Greenhouse gas effect is not a scientific concept

We can understand the failure of the Greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, in explaining climate when we realize it's junk science. We're told man-made climate change is due almost entirely to this GHGE. Given the GHGE is a fairy story thing, not a thing-in-itself, we conclude: there is no evidence for man-made climate change. Here are at least 13 reasons why a greenhouse gas effect is nonsense. Please add to the list if you can.

A bonus point, in the Appendix, gives evidence showing: why climates really warmed since 1980.

Thirteen reasons why a greenhouse gas effect is nonsense

1. In this video, physicist Tom Shula explains why climate models which calculate the so-called greenhouse gas effect are fraud.

   Summary: The climate models assume, 80% of earth's surface cooling is by emission of infrared radiation. Shown in energy balance diagrams such as this. Shula explains how the Pirani gauge shows radiative emission, in air, is less than 1%. Tom explains how and why.

   In a nutshell, climate modellers used the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: I = ε σ T⁴
   
   Intensity = epsilon × sigma × temperature (in Kelvin) raised to the 4th power.

   • σ : sigma, is called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant. It has a value 5.67037442 ×10⁻⁸ W m⁻² K⁻⁴
   • ε : epsilon is the emissivity of the matter doing the emitting, is generally between zero and one, although some exotic materials may have an emissivity greater than one. An emissivity of one corresponds to a black body.

   In 1879, Josef Stefan guessed from experiments that the energy emitted by bodies was proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. In 1884, Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) gave a rigorous (mathematical) derivation of this result.

   Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is crucial to their calculations for both the greenhouse gas effect, and radiative forcing. They apply it to earth's surface to calculate earth's radiative emissions. Except: that cannot be done. It's fake science, because the conditions under which the Stefan-Boltzmann Law was derived by ignoring conduction and convections - measuring emissions in a vacuum. A vacuum is essential because it allows experimenters to keep conduction and convection at known values (basically zero!). So there are 3 means of heat transport: radiation, conduction and convection. Only one could be measured in a single experiment. Earth is surrounded by an atmosphere, and the conductive and convective effects at the surface are vastly greater than the radiation; by about 240 times.

   A typical validation of the Stefan-Boltzmann’s law of radiation : is done by measuring the radiation from a filament of the incandescent lamp. The filament is enclosed in a vacuum.

2. GHGE fails most where it should work best. We're told man-made climate change is due to a more intense GHGE, which warms most:
   • at poles,
   • in winter and
   • at night.

   GHGE theory says the Arctic and Antarctica should warm more than the rest of the earth.

   Polar Antarctica just experienced its coldest temperatures on record, in the Southern winter, most of the coldest temperatures measured at night! Ref: South Pole’s Winter Weather Record, by Michael Kile

   Over 25 studies, published in the last 3 years, show Antarctica has been cooling for decades. Ref: NoTricksZone.

3. IPCC made 3 fatal errors in CO₂ assumptions.
   1. CO2 is higher at the Poles than Equator.
   2. When air warms, CO2 goes down and water vapor goes up.
   3. The warming effects of CO2 and water vapor do not add; they oppose each other, opposite IPCC claims
   
4. Warming and cooling are explained by clouds.
   Actual measurements of earth's radiation balance show warming is due to fewer clouds, but COOLING due to a greenhouse gas effect. Less clouds reflect less sunlight away to space, so give earth a lower albedo. More sunlight getting in warms us. Overall the warming is TINY. Study by Dübal & Vahrenholt, 2021; summary & discussion.
   
5. GHGE model assumptions, predictions & mechanisms are falsified by reality. These are empirical falsifications of the GHGE here. By falsification, we mean the model workings are directly contradicted by how the real world works.

   GHGE is falsified by:

   • Refuted assumption. GHGE says more CO₂ increases atmospheric opacity to OLR (outgoing longwave radiation). Reality says: no it doesn't
   • Refuted assumption. GHGE says more CO₂ leads to a fall in OLR leaving the atmosphere. There's no evidence for this assumption. OLR rose as surface temperature rose since 1985 (to 1998). GHGE says the surface temperature increase was caused by falling OLR! Impossible: reality diametrically contradicts the conjecture
   • Refuted prediction. GHGE says more CO₂ will increase the atmosphere's specific humidity. Reality (measurements) say no it does not. Yet climate modellers still have the cheek to model increased water vapour in the atmosphere and to predict temperatures 3 times what their model would get without the extra water vapour. Wrong by 3 times more than they should be.
   • Refuted prediction. With increased CO₂, GHGE predicts a hotspot in the upper and mid troposphere over the tropics. No such hotspot is found; although scientists have tried homogenizing (doctoring) balloon observations to get the number they want.
   • Refuted GHGE mechanism. GHGE, says: atmospheric water vapour, WV, is a greenhouse gas; so more CO2 in the atmosphere causes more WV. This extra WV then behaves as a positive (reinforcing) feedback to warm the surface even more. But, in heavily irrigated regions, the surface temperature can be over 6C cooler than nearby non-irrigated regions. Irrigated regions have more water vapour in the atmosphere above the region. GHGE say it's hotter with more WV. Reality says it's cooler! The paradox is, of course, explained as evaporative cooling of the surface. Researchers call this the Irrigation Cooling Effect, ICE
6. GHGE is Refuted by planetary data. Ned Nikolov made an excellent video which reveals why GHGE is logically senseless & how adiabatic processes better describe features such as the atmospheric lapse rate. The authors call this an atmospheric thermal effect, ATE; it is empirically derived.
   
   All planets with thick atmospheres show a Lapse rate. This Lapse rate does not depend on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It depends on the mass of gases. As density changes so does the Lapse rate:
   
   In the diagram above the Lapse rate is a feature of the Troposphere. The Troposphere is the atmosphere closest to the surface (under the Tropopause); where about 90% of a planet's atmosphere is found. In the diagram, the Tropopause(s) are just below where the grey dotted line is in the middle of the diagram; approximately below 0.1 bar pressure. In other words, the troposphere is the part of a planet's atmosphere at a pressure above ~ 0.13 bar. [note: the y-axis in on a logarithmic scale]
7. When radiosonde data (from atmospheric balloons), is analysed from the point of view of density, the lower atmosphere can be explained by up to 3 equations of state (only 2 at night & early morning; 3rd one merges into 2nd) corresponding to 3 regions:
   1. Tropopause/Stratosphere
   2. Troposphere
   3. Boundary Layer (water dominated). Nearest surface.
   When we compare this reality with the radiative model of Manabe and Strickler, we see one is real. The other is fantasy.
   
   
   Balloons in the Air: Understanding weather and climate, Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly; CERES.
8. Lapse Rate Fallacy.

   The basic model of the greenhouse gas effect - used to calculate climate sensitivity is nonsense. It ignores actual atmospheric behaviour. For instance, the model says adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the EEH (effective emission height), which caused radiation to be emitted at a cooler temperature, therefore lowering the ERL (effective radiation level) temperature. The EEH being the altitude at which IR goes on a one way exit ride to space. All of this supposedly causes an imbalance at the top of the troposphere (where the EEH / ERL are). This imbalance is than copied to the surface due to the Lapse Rate!! Their model actually treats the Lapse Rate as a 'thing'; rather than what it is: an artifact of other things!

   This is basically Mickey Mouse climate modelling. The kind of thing a High School student could see through.

9. There's No GHGE on Venus. Long ago, in 1969, scientists claimed a runaway GHGE was responsible for Venus' high surface temperature. Venus became the poster child for global warming on earth. With dire warnings: look what can happen to Venus, the same will happen to earth unless we change our evil ways. In reality a GHGE on Venus is impossible, as explained here by Dr Robert Ian Holmes.
   
   Five reasons why Venus has no GHGE
   1. Venus rotates slowly with a night 58.4 times longer than an earth day; almost an 8½ week night. Yet the difference in surface temperature on Venus is 732K = night, 737K = day. Only 5K over an 8½ week period. This temperature change on Venus over 1401 (earth) hours is LESS than the difference in average temperature over a single earth day-night cycle of about 12 hours (from 3pm to 3am on Earth). How can a GHGE still work after so long a night, when this hypothetical GHGE supposedly relies on back-radiation? If surface temperature on Venus was only a function of daytime warming & night-time cooling, mitigated by back-radiation warming, then the variation (from day to night) would be vastly more than empirical observations show.
      1. As the Venusian cooling period is 8½ earth weeks, the day/night temperature difference would be far greater than 5C
      2. The 'back-radiation' supposedly turning Venus into a run-away greenhouse effect catastrophe zone would fall significantly at night - by many hundreds of degrees.
      3. Where does that massive backradiation - required for Venus's GHGE - come from? Especially after 8 weeks of Venusian night. OLR is supposed to be 'in balance' with incoming sunlight (after the albedo effect is accounted for). But there's no sunlight at night!
   2. Venus has a very high albedo. Most sunlight is actually reflected away from the planet. Venus actually gets less net sunlight than earth! GHGE says Venus, without a greenhouse gas effect, should be cooler than earth! Even with a GHGE the theory only predicts Venusian GHGE due to CO2 will be 18C warmer than earth's. CO2 supposedly accounts for a CO2 GHGE contribution of 8K. So the GHGE contribution to Venus's surface temperature should be 8 + 18 = 26K.
      
      P.S. The total affect of the GHGE on earth's surface temperature = 33 C, according to the GHGE. Daytime temperature is actually an average of 464 C
   3. Venus's pressure is so high that CO₂ will be a supercritical fluid for the lowest 4km of atmosphere. How will a GHGE still work in the lowest 4km?
   4. Venus's atmosphere is optically opaque to sunlight, so only 10% of incoming solar radiation, 20 W/m² of direct solar radiation warms the surface. It would need a back radiation of > 15000 W/m² to explain the high Venusian surface temperature in terms of a GHGE. How does Venus generate a back-radiation 750 times the magnitude of its incoming radiation?
   5. Venus's atmosphere rotates westward, at about 70km in altitude, at 60× its rotation speed! If effects such as this can't be explained, why does anyone accept this GHGE explanation?

   The greenhouse gas effect, or runaway GHGE was never an explanation for Venus. It was a bad idea rail-roaded through by left-winger who cannot do debate, nor science.

   Comparison of Venus and Earth (NASA data).

   	Venus	Earth
   Solar irradiance (W/m²)	2601.3	1361
   Solar average (W/m²)	650.3	340¼
   Bond Albedo	0.77	0.31
   Geometric albedo	0.689	0.434
   Surface temperature (K)	737	288
   Black body temperature (K)	227	254
   Outgoing Longwave radiation (W/m²)	160	238
   Surface pressure (bar)	92	1.013
   Surface density (kg/m³)	65	1.2
   CO2	96.5%	0.04%
   Atmospheric mass (kg)	~4.8 x 1020	5.1480 × 1018
   Length of day (hours)	2802.0	24.0

   
   

   Venusian Night

   Venus rotates slowly with a night 58.4 times longer than an earth day; almost an 8½ week night. Yet the difference in surface temperature on Venus, day to night, is just 5K. 732K at night, and 737K in the day. How can a GHGE still work after so long a night?

   The greenhouse gas effect is supposedly due to back-radiation warming its surface. Where is this back radiation coming from after 8 weeks of night? The temperature on the Venusian surface = 459C, or 732K, even at night. A GHGE predicts that the surface temperature should cool far more than this at night.

   • Backradiation can't be coming from the day side of Venus because radiation travels in straight lines, not in a circle around the planet.
   • Much of the heat radiation emitted from Venus's surface must go right out to space without being absorbed by the atmosphere. It goes through the atmospheric window which CO₂ does not absorb. On average Venus emits 160 W/m² to space.

   During the night, lasting 8.34 weeks, each square metre of Venus on the night side loses ~807 million joules as OLR. No new radiation arrives to keep its surface hot. So the total net loss, per square metre, is 807 million joules! Yet the surface stays hot; it only cools by 5°C compared to day! As so much energy is lost (~807 million joules over the night) the downwelling flux must fall significantly. The greenhouse gas effect on Venus seems to be a perpetual motion machine, conjuring endless amounts of backradiation from nowhere, despite huge losses of OLR to space. The mechanism which really keeps the surface hot is called the Atmospheric Thermal Effect, ATE, as described by Nikolov and Zeller.

   Does a runaway GHGE make sense

   Venus has far more CO₂ than earth. The absorbance of infrared radiation by CO₂ falls off logarithmically. To get 1C average warming on earth we need twice as much CO₂, 2¹ times. To get 2C average warming on earth we need four times as much CO₂, 2² times. To get 18C worth of warming on earth, we'd need 2¹⁸ more CO₂ on earth. That's more CO₂ than Venus has!

   It looks like the GHGE on Venus is just cooking the books. The science makes no sense. One can cook the books easily with models. They are complex things, hard to check, published in obscure scientific journals which cost about $36 just to read ONE article!

10. Climate models are wrong. - the so-called General Circulation Models, GCMs, depend on a GHGE present in the GCM as either a sub-model or entered as a parameter. GCM forecasts are wrong. Now we know why.
    
    Climate modellers have written papers and books giving some reasons why the greenhouse gas effect is wrong. Here are some important criticisms of climate models, by modellers: David M.W. Evans, Chris Essex, Rex Fleming, William Happer, Mototaka Nakamura, Ross McKitrick, Ferenc Miskolczi,
11. No empirical support by experiment nor direct observation. The Greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, has only ever been a conjecture. There was never any empirical support for it. GHGE says that earth's surface is 33C warmer because of GHG in the atmosphere. This calculation is based on flawed logic & bad physics; which GHGE supporters never question. Because questioning is 'climate denial' - a cancellation offense.

    I've baited GHGE supporters to show me their empirical studies. They have nothing which shows a surface temperature increase due to GHGE. Studies claiming temperature changes due to GHGE typically compare air with CO₂. These studies do not account for differing heat capacities of CO₂ and air. Also: the greenhouse gas it typically warmed in conditions of constant volume, not seen in a real atmosphere. Ned Nikolov's explanation of the Greenhouse-Effect-In-a-Bottle Experiment stress how the constant volume causes warming. Note: It would be easy for experimenters to use a variable volume.
    
    Inert gases all have even lower heat capacity (see table below) than nitrogen, which has lower heat capacity than CO2. The essential requirement to include Argon as a control seems to be always ignored! Their toy experiments only ever compare CO2 to air.
    
    A Comparison between CO₂ plus air against argon should be essential in these desktop experiments. Because:

    • Argon is inexpensive
    • Argon has a density closer to CO₂ than air. One could devise experiments of CO₂ plus air against argon and air with both mixtures having the same density.
    • Argon has a different heat capacity to CO₂ and air.
    • Argon has no GHGE
    • Scrubbed, dried air has no GHGE
    
    There's a long list of these experiments and classroom demonstrations here [1-9]. With a refutation [10]. But why are there none by alarmists using argon?
    
    Heat capacity / density / Specific Gravity

    		Heat capacity, Cp,m	Density
    		Unit: J·mol−1·K−1	NTP	STP	Specific Gravity
    CO2		37.1	1.842	1.977	1.519
    air (dry)		29.07	1.205	1.293	1.000
    argon		20.8 C	1.661	1.7837	1.38

    1. NTP - Normal Temperature and Pressure - is defined as 20°C (293.15 K, 68°F) and 1 atm ( 101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 30 in Hg, 760 torr)
    2. STP - Standard Temperature and Pressure - is defined as 0°C (273.15 K, 32°F) and 1 atm (101.325 kN/m2, 101.325 kPa, 14.7 psia, 0 psig, 30 in Hg, 760 torr)

    Table of heat capacities of common gases here.

12. Prof Nir Shaviv - presents a number of points to refute CO₂ as a cause to climate change: Where the IPCC has Gone Wrong
13. Pathetic arguments support the GHGE & climate alarmists cannot debate. I've shown above that the GHGE is contradicted multiple times by data. Perhaps scientists can devise a better scientific model which matches the data? In fact climate alarmist scientists did their utmost to spike other GHGE atmospheric models and have often tried to destroy the careers of scientists independent enough to think outside their straight-jacket.
    
    Climate alarmists pride themselves on refusing to debate the science. They say the science is settled and they will not debate "deniers". In fact they cannot debate because they have no good evidence to support their ideas.
    
    They defend their GHGE by repeating logic fallacies - such as appeal to authority, or - when they discuss the science - they will repeat their logical model of the GHGE and declare it settled science, show an IR spectrograph of earth's outgoing longwave radiation! When asked to show proof that a GHGE warms earth's surface, this spectrograph is all they have. To believe a GHGE warms earth's surface one must believe their model is Gospel. The spectrograph is not proof of GHGE because in order to believe alarmists surface warming calculations one must accept every model assumption they make.
14. Little new empirical data despite massive increases in funding. Given how little data supports this GHGE, you'd assume scientists would be eager beavers - doing validations and falsifications (with actual empirical data). Despite a massive increase in climate science funding after Obama was elected, we saw little new fundamental empirical science about the GHGE. The official line seems to be what politicos tell scientists: "the science is settled". Most of what we see from climate alarmists are studies which assume a GHGE and then conclude something awful will happen because of the assumptions they make. To the best of my knowledge - no GHGE-believing scientist ever attempted a falsification experiment or observation.
    
15. There's no legitimate science behind it & the IPCC process is unscientific.
    The most recent IPCC report claimed that climate variability was ZERO. Climate variability is the IPCC term for natural climate change. In other words, the IPCC say 100% of climate change is man-made! This means IPCC don't accept that this years' record colds (coldest on record) in Antarctica can be due to natural causes! The extremism of the IPCC with their nonsense claims of ZERO natural climate change mean we should ignore everything they say about the climate system. If one is prepared to tell ONE lie, then there's no limit to the lies one can tell. Now the IPCC are discounted, who's left to defend the GHGE?
    
    In fact, the IPCC process is politically driven not scientifically driven. For example the Summary For Policymakers, SPM is entirely written by politicos with only a couple of scientists present as observers. After the SPM is done, the actual scientific report WG1 is edited and amended to ensure it agrees with what the politicos decided!
    
    This is how the IPCC describe their SPM:

    The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) provides a high-level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate, including how it is changing and the role of human influence, and the state of knowledge about possible climate futures, climate information relevant to regions and sectors, and limiting human-induced climate change.

16. Hat tip to this blog: Global warming - not caused by CO₂

Appendix:

1. If not GHGE, then what?

   Climate warming over the last few decades is explained as a change in cloud cover. More clouds = cooling. Fewer clouds = warming. Because more clouds reflect more sunlight back out to space.

   • Atmospheric ionisation and cloud radiative forcing; Henrik Svensmark, Jacob Svensmark, Martin Bødker Enghoff & Nir Shaviv, 2021
   • 2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions
   • Don Easterbrook wrote a book which collates the results of 140 papers. The research shows that solar magnetic variability causes major climate changes. More or less cloud is the solar vector of change. The Solar Magnetic Cause Of Climate Changes And Origin Of The Ice Ages, 2019 by Dr. Don J Easterbrook

2. Venus Calculations

   1. How much sunlight falls on Venus?

      2601.3 W/m² of sunlight is directed at Venus. But Venus is a sphere, so to calculate the average falling on a square metre of sphere we divide incoming solar radiation by half. Getting : ½ × 2601.3 = 1300.65 W/m².

      That (above) is during the day. Averaging over the whole day/night we must divide by another half: ½ × 1300.65 = 650.375 W/m².

      But Venus's high albedo of 0.77 means 77% is reflected out to space. Only 23% is absorbed. 23% of 650.375 = 149.575 W/m². This is far less than earth absorbs (Earth: 235 W/m²). Venus gets only 64% the sunshine of earth! It ought to be a lot colder. This is the origin of the idea of a runaway GHGE on Venus. We calculated it should be a lot colder. It is really a lot hotter. We invented a runaway greenhouse gas effect to explain it.

      Abiabatic Compression Heats / Atmospheric Thermal Effect

      In reality Venus's hot surface temperature is easily explained by the adiabatic compression, AKA: the Atmospheric Thermal Effect. A surface temperature of 737K is a lot, and many people think an ATE cannot manage such warming. Step back. Consider how does a condensed mass of hydrogen create a new sun? Temperatures of 100 million K or more are required to initiate fusion in a young sun. Hydrogen is NOT a GHG, so it does not trap radiation. So if a yet to be sun can reach 100 million K at its core by adiabatic compressive heating just before fusion can begin - then Venus can reach 737K at its surface.

      Summary: About 77% of incoming radiation is reflected away from Venus. So only 23% is absorbed. About 12% of the non-reflected radiation reaches the surface, and 88% is absorbed by the thick atmosphere (Mostly by sulphuric acid). Less than 3% of incoming solar radiation reaches Venus's surface to warm it; just under 20 W/m². That's not enough to give Venus a surface temperature of 737 K. A massive 15000 W/m² of down-welling infrared would be needed according to the GHGE! At least 750 times the solar radiation. Where would that come from? Try to remember that OLR originating at the surface (upward IR) travels at the speed of light, and much of it goes right out to space. On average Venus emits 160 W/m² to space. It doesn't sound a lot but it means every second each square metre of Venus loses 160 joules of energy. During the whole night of 58.35 days, each square metre of Venus on the night side loses ~ 807 million joules. In such a situation how can the downwelling flux of GHGE supposedly warming the surface remain at 15000 W/m²? Because, remember the surface of Venus at night only gets 5K cooler (732 K) than during its day (737 K)

   2. How much more CO₂ does Venus have, & how much warmer should GHGE make Venus?

      The Venus atmosphere is at 92 times the pressure of earth's. Atmospheres of Venus and Earth have CO₂ at 96% and 0.04% respectively. Venus has a lot more CO₂!

      Question: How much more CO2 does Venus have than earth?

      Answer: My 1st (back of the envelope) calculation gives: 92 × 96.5 ÷ 0.04 = 222,000 ×
      My 2nd calculation is: ( 96.5% × 4.8 x 10²⁰ ) ÷ (0.04% × 5.1480 × 10¹⁸) = 224,942 ×

      According to the GHGE conjecture, the infrared absorbance of CO₂ falls off logarithmically. Each doubling of CO₂ increases the GHGE by 1C.

      Question: How many doublings of earth's CO₂ will give us Venus's CO₂?.

      Answer: Two raised to the power of 18 = 262,144; 2¹⁸ = 262,144. And 262,144 is just a bit bigger than the 224,942 times the amount of CO₂ on Venus, compared to earth. So if earth had Venus's CO₂ atmosphere, we'd expect earth to be 18C warmer; according to GHGE conjecture!

      Remember: Earth's atmosphere supposedly a gives a positive water vapour feedback; but it is not observed in reality on earth.

      Notice how the GHGE temperature increase, due to extra CO₂ (4th column), is just the same as the power of 2 (2nd column) ! This is a neat coincidence.

      Runaway Greenhouse effect on Venus? I calculate Venus's extra temperature as 18C more - according to a GHGE. But, remember, Venus gets LESS sunshine than Earth, because so much more is reflected back to space, and very little of that sunshine reaches the surface. Nearly all is absorbed by the atmosphere.

      In reality Venus's surface temperature = 737 K, earth's = 288 K. The difference is +449 K. I smell a rat. It seems to me they really took some liberties with this calculation for their runaway GHGE calculation back in 1969.
      

      Earth CO2	Power of 2	Multiplier	CO2 GHGE temperature increase °C
      400 ppm	20		0
      800 ppm	21	2 ×	1
      1600 ppm	22	4 ×	2
      3200 ppm	23	8 ×	3
      6400 ppm	24	16 ×	4
      …	…	…	…
      …	216	65,536 ×	16
      …	217	131,072 ×	17
      …	218	262,144 ×	18

   3. How much energy does Venus lose at night?

      The flux to space = 160 W/m². (160 watts per square metre).
      A watt is a unit of power; 1 watt = 1 joule per second.

      How many seconds in 58.35 days?
      = 58.35 × 24 × 60 × 60 = 5,041,440

      How many joules of energy are lost during the night?
      = 160 × 5,041,440 = 806,630,400

      During the night, each square metre of Venus, on the night side, has a net loss ~ 807 million joules.

References

1. R. M. Fuller, “Greenhouse effect study apparatus,” Am. J. Phys. 41, 443–443 (1973). DOI:10.1119/1.1987255
2. T. Lister, Classic Chemistry Demonstrations (Royal Chemical Society, London, 1996), pp. 171–173.
3. S. B. Lueddecke, N. Pinter, and S. A. McManus, “Greenhouse effect in the classroom: A project- and laboratory-based curriculum,” J. Geosci. Educ. 49, 274–279 (2001). [PDF]
4. Royal Meteorological Society, “Demonstrate the greenhouse effect,” (www.rmets.org/activities/schools/greenhouse-effect.php). [Dead Link]
5. Royal Meteorological Society, “The Greenhouse Effect,” (https://www.metlink.org/experiment/the-greenhouse-effect/).
6. C. F. Keating, “A simple experiment to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases,” Phys. Teach. 45, 376–378 (2007). DOI: 10.1119/1.2768699
7. Nuffield Foundation and the Royal Society of Chemistry, “Modelling the greenhouse effect”, https://edu.rsc.org/experiments/modelling-the-greenhouse-effect/1543.article
8. Sieg, Philip & Berner, William & Harnish, Peter & Nelson, Philip. (2019). A Demonstration of the Infrared Activity of Carbon Dioxide. Physics Teacher. 57. DOI:10.1119/1.5095383. [PDF]
9. Levendis YA, Kowalski G, Lu Y, Baldassarre G. 2020 “A simple experiment on global warming. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7(9): 192075. doi: 10.1098/rsos.192075

10. ---

    P. Wagoner, C. Liu and R. G. Tobina, “Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics” Am. J. Phys., 78(5), 536-540 (2010). DOI: 10.1119/1.3322738

11. ---

    Ingersoll, Andrew P. (1969). "The Runaway Greenhouse: A History of Water on Venus" (PDF). Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 26 (6): 1191–1198. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<1191:TRGAHO>2.0.CO;2
12. Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020, Atmosphere 2021, 12(10), 1297; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101297

13. ---

    Happer, UNC 9-8-2014, "Why has there been no global warming for the past decade?" (NR); Key lecture.
14. Why Has Global Warming Paused? (Lecture) - William Happer.
15. Happer W. Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A. 29. DOI: 10.1142/S0217751X14600033
16. Van Wijngaarden and Happer, 2020, Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, Link: arXiv:2006.03098 [physics.ao-ph]
17. Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. B23:275-364, 2009 DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X; Link: arXiv:0707.1161 [physics.ao-ph]
18. Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, 2003, Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming
19. Joseph E Postma The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 44 Pages·2011
20. Joseph E Postma ... Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - I Love My 31 Pages·2011
21. Joseph E Postma ... Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Gas Effect 85 Pages·2012
22. Joseph Postma, 2019, The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History

23. ---

    Don J. Easterbrook (Edited By), Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2nd Ed., 2016; "EBCS2016"
24. Don J. Easterbrook, Greenhouse Gases, Chapter 9 of EBCS2016
25. David M.W. Evans. The Notch-Delay Solar Hypothesis, Chapter 19 EBCS2016
26. David M.W. Evans. Correcting Problems With the Conventional Basic Calculation of Climate Sensitivity, Chapter 20 EBCS2016
27. Chris Essex. Has several articles and co-wrote the book Taken by Storm, 2003
28. Rex Fleming. False Alarm, 2020
29. William Happer, ex director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, and inventor of the sodium guide star, has important criticisms of greenhouse gas models: 2014, 2014, 2014, 2021.
30. Nakamura Mototaka, 2018, Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis
31. Nakamura, Stone, and Marotzke, Destabilization of the Thermohaline Circulation by Atmospheric Eddy Transports, Journal of Climate, 01 Dec 1994, 1870–1882, DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007<1870:DOTTCB>2.0.CO;2
32. Richard A. Kerr. Climate Modelling's Fudge Factor Comes Under Fire, SCIENCE 265(5178), p. 1528 • DOI: 10.1126/science.265.5178.1528
33. Ross McKitrick, Checking for model consistency in optimal fngerprinting: a comment, Climate Dynamics, 2021, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-021-05913-7
34. Ferenc Miskolczi, Research Gate: 21 publications
    Summary by Clive Best
    Summary by Ron Clutz
35. John O'Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Claes Johnson, Tim Ball, 2010, Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
36. George Chilingar, Derek Alker, Tim Ball, Pierre Latour, John O'Sullivan (Editor), 2020, The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap