Talk:Greenhouse effect

Greenhouse Gases 'redirect' radiation?

At the atmospheric density of 0.040% carbon dioxide cannot possibly redirect radiation. 'Redirection' is the same as reflection. 'Redirection' is a 'change of momentum'. No change of energy takes place.

The radiation from carbon dioxide is a function of its temperature (T^4), the same for all material, be it solid, liquid or gaseous. This is entirely different from reflection. Reflection is not a function of temperature, the colour of light is not changed by reflection, only the direction of travel (propagation). That is why a Newtonian reflector telescope can focus an image.

All the diagrams in this discussion show the greenhouse effect as reflecting infrared heat, very different from emitting infrared!

In Earth's atmosphere the density of CO2 is far too low to reflect thermal radiation, only high density materials such as water, solids or metal reflect as shown in the Greenhouse Effect diagrams. Damorbel (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Damorbel: It would help if you would make specific recommendations for exactly what to change, and where. Separately: the parts-per-million value does not affect whether or not something reflects versus radiates versus emitting; ppm just reflects how much is reflected versus radiated versus emitted. Please clarify. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The temperature gradient of a planet's atmosphere, as with all gases in equilibrium conditions, is a function of the local pressure. A planet's atmosphere, if it has one, is retained by its gravitation. This means the local pressure falls below the surface pressure with increasing altitude, it is a well known effect called the 'Pressure Lapse Rate'. It is the principle of operation of an 'aneroid' altimeter, found in most aircraft.

The well known principle behind this is - gas pressure and its temperature, again in equilibrium conditions, are directly connected.

NB 'Equilibrium conditions' means there is no external influence like wind heat input or loss. Heat coming from e.g. the Sun or gravitational energy change with altitude, must be accounted for separately.

This evidence based explanation of atmospheric temperature gradient, found in all atmospheres - including stars - must replace all 'Greenhouse Effect' temperature explanations.

'Greenhouse Effect' temperature explanations are defective for two well know reasons, as I explain below.

Thermal ('heat') radiation from any gas, particularly from gas molecules having a complex molecular structure like CO2, is freely emitted to and absorbed by adjacent molecules, meaning adjacent molecules will quickly acquire the same temperature.

Thermal radiation from any gas cannot reach a planet's surface directly unless the gas density is so low it does not get absorbed by other molecules in its path. In this case the gas molecules temperature remains as it was, it does not change.

The so-called Greenhouse gases (GHGs) on Earth form a very small percentage of the total - in the region of 0.04%. These GHGs constantly exchange their energy with the other atmospheric gases, O2, N2 etc. This means they, the GHGs, have the same temperature as the rest of the (local) atmosphere.

This not original research, it is standard thermodynamics, known since time began, that temperature differences fade with time.

What remains with planetary atmospheres is the well known temperature effect of (local) gas pressure, that temperature and pressure, when no other heat source (or sink) is involved i.e. the gas is thermally isolated, measure the same parameter but with different units.

Changes must be made to all Wiki articles that mention an 'Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect' due to 'Greenhouse Gases'. Such claims are not supported by any evidence, they arise from shortcomings and misunderstandings contained in many 19thC publications.

Scientific enquiry has always stumbled over misinterpreted evidence - Ptolemy's model of our Solar System with Earth at its centre survived for more than 1000 years, until the invention of the telescope and Newton's observations on gravitation showed its weaknesses.

There are two well known physical effects, not found in any descriptions of 'The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change', that clearly show its shortcomings :-

1/ The effect on temperature of the atmospheric pressure gradient.

2/ The fact that all material, including the so-called atmospheric 'Greenhouse Gases', absorb heat as well as emitting it. This vital property of all materials, gaseous, liquid or solid, is totally absent from the 'Greenhouse Gas explanation of atmospheres', even from the UN/IPCC 'Summaries for Policy Makers'

The claims for an 'atmospheric Greenhouse Effect' cannot survive the omission of this 'absorption' property, it is an important part of atomic theory, including the Quantum Theory of Radiation.

To summarise - the increased temperature at the surface of a planet with an atmosphere is due to the atmospheric pressure, quite independent of the composition of said atmosphere.Damorbel (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This is well into WP:NOTFORUM territory. If you want to insert your own thoughts into Wikipedia articles, the correct way is via publishing them in reliable sources. Then, and only then, we can use them. This whole section could be deleted without any problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

You appear to confuse storm system formation and energy with the greenhouse effect and to pretend that climatologists don't know what they're doing. Above you misconstrue the fact that IPCC is informed by science, claiming that it's only activism therefore meaning that it could not be science, only arguments. Nonsense, reliable sources needed, none were provided. Wikipedia is not to present a false balance by firehosing with pseudoscientific denial arguments and suggesting that it could be legitimate debate. ~2025-32692-02 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

I would like to edit some grammer issues in paragraph two, I believe it was. Mr.BeeKnight (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in paragraph 2. Where are the issues?. Toast1454_TC 18:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The whole question of the physics of atmospheric heat is dominated by the (thermo)dynamics of a gas in a gravitational field.

This was first considered, as far a I know, by William Thomson in his 1862 paper 'ON THE CONVECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM OF TEMPERATURE IN THE ATMOSPHERE'.

The 1896 paper by Svante Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground published in Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276, is frequently cited as the science of the Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, notably by Nils Ekholm, a contemporary of Arrhenius.

This concept has been adopted by a number of political organisations, notably the United Nations in a series of 6 Assessment Reports produced at intervals by the United Nations 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' (IPCC).

The position of the UN/IPCC is that a Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect' does, in fact, exist in Earth's atmosphere, that the observed surface temperature fluctuations are attributed to the %age of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), as asserted by by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper.

Arrhenius' assertion, is strongly in disagreement with William Thomson's 1862 paper in that Arrhenius does not account for the temperature effects of atmospheric pressure that are central to Thomson's 1862 paper in which a planet's surface temperature is shown to be dependent on atmospheric pressure.

It is important to note that the surface pressure of Earth's atmosphere was first measured by a contemporary of Galileo Galilei, Evangelista Torricelli with his 'barometer' (pressure meter). Torricelli's barometer uses a horizontal glass tube, closed at one end, filled with mercury that, when turned vertical with the open end submerged in a bowl of mercury so that is did not empty, there remained a column of mercury supported by the air pressure at the surface of the bowl. The other important feature of Torricelli's arrangement was the space at the top of the mercury in the (vertical) glass tube. The pressure in this space is very close to that outside Earth's atmosphere i.e. zero! From this we can arrive at the temperature increase at Earth's surface due to atmospheric pressure. It was J. J. Fourier who concluded in his 1824 paper "Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires" that the temperature due to radiation from stars e.g. the Sun! outside the atmosphere was additionally raised at the planet's surface by atmospheric effects. Many authors claim that Fourier described a CO2 Greenhouse Effect but, in fact, nowhere does Fourier detail such an effect.

Currently very great efforts are being made to modify Earth's Surface Temperature, based on the %age of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in particular the %age contributed by industry (and the population!) using coal, oil and mainly methane in the form of natural gas, the so called fossil fuels, to provide energy to power almost all aspects of modern civilised life.

Wikipedia has a number of articles claiming deleterious atmospheric temperature effects by burning these carbon containing fuels.

The presence of carbon dioxide has, as can be seen from this Talk contribution, never been shown to enhance a planet's surface temperature, pressure alone does this, meaning that all articles claiming a CO2 Greenhouse Effect incorrectly attribute a danger in the continued us of such fuels.

The economic effects of, at this time, of needlessly restricting the burning of fossil fuels will not have the slightest effect of any climate found on Earth, the claimed CO2 Greenhouse Effect arises from a failure to account from the temperature effects of atmospheric gas pressure.

It is my intention to write a new article with significant contributions incorporating the effects of a planet's gravitation on the temperatures measured throughout its atmosphere, contributing also the general state of 'heat' measured with thermometers rather than predicted by calculation! Damorbel (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the tropospheric temperature gradient forms autonomously in a gravitational field.

Similar gradients also occur below any solid surfaces. For example, the Moon’s interior temperature is over 1,000 degrees above that of the hottest location on its surface despite the absence of atmospheric greenhouse processes, and deep Planetary atmospheres such as that of Uranus exhibit a stable vertical temperature structure. Uranus has a ~350 km‑deep troposphere, no solid surface at that depth, and very little solar radiation reaching the lower layers, yet temperatures near the base are around 320 K (Uranus#Troposphere). This illustrates that gravitational and thermodynamic processes can maintain temperature gradients independently of surface heating.

A common misconception is that pressure itself generates or maintains high temperatures. But high pressure cannot maintain high temperatures. In standard thermodynamics, temperature is proportional to the mean molecular kinetic energy, not pressure or density. Gravity affects molecular motion by accelerating molecules moving downward and decelerating those moving upward between collisions. In an insulated vertical cylinder initially having a vacuum, molecules entering the upper region from a hole made in the center would lose kinetic energy while those entering the lower region would gain it, producing a temperature gradient even without external heating.

The resulting structure reflects maximum entropy in a gravitationally constrained gas. Under the Second Law in Laws of Thermodynamics both the temperature gradient and the density gradient arise together as the system approaches maximum entropy which is called thermodynamic equilibrium. The upper part of a column naturally has lower density because molecular trajectories are slightly curved downward by gravity, making upward excursions less frequent.

The Ideal Gas Law shows that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. Thus the pressure gradient is a consequence of gravity acting on the gas molecules, forming both a temperature and density gradient. Observationally, vertical temperature gradients are evident in many natural environments. For example, measurements in the Grand Canyon consistently show warmer temperatures at the base than at the rim, despite the rim receiving far more direct solar radiation. This reflects the combined effects of gravitational structure, atmospheric dynamics, and local thermodynamic processes.

For an empirical study see: Jeong & Park (2022), Scientific Reports (Nature)

Retired Physicist (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Greenhouse Effect Analysis Violates the First Law of Thermodynamics

Written by Dr. Kevin Woods:

The standard greenhouse effect claim of the Earth's surface being -18°C without the greenhouse effect and increasing 33°C to an average surface temperature of 15°C when the greenhouse effect is added is wrong. The analysis violates the first law of thermodynamics by not properly defining the system analyzed in the blackbody radiator model [1]. When evaluating the case of no greenhouse effect, the atmosphere and clouds are removed but the standard analysis does not change the albedo to compensate for this removal. When the albedo is modified from the 30% (clouds, atmosphere, and surface) to 10% (just surface), the blackbody radiator model average surface temperature is -2°C, and when the emissivity of the surface is added (creating a graybody radiator model), this average surface temperature increases to 2°C. This value without atmosphere and clouds is 20°C higher than the standard claim of -18°C meaning the claimed 33°C rise due to a greenhouse effect is mostly due to a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

Further, when clouds are added without any influence from atmospheric gases, the average surface temperature increases to roughly 10°C. Since clouds are aerosols and not gases, the effect of adding "greenhouse" gases is limited to about 5°C of surface temperature rise. Through further analysis, roughly 3°C is due to water vapor and 2°C is carbon dioxide with negligible effects from methane, nitrogen oxides, and ozone. The 2°C effect from carbon dioxide is logarithmic. The effect of increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere from 0 ppm to 10 ppm yields a roughly 1°C rise in Earth's surface temperature. From 0 ppm to 100 ppm is a little under 2°C. From 0 ppm to 1,000 ppm is a little under 3°C. Therefore, increasing from 280 ppm (pre-industrial CO2 concentration) to 420 ppm (current CO2 concentration) yields global warming of the Earth's surface of ~0.15°C. Expanding the model to the year 2100 burning existing fossil fuel reserves completely yields a total global warming from CO2 emissions of less than 0.5°C. Claims by the UN IPCC in their 2021 Summary for All [2] state "In climate models that look at very high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, warming reaches around 4.5°C (8°F) by the end of the century." This statement is demonstrably false using first principle models developed in How to Model Climate: The Mathematical Approach [1].

[1] How to Model Climate: The Mathematical Approach, Dr. Kevin Woods, 2025. https://www.amazon.com/How-Model-Climate-Mathematical-Approach/dp/B0FD77SCMH, ISBN: 979-8286993208

[2] UN IPCC Working Group 1 Technical Support Unit. Version 3 - 12 December 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/outreach/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SummaryForAll.pdf ~2025-37697-11 (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

That's an "independently published" (i.e. self-published) book. Come back when it's in Nature. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the final good faith attempt to fix the fraudulent claims in this article.

The Blackbody radiator model equates the solar energy absorbed to the heat emitted by the Earth. The system in the analysis is the Earth including surface, clouds, and atmosphere gases. The system boundary is above the atmosphere limiting energy transfer to radiation. The albedo of the system is that of the Earth including surface, clouds, and the atmospheric gases. The Blackbody temperature of the surface, clouds, and atmosphere gases combined is 255 K or -18 degC. This makes sense since clouds cover over half of the Earth and their top layer is roughly -33 degC, the atmosphere is roughly -6 degC on average, and the surface is roughly 15 degC. The combination is a roughly -18 degC heat emission temperature from Earth into space.

The standard greenhouse analysis (claimed in this Wikipedia article) claims that the 255 K (-18 degC) is also the temperature when you redefine the system as solely the surface without atmosphere gases and clouds. It also claims the 33 degC difference between this -18 degC and Earth’s average surface temperature of 15 degC is due to the greenhouse effect from atmospheric gases.

However, when the system is redefined as solely the surface of the Earth, and the influence of atmosphere gases and clouds are removed, the albedo in the Blackbody radiator model must change from the 30% of the Earth (clouds, atmosphere, and surface) to roughly 10% for solely the surface, and the surface temperature becomes roughly -2 degC. Therefore, it is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics to claim the Earth’s surface would be -18 degC without the effect from atmospheric gases and clouds, as stated in this article. ~2025-37833-22 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the final good faith attempt I wish.

This is WP:OR. It is not allowed on Wikipedia. Do it somewhere else. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives temperatures resulting from a uniform source to a surface orthogonal to the radiation. But solar radiation to any location of course varies. Because the equation has the fourth power of temperature, a variable flux will not achieve anywhere near the temperature that a constant, orthogonal flux having the same value as the mean of the variable flux. This is a mathematical fact easily considered with a set of numbers such as 2, 3 and 4. The mean of the fourth powers (16, 81, 256) is always greater than the fourth power of the mean of the set, namely 3^4 = 81. Climatologists never take this into account. ~2026-44211-15 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. It is not allowed on Wikipedia. Do it somewhere else. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Counter Arguments

No one to my knowledge has ever presented any physics capable of refuting the following facts:

1) Prof. Claes Johnson, recently voted the top scientist in his field in Sweden, demonstrated that radiation below the cut‑off frequency is not thermalised. His work (see p.24 of Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation) is easily confirmed with a simple microwave experiment using identical ceramic mugs, one filled with water and one empty.

2) Josef Loschmidt correctly explained the formation of a temperature gradient in a gravitational field. This is not theoretical — it is observable in vortex cooling tubes and unmistakable in the Grand Canyon, where the base is always significantly warmer than the rim, with the gradient tracking rim temperature and matching the lapse rate above the canyon. The gradient is a direct consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics process of maximum entropy production: it is observed in every planetary troposphere and even below any solid surface.

3) The Second Law of Thermodynamics — as stated in the Wikipedia article Laws of Thermodynamics — applies only to a single natural process or to a set of interacting processes. It must be applied to each independent one‑way passage of radiation, not to an imagined global energy budget.

It is therefore incorrect to assume that so‑called “back radiation” from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface somehow increases the mean kinetic energy of surface molecules simply because the surface may be losing energy elsewhere through evaporation, convection, or radiation — even on the opposite side of the planet. Those other processes are not interacting with the incoming low‑frequency atmospheric radiation, and the Second Law cannot be applied across unrelated processes. When a photon from the colder atmosphere strikes the warmer surface, it does not thermalise its electromagnetic energy into molecular kinetic energy. Instead, it merely raises an electron from the ground state to one or more higher quantum states. The electron then drops back to the ground state and emits a similar photon. Physicists refer to this as pseudo‑scattering and, energy-wise, it is similar to reflection in that no thermal energy is retained in the mirror.

This is the correct application of the Second Law to radiative processes — and it eliminates the notion that back radiation can supply additional thermal energy to a warmer surface.These three physical principles together dismantle greenhouse‑gas warming claims. Heat creep driven by the gravito‑thermal effect provides the additional thermal energy that climate models incorrectly assign to “back radiation.” Less than 1% of the atmosphere cannot radiate twice the solar flux reaching the surface.

Jeong & Park (2022), published in Scientific Reports (Nature), conducted a direct experimental investigation into the temperature gradient predicted by Loschmidt’s gravito‑thermal effect. Their fully peer‑reviewed results provide compelling evidence that gravity itself — by redistributing molecular kinetic energy — establishes the observed temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere. This gradient forms at the molecular level and does not depend on solar heating of a surface, nor on the conventional “warm surface → rising air → lapse rate” narrative.

This confirmed experimental evidence that gravity forms the tropospheric temperature gradient (Jeong & Park 2022) supported by physical laws negates the need for any alternative explanation involving down-welling radiation from trace gases comprising less than 1% of the atmosphere.

A decisive example is Uranus. The base of its troposphere is approximately 320 K, significantly hotter than Earth’s surface, despite the fact that Uranus has no solid surface at that depth, no solar radiation penetrates 350 km down through its atmosphere, and there is no evidence of internal cooling at a rate sufficient to maintain such temperatures through residual core heat alone. Uranus#Troposphere

Yet the temperature gradient on Uranus can be calculated using the same physical relationship that applies to Earth, Venus, and other planetary tropospheres: the quotient of gravitational acceleration and the weighted mean specific heat of the atmospheric gases. The consistency of this relationship across multiple planets strongly indicates that gravity is the mechanism forming the gradient, not radiative heating from below.

Retired_Physicist

~2026-44211-15 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. It is not allowed on Wikipedia. Do it somewhere else. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern regarding WP:OR. To clarify, the points I have raised are not based on personal analysis but on published, peer‑reviewed work.

Prof. Claes Johnson’s Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation (115 pp.) presents a formal derivation of the non‑thermalisation of radiation below the cut‑off frequency. Likewise, Jeong & Park (2022) provide experimental evidence consistent with the temperature gradient predicted by Loschmidt’s gravito‑thermal effect — specifically, the formation of a tropospheric lapse rate arising from gravitational constraints and the Second Law’s requirement for maximum entropy production.

My intention is not to introduce unpublished reasoning, but to reference existing literature that may be relevant to the discussion of radiative processes and atmospheric temperature structure. Retired Physicist (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not enough to "raise points based on published, peer‑reviewed work". The published, peer‑reviewed work needs to raise those points itself.

So, does Claes Johnson’s Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation (or any of the other sources you name) say that "These three physical principles together dismantle greenhouse‑gas warming claims"? If it does not, go publish your conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal. That is the minimum requirement for including it in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Jeong & Park (2022), published in Scientific Reports (Nature), presented experimental evidence consistent with Josef Loschmidt’s 19th‑century explanation that gravity acting on individual molecules establishes the tropospheric temperature gradient. Their results challenge the conventional greenhouse‑gas warming narrative by showing that the gradient arises from molecular‑level energy redistribution in a gravitational field, rather than from solar heating of the surface followed by rising warm air. The common term “lapse rate” is therefore misleading, as it implies a surface‑driven convective process that cannot account for the stable temperature gradient observed in systems such as the Grand Canyon, where the temperature difference persists regardless of daily solar heating patterns.

As Einstein famously noted, a single valid counterexample is sufficient to overturn a prevailing theory. Retired Physicist (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Professor Claes Johnson — recently recognised as Sweden’s leading scientist in his field — has produced a substantial 115‑page mathematical treatment of radiative transfer. In that work, including the discussion on page 24, he demonstrates that the IPCC’s concept of “radiative forcing” does not occur as described. His analysis shows that the mechanism assumed in mainstream climatology is mathematically inconsistent, and this alone undermines the greenhouse‑gas warming hypothesis, which depends entirely on that concept. Raymond Pierrehumbert’s textbook, widely used in climate‑science courses, promotes radiative forcing as the central driver of surface warming, yet Johnson’s work shows the underlying mathematics to be flawed.

Dr John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has publicly criticised the greenhouse‑gas warming narrative, calling aspects of IPCC climate modelling “pseudoscience” and warning that the organisation is disseminating “dangerous misinformation” that is “corrupting many scientists.” These statements are part of his broader critique of climate modelling methodology.

Clauser has also published peer‑reviewed work relevant to his criticisms. In 2023 he authored a paper titled “The Science of Climate Change: The Physics of the Earth’s Atmosphere” (published through the CO₂ Coalition), in which he argues that climate models exaggerate the role of CO₂ and misrepresent cloud physics. In 2024 he co‑authored “Critical Analysis of the IPCC’s Climate Model”, which challenges the statistical treatment of radiative fluxes and asserts that natural cloud variability dominates temperature regulation. While these papers are controversial, they do show that Clauser’s public statements are grounded in technical arguments he has formally published. As always, readers should verify these claims through trusted scientific sources.

Taken together, Johnson’s mathematical analysis and Clauser’s published critiques indicate that these two eminent physicists possess a deeper and more rigorous understanding of the relevant physical principles than many climatologists, who often lack formal training in advanced mathematical physics.

Given these points — and those raised in my other comments — normal scientific due diligence would suggest revisiting several assumptions in the Article. In particular, the Article should acknowledge the IPCC statements I have quoted, and it should re‑examine the standard energy‑budget diagrams in light of the inconsistencies and errors that have been identified. Retired Physicist (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Their results challenge the conventional greenhouse‑gas warming narrative That's what you say. That is not enough. You need a reliable source saying it. In cases such as this, that would be a secondary scientific source. You still do not understand WP:OR.

Our article Scientific Reports suggests that this journal tends to occasionally publish shoddy work and also does not like to retract it when caught. If we quote that article, we definitely need secondary sources approving of it.

He is a mathematician and engineer. He does not seem to have any expertise in climatology, and your claim that he was recently recognised as Sweden’s leading scientist in his field is not believable. If we quote his article, we definitely need secondary sources approving of it.

Dr John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics Ah, him. He is a well-known vector of Nobel disease, he works with dishonest market-fundamentalist think tanks like the CO₂ Coalition. Like Johnson, Clauser does not have any expertise in climatology, and you will not find any secondary scientific sources agreeing with him. Anything published by the CO₂ Coalition is dubious and not usable as a source. And bragging about a Nobel as a reason to believe what someone else believes is a red flag, it will have the opposite effect on everybody who has a clue of how science works.

As Einstein famously noted Science is not done by citing general statements. This is another red flag.

Did you really think we do not regularly get attempts to add such denialist crap to the climate change articles? Read the archives, starting with Talk:Greenhouse_effect/Archive_1. I think we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

With respect, I recognise that you may not be familiar with the discipline of Mathematical Physics. The 115‑page work I cited is authored by Professor Claes Johnson, a Professor of Applied Mathematics — a field directly adjacent to mathematical physics — and he has been formally recognised as a leading expert in that domain. The issues under discussion involve entropy, thermodynamics, temperature, and heat transfer. These are matters of physics rather than climatology, and it is therefore reasonable to note that peer review conducted solely by climatologists may not always involve subject‑matter experts in the relevant physical sciences. Professor Johnson’s expertise is directly applicable.

I am also qualified in physics and endorse Johnson’s proof that “radiative forcing” — the mechanism upon which the conventional greenhouse narrative depends — does not occur. Raymond Pierrehumbert’s textbook and papers make it clear that the greenhouse effect (surface warming attributed to water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases present at very low concentrations) relies entirely on the assumed reality of radiative forcing. Johnson, as a relevant subject expert, demonstrated that this assumption is false.

Regarding the gravitationally induced temperature gradient: this follows directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because such a gradient represents the maximum‑entropy state of a gas in a gravitational field. This process has now been empirically measured in the peer‑reviewed work of Jeong & Park (2022), and it is plainly evident in observational data such as that of the Grand Canyon. The same gradient is observed in the tropospheres of other planets — notably Uranus, which has no solid surface and receives no solar radiation at the base of its ~350 km‑deep troposphere, yet exhibits temperatures around 320 K at that depth (see Wikipedia / Uranus / Troposphere).

The fact that gravity forms the observed non‑zero tropospheric temperature gradient — rather than the very weak downwelling radiation from greenhouse gases — directly contradicts claims that CO₂, CH₄, and similar trace gases can raise the global mean surface temperature in accordance with physical laws. A second line of evidence lies in Professor Johnson’s proof that radiative forcing does not exist. Johnson’s work, like that of Josef Loschmidt and other foundational contributors to physics, presents original, scientifically validated results. Such individuals often have few true peers, but in the absence of any valid refutation by subject‑experts in physics, and given Johnson’s formal recognition as the leading scientist in his field in Sweden, his work warrants serious consideration — certainly more so than papers involving physics that are peer‑reviewed by non‑experts in the discipline.

For clarity, I do indeed “deny” the following claims, as they are inconsistent with established physical laws:

1. That temperatures in Earth's troposphere would be isothermal in the absence of radiating molecules such as water vapour, CO₂, CH₄, and similar trace gases.
2. That downwelling longwave radiation (“back radiation”) is anywhere near the magnitude shown in climatology energy‑budget diagrams.
3. That such back radiation could transfer thermal energy from a cooler region of the troposphere to a warmer region of the surface, which would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics as described in Wikipedia / Laws of Thermodynamics, because no interacting thermodynamic system exists that would permit such a process.

This presentation is strictly grounded in physics, cites verifiable sources, and addresses the dispute in a manner consistent with Wikipedia’s expectations for evidence‑based discussion. Retired Physicist (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Solar radiation is insufficient to explain surface temperatures and the IPCC says Greenhouse Gases don't trap heat.

Climatology energy‑budget diagrams show that the magnitude of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is, on average, only about 48% of 340 W/m², meaning roughly 163 W/m² of absorbed solar flux at the surface. From the Stefan–Boltzmann Law we can calculate the absolute maximum temperature that any given radiative flux could sustain. A constant flux of about 163 W/m² corresponds to a radiative‑equilibrium temperature of about –40°C. That is the warmest temperature such a flux could ever produce. Moreover, because the 163 W/m² figure is an average of highly variable solar input across latitude, season, and time of day, and because the Stefan–Boltzmann Law involves the fourth power of temperature, the global mean surface temperature supported by such a variable flux would be significantly colder than –40°C.

This raises a fundamental question: How does one quantify the observed global mean surface temperature (around 14 °C) using the Stefan–Boltzmann Law and any other physically valid mechanism?

If we cannot correctly quantify the existing mean surface temperature, then we cannot meaningfully quantify any supposed increase attributed to rising greenhouse‑gas concentrations. Standard energy‑budget diagrams show that the atmosphere and surface together reflect about 29% of incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Of the remaining 71%, these diagrams also show greenhouse gases — including water vapor in clouds — emitting roughly 59% back to space, which is the primary cooling mechanism for the atmosphere.

Yet the same diagrams simultaneously assert that these gases still retain enough energy to radiate back toward the surface an amount equal to 100% of the original solar input before reflection. Crucially, this “back‑radiation” figure has never been directly measured. It is a calculated residual, and the implied magnitude is physically implausible: trace gases comprising less than 1% of the atmosphere cannot radiate a flux comparable to, or greater than, the solar input itself.

The IPCC itself explicitly abandoned the old “heat trapping” metaphor in the 1990s and replaced it with the radiative‑flux / radiative‑forcing framework. They have repeatedly stated that greenhouse gases do not trap heat. The clearest and most explicit quote comes from the IPCC’s Frequently Asked Questions section in AR4 (2007), which is still hosted on their website:

IPCC AR4 FAQ 1.1 – “Do greenhouse gases trap heat?” The IPCC states: “The term ‘greenhouse effect’ is misleading because the greenhouse gases do not trap heat.” “Instead, they absorb and emit infrared radiation.” Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 FAQ 1.1

An Energy Budget diagram showing back radiation from trace gases somehow being about double the flux from the Solar radiation can be viewed with this link: https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/climate-and-earths-energy-budget/#hds-sidebar-nav-7 Retired Physicist (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Can any reader tell me how climate scientists do this? This is not a forum. How is this supposed to improve the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The article opens by asserting that certain atmospheric gases “trap” energy — a claim the IPCC itself abandoned decades ago. These gases are, as the IPCC has repeatedly confirmed, the only constituents of the atmosphere capable of radiating energy. That radiative ability is precisely what allows the atmosphere to cool at night: water vapour, CO₂, CH₄ and similar gases emit infrared radiation to space, providing the only mechanism by which the troposphere can shed the energy accumulated during the day.

After a hot day, convection transfers energy from the surface into the lower atmosphere. Without the nocturnal radiative cooling provided by these gases, that energy would accumulate in the troposphere day after day. In other words, the very gases often described as “trapping heat” are in fact the ones that prevent long‑term atmospheric energy buildup by enabling nightly cooling. Retired Physicist (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

FOOTNOTE: Despite the IPCC abandoning the "trapping" claims decades ago, recent peer-reviewed papers (such as Feng et al. (2026), Nature: A strong constraint on radiative forcing of well‑mixed greenhouse gases) still write about "radiative forcing" which was originally defined by the IPCC as the change in net downward radiative flux caused by greenhouse gases trapping infrared radiation. Retired Physicist (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

"The article opens by asserting that certain atmospheric gases “trap” energy" Ah, so you want to change the wording of that sentence. Since you tried to put denialist propaganda into the article one section above, I am wary to trust you on anything. I cannot find the quote The term ‘greenhouse effect’ is misleading because the greenhouse gases do not trap heat.

Does anybody else have anything to say on this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

That statement is unquestionably accurate: the IPCC itself makes it clear in its own FAQ that greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat, and I cited the exact FAQ reference from the IPCC website.

The IPCC also stopped using the “heat‑trapping” metaphor decades ago. Their early energy‑budget diagrams contained no downwelling longwave flux, because at that time they still assumed that direct solar radiation alone determined the surface temperature.

In the 1990s, however, the IPCC recognised that the original diagrams implied an energy shortfall — direct solar flux was insufficient to explain the observed surface temperature, something easily demonstrated using the Stefan–Boltzmann Law. To resolve this discrepancy, they introduced the concept of large “back‑radiation” from greenhouse gases. From that point onward, they stated that greenhouse gases absorb and emit infrared radiation and therefore cannot be said to trap energy.

There was never empirical evidence of trapping, but there is also no evidence — nor any support from established physical laws — that trace gases comprising less than 1% of the atmosphere could emit to the surface roughly twice the radiative flux provided by the Sun. Yet this is precisely what is implied in the IPCC’s current energy‑budget diagrams. Retired Physicist (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2026 (UTC)