Do Peer-Reviewed papers exists supporting skepticism of "man-made" global warming alarm?

[Poptech]

@Marley23

There is no numerical definition for “few,” just as there is no numerical definition for “many” or “a lot.” Now drop this tangent. It’s a waste of time a distraction from the other issues in this thread.

Therefore you cannot state that 2 would not be representative of a “few”. If you cannot provide a numerical amount to assign for"few" than Capt’s statement is absolutely worthless and unsubstantiated. Do you admit his statement is worthless and unsubstantiated?

[Poptech]

@MrDibble

So it’s a corrupt system when it’s not in your favour, but just handy when you agree with it? That’s an awfully …convenient… truth. :dubious:

Strawman as I did not say in my favour. I said in certain instances as I documented.

[Marley23]

I told you twice to drop this ridiculous argument. This is a warning for ignoring my instructions.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Poptech

Therefore you cannot state that 2 would not be representative of a “few”. If you cannot provide a numerical amount to assign for"few" than Capt’s statement is absolutely worthless and unsubstantiated. Do you admit his statement is worthless and unsubstantiated?

What, exactly, are you trying to prove with this thread?

[Poptech]

@Marley23

I told you twice to drop this ridiculous argument. This is a warning for ignoring my instructions.

Am I allowed to defend myself against unsubstantiated statements or should I first ask for moderator approval?

[Poptech]

@Bridget_Burke

What, exactly, are you trying to prove with this thread?

That an extensive amount of peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming alarm?

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

There is a paper on the list,

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
*(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)

• Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner*

It has been rebutted also for a while:

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.

Rabett Run

The fabrication that aspires to be a scientific article

The physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner have created a fabrication that had circulated for three years previously amidst great fanfare in denialist circles. In all seriousness they claim that they have disproved the greenhouse effect. We should not have to seriously discuss this. It is so obviously wrong that one’s time should not be wasted. There are people who still claim that a perpetual motion machine can be built, that the theories of relativity are wrong or the world was created in six days. These are not the subject of serious scientific discussion and should be eliminated by peer review. Yet, be that what it may, Gerlich and Tscheuschner have found a physics journal to house their contribution. It is the International Journal of Modern Physics, B, not a journal of geophysics, climatology or meteorology but a journal that publishes articles about condensed matter, high temperature superconductors, and statistical and applied physics. To attentive observers this immediately raises red flags that something is seriously wrong. You would not expect editors of such a journal to have much expertise about climate. According to the published rules of the journal all review articles, such as that of Gerlich and Tscheuschner must be invited which is still more concerning.

In spite of all this, this fabrication has been published in a scientific journal so we are obligated to say what is rotten with it. That is not simple to do. The manuscript is unusually long. The electronic edition has 115 pages. To be sure review articles that long have been published, but this submission does not resemble a review article. The stated issue, the greenhouse effect, can be handled in fewer than ten pages. A response to the article by Arthur Smith used nine pages to show that there is a greenhouse effect. If this was really a review of all relevant literature on the greenhouse effect, it could be somewhat longer, but this is exactly what was not done here. Scarcely any of the references deal with the supposed theme of the paper, making the submission a parody of a review article.

Another sign is that the authors mainly talk about “problems” that are not really problems. These are then “resolved”, but they were never relevant to the real issue.
For example, one of these deals extensively with the contribution of heat conduction. However, the greenhouse effect is an effect of the radiation budget of the earth. Heat conduction in the atmosphere is tiny compared to radiation and convection. It can be neglected and is thus irrelevant.

The work is full of polemics, which should not be found in a scientific publication. In that regard, large sections appear not to be a scientific contribution, but a political comment with technical background. That should also be a warning sign that it is a work without scientific value trying to imitate a journal article. One is driven to presume that the paper is so long to convey the appearance of scientific competence through overcomplicated discussions of irrelevant problems where actual technical expertise is lacking.

The list of references is another sign of this. It includes many books, including textbooks, without page numbers. Therefore one would have to read the entire book to discover where it supports a statement in the article. One can occasionally do this in special circumstances, e.g. if introductory texts are referred to, but even then it is best to use page numbers. As done here, it is not helpful. The books cited are in part works of opinion and political polemics. Many of the references are to polemics or anonymous contributions from the Internet or from the gray literature. In addition, newspaper articles are cited, very unusual in a scientific article. A major proportion of the cited literature has no relation to the greenhouse effect or to questions of radiation balance. Obviously including a discussion of temperature reconstructions of the last 2000 years is not relevant, especially not if it is just used to bash Michael Mann. A number of well known deniers are quoted, so to speak back scratching among comrades. For historical CO2 levels the key citation is to a paper published in a sociology journal by a retired secondary school teacher E. Beck. If such citations are placed on the same level as those of Keeling and other reputable researchers, then it becomes clear that this is not a serious presentation of research on CO2 mixing ratios in the background atmosphere. (At a second look, this reference is not used in the text – it remained there from an earlier version of this work.)

The falsification starts in Section 1, Introduction, which occupies only 9 pages (!) and which is stuffed with irrelevancies. For the greenhouse effect thermal conductivity of CO2 or other gases is unimportant. Further, the IPCC’s basic argument about the greenhouse effect is not, as G & T argue, that there must exist a mysterious consensus, but from the cited literature (see below).

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

It has been rebutted also for a while

None of those are peer-reviewed and the only actual paper (not peer-reviewed) listed has been rebutted,

Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith (PDF)
*(arXiv:0908.2196v1, 2009)

• Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, Michael Zelger*

In this paper it is shown that Smith (2008) used inappropriate and inconsistent formulations in averaging various quantities over the entire surface of the Earth considered as a sphere. Using two instances of averaging procedures as customarily applied in studies on turbulence, it is shown that Smith’s formulations are highly awkward. Furthermore, Smith’s discussion of the infrared absorption in the atmosphere is scrutinized and evaluated. It is shown that his attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless.

[Marley23]

@Poptech

Am I allowed to defend myself against unsubstantiated statements or should I first ask for moderator approval?

You are allowed to respond to arguments - notice that your posts on other issues have not been moderated. What you are not being allowed to do is to continue to waste time with questionable readings of other people’s posts, and tangents that have no particular bearing on the matter at hand. Stick to arguing the topic and not quibbling about the meaning of “a few.”

[Poptech]

@Marley23

You are allowed to respond to arguments - notice that your posts on other issues have not been moderated. What you are not being allowed to do is to continue to waste time with questionable readings of other people’s posts, and tangents that have no particular bearing on the matter at hand. Stick to arguing the topic and not quibbling about the meaning of “a few.”

My last corrected response was not a questionable reading of anyone’s post. It was a factual response. I have since asked for clarification of the numerical amount for the word "few: and none has been provided. Essentially you are stating that since the word “few” cannot be numerically defined I am not permitted to respond to this argument. This is biased in support of the person making the vague and unsubstantiated statement by preventing me from responding. Can all arguments I am not allowed to respond to be designated so I can avoid moderator warnings.

[Marley23]

@Poptech

My last corrected response was not a questionable reading of anyone’s post. It was a factual response.

It was not factual, it was a minor modification to an argument you were told to drop, and which I also told you to drop. Right or wrong, you have made your point regarding how many of these papers are published. “How many is a few?” is not an argument we need to have in Great Debates and it’s a distraction from the more significant issues being discussed here.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

None of those are peer-reviewed

The first paper came from the same journal, so maybe you are correct, the peer reviewers at the place where Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published did a lousy job.

Again, what I see so far in this thread is just a classic Creationist tactic:

Déjà vu All Over Again | Skeptical Inquirer

This is how it begins: Proponents of a fringe or non-mainstream scientific viewpoint seek added credibility. They’re sick of being taunted for having few (if any) peer reviewed publications in their favor. Fed up, they decide to do something about it.

These “skeptics” find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting original research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.

They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They publicize the hell out of it.

-Chris Mooney is a 2009-2010 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

The first paper came from the same journal,

My mistake but that comment has been rebutted,

Reply to “Comment on ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris H0-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann”
*(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp. 1333-1359, April 2010)

• Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner*

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 scientifically 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.

It is sad to see you bring up the non-science of creationism into this debate. That is a desperate and pathetic move.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

My mistake but that comment has been rebutted,

So many mistakes, but few admissions. What it counts is that even with that rebuttal the reality is that it was a very badly sourced paper full of errors and because of the impact of that journal (a not very prominent one) it has been basically discredited where it counts.

@Poptech

It is sad to see you bring up the non-science of creationism into this debate. That is a desperate and pathetic move.

Sorry, but one has to point out when someone is using the same tactics of creationists.

The reality in this case is that thanks to the rebuttals here and elsewhere I have to agree that the writers of the paper here had preconceptions and filled their paper with lousy references and discredited sources.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

So many mistakes, but few admissions.

The are few admissions because there are few mistakes.

@GIGObuster

What it counts is that even with that rebuttal the reality is that it was a very badly sourced paper full of errors and because of the impact of that journal (a not very prominent one) it has been basically discredited where it counts.

The reply is a complete rebuttal to the two points the comment brought up. “Prominence” is subjective and the paper has not been discredited, outside of people like you repeating this talking point.

@GIGObuster

Sorry, but one has to point out when someone is using the same tactics of creationists.

I have nothing to do with the scientific illiterates who argue for creationism. Please try better smears.

[tomndebb]

@Poptech

I have nothing to do with the scientific illiterates who argue for creationism. Please try better smears.

I agree. Using Creationism, per se, is not all that appropriate in this thread.

Of course, the aspects of Creationism tactics that directly coincide with the typical Conspiracy Theory tactics and seem to be pretty much what is being argued, here, would still stand.

[Rhythmdvl]

Poptech, the article you linked to is a painful read. Not from a scientific difficulty level, but because it endlessly meanders through irrelevancies, sidetracks, and political discussion. It is in sore need of an editor to distill and isolate the facts and scientific arguments.
Can you explain the abstract? That is, it states:

[D]escribes 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.

What about the incoming solar radiation? Isn’t that the source of new energy driving the “heat pump”? Since there is a constant influx of energy, how is the second law being violated? Have the authors never gotten into a car on a sunny day? How do they distinguish between the greenhouse effect in one situation yet not another? Since they are claiming that the entire theory is fictitious, do they have an alternate explanation for how such a vehicular mechanism exists?

Since you’re providing the cite, can you point to where it conclusively demonstrates that greenhouse gasses are not relatively clear to UV radiation but relatively opaque to infrared radiation? Can you show where in the article it proves that the energy re-emitted by the atmosphere completely exits?

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

The reply is a complete rebuttal to the two points the comment brought up. “Prominence” is subjective and the paper has not been discredited, outside of people like you repeating this talking point.

The point is that even that rebuttal is not convincing the people that matter.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/05/comment_on_falsification_of_th.php

http://climatephysicsforums.com/topic/3292392/1/

@Poptech

I have nothing to do with the scientific illiterates who argue for creationism. Please try better smears.

No need to, just pointing out that that makers of the list in the OP have set themselves to be forever marked as misguided absolutists with no desire to make changes thanks to proper criticism is enough to tell everyone that that list needs to be dismissed as just a weak talking point.

[Poptech]

@tomndebb

Of course, the aspects of Creationism tactics that directly coincide with the typical Conspiracy Theory tactics and seem to be pretty much what is being argued, here, would still stand.

1. Creationism and all references to it are offtopic and has nothing to do with this thread. It is used to desperately associate climate skeptics with creationists. This is blatantly obvious. Please provide evidence where I have argued for creationism.

2. Conspiracies are not being discussed here nor are conspiracy theory tactics. Please provide evidence where I have argued for a conspiracy.

It is amazing to see this sort of nonsense coming from a moderator.

[GIGObuster]

BTW it seems that our own **jshore **was one of the writers of the rebuttal to the original paper being discussed now (For those that did not see it, he also showed to Poptech that he had no clue regarding basic statistics), so as jshore showed in the last discussion, it is clear that the makers of the list in the OP do not care at all if they continue to list discredited or debunked papers.