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 9 August 2025

Change "it" in the first paragraph to "the radiation emitted from the Earth's surface"

The total short wave energy absorbed by the Earth is always in balance with the long wave energy. The way pronouns are used in this paragraph make this point ambiguous, which could confuse a reader into believing that more energy is being absorbed that is emitted from the whole Earth (planet + atmosphere) 73.90.16.148 (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: I've merged the last 2 sentences by removing "The absorption of longwave radiation prevents it from reaching space." This should address the ambiguity, making it clear that longwave radiation is "mostly absorbed" — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:32, 9 August 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)

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)