1 Editorial Comment On Earth System Dynamics’ “Greenhouse Effect”
Editorial Igor Khmelinskii1 and Leslie V. Woodcock2 1University of Algarve, FCT, Dep. Chemistry and Pharmacy, Faro, Portugal; ikhmelin@ualg.pt 2University of Algarve, FCT, Dep. Physics, Faro, Portugal; lvwoodcock@ualg.pt Received: 20 April 2023; Accepted: date; Published: date Abstract: We respond to an editorial article in the climate journal Earth Systems Dynamics (ESD 14, 241–242, 2023): the headline title of which makes two scientifically incorrect assertions: (i) that the greenhouse-gas hypothesis, i.e., cause of global warming by ~1K in 1950-2020, is an established scientific truth, and (ii) that heat emissions from global fuel combustion are, by comparison, negligible. Both statements are inconsistent with, and illustrate editorial ignorance of, the laws of classical thermodynamics, of the limitations of the Earth’s global energy budget multivariate computer models, and of the known absorption and emission spectroscopy of carbon dioxide (CO2). The scientific method of establishing truth requires hypotheses to be tested against experimental results by circumspective scientific scrutiny. Scientific knowledge cannot be established by consensus politics. We question the wisdom of a policy of rejecting articles that may disparage the greenhouse-gas hypothesis. By this criterion of science by consensus, 1543-AD publication of Nicholas Copernicus’s research article, that disputed the prevailing consensus of the Ptolemaic hypothesis of a static Earth system, would have been rejected by Copernicus Publications. The ESD editors cite, as an example, two recent articles, they say, that should have been rejected without peer review. Both articles, that contradict the greenhouse gas hypothesis, were peer-reviewed for sound science, and published by MDPI recently in Entropy. We find that Copernicus Publications peer-review policy, and this ESD editorial article in particular, are unethical. A policy of only publishing consensus science enhances an ascendancy of politically motivated subjective pseudoscience, causing a stagnation of our scientific understanding and description of Earth systems. Keywords: global warming; greenhouse effect; greenhouse-gas hypothesis, climate-change hypothesis, Joule-Mayer Law, Gibbs’ state function, peer-review ethics, consensus science, Copernicus. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Introduction In an extraordinary editorial article [1], the editors of Earth System Dynamics (ESD), declare a policy of rejection, without peer-review, of any research results that test the greenhouse-gas hypothesis (GGH) of global warming against experimental results. These editors have taken it upon themselves to openly criticize the publication of two peer-reviewed articles [2,3] in the thermodynamics journal Entropy. The ESD headline, moreover, is without scientific basis, and highly misleading to those uninitiated in the relevant sciences, inter alia government politicians, national and international funding bodies, news reporters, and social media.
2 For the purposes of this response, we reproduce the 12 literature references [2-13] in the order of citation by Kleidon et al. [1] to review what, if anything, references [2-13] can tell us about the greenhouse-gas hypothesis. The short answer is nothing; at best, it remains unsubstantiated. Their editorial reveals an ignorance of the principles of thermodynamic equilibrium and the application of the laws of thermodynamics to climate science. The article does not address the scientific content of either of the two research articles [2,3] that led to the conclusions that disparage the greenhouse gas-hypothesis of global warming. In the Kleidon-ESD editorial citation list, there is no reference to any research by the five ESD editorial authors [1], not one single reference to any research, or experimental results in any other peer-reviewed scientific paper that establishes the greenhouse-gas hypothesis as scientific truth. Their references contain only four peer-reviewed research articles in climate journals [5,6,12,13] to support their headline title. In the following sections, we reveal that all four articles report experimental results that disagree with the greenhouse-gas hypothesis. 2. “Greenhouse effect"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370156771_Editorial_Comment_On_Earth_System_Dynamics'_Greenhouse_Effect_Editorial
