I realize it's kind
of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence
of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put
in a brief description
of what it means to «falsify» something
in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite
of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law
of thermo) The
pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the
water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the
pot on the stove example is a valid
analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation
of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»
As to the
analogy of the boiling
water, it seems singularly misguided: what is the «clamp» on temperature
in the Earth system that's comparable to the phase change
of the
water in the
pot?