correct views of climate, and so criticism or skeptics of conventional climate science are very welcome. My views are not board policy.

Since I am the moderator of the board at present, I have a conflict of interest, and so I will be particularly careful to be fair in applying the board guidelines consistently, and being open to criticism of any moderation decisions that are necessary. The board is also advertised at my previous blog post Climate Physics Forums now going public!

Update

I am collecting other links to discussions of this.

• Published comment, and reply, on Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009, at the Climate Physics Forums bulletin board.
  
• Comment on "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics", at "Stoat". (I cleaned up those shouty capitals for you, William!)
  
• Comment on "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics", at "Climate Change", the blog by Chris Colose. Chris is also a co-author of the paper, and his blog is first rate. See also his post Greenhouse effect revisted..., which is a very good summary of how the greenhouse effect works. It is fairly short, cuts no corners on the technical detail, but comprehensibly written. Highly recommended especially as good background for understanding the subject of this discussion for readers who may be a bit new to the subject.
  
• Unto us a paper is given, unto us a refutation is born, at "Rabbet Run". Woo hoo.
  
• Nachweis des Treibhauseffekts at Globales Klima, by Dr. Jörg Zimmermann, in German. Jörg is also a co-author of the rebuttal; and he has particularly active since so much of this affair has been German -- which must be rather embarassing for him. Gerlich and Tscheuschner are both from Germany, and so too are various other figures who have been involved in getting this absurd paper into a journal. If you can read it, Jörg tells some of that story.
  
• Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter is a blog by James Annan at "James' Empty Blog" on a completely different case. But he did mention the Gerlich and Tschneuschner rebuttal along the way, which earns him a place in this list.