mentioned by Prof. Kirstein

mentioned in the Video (of nuoviso) of Prof Werner Kirstein min45:27 :

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner Int.J.Mod Phys B 23: 275-364 (2009)

Falsifikation of the atmospheric CO_2 greenhouse effects within the Frame of physics

here are two abstracts of their work:

GERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 23, 275 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1142/S021797920904984X
full text https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
GERHARD GERLICH
Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Mendelssohnstraße 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany
RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dipl.-Phys. Postfach 602762, D-22377 Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany
Received: 30 July 2007
Revised: 6 January 2009
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes 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. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Keywords: Greenhouse effect; Gibbs thermodynamics; radiation theory

and a reply to J. Halpern et.al.

GERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 24, 1333 (2010).
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979210055573
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, JÖRG ZIMMERMANN"
GERHARD GERLICH
Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina, Mendelssohnstraße 3, D-38106 Braunschweig, Federal Republic of, Germany
RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
Postfach 602762, D-22377 Hamburg, Federal Republic of, Germany

Received: 12 March 2010
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.

Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979210055573

Prof Werner Kirstein (video by nuoviso) min44 argues,
why there is a greenhouse effect in the greenhouse (all windows closed).
and in the car in summertime, which is in full sunshine, all windows closed.
In both cases there is no convection.
Therefore you have a greenhouse effect.