The Turning Of The Tide

Supporters of the CO2 driven theory of anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) are in full panic mode. The continued hiatus in global temperature increase has led to a flurry of statements denying “the pause,” as climate scientists have named it. This new denialism even extends to international organizations like the WHO, that just recently claimed that global warming had not ceased, even though numerous organizations—including Britain’s Meteorological Office, NASA, and the IPCC—have admitted that it has. Among climate change true believers there is a scramble on to “find the missing heat” that would explain the pause. Strangely, among these practitioners of group think there is no consensus about the cause of the pause. At the same time, the IPCC is about to release its latest screed regarding climate change and the leaks have been flowing fast and furious, saying there is dissent in the land of consensus. This may well be the turning of the tide on the greatest scientific hoax in history.

The number varies between 15 and 17 years but there is no doubt that the climate change cabal is worried. It seems Earth's temperature is stubbornly refusing to rise according to the demands of their computer models. Do not misunderstand, this is a big thing in climate circles. It could bring into doubt the entire house of cards that is CAGW. Even the Economist, a past cheerleader for the global warming crowd, has been forced to admit that something is rotten in climate science (see “Who pressed the pause button?”):

Still, attempts to explain away that stable average have not been convincing, partly because of the conflict between flat temperatures and rising CO2 emissions, and partly because observed temperatures are now falling outside the range climate models predict. The models embody the state of climate knowledge. If they are wrong, the knowledge is probably faulty, too. Hence attempts to explain the pause.

In short, the whole bloody story could be a sham. Many climate change apologists have put forth explanations. In fact, the explanations have come from so many quarters that the Economist has stated: “The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained.” Let's review the leading explanations.

In September 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed to fluctuating solar output, atmospheric pollution and volcanoes. All three conspired to suppress global warming. Gavin Schmidt and two colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute quantify the effects of these trends in Nature Geoscience. They argue that climate models underplay the delayed and subdued solar cycle, and that volcanic activity since 2000 has been greater than previously thought. Here is how Schmidt et al. framed the conundrum in “Reconciling warming trends”:

Any divergence between real-world climate phenomena and prior expectations poses interesting science questions. The case of the apparent slow-down of warming since the record El Niño event in 1997/1998 is no exception. The global mean surface temperature trend was smaller1 between 1997 and 2013 (0.07±0.08 °C per decade) than over the last 50 years (0.16 ± 0.02 °C per decade), highlighting questions about the mechanisms that regulate decadal variability in the Earth's temperature. In addition, the warming trend in the most recent 15-year period is near the lower edge of the 5–95% range of projections from a collection of climate models that were part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). Why most of the model simulations suggest more warming than has been observed is a second question that deserves further exploration.

Tweaking their models for these missing factors can bring the predictions back into line with reality. As I have mentioned many times, you can tune a computer model to give you any output you desire. This is particularly easy after the fact, as Gavin and the GISS boys know. Below are some of the corrections and outputs from their model. “The adjusted ensemble spread (dashed grey) clearly shows the decadal impact of the updated drivers,” the authors claim, adding, “As an aside, we note that although it is convenient to use the CMIP5 ensemble to assess expected spreads in possible trends, the ensemble is not a true probabilistic sample.”

Recently, Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has been shedding light on why climate models are such failable friends to climate scientists. “As temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and dismisses the pause as unpredictable climate variability,” she states on her blog. Moreover, “the IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for the current hiatus in warming.”

Why? “The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales,” said Dr. Curry in testimony before the US Senate. The models' over-reliance on carbon dioxide as the primary driver of climate has bitten the hands of those who coded it into their models. As a result, the vast majority of their models failed to predict the pause as shown below.

Pick a model, any model and it will be wrong.

Another proposed explanation says the missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean. It is certainly true that Earth's oceans, especially the largest, the Pacific, absorb prodigious amount of heat energy, storing some and transport it around the globe. Several new studies link the pause with changes in the Pacific and the trade winds that influence the circulation of water within it. There are a number of normal, wholly natural cycles that center on the Pacific: the frequent El Niño and La Niña; a long-term cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which switches from a warm to a cool every 20 or 30 years; and a supposedly one-off increase in the strength of the trade winds during the past 20 years. This, according to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of America’s National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has produced a period of unexpected cooling.

“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” said Trenberth in a news feature in Nature. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell sometime in the future. “Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.”

Trenberth is not alone in this hypothesis. According to a paper in Nature Climate Change, by Matthew England of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, the record trade winds have produced a super La Niña that is causing warm water to pile up at the western end of the Pacific. There it is getting buried by colder water, driving the heat deep into the ocean (see the figure below). This is known as the “the ocean ate my global warming” theory.

“[T]he pause has gone from being not explained to explained twice over—once by aerosols and the solar cycle, and again by ocean winds and currents,” the Economist article concludes. “These two accounts are not contradictory. The processes at work are understood, but their relative contributions are not.” This doesn't mean that the UK new magazine or the supporters of CAGW are folding their tents. Indeed, the article concludes with a flippant “like the Terminator, global warming will be back.” The global warming carnival never ends.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish their first update in seven years on the scale of the threat. This will be the second of three reports on the causes, effects and solutions to climate change. Leaked documents speak of significant effects on economies, food supplies and security. But some participants in the IPCC process say the summary, due out on March 31, is far too alarmist. An interesting piece on the BBC website, by Environment correspondent Matt McGrath, hints at dissent among the experts assembled by the UN agency to do its bidding.

IPCC scientists have distanced themselves from a number of their previous forecasts. Notable among these is the prediction of mass extinctions because of global warming. “There is very little confidence that the current models accurately predict the risk of extinction,” the new report states, contradicting previous IPCC tomes. In the draft report, no concrete numbers are mentioned for postulated extinction of species.

“The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together,” Prof Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, who has been the convening lead author of the chapter on economics, told BBC News. “This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse.”

The IPCC opting for scare tactics over rational evaluation? Imagine that. Even the notoriously pro-global warming Met Office says a lot more work must be done to confirm the links that do appear in the report. While the new report is shaping up to be more nuanced, with far more emphasis on adaptation than the last one in 2007, it comes at a time when climate change has fallen off the political radar. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, Professor Roger Pielke Jr. has hit the nail on the head when it comes to climate change's falling public profile. Here is how his article, “Climate of Failure,” begins:

The heady days of early 2009, when advocates for global action on climate change anticipated world leaders gathering later that year around a conference table in Copenhagen to reach a global agreement, are but a distant memory. Today, with many of these same leaders focusing their attention on jumpstarting economic growth, environmental issues have taken a back seat. For environmentalists, it may seem that climate policy has dropped from the political agenda altogether.

They're right. The world's biggest emitters have reached a consensus of sorts, but not the one hoped for in Copenhagen. In the United States, President Barack Obama has borrowed his energy policy — “all of the above” — from the Republicans. Europe has dithered on any further commitments to emissions reductions as governments have been completely consumed by the euro crisis. China and India have used the follow-on conferences to Copenhagen, held in Durban and Cancun, to decisively push international climate negotiations into the long weeds. Leaders' attention to climate policy is not coming back — at least not in any form comparable to the plans being discussed just a few years ago.

Pielke, who is a self described moderate in the climate change debate, goes on to say we should concentrate on attainable technologies to reduce our rampant CO2 emissions, primarily Natural Gas. He correctly labels carbon capture from coal and gas, large-scale wind, and solar technologically immature and expensive, especially when compared to gas. Lastly he tells the climate change alarmists and greens to forget a “mythical high carbon price” in today's political climate.

Professor Pielke is not alone in his call for more rational analysis of possible climate change impacts. Lenny Smith and Arthur Petersen have written a very interesting and insightful paper “Variations on Reliability: Connecting Climate Predictions to Climate Policy.” They question whether the statistical uncertainty adequately captures the relevant dominant uncertainty (RDU).

“While the IPCC has led the climate science community in codifying uncertainty characterisation, it has paid much less attention to specifying the RDU,” they state. “The focus is at times more on ensuring reproducibility of computation than on relevance(fidelity) to the Earth’s climate system, in fact it is not always easy to distinguish which of these two are being discussed.”

Barrack Obama is still offering lip service to green energy and climate change but he is rapidly becoming a political dinosaur. A recent Gallup poll shows that in the US climate change is way down on the list of things people are concerned about. This is very similar to the survey showing Europeans worrying a lot more about almost all issues other than global warming.

“While the climate wars will go on, characterized by a poisonous mix dodgy science, personal attacks, and partisan warfare, the good news is that progress can yet be made outside of this battle,” Pielke concludes. Yes, I would say that the tide has changed for climate change and those trying to make political gain from frightening the public with lurid tales of impending ecological doom.

Climate change alarmists will continue to prattle on about eco-apocalypse being just around the corner—just as soon as they can find the missing heat. The rest of us can get on with our lives, reassured by the knowledge that climate science hasn't a clue about what will happen in the future.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

Water Vapor ????

Where is the paper that talks about all of the different phases of H2O ascribed to their affects on the atmosphere and “Global Warming?” Why is no, little consideration given to the fact that the percent of water in the atmosphere remains fairly constant and at a level that means it is about 20 – 100 times as effective at controlling the temperature of the earth, as a GHG, means a lot more that than the infinitesimally small amount of CO2?
First off you have the latent heat of fusion (melting) and latent heat of vaporization (boiling). [Latent heat – enthalpy] When this happens there is a flow of energy when changing from one phase to the next: from solid to liquid, and liquid to gas. Melting and boiling are endothermic, meaning that the system absorbs energy when going from solid to liquid to gas. However the change is exothermic (the process releases energy) for the opposite direction – gas to liquid, liquid to solid.
When a water molecule evaporates from the surface of any body of water, energy is absorbed by the water molecule and results in a lower temperature of the a few molecules of the air in the immediate vicinity of this transformation. {It is this effect that makes an evaporative water cooler work.] It does not have to “boil” like a pot of water on a stove to get this energy. A few rays of sunlight striking the surface of the water can get it close and then the rest comes from the air. This water vapor is now a gas, like O2, and is carried in “rivers” in the atmosphere that carry more water vapor than the Amazon River carries water. When it rains, that water vapor, will, has to, MUST, release that energy, enthalpy, back into the surrounding air, making that area warmer, transporting that energy miles high into the atmosphere. Now you have to throw in the fact that this temperature (of fusion or vaporization) changes with pressure. Notice how often it rains a night compared to how often during the day time. How is that factored into their “50%” models?
Similarly when that water vapor freezes, energy will be released and the air temperature will increase in the immediate vicinity.
Some of the various atmospheric currents can cause the water vapor that has turned into water droplets (clouds) again reabsorb that energy. Or the rain that is falling to “evaporate” – absorb energy and make it cooler, and never hit the ground. Other currents and conditions can cause the vapor to turn into snow and release that stored energy. Or the snowflakes that are on their way down to melt and cool the air in that area. Just like the old fashioned ice-cream maker worked – the salt started the melting which required more energy which was taken from the cream.
Then we have sublimation and that energy transfer and it also works both ways Solid to Gas and Gas to Solid. If there are rivers of water larger than the Amazon, and many of them I am told, then there are actually transmission line of energy larger than any power transmission lines man has built on Earth. AND NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT WHERE ALL OF THAT ENERGY IS GOING OR WHAT IT DOING.
All of this makes even a model of just this one concept of the water vapor in atmosphere (near) impossible.

Climate model projections are meaningless.

As seen in a post by Bob Tisdale on WUWT:

The climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive are supposed to be simulations of Earth’s climate, but the simulated sea surface temperatures of the models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report are definitely not of this planet. 70% of the Earth is covered by oceans, seas and lakes. Because the models show no skill at being able to simulate the rates of warming and cooling of the surfaces of the global oceans over the past 32+ years, and because the models show no skill at being able to reproduce the spatial patterns of that warming and cooling, all of which drive temperature and precipitation patterns on land, then any and all projections of future climate are based on modeled worlds that have no similarity to the real world. In other words, climate model projections are meaningless.

Whackjob Science

Why do you let whackjobs post crazy fringe science garbage on your otherwise excellent website? They give everyone who disputes global warming a bad name.

Mostly we don't

Read my comments below. Some topics seem to attract the ignorant, the befuddled, and the nut jobs. If you want to post this stuff go find some fringe science or conspiracy site--no more will be allowed here.

The Management

The hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect

I have asked this question hundreds of time but no one can answer it. Where is there a credible experiment that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the Greenhouse gas effect exists?
I'm going to answer the question because all the supposed scientists just ignore the fact that there is no proof that the GHGE exists. I have performed an experiment that has been reviewed by many Ph.D's in physics, chemistry, quantum physics, mechanical engineering, meteorology,and climatology. The bottom line is that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. If the GHGE does not exist there is no need to control CO2, or any other gas that absorbs IR.
List of references:
The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company,
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from: at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST

The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

ILEUniversity of Pennsylvania Law School
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: 'There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming' link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O'Sullivan (Author)

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: 'There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming' link to this paper on climate depot
Web- site references: Ponder the Maunder
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( peer reviewed and revised but not yet released).
Wood is correct: There is no Greenhouse Effect
Posted on July 19, 2011 by Dr. Ed
Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse (Summary by Ed Berry. Full report here or here. & PolyMontana.)
by Nasif S. Nahle, June 12, 2011
University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico. Water Absorption Spectrum by Martin Chaplin

many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted - they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb." Benjamin Franklin
Dr. Curry and many other of the Luke warm skeptics have my experiment and this list of references, but because of ego or a lack of understanding of quantum physics they have chosen to play the game.
The weather is proofing that G&H,Alan Siddons, and all the others in the list of references are correct. The Greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.

Now that is real denial

Work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s indicated that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. Fourier put it this way: energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. Air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be inaccurately called the “greenhouse effect.” The physics is straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than our planet actually is (if you don't believe that check out the Moon).

That CO2 and other gasses absorb and re-radiate heat energy has been proven experimentally. There are greenhouse gasses in Earth's atmosphere and Earth's warmer than expected temperature is a positive indication that the “greenhouse effect” does, in fact, warm the planet. To say otherwise is to deny 400 years of accumulated Physics knowledge. It is not the greenhouse effect, however misleadingly named, that is being debated here, but rather the impact of one trace gas, carbon dioxide, and the effect that human GHG emissions will have on future climate change. The effect is not in doubt, the magnitude of change due to increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 is.

Saying that greenhouse gasses have no effect on Earth's climate is the type of ignorant, anti-science bullshit that gets respectable climate change skeptics tarred with the brush of denialism. It ranks right up there with the gravity thermal gradient believers, creationists and the Einstein was wrong crowd. The piece above has only been published here so the stand of the Resilient Earth authors could be clarified and the pseudoscience ignorance it contains denounced.

Fourier said............

This is what I anderstand that Fourier said:

1.0 Introduction: What on Earth Is the "Greenhouse Effect"?
Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition
Although the "Greenhouse Effect" is of crucial importance to modern climatology and is the putative cornerstone of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, it lacks clear thermodynamic definition. This forecasts the likelihood that the name is misapplied. Even general descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" may seem confused when compared to one another. In the first year university geology text by Press & Siever (1982, p. 312) we read:

"The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and carbon dioxide, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the 'greenhouse effect' by analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat loss."

This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly contradictory, as impermeable materials cannot absorb on the minute to minute timescale that applies to the "Greenhouse Effect", even if such an impermeable material has a very high fluid storage capacity or porosity. According to Press & Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to the presence of clouds and carbon dioxide, which are part of the atmosphere. How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption? Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability is a product of the 19th century pseudoscientific notion that heat was actually a fluid (called "caloric"). This led to a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the scientifically illiterate when it came to the findings of Fourier (e.g. Kelland, 1837). We may compare this description of the "Greenhouse Effect" with that of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18), which lacks the misplaced 19th century usage:

"The incoming solar radiation that the earth absorbs is re-emitted in the form of so-called infra-red radiation - this is where the vital 'greenhouse effect' begins. Because of the chemical structure of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they absorb the infra-red radiation from the Earth, and then emit it, into space and back into the atmosphere. The atmospheric re-emission helps heat the surface of the Earth - as well as the lower atmosphere - and keeps us warm."

This explanation describes the "Greenhouse Effect" as "vital", perhaps because, as Whitaker points out, it warms the earth's surface. Wishart (2009, p. 24) explains that this "Greenhouse Effect" is useful for a completely different reason:

"The Moon is another excellent example of what happens with no greenhouse effect. During the lunar day, average surface temperatures reach 107ºC, while the lunar night sees temperatures drop from boiling point to 153 degrees below zero. No greenhouse gases mean there's no way to smooth out temperatures on the moon. On Earth, greenhouse gases filter some of the sunlight hitting the surface and reflect some of the heat back out into space, meaning the days are cooler, but conversely the gases insulate the planet at night, preventing a lot of the heat from escaping."

In Wishart's explanation above, the Greenhouse Effect" is no longer a warming mechanism but a thermal buffer that moderates the extremes of temperature. In fact, Plimer (2001) uses the term "greenhouse" to denote interglacial periods (e.g. Plimer, 2001, p. 80). In describing the conditions when life evolved on earth 3800 million years ago, Plimer (2001, p. 43), like Wishart, is more reminiscent of Frankland (1864) and Tyndall (1867):

"The Earth's temperature had moderated because the atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide and water vapour created a greenhouse."

The above quotes demonstrate a confusing array of "Greenhouse Effect" definitions, including the first one which seems to contradict itself. Plimer (2009, p. 365) really describes this situation very well when he writes:

"Everyone knows what the greenhouse effect is. Well ... do they? Ask someone to explain how the greenhouse effect works. There is an extremely high probability that they have no idea. What really is the greenhouse effect? The use of the term 'greenhouse effect' is a complete misnomer. Greenhouses or glasshouses are used for increasing plant growth, especially in colder climates. A greenhouse eliminates convective cooling, the major process of heat transfer in the atmosphere, and protects the plants from frost."

The "Greenhouse Effect" was originally defined around the hypothesis that visible light penetrating the atmosphere is converted to heat on absorption and emitted as infrared, which is subsequently trapped by the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared. In Arrhenius (1896, p. 237) we read:

"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground."

This quote from Arrhenius establishes the fact that the "Greenhouse Effect", far from being a misnomer, is so-called because it was originally based on the assumption that an atmosphere and the glass of a greenhouse are the same in their workings. Interestingly, Fourier doesn't even mention hothouses or greenhouses, and actually stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier, 1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12).

In spite of Arrhenius' misunderstanding of Fourier, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Edition) reflects his initial opening description of the "Greenhouse Effect":

"Greenhouse Effect [noun] the trapping of the sun's warmth in the planet's lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface."

These descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" all evade the key question of heat transfer. Given that the "Greenhouse Effect" profoundly affects heat transfer and distribution, what are the thermodynamic properties that govern the "Greenhouse Effect" and how, exactly, is this "Greenhouse Effect" governed by these material properties? Moreover, all of the elements expressed in the preceding quotations can be found in Arrhenius' proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect". While Arrhenius credits Tyndall with the thermal buffer idea expressed in Plimer (2001) and Wishart (2009), he then goes on to express the more complicated idea described in Press & Siever (1982) and Whitaker (2007). The "atmospheric re-emission" that "helps heat the surface of the earth" of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18) is the key to Arrhenius' original proposition, which revolves around the backradiation notion first proposed by Pouillet (1838, p. 42; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 61). However, Pouillet used this idea to explain rather than add to the thermal gradient measured in transparent envelopes while, as we shall see, Arrhenius treated backradiation as an addition to the conductive (i.e. net) heat flow indicated by the thermal gradient.

2.0 How the "Greenhouse Effect" Is Built upon Arrhenius' Legacy of Error: Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation
Arrhenius' first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.

2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found
Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air's optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius' claims about Fourier's ideas:

"In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat, as we go from the surface of the earth."

A statement to the same effect can be found in Fourier (1827, p. 586). This demonstrates the sheer dissonance between these statements and what proponents of the "Greenhouse Effect" claim that Fourier says in their support. Moreover, I am not the first author to have discovered this fact by reading Fourier for myself (e.g. Fleming, 1999; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). Furthermore, in his conclusion, the optical effect of air on heat is dropped by Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 17-18) and Fourier (1827, pp. 597-598) which both state:

"The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth."

Fourier's fame has, in fact, nothing to do with any theory of atmospheric or surface temperature. This fame was earned years before such musings, when Fourier derived the law of physics that governs heat flow, and was subsequently named after him. About this, Fourier (1824, p. 166; Translation by Burgess, 1837, p. 19) remarks:

"Perhaps other properties of radiating heat will be discovered, or causes which modify the temperatures of the globe. But all the principle laws of the motion of heat are known. This theory, which rests upon immutable foundations, constitutes a new branch of mathematical sciences."

As you can see, Fourier admits that his work is constrained to the net movement of heat. In fact, nowhere does Fourier differentiate between radiative and, for example, "kinetic" heat transfer, because the means to tell the difference were not available when Fourier studied heat flow. What this tells us is that Fourier's Law, and only Fourier's Law, can describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier's Law. However, to better understand this it is necessary to explore the motion of heat and the modes of heat transfer more thoroughly than did Arrhenius.

2.2 Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer
Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius' adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of radiation in Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265; 1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow - effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation. However, Arrhenius' contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.

During the life of Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect", the scientific community understood that radiation was electromagnetic (Maxwell, 1864; Heaviside, 1881; Hertz, 1888), and by the time Arrhenius first published on the subject of the "Greenhouse Effect", Thompson (1896) had extended his idea of electrons to photoelectric effects on gases due to ionizing radiation, known then as röntgen rays. The photoelectric effect, by which a current or charge could be generated in certain materials by their exposure to electromagnetic radiation, was a matter of inquiry at the time. The emission of radiation in discrete quanta, though first suggested by Boltzmann in 1877, was mathematically formalised by Planck (1901). Einstein (1905) experimentally confirmed Planck's Equation after adapting it to the photoelectric effect, which was the subject of his study. However, ideas concerning the internal structure of the atom and it's relationship to ionisation, magnetism, photoelectric interactions, and discrete quanta of electromagnetic radiation were under intense development at the time (Thomson, 1902; Thomson, 1903; Thomson, 1904). By the time Bohr (1913) corrected the problems in Thomson's atomic model, the relationship between changes in electron shell (i.e. orbit) potential and photoelectric emission of radiation were a foregone conclusion. The relevance of these discoveries to the question of heat transfer is that unlike the notion of aethereal heat transfer, emission of electromagnetic energy quanta by atoms and molecules in materials confirmed that the radiative mode of heat transfer was as much a part of thermal conduction as any other mode of heat transfer.

In order to understand how heat moves through materials, we must first examine the structure and behaviour of the material media at a sub-atomic level. An atom comprises a nucleus within a shell. The shell is due to "Thomson's corpuscles", later known as electrons, which are negatively charged particles that orbit a nucleus with a positive charge corresponding to the number of these electrons. These orbital paths are also known as electron shells and, when shared by more than one atom, electron shells form the chemical bond between those atoms. When a "photon", or rather an electromagnetic wave pulse, passes through the electron shell -which is the region defined by the corresponding mathematical function called an orbital- one of a number of things may occur. It may pass through the "shell", it may be deflected by the "shell", or it may be absorbed by an electron in the "shell". When an electromagnetic wave pulse or 'photon' of light or heat is absorbed by an electron, the energy imparted to the electron is converted to kinetic energy, which moves the electron out to an orbital level commensurate with the energy gained. If we consider, from the mass of both electron and nucleus, that the centre of mass is somewhere between the electron and the nucleus, then this centre of mass does not coincide with the centre of positive charge, about which the electron orbits. Imagine a circumstance in which this centre of mass remains static, while the nucleus revolves around it. As the electron shell is centred on the nucleus, then in this case the shell and the entire atom or molecule is thus seen to wobble or vibrate about a particular point. The higher the electron shell, the more intense this wobble or vibration becomes. As a consequence, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by a material manifests itself as what appears to be a corresponding net increase in the kinetic energy of constituent molecules.

If we take the processes we have just examined and apply them to more than one molecule, we may then perceive as Waterson (1843, 1846, 1892) did, that through collisions between molecules, the material must either expand or its internal pressure will increase. By this we may infer the kinetic propagation of heat through a medium by the collision of its molecules, as the momentum of one molecule is transferred to another in the collision. This is not the only consequence of molecular collision. Such a collision may transfer the kinetic energy from an electron of the inbound molecule to an electron of the outbound molecule. It is also possible that the collision may destabilise one or both electron shells resulting in the corresponding drops to lower electron potentials. When an electron falls to a lower orbit or electron shell of lesser potential, a "photon" or pulse of electromagnetic radiation is emitted. That electromagnetic wave pulse then propagates through the material until it is either absorbed by another molecule or escapes from the material. However short-lived, such radiation quanta carry a proportion of heat flow in all materials. Whether we are talking about air, glass, or steel, a component of internal heat transfer is via internal radiation, however short the path of that radiation may be. Ergo, thermal conduction is not solely the kinetic transfer of heat, but also the transmission and reception of radiation within a material or materials in thermal contact. This is confirmed by the fact that conductive heat transfer, as defined by Fourier (1822), is only concerned with total heat flow and therefore describes the sum of both radiative and kinetic transfer without addressing either specifically. This differs markedly from the separation of radiative and kinetic transfer implicit in the ethereal model of heat transfer proposed by Tyndall and favoured by Arrhenius. This divergence of Arrhenius' idea of heat transfer from the facts of contemporary science forecasts a major error in Arrhenius' thermodynamics.

A number of points

First, scientific theories change and evolve over time as our understanding of nature improves. The phenomena understudy here has not changed, the unfortunately named greenhouse effect has always been with us. What has changed are the details of how it works. Arrhenius and Tyndall were working a century ago, scientific knowledge has expanded exponentially since then. Criticizing them for not getting everything correct is unfair to those good scientists.

Second, you are correct to point out the ways that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates light energy. You underplay the vibrational and rotational modes that occur because CO2, like H2O, is a multi atom molecule. Without these modes of absorption, the only frequencies that would participate would be narrowly defined by the orbital states of the atoms and their electrons. Read The Resilient Earth for the full story (as science now understands it).

Third, there are many mechanisms at work in the transfer of heat from Earth's surface and lower atmosphere to space. Convection plays a significant roll as does the evaporation and recondensation of water. Like all things having to do with climatic regulation of our planet's temperature, it is complicated.

Lastly, I will state again so it is clear, Earth's atmosphere plays an important roll in warming the planet. Greenhouse gases are one part of this story, but an important one. The trouble with the CAGW theory is that it over emphasizes the importance of one gas, CO2. Scientists who are climate change skeptics, like myself, question the leap from knowing GHGs help keep the planet warm to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are going to somehow be amplified and cause all manner of ecological cataclysm. Know physics does not support this claim, the warmists' postulated "feedbacks" have not been quantified nor all identified. And since the climate is currently not following the climate alarmists' computer generated script, much more work needs to be done before we start dismantling our industrial and agricultural infrastructure.

greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale.

It seems to me that there is a better way to look at how the GH "theory" has been explained..

Underlying it all (the GH "theory based AGW scam) is the constant confusion and misapplication of "black body" assumptions / explanations to grey body reality. The bare earth model for example is a black body model, that is used to explain what earth's surface temperature would (supposedly) be without an atmosphere. For starters, earth has oceans, covering 71% of the surface, with an average depth of 2 1/2 miles. That heat capacity is simply ignored in the black body bare earth model. It is pseudo science.

Another black body assumption used incorrectly all over the place is peak frequency of emission = power of emission = amount of emission. THAT is only for a black body. It can not explain, or be used to explain grey body reality.

Derek Alker.

Log relationship of CO2 and Temp

I have looked up the log relationship between temp and CO2 and the only info I can get is an explanation.
What I am asking is who and how was this relationship determined?
One cannot run a test using the atmosphere, so it must have been done in the lab. NO? or Yes?
Who did this? When? and How?
The GHE is reliant on this relationship and GHEers continually talk about the effect of doubling CO2 etc.
If one doesn't believe the GHE then there are no such things as GHGs.
So, where did this log temp/CO2 relationship come from?
If the graph was drawn from lab measurement, how can that possibly simulate the real atmosphere of the earth?
To me the whole GHE belief is base on that one relationship and I cannot see how it can be valid.

Optical depth and log relationship

The amount of light absoption by different gases has been measured using a gas column in a laboratory. Gases have been measured individually and the atmosphereic mix measured as a whole. This establishes the experimental baseline for absorption by the real atmosphere. The absorption characterists of various gases are well known and accuratly measured at different pressures and concintrations. As to the logrithmic relationship, the reason for it and the derivation are shown here fairly clearly. The upshot is that you get more bang for the buck when you add a GHG to the mix when it is scarce and nothing else absorbes the same frequencies (H2O overlaps CO2's absorption band). As you get more of a build up the frequencies at which the particular gas absorbes light become saturated, meaning no light passes without be absorbed (and reemitted). Adding more gas beyond saturation causes no additional absorption. There are other factors having to do with atmospheric density as well, but if you aren't changing the density of the atmosphere significantly these do not really come into play.

The Real Atmosphere

Thanks for that.
I do not doubt the validity of the lab results of the atmospheric mix.
I do have problems believing that the log relationship is true in the real world.
The water cycle with warm moist air rising and releasing heat into the upper atmosphere is accepted as true. CO2 is also gathering along with the water vapour and rising is it not? The warmist tell me CO2 is like a blanket that "traps" heat. Well, to me a blanket is a solid and CO2 is a gas. Gasses expand and rise when heated, right? If a gas expands, is it not true that it can hold more heat but the temperature may not rise?
Also, the atmosphere is chaotic with winds, jet streams etc.
I cannot get it through my brain that the log relationship of CO2/temp can hold true in the real world.
The real world is not a closed system. Lab test seem to me to be done in closed systems.
The GHEers never seem to talk about that.
Is it not important?

The atmosphere is complicated

Yes, as the atmosphere heats it expands, and some of the absorbed energy goes into the expansion. But it still retains heat energy near the surface, warming the planet. All the logarithmic response says is that, after the first bit, adding more carbon dioxide doesn't get you much more warming if it is the only mechanism in play. You are taking the blanket analogy way to literally.

The atmosphere is full of air currents caused by Earth's rotation and convection (the continents contribute some extra complexity to this). There are also these white fluffy things called clouds, and particulates both natural and man-made. All of these complicate the situation. Add in the ocean's heat storage and redistribution, albedo changes and the impact of billions of different living organisms and the simple view of greenhouse warming is well obscured.

The take home points are: 1) the greenhouse effect is real, if inaccurately named; 2) increasing carbon dioxide is not enough by itself to create the warming predicted by the computer models, they require unproven feedback effects; 3) The models have been shown to be wrong, they do not follow nature and nature is always right. That is why I am a skeptic, not a denier, when it comes to CAGW as stated by the climate alarmist crowd. There is probably some marginal increase in temperature from rising carbon dioxide levels, but it is swamped by natural cycles and external forcings. In short, the planet is not in peril.

[ This is all I have to say on this subject. ]

GHE Log Relationship

Thanks for that. And I do know from your articles that you are not an Alarmist or Warmist, but atrue skeptic.

More Flummery

I followed the link, the information there is just more pseudo-scientific flummery. Science is hard, if it wasn't everyone would be doing it (sometimes it seems that everyone is). Go take some physics classes at your local college or university. Or better yet, buy a copy of The Resilient Earth and read it, twice. Why this garbage is wrong requires knowing real science. The problem with modern CAGW is the lack of convincing evidence for the postulated "feedbacks" required to raise Earth's temperature by the amounts the alarmists predict. They have been misled by their overly simplistic climate models. You have been misled by flimflam artists who sound convincing but are in fact bogus.


Well put. As in nutrition, there are many who can pronounce and spell terms with virtually no understanding of what they represent or the systems they participate in. An example is dietary powders advertised as containing “L-Tryptophan”.