## Response to Terigi Ciccone’s “Revised, Why can’t CO2 and Greenhouse effects cause global Warming?”

Terigi Ciccone published a whitepaper titled “REVISED, WHY CAN’T CO2 AND GREENHOUSE EFFECTS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?” (2021). It’s apparently a “Top Download” on academia.edu. I was curious. So, I carefully reviewed it. The paper is a nice collection of many…

## 11+12 =23, or How I know the Greenhouse Effect is real

Recently, someone asked me, “Do you think the Greenhouse Effect is real?” I found myself answering, “I don’t ‘think’ it’s real. At this point, I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that it’s real. As real as 11+12 = 23.” I think it's about time that I spell out how I know it...

## Flow constriction: How the Greenhouse effect warms a planet

Many explanations of the atmospheric Greenhouse effect leave people unclear about how it raises the global temperature. I’d like to look at a simple fundamental principle which sheds light on how warming happens. How do you raise the level of something? If we're talking about water in a reservoir, you might think the answer is pretty simple: to raise the water level, you need to add more water—right? ...

## Energy Conservation allows Power to Appear seemingly from Nowhere (no, that doesn’t imply unlimited free energy)

Some people are surprised when they see diagrams showing that the Earth absorbs about 240 W/m² of sunlight, but the Earth’s surface radiates 398 W/m² upward and the atmosphere radiates 340 W/m² downward to the surface. "You can’t have more power than what arrives from the Sun!”...

## Why do some people think the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Some people assert that: The atmospheric Greenhouse Effect “can’t be real because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As a physicist, I can tell you that this assertion is absolutely wrong...

## Thunderstorm World: A Simple Climate Model

Climate blogger Willis Eschenbach has suggested that tropical thunderstorms provide a “thermostatic mechanism” that helps to stabilize the temperature of the Earth within a narrow range. He has also offered a procedure for predicting surface temperatures changes in response to increased radiative forcing...

## Trouble in Noonworld

I have been trying to understand and deconstruct the climate-modeling work of Philip Mulholland and Stephen Wilde (M&W). M&W seem to believe that the model they have developed explains planetary temperatures as a consequence of atmospheric mass movement, without any need to reference the radiative effects of greenhouse gases.

## Energy Recirculation and a Layered Radiative Atmosphere Model

I’d like to look at: energy recirculation as a way to conceptualize how energy fluxes between the Earth and its atmosphere can be larger than the incoming flux; and a model of an "atmosphere" consisting of one or more distinct layers which can transfer heat only by radiative heat transfer...

## Did Nikolov and Zeller prove that atmospheres warm planets only through pressure and not as a result of greenhouse gases?

Nikolov & Zeller published an empirical formula for the temperature of a planet which depends on atmospheric effects only through pressure. N&Z perceived a problem that wasn’t really there, and found a "solution" that is neither statistically significant nor compatible with the laws of physics...

## Did Gerlich and Tscheuschner prove there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect?

Gerlich & Tscheuschner published a paper purporting to prove that there is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Instead, they proved they have no idea what is meant by the “atmospheric greenhouse effect.” Yet, many people believe their conclusions. So...