THE GREENHOUSE THEORY OF CLIMATE
CHANGE: HISTORY AND DISCUSSION
Aleksandr Zhitomirskiy
May 21, 2023
The content of the main works devoted to the theory of the greenhouse effect is briefly outlined. The correspondence of the conclusions of these works to facts and physical laws is discussed.
1. Introduction
Climate change and the causes of this change have been one of the central topics of modern mass media for many years. Most scientists believe that the main cause of climate change in the last century is the increase in the concentration of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide. In this regard, it is interesting to trace how the theory of the greenhouse effect was formed, on what facts and scientific ideas it was based. In 2012 John Mason published on the website Skeptical Science the brief article in three parts “Two Centures of Climate Science” [1]. In 2016 - 2018 in the Russian-language online magazine "Seven Arts", published in Germany, a series of articles by Vitaly Schraiber "Global Warming: a History in Persons and Facts" was appeared [2]. Common to these publications is the lack of discussion of works that challenge the theory of the greenhouse effect. In the recent article by J. Mason (2020) there is a link to an extensive bibliography list [3]. In 2010, renowned meteorologist Judith Curry published the article "Physics of the Atmospheric Greenhouse(?) Effect" (author's question mark) on the site Climate Etc. [4]. The author does not discuss the physical essence of the greenhouse effect, but links to the works of authors who challenge the views of the majority, and notes that these scientists put forward serious arguments. J. Curry formulated four main evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect: a) “narrative with history, usually starting with Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius; b) “the analogy to a greenhouse”; c)“the existence of of the planetary greenhouse
effect (e.g. effective blackbody temperature, spectral IR measurements”; d) “the IPCC consensus”. However, according to author, (b) and (d) “hinder more than help”.
This list of evidence does not mention the correlation between global mean temperature and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane, nor the relationship between atmospheric composition and temperature on Earth, Venus, and Mars [5, p. xiv]. In any case, this list does not include any confirmation of the greenhouse effect by a physical experiment, nor a theoretical analysis of the correspondence of the theory of the greenhouse effect to the fundamental laws of physics. When discussing the works related to the history of the greenhouse effect, we will first try to define, to what extent the conclusions of the authors correspond to the established facts and existing physical theories.
2. Studies of the greenhouse effect in 19th century
2.1. Jean-Baptist Joseph Fourier
All authors writing about the history of global warming and the greenhouse effect begin their presentation of the topic with the work of J. Fourier, who expounded his ideas in most detail in the articles published in 1824 and 1827. An English translation of the last article is available online [6].
At the very beginning J. Fourier writes: “The Earth is heated by solar radiation the unequal distribution of which produces diversity of climates”. This absolutely fair statement directly contradicts the concept of global climate and average global temperature, the change of which, according to the theory of the greenhouse effect, depends on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
On page 6 of the text, when it comes to comparing the temperatures of different planets ("bodies"), he says: "As for mean temperature caused by the action of the Sun on each of these bodies we are in the state of ignorance, because it can depend on the presence of the atmosphere and the state of surface”. The key word in this phrase is the atmosphere, that is, according to Fourier, the absorption of heat is carried out by the atmosphere as a whole; there is no mention of the composition of the atmosphere, let alone the role of individual components.
Fourier's article describes de Saussure's experiment (p. 11), demonstrating the
heating of air in a closed glass vessel under the action of sunlight. The modern reader may wonder if this experiment shows the existence of a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Fourier writes: “In this state, the heat cannot freely traverse the layers of glass which cover the vessel; it accumulates more and more in the cavity enclosed by materials which conduct heat poorly, and the temperature rises to the point at which the incident heat is balanced by the dissipated heat”. In modern terms, it means that heat is retained in the vessel due to the suppression of air convection and the poor thermal conductivity of the vessel walls. The air in the vessel heats up due to the absorption of heat, but there can be no talk of any specific absorption of infrared radiation by individual gases. Based on the foregoing, it is possible to conclude that Fourier's work has nothing to do with modern ideas about the greenhouse effect.
2.2.
Eunice Foote
As J. Mason writes [1], “Foote observes variations of heat-trapping effects of H2 O and CO2 “. The essence of Foote's work is summarized in a brief article [7] which aims “to determine the different circumstances that affect the thermal action of the rays of light that proceed from the sun”. The article includes a description of three experiments. The first experiment compares the temperature in the sun and in the shade in two cylinders (apparently made of glass) of the same size, the air being pumped out of one cylinder and "condensed" (?) in the other. In the first cylinder, the temperature both in the shade and in the sun turned out to be lower than in the second cylinder. This result has a simple physical explanation: the amount of heat absorbed by a substance depends on the amount of that substance. It has nothing to do with the specific absorption of heat by greenhouse gases.
In the second experiment, the temperature in cylinders filled with dry and moist air is compared under similar conditions, and in the third experiment, in cylinders filled with air and carbon dioxide. According to the author, the temperature in humid air is higher than in dry air, and in carbon dioxide it is higher than in air. Both of these results are inexplicable from the point of view of the heat capacity theory. Since the cylinders have the same volume, they must contain the same number of moles of the gases being compared. The molar heat capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide is greater than that of air, therefore, according to the basic heat capacity equation, with an equal amount of absorbed heat in the case of humid air and carbon dioxide, the temperature increase
should be less than for air. Since Foote's work went largely unnoticed at the time, no one attempted to replicate these experiments. Similar experiments were carried out only 150 years later. Bill Nye and Anthony Watts got the opposite results: the first author reported that the temperature was higher in the container with carbon dioxide, but, according to Watts, the temperature was higher in the container with air [8]. (The article by A. Watts is quoted, since B. Nye's work is not currently available online). Both of these experiments are discussed by J-E. Sollheim et al [9]. The authors measured the temperature in vessels containing air with different concentrations of CO2. No regular dependence of temperature on CO2 concentration was revealed, but in all cases the temperature in vessels with increased CO2 concentrations was lower than in a vessel with room air. So, other experiments do not confirm Foote's conclusions and do not refute the basic heat capacity equation.
2.3. John Tyndall
In an article devoted to the study of absorption and radiation of heat by gases [10]
J. Tyndall notes that “our acquaintance with this department of Physics is exceedingly limited”. This article appeared before the first publication of J.C Maxwell's book “Theory of Heat "(1871). Naturally, with then existing level of knowledge in this area, Tyndall could not imagine the difference between the absorption of heat and the absorption of infrared radiation - he simply identified these concepts. The identification of thermal and infrared radiation does not give an answer to a simple question: why are the main components of the atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen), which do not absorb infrared radiation, heated? The essence of Tyndall's experiment is to measure the radiation that has passed from the radiation source through the tube with the gas under study. This radiation hits a thermopile connected to a galvanometer, which makes it possible to determine transmission of radiation passes through a given gas. In the case of complete transmission (purified air, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen), the galvanometer needle showed zero deviation. Significant deviations were observed for CO, CO2, N2 O, “olefiant gas” (C2 H4 ) and some other compounds. Thus, Tyndall's experiment actually demonstrates not a change in the state of a gas that does not transmit infrared radiation, but a change in the electromagnetic field after passing through the gas. Therefore, Tyndall's
experiment cannot serve as proof of the greenhouse effect, and the question of Foote's or Tyndall's priority in the discovery of this effect [1] does not make sense.
2.4. Svante Arrhenius
Bibliographic list [3] contains 4 references to Arrhenius' works on the greenhouse effect. Here we will talk about the article published in 1896, where the main ideas of the author are quite fully formulated [11].
In the first paragraph of this article, S. Arrhenius compares the atmosphere with the glass of a hothouse, referring to the work of Fourier [6] mentioned above, although there is no such comparison in the original. Since such a comparison has been repeated many times in subsequent popular articles, it deserves detailed consideration. From the point of view of physics, it is incorrect to compare the Earth's atmosphere and a solid body, since the intrinsic volume of molecules is a fraction of a percent of the total volume of a gas at normal pressure and in glass the interatomic distances are smaller than the sizes of gas molecules. Glass, like other transparent solid materials with low thermal conductivity, is used in hothouses and greenhouses precisely because it prevents air particles from carrying away heat into the surrounding space; the air itself cannot replace the roof and walls of the greenhouse. To what extent is the atmosphere capable of retaining heat, emitted by the heated earth can be seen from the magnitude of the difference between day and night temperatures in the desert, where there is no influence on this process of clouds and vegetation. The value of the temperature difference can reach 40 K, which clearly does not indicate the correctness of the above comparison.
The experimental basis for the work of Arrhenius was the measurement of the intensity (“a strength of a ray”) of the reflected radiation of the Moon at different wavelengths, completed by S.P. Langley (1884). Assuming that the observed changes in intensity with wavelength are due to the absorption of lunar radiation by water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, Arrhenius calculated the absorption coefficients of each of these components for certain amounts of carbon dioxide (parameter K) and water vapor (parameter W). Identifying the absorption of infrared and thermal radiation, he "obtained the total heat-radiation for every series of observations, reduced to K = 1.5 and W = 0.88” (p.241). (Note that in real conditions the amount of water vapor is many times greater than CO2).
Discussing this question, it is necessary first of all to note that the reflected radiation of the Moon cannot be thermal radiation: the amount of thermal energy absorbed by the moon surface during the day is small, and this energy is dissipated in space without reaching the Earth's atmosphere, S. Arrhenius wrote: “Now the temperature of the moon is nearly the same than that of earth” (p.240), but this statement was doubtful at that time, and now it is refuted by the results of modern research [12]. These data show huge temperature differences on the Moon, on the order of 300 K in the equatorial regions and 200 K in the polar regions. Given such differences and the rapid change in surface temperature depending on the angle of incidence of the sun's rays, it makes no sense at all to talk about the average temperature of the Moon. Since the surface temperature changes rapidly, both the radiation energy (the StefanBoltzmann law) and the position of the radiation maximum on the wavelength axis (Wien's law) also change. It follows that the observed changes in lunar radiation may be caused by a change in the temperature of the Moon, and not by gases in the Earth's atmosphere.
Judging from the references in the article, Arrhenius was unfamiliar with Foote's work, but knew about Tyndall's experiment (see above). Apparently, he considered the Tyndall experiment to be insufficiently convincing proof of the greenhouse effect, since he proposed his own idea (p.239): "one should, strictly speaking, arrange experiments on the absorption of heat from a body at 15o by means of appropriate quantities of both gases”. (Both gases are H2 O and CO2 ).
We will never know how Arrhenius intended to carry out such an experiment; it is only known that for this it was necessary "very expensive apparatus beyond that in my disposal”. As a result, neither Arrhenius nor his followers received experimental confirmation of the existence of the greenhouse effect.
3. Studies from the beginning of 20th century
3.1. Robert Williams Wood
A short article by R, Wood "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse" is not mentioned in the reviews [1, 2, 4] and is available online thanks to the publication of a blogger under the nick stoat [13] accompanying the text with his own notes.
The essence of Wood's experiment is to compare the air temperature in two identical containers heated in sunlight. One of the containers is covered with
glass, which is opaque to infrared radiation, the other is covered with a plate of rock salt, which transmits infrared radiation. From the observed approximate equality of temperatures in both vessels, Wood concluded that “the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped“.
Wood's work has been repeatedly criticized in contemporary publications (see in particular remarks at link [13]). In this case, we will not talk about remarks based on theoretical considerations, but about an article that discusses possible errors in Wood's experiment and the results of the author's own experiment.
V.R. Pratt [14] made some changes to the experiment, in particular, placed inside each vessel instead of one thermometer two thermocouples (on the ceiling and on the floor of the vessel), and also measured the temperature of the outer surface of the glass and salt plates. Comparing temperature differences between ceiling and floor and ceiling and outside in both enclosures, the author concluded: “there was no such thing as the temperature inside the box and that the thermometer readings were so sensitive to placement as to make them meaningless unless their sensitivity had been recognized and taken into account”.
From the results obtained by Pratt, it follows that Wood's experiment is not correct and, on its basis, one cannot draw a conclusion about the relative role of radiation and convection in heating atmospheric air. At the same time, Pratt's experiment calls into question the rationale for the greenhouse effect in all experiments on heating air in closed vessels in sunlight, including the aforementioned experiment by Eunice Foote. Obviously, if the air temperature is not the same at the same time in different places of a small vessel, then how can we talk about the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere?
3.2. Guy Stewart Callendar
British engineer and researcher G.S. Callendar in 1938-1961 published a number of articles on the greenhouse effect. The main idea was formulated in a 1938 publication [15] and was that carbon dioxide produced by human activity absorbs infrared radiation and thereby causes an increase in the average temperature on Earth.
To estimate the change in average temperature, Callendar used data from 200 weather stations over the past 50 years (approximately the period 1880-1930).
The amount of absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere was determined on the basis of the infrared spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide by calculating the absorption coefficients at certain wavelengths. In 1938, Callendar estimated the total increase in average temperature over the indicated period at 0.005 °C per year, of which 0.003 was attributed to an increase in carbon dioxide concentration from 274 to 296 ppm [15, p.224].
When discussing this article, the following questions should be considered: a) how reliable are the values of the change in the average temperature in the indicated period? b) how is it proved that the change in temperature is due to the change in the concentration of greenhouse gases? (c) how is the relative contribution of CO2 calculated?
To answer the first question, it suffices to compare Callendar’s data (p. 234, Table 7) with the results of statistical processing of NOAA data (data published in August 2021) for the same period (1880-1930) [16]. In both cases, temperature deviations from the average value are used: Callendar considers the deviations of the mean annual temperature (Δ T) from the average for 18801930, and the NOAA from the average for the 20th century. When processing NOAA data, along with the average value of Δ T for each 10 years, a statistical error is given in the 95% confidence interval, as well as coefficient b for the linear dependence Δ T = a + by, where y is the number of years since the beginning of each decade (from 1 to 10).
Comparison of temperature anomalies Δ T (o C) found by G. Callendar [15] and calculated from the NOAA data [16]:
For the 50-year period preceding the work of Callendar (1887-1936), the NOAA data is described by the equation Δ T = -0.258 + 0.001292 y , and the correlation coefficient R = 0.164(a small R value indicates that the correlation is not significant). It follows that the Callendar's value of 0.005 °C per year is not correct, and the very fact of the increase in the average temperature for the
specified period is not reliable.
As for the second and third questions, Callendar simply ignored them. His article does not mention any factors that affect temperature at all, other than the concentration of greenhouse gases. Apparently, he considered it an axiom that the change in temperature is determined only by the change in this concentration. It is not surprising that, as V. Schraiber [2] writes, Callendar "was confused and deeply saddened when, in the early 1950s, the warming he advocated was suddenly replaced by a wave of cooling, while carbon dioxide emissions continued to grow." In this regard, we can also mention that at the beginning and at the end of the ice ages known to us, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was significantly lower than the current one, which, according to the IPCC, is maximum for the last 800,000 years. At the same time, temperature changes from the onset of the ice age to the melting of the ice sheet reached 10-12 °C, while the average temperature increase over the last century is unlikely to exceed 1 °C.
Callendar's biographer James Fleming introduced the phrase into the title of his book about him: "the scientist who established the carbon dioxide theory of climate change” (https://medium.com/our-changing-climate/guy-callendarthe-man-who-discovered-global-warming-in-1938-a322626c8a74). This is not accurate, because Callendar in 1938 considered the role of water vapor in the absorption of infrared radiation. The effect of water vapor was later abandoned by Gilbert Plass, whose work will be discussed below.
3.3. Carbon Dioxide
Theory
of
Climate:
From E. Hulburt to the IPCC, 1931 – 1990 In 1931 E.O. Hulbert [17] published the results of calculations of the radiation equilibrium in the atmosphere based on the values of the absorption coefficients of light by various gases in the atmosphere, the albedo of the earth's surface. and atmospheric temperature. According to his data, “The sea level temperature comes out to be about 19° above the observed world-wide average value 287°K”. However, by assuming that the convective region extends up to a height of 12 km, and the radiation equilibrium is established at a height above 12 km, the author arrives at an estimated sea level temperature of 290 K (how does it fit with real data?). This paper also calculates the expected increase in temperature with doubling and tripling the concentration of carbon dioxide in atmosphere (4K and 7K, respectively).
To comment on the results of Hulbert's work, it is necessary to consider the
concept of the "average" temperature of the Earth, the physical essence of the relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation and temperature. This also applies to other works in this review and therefore these issues will be discussed separately.
In 1956 G. Plass published articles about determining role of carbon dioxide in climate change [18] and about of infrared radiation in the atmosphere [19]. Just like his predecessors (Arrhenius, Hulbert, Callendar), Plass calculated the absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere on the basis of infrared spectra obtained in the laboratory. To process the data, he derived general equations for the transfer of radiation in a gas and used a computer for calculations.
Plass' article on infrared radiation [19] seems to be in 20th century the only attempt to physically explain the relationship between the ability of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and temperature. Therefore, the main provisions of this work should be considered in more detail. Plass writes: “From the surface of the earth up to height to 80 km or more the temperature is usually in the range from 200 to 320 K. The blackbody radiation that corresponds to these temperatures is largely in the spectral region from 5 to 100 microns”.Obviously here he is talking about air temperature at different altitudes. However, a blackbody is defined in physics as a finite-sized body that absorbs all incident radiation, so it is not a gas. The indicated temperature range of 200320 K could correspond to temperatures on the Earth's surface, but even this does not give reason to limit the wavelength range from 5 to 100 micron, since gas molecules can absorb both reflected and incident radiation.
The assessment of the relative role of various gases in the absorption of infrared radiation also seems to be controversial. Accoding to Plass, “ozone has an approximate absorption coefficient from 9-10 μ, carbon dioxide from 12-18 μ, and water vapor above 20 μ and to a lesser extent at smaller wavelengths”. These values do not correspond to contemporary data [20].
Gas Band intervals, μ
Position of band centres, μ
H2 O > 10, 3.6 – 15.6, 8.3 – 50 6.3
CO2 4.2 – 4.7, 8-11.8, 12.5 – 18.5 4.3, 9.4, 10.4, 15
O3 8.3 – 10.5, 12.5 – 16.6 9.01, 9.59, 14.2
In order to judge which substance absorbs more and in which region, it is necessary to introduce some kind of quantitative criterion. Obviously, this
criterion should take into account the position of the absorption band on the wavelength axis (the wavelength is related by the Planck equation to the energy value), the band width (range of energy values) and the intensity of the band at a certain concentration. It will be in vain to look for estimates of these values in the articles by various authors, at least from Arrhenius to Plass inclusive.
It is also important to discuss Plass' arguments in favor of the decisive role of CO2 in comparison with water vapor in the absorption of infrared radiation [18]. He states that “the mixing ratio of H2O decreases very rapidly with height, whereas the mixing ratio of CO2 is nearly constant with height” (p.142). No evidence is provided to support this claim. Obviously, the amount of absorption of radiation is determined by the total number of absorbing molecules, but not mixing ratio (the ratio of the amount of substance to the total amount of air). Therefore, the decisive role is played by the surface layer of the atmosphere, which contains both carbon dioxide and water vapor, the concentration of the latter being 50-100 times higher.
It is noteworthy that Plass does not calculate the change in atmospheric temperature due to changes in CO2 concentration, but the increase in "average surface temperature of the earth” [18]. If we accept, as Plass and others do, that the absorption of infrared radiation by gas molecules is equivalent to heating it, then we can imagine that an increase in the concentration of CO2 leads to a heating of the atmosphere. However, it is not at all clear how one can determine the change in the temperature of the earth's surface, not to mention the meaninglessness of calculating the "average" temperature for the ocean in the tropics and polar regions, land covered with sand and vegetation, etc.
In subsequent years, the main attention of researchers in the field of the greenhouse effect was focused on improving the methods for calculating the absorption of radiation by greenhouse gases and creating on this basis computer models for predicting climate change. Among the many works in this area in the 60s - 80s of the last century, the articles by S. Manabe and V. Ramanathan seem to be of the greatest importance. Here we will not discuss the mathematical description of radiative transfer processes and computer simulation; we are talking about the physical principles on which the models are based. And the essence of these principles has actually remained unchanged since the time of Arrhenius: the main role in changing the temperature of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth is attributed to the absorption of infrared radiation by
greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the models consider various possible scenarios for changes in global temperature depending on changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases.
In this regard, it is not so important that Plass considers the CO2 absorption band at 15 μ as the main one, while Manabe and Strickler (1964) take into account the rotational band and the 6.3 μ band for water vapor, as well as the 9.6 μ band for ozone. The main question, how nitrogen and oxygen in the the atmosphere (96-99%), which do not absorb infrared radiation, are heated, remains open.
3.4. Description of the greenhouse effect in the IPCC reports
It can be considered symbolic to some extent that almost a hundred years after the publication of the Arrhenius article, a group of UN experts in a collective report [5] presented not a convincing experiment or physical theory, but indirect arguments to substantiate the greenhouse effect. However, it is best to quote the original (p. xiv):
“Firstly, the mean temperature of the Earth's surface is already warmer by about 33oC (assuming the same reflectivity of the earth) than it would be if the natural greenhouse gases were not present. Satellite observations of the radiation emitted from the Earth's surface and through the atmosphere demonstrate the effect of the greenhouse gases.
Secondary, we know that the composition of the atmosphere of Venus, Earth and Mars are very different, and their surface temperatures (shown in the table below) are in general agreement with those calculated on the basis of greenhouse effect theory.
Thirdly, measurements of ice cores going back 160,000 years show that the Earth's temperature closely paralleled the amount of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere (see Figure 2). Although we don't know the details of cause and effect, calculations indicate that changes in these greenhouse gases were part, but not at all, of the of the reason for the large (5-7 oC ) global temperature swings between ice and interglacial periods”. Let us briefly consider the essence of these arguments. The first of them deals with the difference of 33 degrees between the average temperature of the Earth's surface and the so-called effective temperature. The average temperature is a statistical characteristic that has no physical meaning and cannot be accurately measured, since at each point on the surface it is
different, depending on the nature of the substance on the surface, and continuously changes over time. The effective temperature is calculated under the assumption that a) solar energy equal to one quarter of the solar constant falls on the Earth disc, b) the ratio between the reflected and absorbed energy for the entire Earth is determined by the same average albedo value of 0.3, c) the relationship between the temperature of the Earth’s surface and radiation energy is described by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, derived in physics for an ideal black body. Apart from the inaccuracy and incorrectness of the assumptions made, there is no evidence that the difference between these two questionable values is due to greenhouse gases.
The second argument. Since the three named planets are located at different distances from the Sun and, therefore, receive different amounts of heat from it, it is at least not logical to attribute the temperature difference to the composition of the atmospheres. Speaking of astronomy, we can mention that among the planets of the solar system, the highest temperature (much higher than on the Sun) was found inside the gas giants (for example, Jupiter), which consist of non-greenhouse hydrogen gas and receives a negligible amount of heat from the Sun. This temperature is determined by the superhigh pressure of the gas. By the way, the high temperature on Venus, in addition to astronomical factors, is partly explained by high atmospheric pressure (90 times higher than on Earth). As you can see, "non-greenhouse" hydrogen can create high temperature due to pressure, as well as "greenhouse" carbon dioxide.
The weakness of the third argument is recognized by the authors themselves ("we don't know the details of cause and effect”). A decisive role in the refutation of this argument was played by new, more accurate studies of the isotopic composition of ice cores. These studies have shown that the changes of temperature and CO2 concentration on time over a period of 420,000 years are shifted relative to each other in such a way that the change in temperature precedes the change in CO2 concentration, and not vice versa [21, 22].
The main idea on which the calculations of global temperature change are based is presented in the first section of this report, written by R.T. Watson a.o. [5, pp. 5-34]:
“The Earth's climate is dependent upon the radiation balance of the atmosphere, which in turn dependent upon the input of solar radiation and the atmosphere abundances of radiatively active trace gases (i.e. greenhouse
gases), clouds and aerosols”. This essentially means that all factors influencing the climate, other than the concentration of greenhouse gases, are not taken into account or are assumed to be unchanged. However, in section 7 of the same report "Observed climate variations and change” C.K. Folland and co-authors wrote [5, p.200]: “We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the available historical temperature data the evidence points consistently in a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events it is not possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller, warming to the increase of greenhouse gases”. The contradiction between these two statements is quite obvious.
In subsequent reports (1996, 2001, 2007, 2014, 2021), the IPCC experts did not return to the discussion of evidence for the existence of the greenhouse effect; the focus was on expanding the list of greenhouse gases, their relative role in climate change (the "global warming potential") and predicting climate change due to increased concentrations of these gases.
4. Debate on global warming and the greenhouse effect
4.1. Quantifying the magnitude of warming
The very fact of climate warming cannot be a subject of discussion if it is confirmed by measurements of air temperature and the surface of the earth over a long period. However, it remains unclear: a) how reliable is the comparison of average temperatures found in the 19th century and at the present time; b) how the value of temperature change for the same period in different places on the earth are consistent; c) whether the increase in temperature is statistically significant in different periods.
To answer the first question, information is needed on the geographical distribution of the number of weather stations. Such data for the period 1885 to 2006 are available online on the Climate Audit website [23]. The maps show that in the beginning of the period under review, the largest number of stations per unit area was in the United States and Europe, with almost no stations in Africa, South America, and most of Asia. It follows from this that the average
value of temperature measurements cannot be considered as a global average temperature, and also that the comparison of results in different periods is not entirely correct.
There are data that testify to the difference in temperature changes over time in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, as well as in different regions of the Earth [5, p. 207]. Numerous publications on climate change in different regions, apparently, will subsequently be systematized and generalized.
As for the numerical value of the temperature increase for a certain period, the IPCC reports, where such values are given, do not indicate for which period the average annual temperature is calculated for comparison and how the statistical error is calculated. For example, in the IPCC Fifth Report (2014), the increase in "global average temperature" is defined as 0.65 - 1.06 °C in 1880 - 2012. It is not known what initial data were used in the calculation. It can be seen that the NOAA data [16] mentioned above when discussing the work of Callendar for the last 2 years were published in three versions (values of Δ T (o C) are given):
Year Before Aug. 2021 Between Aug. 2021 and Apr. 2023 Last version
Such discrepancies give rise to doubts about the accuracy of the initial data and calculation methods, and even more so about the reliability of the assessment of the role of greenhouse gases in these temperature changes. In order to isolate the contribution of the greenhouse effect in this inaccurate value (if possible), it is necessary to know all the factors that affect the temperature of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface, and take into account changes in these factors. Is it possible to quantify various climatic factors?
Changes in the Earth's climate are mainly due to the amount of solar energy incident on the Earth, which in turn depends on fluctuations in solar activity and changes in the Earth's precession angle (the tilt of its axis of rotation with respect to the perpendicular to the plane of revolution of the Earth around the Sun). The analysis of these factors is given in many studies; in this case, it is important that these factors are not constant and it is not clear how to quantitatively take into account their role.
In addition to astronomical factors, the surface temperature is affected by the properties of the surface itself, namely, its ability to reflect and absorb radiation;
this ability is actually different at each point of the surface and cannot be averaged. Due to the presence of clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere, the amount of energy reaching the surface varies in place and time.
Finally, there are factors caused by such unpredictable phenomena as changes in the intensity and direction of warm and cold sea currents, volcanic eruptions, chaotic movements of air masses (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes), etc.
There is no scientifically based method for estimating the contribution of a single factor to temperature change; this naturally applies to the greenhouse effect. Therefore, it is impossible to judge the greenhouse effect based only on the fact of temperature increase. It is necessary to understand what physical laws determine the existence of the greenhouse effect and what facts confirm this effect.
4.2. The greenhouse effect and the laws of physics
Judith Curry in her review [4] names authors who, in her opinion, put forward serious arguments against the theory of the greenhouse effect, based on physical principles. She mentions articles by Gerlich and Tscheuschner [24], Miskolczi [25], Claes Johnson [26] and a collective work “Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon” [27]. (These works are absent in bibliographic list [3]). The first of these works is available online in full. Based on the analysis of the physical processes of heat transfer between the earth and the atmosphere, the authors [24] came to the conclusion that "a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomena in glass houses and fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 o C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; e) the assumption of radiation balance is unphysical; f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse effect is falsified”.
The work of G. Gerlich and R.Tscheuschner was criticized in a commentary by J. Halpern, C. Colose, S. Ho-Stewart a.o., published in the same journal (vol. 24, No.10) in 2010, the same issue contains the authors' response. It is difficult to comment on this discussion because, unlike the original [24], these articles are not publicly available online. J. Curry writes about this discussion [4]: “both groups seem to be talking past each other”. Since the mentioned authors [2427] dispute the theory of the greenhouse effect, referring to the laws of physics,
a natural question arises: where is the physical justification of the greenhouse effect stated? J. Curry refers to publications on atmospheric radiative transport (for example, [28]) but these sources do not explain the heating of the main components of air that are transparent to infrared radiation. In addition, it is not clear how exactly the absorption of infrared radiation at different frequencies is related to heating.
In 2008, C. Colose (one of the critics of the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner) published a 2-part article on his blog explaining the physical nature of the greenhouse effect [29]. This is not the place for a detailed analysis of this work, but it is important to know how the author describes heat transfer from the Earth's surface to atmosphere: “Only way it (Earth) lose heat is by radiation” (part 1). This means that the theory of the greenhouse effect does indeed neglect such heat transfer mechanisms as heat conduction and convection. You can also mention the statement in part 2: “The two-atom molecules are too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect”. (The author meant homonuclear diatomic molecules). But if we agree that nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb heat, how to explain the heating of air? In any case, the author does not even raise this question. It is unlikely that such an explanation of the physical nature of the greenhouse effect can be considered satisfactory. After the publication of C. Colose, I could not find in the bibliography [3] any article describing the physical nature of the greenhouse effect.
5. Conclusion
The very fact of the increase in temperature in the modern period compared to the previous one can apparently be considered established, however, the time of the beginning of the warmer period, the regularity of temperature changes and the correspondence between temperature changes in different places on the Earth are not reliable.
The IPCC places the onset of warming at the start of the industrial period (1750 or 1850?), but data from the second half of the 19th century refer only to a relatively small area of the earth's surface where weather stations were located at that time. Statistical analysis of NOAA data shows that a statistically significant increase in temperature within each decade from 1880 to 2020 was observed only from the late 1980s. Previously, relative warming in the 1930s changed to cooling in the 1940s-1970s.
The statistical error of the results of the processing of temperature measurements was also questioned [30]. The very fact that NOAA has published different sets of temperature data for the same years over the past 2 years (see above) gives grounds for such doubts.
Parallelism between the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and temperature alone cannot serve as proof of the existence of the greenhouse effect. An experimental proof and (or) substantiation of the effect based on the laws of physics is required.
Familiarization with literary sources shows that the only experiment where a higher temperature was found in a vessel with carbon dioxide than in a vessel with air is described in the article by E. Foote [7]. However, such result was not confirmed [8, 9], and the experiment proposed by S. Arrhenius [11] was not carried out by anyone.
J.Curry writes: “The IPCC reports never actually explain the physics of the greenhouse gas mechanism” [4]. To this absolutely correct statement, one can add that descriptions of the physical essence of the greenhouse effect are not found at all in the literature [3].
Here it is not possible to give links to all articles in scientific journals (there is no talk of journalism) where the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect is criticized. I will only mention an article that refutes the existence of a "consensus" [31] and a detailed discussion of the physical principles related to this hypothesis [32]. In essence, there is nothing to add to the conclusion in the last article: “Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures”.
References
1. J. Mason. Two Centures of Climate Science. Part 1 - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820 – 1930. Part 2 – Hulburt to Keeling, 1930 – 1965. Part 3 – Manabe to the present day, 1966 – 2012. https://skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-3.html 2. В. Шрайбер. Глобальное
Семь искусств. №№ 8, 10, 2016. № 11, 2017. №12, 2017. №1, 2018. https://7iskusstv.com/2016/Nomer8/Shrajber1.php#:
https://7iskusstv.com/2016/Nomer10/Shrajber1.php#: https://7i.7iskusstv.com/2017-nomer11-shrajber/ https://7i.7iskusstv.com/2017-nomer12-shrajber/ https://litbook.ru/article/11156/
3. The History of Global Warming. Bibliography. https://history.aip.org/climate/bib.htm#459
4. J. Curry. Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect. - Cimate Etc. Nov,30, 2010.
https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouseeffect/
5. Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment Report. 1990. 414 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
6. J.Fourier. Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaries. Memoir de l'Academie Royale de sciencesdr l'Institute de France.YII, 570-604, 1827. Translated by R.T.Perlmutter, Sept. 2004. Chicago. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf
7. Eunice Foote. Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays.- American Journal of Science and Arts, 22, 382-83 (1856). https://books.google.co.uk/books? id=6xhFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q&f=false
8. A.Watts. Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing at simple CO2 experiment.https://wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2experiment/
9. J.-E.Solheim, T.Eriksen, Y.Engebretsen. The Greenhouse Effect – a high school experiment. Conference: The London Conference on Climate Change: Science on Geoethics, Sept.8-9, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308334675_The_Greenhouse_effect _-_a_high_school_experiment
10. J.Tyndall. On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapors, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation,Absorption and Conduction. Philisophical Transactions. Part 1. 1861.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/archer_galleys/ 9781405196178_4_002a.pdf
11. S. Arrhenius. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Vol.41, 237-276, 1896.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
12, J.-P. Williams, D.A.Paige, B.T.Greenhagen, E.Sefton-Nash. The global surface temperature of the Moon as measured by Divier Lunar Radiometer Experiment. - Icarus, vol.283, 300 – 325, 2017. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869
13. R.W. Wood, (1909). "Note on Theory of the Greenhouse." -Philosophical Magazine, ser. 6 Vol. 17: 319 -320, 1909. https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/01/07/r-w-wood-note-on-the-theory-of
14. V.R. Pratt. Wood's 1909 Greenhouse Experiment Performed More Carefully. - http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
15. G.S. Callendar. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. - Quart. J. Roy. Meteorolog. Soc., 64, 223-24, 1938. http://climatepositions.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/qjcallender38.pdf
16. NOAA Global Time Series 1880-2021. Year-to-year temperature anomalies. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series
17. E.O. Hulbert. The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth.Phys. Rev., 38, No. 10, 1876-90, 1931. https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.1876
18. G.N.Plass. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change. - Tellus, 8, 2, 140154, 1956. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v8i2.8969
19. G.N. Plass. Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere. - Amer. J. Physics, 24. No.5, 303-321, 1956. https://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Plass-1956dcopy.pdf
20. Absorption by atmospheric gases in the IR, visible and UV spectral regions. 2009. http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
21. J.R. Petit, J. Jousel, D. Raynaud, a.o. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. - Nature, 399, 429436, 1999. https://www.nature.com/articles/20859#citeas
22. Ning Zeng. Glacial-Interglacial Atmospheric CO2 Change – The Glacial Burial Hypothesis. - Atmospheric Sciences, 20, No.5, 677-698, 2003. https://www.atmos.umd.edu/~zeng/papers/Zeng03_glacialC.pdf
23. Historical Station Distribution. Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre, Feb.10, 2008. https://climateaudit.org/2008/02/10/historical-station-distribution/
24. G. Gerlich, R.D. Tscheuschner. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. - International Journal of Modern Physics, B. 23, 275-364, 2009. https://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/post/Gerlich_Tscheuschner.pdf
25. F. Miskolczi . The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth's Global Average Atmospheric Planck-weighted Greenhouse-gas Optical Thickness. - Energy & Environment, 21, No.4, 243-262, 2010.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08miskolczi.pdf
26. Claes Johnson. Climate Thermodynamics . 18 pp. https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/climatethermoslayer.pdf
27. J. O'Sullivan a.o. Slaying the Sky Dragon. - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. Published in 2010 by ebookpartnership.com. ISBN 978-0-9567221-3-3. https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory-ebook/ dp/B004DNWJN6?
asin=B004DNWJN6&revisionId=ee4c3823&format=2&depth=1
28. .R.H. Goody, Y.L.Yung. Atmospheric Radiation. Theoretical Basis. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 1989. https://academic.oup.com/book/40894?login=false
29. Chris Colose. Physics of the Greenhouse Effect. Part 1. March 9, 2008. https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouseeffect-pt-1/ Part 2. March 10, 2008.
https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/physics-of-the-greenhouseeffect-pt-2/
30. M. Büsing. Systemic Error in Global Temperature Measurement. - Watts Up With That. Aug. 30 2022. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/systemicerror-in-global-temperature/
31. Climate Depot Special Report. More than 1000 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010. https://www.academia.edu/30336577/More_Than_1000_International_Scient ists_Dissent_Over_Man_Made_Global_Warming_Claims_Scientists_Continu e_to_Debunk_Fading_Consensus_in?email_work_card=title
32. G. Kramm, R. Dlugi. Scrutinizing the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect and its Climatic Impact. - Natural Science, 3, No.12, 971-998, 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276048562_Scrutinizing_the_atmo spheric_greenhouse_effect_and_its_climatic_impact