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, J\"org Zimmermann"

TL;DR

This paper refutes a comment claiming errors in the authors' previous work on the falsification of the CO2 greenhouse effect, clarifying misunderstandings and emphasizing the scientific inaccuracies in the comment.

Contribution

It provides a detailed rebuttal to a comment, demonstrating the invalidity of claims against their previous falsification of the greenhouse effect based on flawed physical arguments.

Findings

Halpern et al.'s comment is scientifically vacuous.

The original paper identifies 14 flawed pseudo-derivations of greenhouse effects.

Misunderstandings about thermodynamics and radiative transfer are clarified.

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.