No "creditable experiment"? We've been running the experiment for at least to centuries.

Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

Observation 4. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorped in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice.

Observation 5. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase.

Observation 6. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates.

Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature.

Inference 2, (drawn from inference 1 and observations 4, 5 and 6). Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic.

Root cause analysis 1. Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.

What do they teach in "civil-environmental engineering" training courses, anyway?

I wouldn't bother David.
I you could reason with climate science deniers there wouldn't be any climate science deniers.

David you obviously do not know what a”creditable experiment is; it is an experiment in which you set up a group of perimeters that can be varied then subjected to different physical-chemistry actions to test for different hypothesized or expected results. If the results do not match the Hypothesized results them the hypotheses has to be changed.

As a civil-environmental engineer we test just about everything: If a new type of pipe is developed it is tested for flow, and strength characteristic. If a new type or mix of concrete is being used for design it is tested for water content and strength vs. age characteristic. Every batch of steel that will be used for a bridge or a building or a railway track it is tested for strength, hardness and many other characteristic.

There is no end to the testing and use of experiments to decide if a new treatment process can be used for a specific type of wastewater or to treat storm-water or surface water to make it recyclable.

Before a building/structure can be designed soil tests must be taken to determine how heavy a load can be put on the soil.

Civil engineers know what “creditable experiments” are and what you refer to as “ a hundred years of creditable experiencing in the field of atmospheric knowledge” is pure crap. Computers are used every day by civil and environmental engineering but we know that “garbage in is garbage out” and unless the end product can be tested and verified it is not used. All engineers have a code of ethics that most of us try to live up to but when there is a mistake made and there is a loss of lives , engineers can go to jail and some have.

This responsibility has been totally ignored by the American Society of Civil Engineers and many more technical societies when they accepted by “consensus “ the hoax of the “greenhouse gas effect” when there is no Creditable experiencing to prove that it exists.
You have correctly defined that you are examining “observations” but there is no way for the experimenter to change any of the variables, or subject the variables to man controlled physical-chemistry actions. Everything you are examining are subject To natural variables and there can be hundreds if not thousands of natural variable that have to be accounted for. These “observations are circumstantial evidence at best because there are other possible causes that the environmental communities refuse to look at, they are fanatics not scientists.
Your Observation 1 is wrong: Any high school physics student knows that Sun irradiation is a continuous field of electromagnetic frequencies from gamma ray to radio waves with visible light at about the middle frequencies. Ultraviolet light is on one side of visible light and Infrared on the other side, it continues uninterrupted to longer wavelengths(lower frequencies) into microwaves ,TV frequencies, and radio waves. The following are thanks to Alex Cannara
www.astro.virginia.edu/~kej7a/Teaching/AST313/Lectures/Lecture13.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Infrared radiation
Main article: Infrared radiation
The infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum covers the range from roughly 300 GHz (1 mm) to 400 THz (750 nm). It can be divided into three parts:[2]
Far-infrared, from 300 GHz (1 mm) to 30 THz (10 μm). The lower part of this range may also be called microwaves. This radiation is typically absorbed by so-called rotational modes in gas-phase molecules, by molecular motions in liquids, and by phonons in solids. The water in Earth's atmosphere absorbs so strongly in this range that it renders the atmosphere in effect opaque.(This is an exageration inserted by a non scientist;examine any IR photo of earth from a satellite to get a true picture of the opacity of the atmosphereto IR of all wavelengths) However, there are certain wavelength ranges ("windows") within the opaque range that allow partial transmission, and can be used for astronomy. The wavelength range from approximately 200 μm up to a few mm is often referred to as "sub-millimeter" in astronomy, reserving far infrared for wavelengths below 200 μm.
Mid-infrared, from 30 to 120 THz (10 to 2.5 μm). Hot objects (black-body radiators) can radiate strongly in this range. It is absorbed by molecular vibrations, where the different atoms in a molecule vibrate around their equilibrium positions. This range is sometimes called the fingerprint region, since the mid-infrared absorption spectrum of a compound is very specific for that compound.
Near-infrared, from 120 to 400 THz (2,500 to 750 nm). Physical processes that are relevant for this range are similar to those for visible light.
There is no discontinuity between short ,or long IR.

When the magnitude of Sun irradiates of the earth is measured there is 1000 times more Long-wave IR inbound than is measured or calculated in out bound radiation on the dark side of the planet.

Observations 2,3 have been proved by Satellite measurements to be totally insignificant. What is relevant is that in the 12 hour period the dark side losses most if not more of the energy absorbed in the previous 12 hours when the surface is exposed to the Sun. Temperature can go up or down depending on retained heat in the total atmosphere not just the IR absorbing gasses. There are not enough molecules of the so Called greenhouse gasses including water to account for the temperature fluctuation experienced from on day to the next or even from one hour to the next.

Observation 4: This is old information because there is more ice in the Arctic and Antarctic since 2007
[[[[Lawrence Solomon: The lost debate

Lawrence Solomon May 4, 2012 – 8:59 PM ET | Last Updated: May 4, 2012 9:43 PM ET
Comments
Email
Twitter
inShare.6
Readers resist the triumph of cosmic rays over CO2

Last fall, after public opinion polls showed most of the Western world’s citizens had turned against global-warming alarmism, after governments started to slash their subsidies for renewable energy, and after whining from the alarmists showed that they, too, knew the game was over, I concluded that Al Gore et al. had decisively lost the global-warming debate.

Global temperatures had stopped climbing, hurricanes hadn’t materialized in abnormal numbers, the Arctic ice had largely recovered while the Antarctic ice had steadily grown, polar bear populations were on the increase, and on and on — in effect, every major global-warming scare had been debunked. As important, the alarmists could no longer rhetorically ask, “If humans aren’t changing the climate through CO2, what is?”
Related

FP Letters: What planet is this columnist on?
There was now an impressive answer: cloud cover, caused by the interaction of cosmic rays and the Sun. To the distress of the alarmists, new research at the Danish Space Research Institute and Geneva-based CERN were affirming this cosmic ray-Sun theory, and other prestigious scientific bodies were giving it credence. Last week, in one of the few columns I’ve written in the last six months on the now-passé issue of global warming, I described the Royal Astronomical Society’s publication of an important new work that continues the ascendancy of this theory.

While most members of the general public by now realize that global-warming was overhyped, two groups lag behind: the large number who don’t follow the issue closely and the small number of true believers who do, but selectively and with outrage. For a sampling of the views of this latter group, see the letters below. They are among the many that responded to my last column about the press’s failure to cover dissenting global-warming views, such as the recent recantation of James Lovelock, the world’s best-known environmentalist. The peculiar object of some letter-writers’ outrage: my one-sentence comment on “ice in both the Arctic and the Antarctic — both are now at or above average levels.”.
One of the letter writers cites the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., to rebut me on the Arctic. Ironically, NSIDC was my source. On April 25, the date I was referring to, NSDIC shows that the Arctic ice had expanded enough from its lows of 2007 to meet the average level that existed over the last three decades. Another source, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, shows the Arctic ice to have exceeded the three-decade average. The satellite graphic that you see shows the Arctic as a whole that same day — not much water up there for those polar bears to splash around in.

In fact, those polar bears’ ancestors had much more water to play in a little over a half century ago, when the Saint Roch, a boat owned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, crossed the Northwest Passage. And a full century ago, when Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen also did so. Yet in the face of this incontrovertible evidence that today’s Arctic has been experiencing no unprecedented melting, the true-believing alarmists cling to their faith in the culpability of man, searching for data, any data, that might bolster their beliefs.

What of the alarmists’ disbelief in the extensive evidence that shows global temperatures to have stopped climbing, when NASA shows global temperatures continuing to rise? NASA seems like a credible source, until you realize that the scientist who controls the data also massages it — he is none other than uber-climate alarmist James Hansen, Al Gore’s sidekick and the object of a recent unprecedented protest by 50 former NASA astronauts and scientists who asserted that Hansen’s Goddard division at NASA was ruining the organization’s reputation: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is not settled,” the 50 astronauts and scientists wrote.

The big picture: There is not a scrap of compelling evidence that points to man-made global warming representing a danger for society. The only scary “evidence” that exists, in fact, is based on computer models, none of which have been proven to work and all of which reflect the biases of the people loading in the data.]]]
.

Observation 5: The raising of the seas has been proved to falsified data, real data shows that sea levels have been going down for the last 15years.

{The IPCC falsified satellite altimetry: "“We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”
Dr. Nils Axel Mörner, former president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, again debunks the IPCC myth about rising sea levels in an article published by the Deccan Chronicle. The IPCC has according to Mörner e.g. dishonestly altered satellite altimetry upwards to imply a sudden rise level rise in 2003.

And now the IPCC is promoting its fake "science" at the Durban COP 17 conference:****}
{{ Check the report of the Inter-Academic Council which shows that the IPCC violated its own regulations in doing their reports. They have not corrected any of their procedures. The IPCC should be disbanded now}}}
Observation 6 : The lease of methane no mater what the source is irrelevant as there is no creditable experiment or data proving that the “greenhouse gas effect exist”.
Observation 7: Acidification of the ocean by the natural absorption of CO2 either as gas transfer or as shrubing of CO2 by rain from the atmosphere to cause the slight changes measured at some locations. Any pH of the ocean above 7.0 is still alkaline.
As a civil-environmental engineer I have designed Lime-soda water softening plants. As part of this process it is necessary to add CO2 to cause the precipitation of Calcium Carbonate. It is not possible to get enough CO2 to dissolve by air to water transfer unless there is CO2 bubbled under the surface with lots of mixing .

[[Alarming fears about unrealistic ocean pH’s
“

“Some ocean pH’s studied were so extreme they are only seen on Star Trek”

Studies of how marine life copes with less alkaline conditions include many experiments with water at pH values in a range beyond anything that is likely on planet Earth — they go beyond the bounds of what’s possible. There are estimates that the pH of the ocean has shifted about 0.1 pH unit in the last 200 years, yet some studies consider the effects of water that is shifted by 2 or even 4 entire pH units. Four pH units means 10,000 fold change in the concentration of hydrogen ions). That’s a shift so large, it’s not going to occur in the next few thousand years, even under the worst of the worst case scenarios by the most sadistic models. Indeed, it’s virtually impossible for CO2 levels to rise high enough to effect that kind of change, even if we burned every last fossil, every tree, plant microbe, and vaporized life on earth. (Yet still someone thought it was worth studying what would happen if, hypothetically, that happened. Hmm.)

1103 studies on acidification say there’s no need to panic

CO2 science has an extraordinary data base of 1103 studies of the effects of “acidification” on marine life. They reason that any change beyond 0.5 pH units is “far far beyond the realms of reality” even if you are concerned about coral reefs in the year 2300 (see Tans 2009). Even the IPCC’s highest end “scenario A2″ estimate predicts a peak change in the range of 0.6 units by 2300.

Many of the headlines forecasting “Death to Reefs” come from studies of ocean water at extreme pH’s that will never occur globally, and that are beyond even what the IPCC is forecasting. Some headlines come from studies of hydrothermal vents where CO2 bubbles up from the ocean floor. Not surprisingly they find changes to marine life near the vents, but then, the pH of these areas ranges right down to 2.8. They are an extreme environment, nothing like what we might expect to convert the worlds oceans too.

Marine life, quite happy about a bit more CO2?

Studies of growth, calcification, metabolism, fertility and survival show that, actually, if things were a little less alkaline, on average, marine life would benefit. There will be winners and losers, but on the whole, using those five measures of health, the reefs are more likely to have more life on and around them, than they are to shrink.

Figure 12. Percent change in the five measured life characteristics (calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival) vs. decline of seawater pH from its present (control treatment) value to ending values extending up to the beginning pH value of "the warped world of the IPCC" for all individual data points falling within this pH decline range.

How can this be?

First, marine life evolved under conditions were most of the time the world was warmer and had more CO2 in the atmosphere than it does today. Second, like life above the water, life-below-water is based on carbon, and putting more carbon into the water is not necessarily a bad thing. That said, the dots in the graph above represent study results, and the ones below zero tell us there will be some losers, even though there will be more winners (above zer0). Thirdly, watch out for some of the more devastating headlines which also come from studies where researchers changed the pH by tossing hydrochloric acid into the tank. Chlorine, as they say, is not the same as the gas nature breathes — CO2. (The strange thing about the studies with hydrochloric acid, is that it doesn’t seem to be bad as we might have expected– nonetheless, it seems like a dubious practice to use in studying the health of corals.)

The Ocean Acidification Database is housed at CO2 science.

The graph above is just one of many on their results and conclusions page.

The bottom line:

Yes, we should watch and monitor the oceans careful. No, there is no chance the Great Barrier Reef will be gone in the next 100 years: 1103 studies show that if the worlds oceans were slightly less basic then marine life as a whole will be slightly more likely to grow, survive, and be fertile.

That doesn’t mean we should torch coal seams for the fun of it, but it does mean we can afford to hold off on the oceanic panic for a century or so while we figure out how to make solar and wind power work ( in the event that we might need them, and in the event that they might “work”).

The Science and Public Policy Institute has a PDF summary of the results and conclusions.]]]

Every supposed feature of the “greenhouse gas effect” has been proven to not exist by “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist".
Additional tests and experiments have been carried out that back up this conclusion by many different scientists. Where is the Creditable experiment that proves the”greenhouse gas effect exists?
I COULD ADD HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSAND OF REFERENCES TO BACK-UP EVERYONE OF MY STATEMENTS- THIS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO READ.
David Arthur commented:
"No "creditable experiment"? We've been running the experiment for at least to centuries. Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy. Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy. Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy. Observation 4. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorbed in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice. Observation 5. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase. Observation 6. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates. Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature. Inference 2, (drawn from inference 1 and observations 4, 5 and 6). Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic. Root cause analysis 1. Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH. What do they teach in "civil-environmental engineering" training courses, anyway

Mr Kline

Your opening line, "As usual, we can expect the usual raft of Climate_Denier_Liars to contribute their ignorance of Climate Science" does you no merit.

The Conversation deserves better. Why not try and distil the main points from the web pages you highlight and put them forward in a coherent argument.

Regards

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

It helps if you keep individuals separated. Your reply should have been directed to "Colin Kline" assumed to be a Ms. Colin Kline.
I am working on a reply to the Brain washed environmental parot David Arthur that knows nothing of physics.
The full article can be found at http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist

First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13
Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07

Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded.
Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

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*****

-
In response to Mr Gerard DEAN, who demands that I read the contents of all my links (which I have), and summarise / precis them (which I have), but for him.

Why? That would be intruding my view. Surely Mr DEAN should read and precis for himself.

I feel no obligation to undertake Mr DEAN's reading, thinking and schooling for him.

If Mr DEAN wants someone to deliver him predigested views, filled with "amateur anecdotes", "corrupt convictions", and "private prejudices", he can go visit any church he chooses, and absorb what is delivered from the pulpit.

Private views are no more authoritative because they are private, or emotional testimony. Surely the views of world experts and scientists, as contained in my links, should be more convincing.

I know it's probably foolish to expect people to read and think for themselves.

One can but try.

Or join the local Pentecostal Church ?
-

Mr Kline,

You are right, we should only trust the wisdom of experts who can scientifically solve the problem of human induced climate change.

In 2008 you presented a paper to the IEEE International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/44533275/2008-04-29-CK-Submission-to-IEEE-CSET08)

You proposed launching and floating 42 Solar Sub Parasols between the earth and the sun, in order to shade the earth by about 3%. Each sub parasol, made of 1 micron silverised Mylar would be between 20 to 50 Km (KILOMETRES). The parasols would be powered and positioned by Hydrazine motors and be "winkable" by radio control from earth to enable adjusting of the shading effect on the earth.

The specification panel in your paper did not provide the weight of the sub parasol, stating: "Weight of Sub Parasol - X(?) gram (depending on latest material science).

I was surprised that such a detailed technical proposal did not provide an estimate of weight as this critical issue may determine the feasibility, or otherwise, of the project. Launching equipment into space is extremely costly in dollars and the use of non-renewable fuels, so the benefit must outweigh the costs to the environment.

A rough weight calculation goes as follows

-Average dia of Kline Sub Parasol - 35 Km
- Average area of Kline Sub Parsol - 950 Square Kilometres
- Volume of 1 square kilometer at 1 micron thickness - 1 cubic metre
- Weight of 1 cubic metre of mylar - Approx 1,300 kg or 1.3 tonne
- Average weight of 1 square Kilometre of 1 micron thick Mylar - 1
Therefore Weight of 1 Kline Sub Parasol= 950 sqare

Mr Carter

Does your concern for your newborn mean that you stop flying?

Just an opening question.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Pathetic and offensive.

Whether Mark's newborn will be impacted by climate change depends on whether we as a society can overcome the resistance of climate science deniers like yourself Gerard and achieve the political will to make the changes to our fossil fuel based economy that are required.

We have the technology, we have the wealth - what we do not have is a political consensus to make the changes - and that is because of an organised campaign by the fossil fuel interests and their supporters from the political hard right to deny what we are being told by climate scientists.

Mr Hansen

I am not from "big oil", I am not from the "hard right", I am do not deny the climate is changing and I do not call you or other bloggers names, I ask questions, and try and provide factual backup for my arguments.

"Big Oil", "Hard RIght Politicians" and "Deniers" don't force people to fly to Europe for holidays or academic conferences. Let me pose a question:

Mr Hansen, in the knowledge that flying humans around the planet is a totally unsustainable use of the earths minerals, oils and resources, do you choose to fly?

I look forward to your answer.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Anyone familiar with the debate over AGW would know that Gerard Dean's "I am do not deny the climate is changing ..." is a common refrain from climate science deniers.

Gerard - you did not invent "concern trolling" and to be frank you are not even very good at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll

So why stop with flying. There are actual carbon offset programs for flying but not for taking the train.
(https://www.carbonplanet.com/shop/offsets?offset_type=Flight)

I do not fly often but I take the train every day - a train powered by as you point out above by brown coal.
I drink water every day - water that comes from purification plants powered by brown coal.

So short of donning the hair shirt and heading for the scrub, there is no way to avoid contributing to carbon pollution in our current carbon based economy.

The are no individual solutions to climate change only political solutions - which is why the battle over climate science is not being waged in the peer review science journals but in the opinion pages of the conservative press where climate science deniers express the same arguments as those put by Dean.

A question for you Gerard. You say "... flying humans around the planet is a totally unsustainable use of the earths minerals, oils and resources, do you choose to fly?" Well do you?

Gerard.
Your arguments are becoming increasingly inane.

Given Melb Uni is not a power generator, its only choice is to take power from the grid.

What are you suggesting? That only people who construct their own personal multi million dollar wind turbine can argue for renewable energy.

Again, Gerard you attempt to hide your climate science denialism behind weak arguments lacking in logic.

I have lost count of the number of straw men you have destroyed over the last few weeks.

Gerard.
A technical point on your inane argument.

Renewable energy is added to the grid so strictly speaking you have no idea whether the Melbourne Energy Institute is powered by electricity made by brown coal or renewables.

For example, if you buy GreenPower from Origin, they cannot guarantee that the electricity you get came from renewables but they guarantee that the electricity that you use will be matched by Origin's purchase of renewable energy.
http://www.originenergy.com.au/1544/GreenPower-Green-Gas

Mr Hansen

We meet again. And as usual, I will stick to the facts.

Renewables provide a maximum of 5% of Victoria's electricity, almost all of the remaining is supplied by burning brown coal. The Melbourne University Institute of Energy draws over 90% of it's power from non-renewable brown coal.

What do they SAY: Stop using brown coal to make electricity.

What do they DO. Use brown coal to cool, heat, light, pump water in, pump poo out, charge iPads, charge iPhones, power servers, and boil water for coffee.

On my wall, the motto of my old school, Dimboola Memorial High School has something to teach Melbourne University, "Facta Non Verba"

Translated, that means the Dean of Melbourne University should ban international travel by all Melbourne Energy Institute staff, and buy a few wind turbines with the dollars saved. It will firstly provide renewable power and secondly, stop the academics using non-renewable resources to fly world wide.

Old mother earth will win both ways, and to your delight, it will shut me up.

Let's see if he or she has the guts.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris